REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

235 Republican Congressmen Sign Mandatory Healthcare Bill!

POSTED BY: KWICKO
UPDATED: Thursday, May 5, 2011 13:41
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 873
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, May 4, 2011 3:25 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)




http://www.slate.com/id/2292901/

Little noticed, and not a single Republican is complaining about it, but Paul Ryan's budget proposal has a "mandate" built into it, requiring nearly every American to purchase health insurance.



"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 4, 2011 5:08 PM

DREAMTROVE


Oh well. It was Romney's to start with. I guess everyone's in favor of forcing us to fork over money to corporations.

A single republican complained: Ron Paul made a lot of noise about it. He called Paul Ryan "the anti-Robin Hood."

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 4, 2011 6:45 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


THAT'S what this fake OBL execution was all about.

Bait and switch. The duck is in the noose.

Easier to knock our heads off.

Note this mandatory med insurance law only requires we buy private insurance. It does not require the insurance be affordable. It does not require the insurance to cover pre-existing, which it will never do. So after you buy the insurance, you still have no coverage!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 4, 2011 7:32 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Originally posted by piratenews:

Note this mandatory med insurance law only requires we buy private insurance. It does not require the insurance be affordable. It does not require the insurance to cover pre-existing, which it will never do. So after you buy the insurance, you still have no coverage!



Which is why we have you on board. Yes, I think the plan of the plan is that the plan that you get will pay for all of the drugs that big brother wants to medicate you with but none of the actual medicine.

The only defense for this is for states to preempt it with a public option so that everyone is covered.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 4, 2011 9:37 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

The only defense for this is for states to preempt it with a public option so that everyone is covered.




Pretty much. I know Vermont is trying, and I've heard a few rumblings about California possibly putting it on a referendum.

Some governors are viewing Obamacare as the federal government specifying the *MINIMUM* healthcare levels that are acceptable, and using that as a starting point, rather than an end point. States are within their rights, they say, to offer something MORE to their residents, such as single-payer or a public option, so long as it covers at least as many people with at least as much coverage.

States can vote to implement their own methods of payment - mandate, tax increase, etc. - and as the states' rights folk are so proud of pointing out, anyone who doesn't want to participate can simply move to another state.


"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 5, 2011 2:21 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Saying that offering a refundable tax credit for those buying health insurance makes that purchase mandatory seems to be sort'a like claiming the EITC makes working mandatory or the Adoption credit makes adoption mandatory.

Not saying one way or the other about anyone's health insurance plans, but the author of this article seems to have a bias, as several folks in the 'comments' note.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 5, 2011 8:04 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Oh, for the (original) dream of a public option...sigh...

I agree with Geezer that it doesn't make buying health insurance "mandatory" per se. Ryan’s plan would PRESSURE people to buy health insurance, admittedly, but a “refundable tax credit” isn’t “forcing”. Equally, replacing Medicare with a “voucher” isn’t forcing either, although considering Medicare taxes would STILL be taken out of paychecks, it’s pretty unfair.

Aside from all that, I find it amusing but not at all surprising that the GOP would duplicate some of the provisions of “Obamacare”. They know there’s good stuff in it; to exclude the good stuff would bring about protests from their constituents (tho' they'd die before admitting there was anything good IN it!). Interesting they decided to include the mandate part, tho‘, as opposed to some of the other (better) things.

Mike’s right, in my opinion:
Quote:

Some governors are viewing Obamacare as the federal government specifying the *MINIMUM* healthcare levels that are acceptable, and using that as a starting point, rather than an end point. States are within their rights, they say, to offer something MORE to their residents, such as single-payer or a public option, so long as it covers at least as many people with at least as much coverage.

States can vote to implement their own methods of payment - mandate, tax increase, etc. - and as the states' rights folk are so proud of pointing out, anyone who doesn't want to participate can simply move to another state.

I think “Oamacare” was INTENDED to provide only the minimum healthcare limits, and that it was unquestionably intended to be a starting point. That’s the same thing they had to do with Social Security, Medicare, and more; start with a compromise which is actually full of flaws, then by further legislation, improve it over time.

And states are definitely able to come up with their own plans, and I think that might have been some of the intent in getting the federal program passed, to pressure states into coming up with their own plans which (hopefully) would improve on the federal plan. I hadn’t heard we were considering one here, but I know at least one other state (I forget which) already HAS implemented its own “Medicare for all” plan. I think it would be great if states picked up the ball...each one would be different, which is a shame, but certainly I am very unhappy with the federal plan as it turned out and would like to see people have something better available.

I would like to bitch about Obama not holding his ground to get all the good provisions his health plan began with, or preferably a public option, but in this case I realize the only way to get it through at all was to make it so weak/ineffective/compromised that just getting it through was an accomplishment. Again, it’s just like Social Security or Medicare; the original bills were kinda shitty but had to be in order to get passed, it’s over time that they can be improved, little by little. That’s what I was hoping would be true with this, but hey, states doing their own thing is okay, too.

Who knows, maybe many states doing different things will get so convoluted and confusing that it will BRING ABOUT a public option or Medicare for all. One can only hope.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 5, 2011 8:13 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Saying that offering a refundable tax credit for those buying health insurance makes that purchase mandatory seems to be sort'a like claiming the EITC makes working mandatory or the Adoption credit makes adoption mandatory.

Not saying one way or the other about anyone's health insurance plans, but the author of this article seems to have a bias, as several folks in the 'comments' note.

"Keep the Shiny side up"




So you agree that "Obamacare" isn't mandatory? Good for you! It's written into the tax code as a refundable tax credit you can take if you have health insurance, and that you can't take if you don't have it. Nothing "mandatory" about that, but that didn't stop the GOP-baggers from whinging about it and making up shit like "death panels", did it?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 5, 2011 8:47 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
So you agree that "Obamacare" isn't mandatory?



Nope. Neither does the article you quote.

"Beginning Jan. 1, 2014, when the ACA provision takes effect, individuals who do not qualify for exemption on hardship or other specified grounds, must either carry health insurance or pay a tax penalty as part of their annual income tax filing. The ACA caps individuals' penalty liability at 2.5 percent of household income above the filing threshold, or a flat dollar amount ranging from $695 to $2,085, depending on family size."

Buy health insurance or pay a penalty sounds pretty mandatory.

As usual, when you got no answer, you start blowing smoke.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 5, 2011 8:53 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Yup, that one never seems to be clarified, or else it couldn't be heard underneath the shouts of "MANDATORY!" Apparently Oregon is going its own way:
Quote:

One of the most innovative voices in the health care debate, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), is accelerating the process of exempting his state from some of the national reforms passed under President Barack Obama.

The Oregon Democrat is seeking to take advantage of a provision he helped write into the legislation that allows states to set up their own health care systems as long as they meet minimal requirements established by the Department of Health and Human Services. In a letter to the state's Health Authority office, Wyden announced that he will introduce legislation to accelerate the start date for state waivers from 2017 to 2014, if not earlier for Oregon specifically.

In addition, he strongly suggested that the state should use the provision to exempt Oregon from the individual mandate, which would penalize those individuals who refuse to purchase insurance coverage. The mandate was a feature of Wyden's own health care bill but has proved to be remarkably unpopular among voters.

Colorado:
Quote:

Colorado lawmakers have agreed on a plan that creates a health insurance marketplace they hope will help the state avoid mandates from a federal health care law.

The bill creates an exchange board and an oversight committee. The board would administer the exchange, with the power to set up financial plans, apply for grants and determine the size of the small employer market. The exchange would allow small groups to pool resources to buy health insurance. It was approved Tuesday by the House Health & Environment Committee with overwhelming support from the business community and now goes to the full House for debate.

Trying to quell fears that it’s a step toward federal health care mandates, the exchange would not purchase insurance or set rates, be an agency of the state and there would be no mandate to buy health insurance. Carriers would not be required to provide insurance.

Bill Lindsay, who chaired a health care study group that recommended Colorado set up its own exchanges, said it’s better for Colorado to come up with its own plan than wait for the federal government to come up with a plan.

“It’s a Colorado solution to the questions and issues, and it’s unique to Colorado,” he said.

Supporters argue that states that don’t set up exchanges will be assigned one by the federal government in future years and say Colorado should act now to craft its own exchange.

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2011/05/03/colorado-lawmakers-take-up-healt
h-care-exchanges
/

It seems to me Obama was encouraging states to come up with their own plan:
Quote:

In a speech to governors, President Obama just endorsed a plan to allow states to opt out of major provisions of the Affordable Care Act just as it’s set to kick in. Saying he recognizes that not everyone is a member of the “Affordable Care Act fan club,” Obama said, “I agree with Mitt Romney that…states should have the power to implement their own solutions.”

The plan Obama endorsed, first proposed back in November by Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden and Republican Sen. Scott Brown, would give states flexibility to design their own versions of health reform. States could buck many aspects of the federal approach, including the individual mandate, employer requirements, health insurance exchanges and the federal design for insurance policies. Under this system, states would receive their share of insurance subsidies and administrative funding in blocks to implement their own reforms. In order to be granted a waiver to do this, a state would need to show its plan would:

* not increase the federal deficit
* provide insurance to as many people as the ACA
* provide insurance as least as comprehensive as that called for in the ACA
* provide insurance that’s just as affordable

http://swampland.time.com/2011/02/28/obama-to-states-if-you-can-do-hea
lth-reform-better-go-for-it/#ixzz1LVNvFfjd



Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 5, 2011 11:33 AM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I think I like the German healthcare system, available for all, but with options.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 5, 2011 1:14 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
So you agree that "Obamacare" isn't mandatory?



Nope. Neither does the article you quote.

"Beginning Jan. 1, 2014, when the ACA provision takes effect, individuals who do not qualify for exemption on hardship or other specified grounds, must either carry health insurance or pay a tax penalty as part of their annual income tax filing. The ACA caps individuals' penalty liability at 2.5 percent of household income above the filing threshold, or a flat dollar amount ranging from $695 to $2,085, depending on family size."

Buy health insurance or pay a penalty sounds pretty mandatory.

As usual, when you got no answer, you start blowing smoke.

"Keep the Shiny side up"




Yet Ryan's plan has the same provision and the same wording, and you're blowing smoke about it NOT being "mandatory". Saying you'll pay more taxes if you don't have health insurance is like saying I'm being forced to buy a house or be penalized for not doing so. There are specific advantages I can take on my income taxes if I *do* buy a house, while I get "penalized" (by not being able to take those deductions and write-offs) if I *don't* buy a house.

Again, you're not being forced to buy insurance (which would be the "mandatory" part); you're not getting to take a deduction if you don't buy it. If I'm healthy, and the insurance premiums were more costly than the tax break I'd get, I have the option of not buying in. "Mandatory" doesn't seem to mean what you think it means.

The only smoke blowing around here is the smoke you're blowing out your ass.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 5, 2011 1:16 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by RionaEire:
I think I like the German healthcare system, available for all, but with options.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya



Yup. Everybody should get the basics, and you can always option up.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 5, 2011 1:41 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


From the article:

Quote:

One of these Ryan proposals—as yet little noticed by pundits or politicians—is almost an exact copy of a provision in the Affordable Care Act.* It would repeal the current exclusion from employees' income of employer contributions to their health insurance premiums, thus terminating the subsidized employer-sponsored group health regime that covers nearly 60 percent of all Americans. In its place, the Republican plan would substitute a refundable tax credit, to be provided to individuals who purchase health insurance (or to employers who purchase health insurance for their employees). When this new arrangement takes effect in 2022, the tax credit would be set at $2,300 per adult and $1,700 per child, not to exceed $5,700 per family.


Quote:

Under both provisions, the result is the same: People who choose to carry health insurance have a lower tax bill than they would if they chose not to. In terms of their respective potential impact on individuals' bank accounts and tax liability, the manner in which they affect individuals' financial incentives, and hence the constraining effect on individuals' financial choices to either buy or forgo health insurance, the two "mandate" provisions are identical. (Indeed, in most cases, the financial difference for the individual taxpayer made by the Republican tax credit would be greater—i.e., more "coercive"—than the ACA tax penalty.)


Quote:

In addition to cloning the ACA's framework for coverage of adults under 65, the Ryan plan would also apply a similar approach to Americans currently covered by Medicare.* Beginning in 2021, former Medicare-eligibles would receive a voucher they can apply to the purchase of private insurance. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the vouchers would be worth approximately $6,000 for recipients age 65, and would be greater for older recipients, averaging $11,000 across the entire Medicare population. Of course, Americans would be required to continue to pay their annual Medicare tax throughout their working lives. Hence, the Republicans' proposal to replace Medicare with partially subsidized private insurance also operates to "compel" people to pay for private health insurance policies. Moreover, this mandate is not even a pay-or-play option; Medicare taxes are mandatory, whether workers want to buy eligibility for old-age vouchers or not.




So it's just as "mandatory", it's even *more* mandatory and costly in most cases, and it's expanded to force the elderly into buying coverage as well, WHILE ALSO TAXING THEM FOR MEDICARE THEIR ENTIRE WORKING LIVES.

Yet it seems to be supported by every right-winger here. Imagine my surprise. ;)



"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Kamala Harris for President
Wed, November 6, 2024 22:13 - 644 posts
That didn't take long...
Wed, November 6, 2024 22:08 - 36 posts
Electoral College, ReSteal 2024 Edition
Wed, November 6, 2024 21:59 - 43 posts
Trump wins 2024. Republicans control Senate.
Wed, November 6, 2024 21:54 - 11 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, November 6, 2024 21:46 - 4613 posts
Will Your State Regain It's Representation Next Decade?
Wed, November 6, 2024 20:54 - 111 posts
Get Woke, Go Broke
Wed, November 6, 2024 20:36 - 66 posts
Suspect arrested after attack on Paul Pelosi, American businessman, married to Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the United States House of Representatives
Wed, November 6, 2024 20:22 - 62 posts
Where are the Libertarians?
Wed, November 6, 2024 20:16 - 91 posts
Multiculturalism
Wed, November 6, 2024 20:07 - 54 posts
For the record.
Wed, November 6, 2024 20:00 - 224 posts
India
Wed, November 6, 2024 19:52 - 140 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL