Thread: 11+ States sue .gov over Healthcare Reform Bill

Originally Posted by warthog

Around here, home insurance costs as much as taxes do.

Not around here, for me at least. My premiums are ~30% of my property taxes, and the one time I have had to use it they kicked huge ass.

Damn, my spelling was rough on that one.

Originally Posted by Dantheman

Not around here, for me at least. My premiums are ~30% of my property taxes, and the one time I have had to use it they kicked huge ass.

That is saying a lot- your property taxes are unreal(on the low side that is). My buddy lives in Sandy, and I couldn't believe what he pays.

Yeah, they don't like hurricanes too much. I remember when I was shopping for homes, and all my buddies in the northeast and NC and out west were paying less than 1K for their insurance. I was a little shocked to find out I was going to be in the $5k region. Mix that with having to send my kids to private schools, and the allure of no state income tax fade quickly.

Originally Posted by warthog

Here is my wife's take on it:
Good news is that some parts of this reform are very good (no pre-ex) and some are very bad (reform does nothing about current healthcare that's already too exp). The even better news is that this bill secured my job for the foreseeable future.

The general consensus at her work is that brokers will be needed more than ever. Nobody is going to understand this shit.

Here is a Cliff's Notes version of a memo they got today:

1. Will extend healthcare to 32 million 'mericans
2. Expand Medicaid program for those not able to buy insurance(who knows what $$ cut off that will be?)
3. Impose new taxes on ins. companies, medical device companies, pharma, and individuals making over $200K- couples over $250K. ( How will this not drive up the cost of care? Those companies are not charities.)
4. Bar practices excluding pre-existing conditions.

Here are the proposed changes-
1. This will kick in for employers- Jan 1 2011 (someone wondered why the stock prices jumped? There is your answer- the insurance companies will cover their asses for 3 years with your company rates)
2. Lifetime benefit maximums will be killed-(Good thing)
3. Group plans will be required to cover adult children up to 26-(another good thing, but we will pay for it and it will hurt businesses)
4. Prevents insurers from rescinding coverage.(Good)
5. Small business -less than 25- tax credits-(good)
6. Retiree coverage through companies that don't have it due to costs(it will still cost business.)

There are a couple other future things, but that is it in a nutshell.


I have no agenda, except I want my wife to keep her job. Most of this is positive, but it will hurt businesses. Good to see them protecting the small guys and the entrepreneurs that have built this country, but I have to believe this will affect the bottom lines of all of our biggest employers.

The Medicaid thing is what has docs in the cold sweats. I won't go into detail, but you think getting paid by insurance companies is a headache for docs? Medicaid is a nightmare- why do you think many docs won't take it? Will they be forced? Who will pay for a doctor waiting a year for payment from 50% of his patients? Where is the provision keeping the older docs from cashing in and moving to Tahiti? I fear a much bigger crises is on the horizon as refers to doctors, but that is another conversation.

Hope this post reflects some "thinking before I post". Maybe the ones really thinking just stay out of Poly Ass all together.

Definitely my bad on the "think before you post" comment. Thanks for the useful info. apologies for my asshattedness.

It's all good-

I stay out of PolyAss, mostly because of the counterproductive name calling.

I just have some daily exposure to the reality of this shit. Getting away from the politics and all, and just looking at what we are in store for.

All the folks saying- yay we have health insurance! are in for a bit of a rude awakening.

Hope I am 90% wrong, but it is not looking good at this point.

Originally Posted by warthog

.

The Medicaid thing is what has docs in the cold sweats. I won't go into detail, but you think getting paid by insurance companies is a headache for docs? Medicaid is a nightmare- why do you think many docs won't take it? Will they be forced? Who will pay for a doctor waiting a year for payment from 50% of his patients? Where is the provision keeping the older docs from cashing in and moving to Tahiti? I fear a much bigger crises is on the horizon as refers to doctors, but that is another conversation.

.

Doesn't the bill tie medicaid into the medicare payment system- so that rates AND claims will be handled the same? Seems like that would be a good thing as far as this concern of yours.

When do I get to watch this healthcare debate on CSPAN as promised?

The messiah wouldn't have lied just to get elected now would he?

Originally Posted by Harry

subchapter B of chapter 68 is the part of the tax code dealing with withholding payment of tax returns.

example: you take a student loan with a private bank. you graduate from college but do not pay back the student loan. When you file your tax return, you are surprised to see that the $2,000 you where expecting back from Uncle Sam has been taken from your tax return and given to the private bank.

. . . .

Ha. You're embarrassing yourself, Harry. You've done it again. Prior to taking an authoritative position on a document, try reading it first. Subchapter B of chapter 68 does not deal with "withholding payment of tax returns." Rather, it deals with "Assessable Penalties."

And your example is ludicrous. The government does not mandate that anybody attend college--much less take a student loan. I, along with everyone else, will now be required to have a defined, minimum coverage under a health insurance policy. Otherwise, we are hit with a penalty.

Example: Jon Do is a single professional making 250k/year, and he does not have minimum coverage. Based on his income, and employing the formula found in the legislation, a "silver" plan is deemed affordable. Thus, he is not entitled to the insurance coverage credit. Jon's tax accountant prepares his return, and disregarding the penalty, Jon owes the IRS 10k. But the accountant must report that Jon does not have minimum coverage-at the risk of being fined himself. When that is computed, Jon owes an additional $2,250.

In other words, this is not a matter of conditional spending under the taxing and spending clause (such as the seat-belt example). Congress is not threatening to withhold largesse to which you might otherwise be entitled. They are threatening to take something from you that is not theirs.

Nor is this an application of the commerce clause; at least not as the power under that clause has been traditionally understood. As other posters here have acknowledged, in order to justify this mandate under the commerce clause, the Supreme Court would have to substantially expand the doctrine to allow congress to force individuals to participate in interstate commerce--rather than regulate individuals or entities who choose to engage in interstate commerce. E.g., Filburn would not have been regulated if he did not choose to grow wheat.

There is an argument to support your position (in regards to constitutionality), but you're not making it. It still would require, in my opinion, an expansion of the commerce clause--especially post-Lopez. And I don't know if the current court will allow it. But that's merely my opinion. I'm not a constitutional scholar.

Originally Posted by sirbumpsalot

When do I get to watch this healthcare debate on CSPAN as promised?

The messiah wouldn't have lied just to get elected now would he?

Sorry to tell you this, but the debate was on cspan pretty much for most of the year last year. Maybe you were asleep???

Originally Posted by sirbumpsalot

When do I get to watch this healthcare debate on CSPAN as promised?

The messiah wouldn't have lied just to get elected now would he?

In addition to the several hundred hours of live and taped coverage of the five? committees that produced health care plans, plus both the full Senate and House coverage debating the full issues, as nutcase just mentioned... there were several "Obama vs Republican" events where he whipped their asses... carried live on CSpan, Fox and others... WAKE UP DUDE!

Watch Obama Debate Healthcare Today On C-Span

Erick Schonfeld
Thursday, February 25, 2010; 4:46 AM

President Obama is going to debate the Republican detractors of his healthcare reform proposals at the big healthcare summit in Washington today. (Democratic Congressional leaders will be in attendance as well). This is not a closed-door meeting. Far from it, Obama wants to put the opponents of his healthcare plans on display in front of the American people? But who is going to be watching C-Span or CNN or Fox at 10 AM (Eastern Standard Time) in the morning. We're all supposed to be working. And frankly, healthcare debates put most people to sleep. But if you want to secretly slack off and even throw some questions to the politicians at the healthcare summit, you can watch it live from your computer on YouTube's CitiizenTubeSpeaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader John Boehner, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will answer select questions submitted via Google Moderator at the end of the summit. No, Obama won't be answering questions from CitizenTubers. He already did that after his State of the Union. This time, he's got to get back to work.

Originally Posted by sirbumpsalot

When do I get to watch this healthcare debate on CSPAN as promised?

The messiah wouldn't have lied just to get elected now would he?

I just watched the final passage of the bill this afternoon... on CSPAN!!