Obamacare would outlaw individual private coverage.
- Thread starter red states rule
- Start date
No, that isn't what is said. This is the key part of the provision that you folks are conveniently ignoring:
Which provides that private individual insurance will still be readily available but only through an Exchange-participating benefits plan, not through the government. The bill requires that individual coverage must be through the Exchange because, as the piece linked above points out, it is a means for the federal government to regulate the private insurance market instead of leaving it to the states.
red states rule
New member
It's time to press the reset button on this admin and Congress.
red states rule
New member
Insurance will be a thing of the past. This bill will insure that along with any freedom you thought you had.
This is simply the government way of controlling everything you do, eat, and can earn.
If it has a "government identified" potential at increaseing health care cost the it will be outlawed and this will be the reason given.
meme
New member
have you seen the massive amount of government departments that will be created with this thing??
I didn't count them all, but a rough guess was around 20 to 30..and all this just to insure 40 million people out of 300 million...and of course it will all be paid from OUR money..
red states rule
New member
snd lets not forget the TAXES that will be imposed to try and pay for this piece of crap
Libs say only the "rich" will pay more - but you have a 100% tax rate on the top 1% and it would still not pay for Obamacare
The hope and change idiots will also pay more - then they will be pissed because they expected someone else to pay for their living expenses
TuTu Monroe
A Realist
Mediamatters and KOS? Damn, can't get more radical than those two.
red states rule
New member
It is part of required reading for libs - along with the NY Times
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Evidently you did not (or will not) read what the links provide. FYI:
The deal is that the actual bill is over 1,000 pages long, it is written in legalese rather than English, and it is set in the middle of a large array of other legislation that it must work around without destroying. This necessarily means that it does some nifty tricks to side-step some of the implications. For example: For employer-provided health insurance meeting requirements for deduction as health care coverage under federal law, federal regulation already applies via ERISA. But private plans (those individually purchased) are regulated by the states under the provisions of the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, which places private health insurance under state control.
So the question is how to enforce the mandates upon insurers -- the must-issue and the flat-rate-pool mandates -- without overturning McCarran-Ferguson. Neither Congress nor the majority of states want the Federal government to be in the business of regulating insurance in general. Simply amending McCarran-Ferguson to exclude health insurance as a state-regulated class doesn't work either, because it's not all health insurance that Congress wants to regulate, just primary health insurance. Supplemental policies are of supreme disinterest to Congress and they're quite happy to let the states continue regulating those. Besides, insurers could raise some legal actions if Congress tried to regulate already-issued insurance that was issued under McCarran-Ferguson.
So the solution that the wonk assigned the task of making this happen arrived at was to create a new ERISA-eligible group for all future private insurance to be offered through -- the Health Insurance Exchange. This starts on page 72 of the bill. Since it is an ERISA-eligible group, it can be regulated through ERISA without touching McCarran-Ferguson in general. But then comes the task of how to make all private insurance be offered via the Exchange. And the solution the wonk devised was to outlaw the issue of new private policies that were Exchange-eligible, which is done on page 16, which would force all new private policies to be issued via the ERISA-regulated Exchange rather than via the state-regulated McCarran-Ferguson private market. In short, it's a work-around for McCarran-Ferguson which avoids the necessity to have to actually change McCarran-Ferguson -- existing private insurance policies can still be regulated by the states, it's just that new private insurance that meets primary insurance requirements must go thru the Exchange where it can be regulated under federal ERISA rules instead. And wingnut heads explode upon reaching page 16, and they erupt shouting "ObamaCare outlaws private insurance!" without ever getting to page 72.
This points to a major problem wingnuts have with a 1000+ page bill -- you have to read the whole darn thing to know exactly how page 16 relates to page 72, you have to know the legal background of health insurance beforehand to understand how the pieces relate to the other major pieces of federal regulation like ERISA and McCarran-Ferguson, you have to have basic literacy in the legalese involved in this massive piece of wonkery, and wingnuts lack the patience, background, or the reading comprehension to do this. The bill does not outlaw private insurance, of course. It just shifts its issuance to the Exchange so it can be regulated under ERISA rather than McCarran-Ferguson. But to someone who suffers from legal illiteracy and a case of the paranoids, taking page 16 out of context means you arrive at the erroneous conclusion "ObamaCare outlaws private insurance!", which was boldly published in a national forum without the slightest attempt to validate the conclusion with, well, somebody who knows even the tiniest bit about health insurance regulation and how the new bill interacts with the current regulatory framework.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/16/161814/777
red states rule
New member
So again, Obama shows he can out-clinton Bill Clinton.
If you like your current plan, you can keep it, but if at some point you want to choose a different one, you're out of luck.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Interesting how YOU, Blabba (alias Tutu) and evidently Meme all seem intent upon discrediting the sources WITHOUT EVEN READING THE CONTENT. You don't have to like the source, just logically disprove the content....if you can't then the 3 of you are just blowing neocon smoke.
red states rule
New member
I guess the actual bill being voted on is not a credible enough source for you (shrug)
When Obama keeps saying the current Health care system is "Unsustainable" I want shake my head in disbelief
How can any private health care be unsustainable? If it isn't working then it will change by DEMAND. If it isn't making money it will change by demand.
A system with competition will always be sustainable because people and businesses want to be successful.
The only "unsustainable" system would be Government ran. Just like SSI and Medicare. It will eventually collapse because it doesn't rely on instant revenue.. It borrows from future generations.
If future generations live longer, or are smaller etc, it changes the whole dynamic. Then add in Illegal immigration and the unforeseen amount of non taxable people recieving care, and the bubble will soon burst
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Once again, rather than deal with the serious inequalities and failures of our current HMO dominated health system, you try to pass of speculation, opinion, supposition and conjecture as fact.....which they are not.
Bottom line: try dealing with what you originally posted and the information that I supplied which contradicts that. Let's have an honest discussion of those FACTS, and not go running off in other directions.
Except, according to people who checked with the ways and means committee, it is the way it works. You keep saying this with absolutely nothing to back it up as if you magically know everything. However, that argument doesn't really hold up.
This is sad. We already said you can keep your plan, you just can't change it. This doesn't change one iota of what was posted here, nor the actual effect of the wording, as was checked by contacting the Ways and Means committee and getting it verified.
red states rule
New member
Not only are Dems out to punish achievement, but with these insane tax rates - Obamacare will still not be paid for
House Leadership's Health Care Plan Pushes Top Tax Rates Over 50% in 39 States
Couples Earning More than $1 Million Hit with 5.4% Surtax
Washington, DC, July 14, 2009 - A third updated Tax Foundation report shows that 39 states would see top tax rates exceed 50% under a health care funding plan announced today by House Democrats.
The latest proposal—one of several floated on Capitol Hill in the past few days and the third analyzed by the Tax Foundation since Friday—would impose a surtax of 1 percent on married couples with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) between $350,000 and $500,000 (singles between $280,000 and $400,000); 1.5 percent on couples with incomes between $500,000 and $1 million (singles earning between $400,000and $800,000); and 5.4 percent on couples earning more than $1 million (singles beyond $800,000).
The Tax Foundation released an initial report Friday based on another plan that had been floated that included a 4 percent surtax, as well as an updated report yesterday based on a three-tiered structured with a maximum rate of 3% for couples earning more than $1 million.
"More than three-quarters of the states would face combined top income tax rates exceeding 50% under this latest health care funding proposal," Tax Foundation President Scott Hodge said. "That means government would be taking more than half of every additional dollar from high-income taxpayers. The lowest top tax rate would be about 47%—and that's in the nine states that don't tax wages."
Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact No. 178, "If Health Surtax Is 5.4 Percent, Taxpayers in 39 States Would Pay a Top Tax Rate Over 50%," may be found online at http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/24863.html.
The hardest-hit states would be Oregon (57.5%), Hawaii (57.2%), New Jersey (57.1%), New York (56.9%), California (56.8%), Rhode Island (56.2%), Vermont (55.8%), Maryland (55.6%), Minnesota (54.4%) and Idaho (54.3%). Washington, DC, and New York City would see their top effective marginal rates rise to 55.0% and 58.7%, respectively. The effective marginal tax rate takes into consideration deductions and adjustments in order to present a truer measure of an individual's rate.
Top tax rates in the remaining 11 states range from 47.3% to 50%.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/24864.html
House Leadership's Health Care Plan Pushes Top Tax Rates Over 50% in 39 States
Couples Earning More than $1 Million Hit with 5.4% Surtax
Washington, DC, July 14, 2009 - A third updated Tax Foundation report shows that 39 states would see top tax rates exceed 50% under a health care funding plan announced today by House Democrats.
The latest proposal—one of several floated on Capitol Hill in the past few days and the third analyzed by the Tax Foundation since Friday—would impose a surtax of 1 percent on married couples with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) between $350,000 and $500,000 (singles between $280,000 and $400,000); 1.5 percent on couples with incomes between $500,000 and $1 million (singles earning between $400,000and $800,000); and 5.4 percent on couples earning more than $1 million (singles beyond $800,000).
The Tax Foundation released an initial report Friday based on another plan that had been floated that included a 4 percent surtax, as well as an updated report yesterday based on a three-tiered structured with a maximum rate of 3% for couples earning more than $1 million.
"More than three-quarters of the states would face combined top income tax rates exceeding 50% under this latest health care funding proposal," Tax Foundation President Scott Hodge said. "That means government would be taking more than half of every additional dollar from high-income taxpayers. The lowest top tax rate would be about 47%—and that's in the nine states that don't tax wages."
Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact No. 178, "If Health Surtax Is 5.4 Percent, Taxpayers in 39 States Would Pay a Top Tax Rate Over 50%," may be found online at http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/24863.html.
The hardest-hit states would be Oregon (57.5%), Hawaii (57.2%), New Jersey (57.1%), New York (56.9%), California (56.8%), Rhode Island (56.2%), Vermont (55.8%), Maryland (55.6%), Minnesota (54.4%) and Idaho (54.3%). Washington, DC, and New York City would see their top effective marginal rates rise to 55.0% and 58.7%, respectively. The effective marginal tax rate takes into consideration deductions and adjustments in order to present a truer measure of an individual's rate.
Top tax rates in the remaining 11 states range from 47.3% to 50%.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/24864.html
Actually, I posted the relevant portion of the bill that you folks conveniently ignore. Feel free to review the thread.
And who are the "people" that checked with the "ways and means committee?" And who on the ways and mean committee did these people talk to? There are a lot of folks on the ways and means committee, some of which are Republicans and not apt to be 100% truthful about what the bill contains.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
whats this 2.5% tax on those who choose not to get health coverage?
So you care nothing about following links then or actually reading what the original article had to say.