That Healthcare Thing

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, basically the executive order is just to maintain the status quo. There's nothing new going on.

Also, do you realize a lot of primary care doctors are already beginning to turn away Medicare patients in some places because the compensation they receive for services is terrible? So really, it hurts medicare PATIENTS more than the hospitals. But basically these laws say that no one should be forced to pay for health insurance yadda yadda yadda. They most likely won't be that effective, but if it's a state where a lot of people are opposed to the bill, it's a statement to the government at least.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I've been saying this was inevitable for a couple years now. I am disappointed, but not surprised. This bill will not decrease costs, it will increase them. Most of us are probably too young to remember when Democrats told us that Medicare would cost us $9 billion a year by 1990. What was the actual tab? $67 billion a year. Consider that, alongside with the fact that the "savings" purported to be in this bill are all slight of hand and double-dipping. In fact, even according to the democrat-friendly New York Times, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games in Obamacare, this legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.

So what happens next?

Taxes, of course, go up immediately. How much in new taxes? Try one trillion dollars. A huge portion of these taxes will hit America's small businesses ... our jobs creation machine. There will be increases in Social Security Taxes and Medicare taxes. There will be new taxes for something called CLASS ... a long term in-home health care program. Then there will be a new 3.8% (What the hell ... call it 4%) tax on investment income. Just what our economy needed at a time when unemployment is rampant ... new taxes on the very sector of our economy that creates jobs. Businesses will hunker down even more than they have been. Business planning is a long-term affair .. and businessmen will know that in a few years 50 will be the magic number when it comes to government health insurance mandates; and this includes part-time employees. So you will see businesses with just over 50 employees starting to cut back. People will lose their jobs so that the business can stay under the threshold. New business start-ups will alter business plans to make sure that they don't meet or cross that threshold when the mandates kick in.

Younger Americans with health insurance will drop their policies. Sure, they know that they will have to pay a penalty when they file their taxes, but that penalty will be much less than the cost of a health insurance policy ... costs that will be going up. Besides ... because insurance companies can no longer discriminate against people with preexisting conditions, there is absolutely no reason in the world to go out there and buy an insurance policy until you really become ill.

Since health young Americans will be dropping insurance, or staying out of the market if they never had insurance in the first place, the insurance companies will find more and more that their customers are among the unhealthiest of Americans. This means more benefits paid, of course, which will result in higher premiums. What's more, there will no longer be a lifetime cap on benefits. Even a government-educated Obama sycophant could understand that this, too, will lead to increased premiums. But wait! There's more! Children will be able to stay on their parent's policies until age 26. What does this mean? Increased payouts on their parent's policies.

Let's just take a quick look at what happened to Anthem .. a health insurance company in California. Recently Anthem hiked its insurance premiums by ... what? Something like 38 or 40%. You could hear the screaming all the way to Nancy Pelosi's office. But did anyone try to figure out just why Anthem had to increase premiums? Here's your explanation. California brought millions of citizens into its own state version of Medicaid. These millions of people started swarming into hospitals and to doctors for their "free" medical care. Trouble is, California also cut back on payments to health care providers at the same time. The health care providers then shifted their costs over to actual paying customers ... customers insured by Anthem. There go the premiums.

So private health care premiums start to rise, people cry out in anguish, government (as part of their powers under this bill) force health insurance companies to stop raising premiums. Private insurance goes out of business, so once again government "has to step in" to fix a problem they themselves created... and of course, the answer is: more government involvement. Hellooooo single payer NURSE!

A poll I linked in the GBPT showed that 40% of doctors were saying they would leave their practice if Obamacare becomes law. As the demand for medical services increases exponentially, the money to pay for those services will dry up, even with the increased taxes. The inevitable result, then, will be the rationing of health care. There are no words to adequately describe the base ignorance and stupidity of any American who does not realize that rationing is on the way.

Single payer simply means that one entity will write all the checks. Whether it's for a doctor's visit, a prescription, physical therapy ... whatever, the payments come from one source, and that source is the government. If the government is the only entity that is legally permitted to render payment for health care services ... then that puts the government in complete and absolute control of all healthcare. If you don't think that the person who controls your healthcare controls YOU ... then you've never been really, really sick.

Congratulations. The entity that controls such marvelous operations as the US Postal Service, Cash for Clunkers, and presided over the fallen star that was Walter Reed Army Medical Center is now in charge of your health care. And every single election, we're going to hear from Democrats how if you don't vote for them, the Republicans will "take away your health care." We know they will, because that's already what they've been doing with Social Security for as long as I can remember.

And remember, when all this started, 85% of americans HAD health care, and 75% of those said they were happy with it.

But when it comes right down to it, Americans are not who they were. Gone are the days of self-reliance, responsibility, and the desire to take your destiny in your own hands and rise or fall by your own efforts. Now, we just want our bread and circuses. To steal a quote, we "vote ourselves largesse from the public coffers," and demand someone else pay for our needs, and never mentally leave the couch so long as we've got McDonald's to scarf and American Idol to watch.
 
Honestly, the biggest part of making this bill "not increase the deficit" is the $463 billion dollars they say they are cutting from Medicare. Good luck with that. I will be AMAZED if it actually happens, since they really have no good way to do it.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Honestly, the biggest part of making this bill "not increase the deficit" is the $463 billion dollars they say they are cutting from Medicare. Good luck with that. I will be AMAZED if it actually happens, since they really have no good way to do it.
As Obama intimated in a speech, you can save money on medicare by prescribing pain killers instead of surgery for old people. Then shove'em in a hospice and let'em go with dignity.

Oh the irony of Alan Grayson's moonbat tirade - the whole "the republicans want you to die quickly" guy... that in order to protect the fiscal solvency of health care and the nation, it's now HIS party banking on people dying quickly.
 
I still want to know where the doctors to care for all these newly insured patients are going to come from... oh wait, dealing with the actual problems in the medical sector wasn't in the bill, just the parts that help add more people into a broken system.
 
W

WolfOfOdin

Honestly, the biggest part of making this bill "not increase the deficit" is the $463 billion dollars they say they are cutting from Medicare. Good luck with that. I will be AMAZED if it actually happens, since they really have no good way to do it.
As Obama intimated in a speech, you can save money on medicare by prescribing pain killers instead of surgery for old people. Then shove'em in a hospice and let'em go with dignity.

Oh the irony of Alan Grayson's moonbat tirade - the whole "the republicans want you to die quickly" guy... that in order to protect the fiscal solvency of health care and the nation, it's now HIS party banking on people dying quickly.[/QUOTE]

It was a compromise with the Republicans,, Gas. The old rich people die quickly, their kids inherit the money quicker, everyone's happy
 
W

WolfOfOdin

I can see the commercial now.

"My father worked hard for his money and built a fortune that will last ages. I love him dearly....but I've got bills to pay."
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Honestly, the biggest part of making this bill "not increase the deficit" is the $463 billion dollars they say they are cutting from Medicare. Good luck with that. I will be AMAZED if it actually happens, since they really have no good way to do it.
As Obama intimated in a speech, you can save money on medicare by prescribing pain killers instead of surgery for old people. Then shove'em in a hospice and let'em go with dignity.

Oh the irony of Alan Grayson's moonbat tirade - the whole "the republicans want you to die quickly" guy... that in order to protect the fiscal solvency of health care and the nation, it's now HIS party banking on people dying quickly.[/QUOTE]

It was a compromise with the Republicans,, Gas. The old rich people die quickly, their kids inherit the money quicker, everyone's happy[/QUOTE]

Gonna have to be VERY quickly indeed, seeing as how Democrats have also reinstituted the death tax starting 2011 ;)
 
Honestly, the biggest part of making this bill "not increase the deficit" is the $463 billion dollars they say they are cutting from Medicare. Good luck with that. I will be AMAZED if it actually happens, since they really have no good way to do it.
As Obama intimated in a speech, you can save money on medicare by prescribing pain killers instead of surgery for old people. Then shove'em in a hospice and let'em go with dignity.

Oh the irony of Alan Grayson's moonbat tirade - the whole "the republicans want you to die quickly" guy... that in order to protect the fiscal solvency of health care and the nation, it's now HIS party banking on people dying quickly.[/QUOTE]

It was a compromise with the Republicans,, Gas. The old rich people die quickly, their kids inherit the money quicker, everyone's happy[/QUOTE]

Gonna have to be VERY quickly indeed, seeing as how Democrats have also reinstituted the death tax starting 2011 ;)[/QUOTE]
Oh noes! Death tax! How will we ever survive?
 
W

WolfOfOdin

Honestly, the biggest part of making this bill "not increase the deficit" is the $463 billion dollars they say they are cutting from Medicare. Good luck with that. I will be AMAZED if it actually happens, since they really have no good way to do it.
As Obama intimated in a speech, you can save money on medicare by prescribing pain killers instead of surgery for old people. Then shove'em in a hospice and let'em go with dignity.

Oh the irony of Alan Grayson's moonbat tirade - the whole "the republicans want you to die quickly" guy... that in order to protect the fiscal solvency of health care and the nation, it's now HIS party banking on people dying quickly.[/QUOTE]


It was a compromise with the Republicans,, Gas. The old rich people die quickly, their kids inherit the money quicker, everyone's happy[/QUOTE]

Gonna have to be VERY quickly indeed, seeing as how Democrats have also reinstituted the death tax starting 2011 ;)[/QUOTE]

Just trying to bring levity to this thread.

I honestly thought you might agree with estate tax in a sense. I can see leaving enough behind to provide for a family and make sure they're not at poverty, but I'd want to give the inheritors incentive to actually work for their own money, instead of relying upon daddy's largess.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Oh noes! Death tax! How will we ever survive?
Let me assure you, I can do all kinds of unpleasant things to you and you will still "survive." That doesn't mean it is right, just, fair or legal for me to do those things.

---------- Post added at 11:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 AM ----------

Just trying to bring levity to this thread.

I honestly thought you might agree with estate tax in a sense. I can see leaving enough behind to provide for a family and make sure they're not at poverty, but I'd want to give the inheritors incentive to actually work for their own money, instead of relying upon daddy's largess.
I don't think it's government's place to decide that... but if you really want to stick it to the Paris Hilton crowd, changing from an Income Tax to the Fair Tax (national sales tax) would be the best way to do it. Not everybody earns, but everybody spends, and the trust funders spend a lot more.
 
I think he was making a sort of pun thing... y'know... "death"/"survive".... what do I know, though, I'm The Pun Destroyer.
 
W

WolfOfOdin

Oh noes! Death tax! How will we ever survive?
Let me assure you, I can do all kinds of unpleasant things to you and you will still "survive." That doesn't mean it is right, just, fair or legal for me to do those things.

---------- Post added at 11:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 AM ----------

Just trying to bring levity to this thread.

I honestly thought you might agree with estate tax in a sense. I can see leaving enough behind to provide for a family and make sure they're not at poverty, but I'd want to give the inheritors incentive to actually work for their own money, instead of relying upon daddy's largess.
I don't think it's government's place to decide that... but if you really want to stick it to the Paris Hilton crowd, changing from an Income Tax to the Fair Tax (national sales tax) would be the best way to do it. Not everybody earns, but everybody spends, and the trust funders spend a lot more.[/QUOTE]

No. No no no no no no no no no no no. The fair tax proposed right now is goddamn idiotic and will only butcher the poor's ability to procure necessary items. If you're going to suggest dancing on the Laffer Curve as well, remember that Supply AND Demand side measures have to be followed through.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
No. No no no no no no no no no no no. The fair tax proposed right now is goddamn idiotic and will only butcher the poor's ability to procure necessary items.
That's false, but this is not the thread where we should discuss that. We're kinda getting off track here.
 
A

Andromache

i waited all night to read Gasbandit's response. I am content now.
 
No. No no no no no no no no no no no. The fair tax proposed right now is goddamn idiotic and will only butcher the poor's ability to procure necessary items.
That's false, but this is not the thread where we should discuss that. We're kinda getting off track here.[/QUOTE]

I pretty much agree with the Fair Tax being idiotic. You should make another thread GB!
 
Obama and democrats to America: "Take it! Take it all b****! Unf!"
Let's be honest. The only reason you're in a tizzy is over the whole abortion aspect of the bill. Amiright?[/QUOTE]

No, the bill doesn't really affect the decision in the 70's that federal money cannot be used to fund abortions.

And, quite frankly, the personal cost increase is only one annoying aspect. The reality is that I'm likely to quit my job here in a few weeks and try my hand as a full time consultant. This bill actually improves my personal financial situation in the near and far future in many ways. But it's not going to benefit people who stay in their jobs - their costs will go up.

No, what I'm really against is that we're running a 1 trillion USD per YEAR deficit already, and this WILL cost at least 1 trillion more per year, and half of that will be from the gov't. They've increased various taxes (both direct to americans and indirectly through services). Those that claim the medicare changes and new taxes will cover it haven't learned the lessons of the past.

Further, they are making it a legal requirement to have insurance. If you are an American citizen, you MUST buy insurance or pay a fine to the government, even if you never draw on services.

Our economy is already stressed, and here comes an expensive social program that will

- dampen the economy to the tune of 1/14th of our national GDP
- be largely unfunded and underfunded
- cost everyone more
- cause longer lines at the doctors
- create a situation where doctors aren't paid as well, so fewer of them enter practice
- create an awesome situation for baby boomers who now will have no reason to keep their insurance once they retire
- create debts that my children will be on the hook for - legislators love programs that don't cost money now, but cost vast resources once they are out of office

Yes, we needed health care reform, but this is an absolutely horrible way to go about it.

I'll personally benefit from it, and it's still the wrong way to go about doing what needs to be done.

You know what's really interesting though?

I haven't seen a single projection that take into account what decisions people will make once this goes into effect, and how much this will cost if people make simple economic decisions for their family, especially as the boomers start to retire. Simple economics dictates that money in the pocket will be greater if you go on the gov't subsidized program and take a lower paying job. There will be bands of pay rates where you will not have as much money as you would if you moved up or down from that pay range, just as we ave now with WIC, Food stamps, medicare, social security, etc.

I guarantee that once the full extent of this change is felt, we're not going to be talking about single digit trillions, but double digit trillions.
 
A

Andromache

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1738-Health-Care-Reconciliation-Bill-Summary

H.R. 4872, THE HEALTH CARE & EDUCATION AFFORDABILITY RECONCILIATION ACT of 2010
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS after spoiler for length
Title I – Coverage, Medicare, Medicaid and Revenues

Subtitle A – Coverage

Sec. 1001. Affordability. Improves the financing for premiums and cost sharing for individuals with incomes up to 400% of the federal poverty level. Subsection (a) improves tax credits to make premiums more affordable as a percent of income; and subsection (b) improves support for cost sharing, focusing on those with incomes below 250% of the federal poverty level. Starting in 2019, constrains the growth in tax credits if premiums are growing faster than the consumer price index, unless spending is more than 10% below current CBO projections.

Sec. 1002. Individual responsibility. Modifies the assessment that individuals who choose to remain uninsured pay in three ways: (a) exempts the income below the filing threshold, (b) lowers the flat payment from $495 to $325 in 2015 and from $750 to $695 in 2016 and © raises the percent of income that is an alternative payment amount from 0.5 to 1.0% in 2014, 1.0 to 2.0% in 2015, and 2.0 to 2.5% for 2016 and subsequent years to make the assessment more progressive.

Sec. 1003. Employer responsibility. Improves the transition to the employer responsibility policy for employers with 50 or more full-time equivalent workers (FTE) by subtracting the first 30 full time employees from the payment calculation (e.g., a firm with 51 workers that does not offer coverage will pay an amount equal to 51 minus 30, or 21 times the applicable per employee payment amount). The provision also changes the applicable payment amount for firms with more than 50 FTEs that do not offer coverage to $2,000 per full-time employee. It also eliminates the assessment for workers in a waiting period, while maintaining the 90-day limit on the length of any waiting period beginning in 2014.

Sec. 1004. Income definitions. Modifies the definition of income that is used for purposes of subsidy eligibility and the individual responsibility requirement. The modifications conform the income definition to information that is currently reported on the Form 1040 and to the present law income tax return filing thresholds. The provision also extends the exclusion from gross income for employer provided health coverage for adult children up to age 26.

Sec. 1005. Implementation funding. Provides $1 billion to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to finance the administrative costs of implementing health insurance reform.

Subtitle B – Medicare

Sec. 1101. Closing the Medicare prescription drug “donut hole”. Provides a $250 rebate for all Medicare Part D enrollees who enter the donut hole in 2010. Builds on pharmaceutical manufacturers’ 50% discount on brand-name drugs beginning in 2011 to completely close the donut hole with 75% discounts on brand-name and generic drugs by 2020.

Sec. 1102. Medicare Advantage payments. Freezes Medicare Advantage payments in 2011. Beginning in 2012, the provision reduces Medicare Advantage benchmarks relative to current levels. Benchmarks will vary from 95% of Medicare spending in high-cost areas to 115% of Medicare spending in low-cost areas. The changes will be phased-in over 3, 5 or 7 years, depending on the level of payment reductions. The provision creates an incentive system to increase payments to high‐quality plans by at least 5%. It also extends CMS authority to adjust risk scores in Medicare Advantage for observed differences in coding patterns relative to fee-for‐service.

Sec. 1103. Savings from limits on MA plan administrative costs. Ensures Medicare Advantage plans spend at least 85% of revenue on medical costs or activities that improve quality of care, rather than profit and overhead.

Sec. 1104. Disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments. Advances Medicare disproportionate share hospital cuts to begin in fiscal year 2014 but lowers the ten-year reduction by $3 billion.

Sec. 1105. Market basket updates. Revises the hospital market basket reduction that is in addition to the productivity adjustment as follows: -0.3 in FY14 and -0.75 in FY17, FY18 and FY19. Removes Senate provision that eliminates the additional market basket for hospitals based on coverage levels. Providers affected are inpatient hospitals, long-term care hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, psychiatric hospitals and outpatient hospitals.

Sec. 1106. Physician ownership-referral. Changes to December 31, 2010 the date after which physician ownership of hospitals to which they self refer is prohibited and provides a limited exception to the growth restrictions for grandfathered physician owned hospitals that treat the highest percentage of Medicaid patients in their county (and are not the sole hospital in a county).

Sec. 1107. Payment for Imaging Services. Sets the assumed utilization rate at 75 percent for the practice expense portion of advanced diagnostic imaging services.

Subtitle C – Medicaid

Sec. 1201. Federal funding for States. Strikes the provision for a permanent 100% federal matching rate for Nebraska for the Medicaid costs of newly eligible individuals. Provides federal Medicaid matching payments for the costs of services to newly eligible individuals at the following rates in all states except expansion states: 100% in 2014, 2015, and 2016; 95% in 2017; 94% in 2018; 93% in 2019; and 90% thereafter. In the case of expansion states, reduces the state share of the costs of covering nonpregnant childless adults by 50% in 2014, 60% in 2015, 70% in 2016, 80% in 2017, 90% in 2018. In 2019 and thereafter, expansion states would bear the same state share of the costs of covering nonpregnant childless adults as non-expansion states (e.g., 7% in 2019, 10% thereafter).

Sec. 1202. Payments to primary care physicians. Requires that Medicaid payment rates to primary care physicians for furnishing primary care services be no less than 100% of Medicare payment rates in 2013 and 2014 (the first year of the Senate bill’s Medicaid coverage expansion to all individuals with incomes under 133% of poverty). Provides 100% federal funding for the incremental costs to States of meeting this requirement.

Sec. 1203. Disproportionate share hospital payments. Lowers the reduction in federal Medicaid DSH payments from $18.1 billion to $14.1 billion and advances the reductions to begin in fiscal year 2014. Directs the Secretary to develop a methodology for reducing federal DSH allotments to all states in order to achieve the mandated reductions. Extends through FY 2013 the federal DSH allotment for a state that has a $0 allotment after FY 2011.

Sec. 1204. Funding for the territories. Increases federal funding in the Senate bill for Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas Islands by $2 billion. Raises the caps on federal Medicaid funding for each of the territories. Allows each territory to elect to operate a Health Benefits Exchange.

Sec. 1205. Delay in Community First Choice Option. Postpones from October 1, 2010 until October 1, 2011 the effective date of the option established for State Medicaid programs to cover attendant care services and supports for individuals who require an institutional level of care

Sec. 1206. Drug rebates for new formulations of existing drugs. For purposes of applying the additional rebate, narrows the definition of a new formulation of a drug to a line extension of a single source or innovator multiple source drug that is an oral solid dosage form of the drug.

Subtitle D – Reducing Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

Sec. 1301. Community Mental Health Centers. Establishes new requirements for community mental health centers that provide Medicare partial hospitalization services in order to prevent fraud and abuse.

Sec. 1302. Medicare prepayment medical review limitations. Streamlines procedures to conduct Medicare prepayment reviews to facilitate additional reviews designed to reduce fraud and abuse.

Sec. 1303. CMS-IRS data match to identify fraudulent providers. Allows the Secretary of Treasury to share IRS data with HHS employees to help screen and identify fraudulent providers or providers with tax debts, and to help recover such debts. Provides strict controls on the use of such information to protect taxpayer privacy.

Sec. 1304. Funding to fight fraud, waste and abuse. Increases funding for the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Fund by $250 million over the next decade. Indexes funds to fight Medicaid fraud based on the increase in the Consumer Price Index.

Sec. 1305. 90-day period of enhanced oversight for initial claims of DME suppliers. Requires a 90-day period to withhold payment and conduct enhanced oversight in cases where the HHS Secretary identifies a significant risk of fraud among DME suppliers.

Subtitle E – Revenues

Sec. 1401. High-cost plan excise tax. Reduces the revenue collected by the tax by 80 percent. This is achieved by: delaying the application of the tax until 2018, which gives the plans time to implement and realize the cost savings of reform; increasing the dollar thresholds to $10,200 for single coverage and $27,500 for family coverage ($11,850 and $30,950 for retirees and employees in high risk professions); excluding stand-alone dental and vision plans from the tax; and permitting an employer to reduce the cost of the coverage when applying the tax if the employer’s age and gender demographics are not representative of the age and gender demographics of a national risk pool. Under the modified provision, the dollar thresholds are indexed to inflation and the dollar thresholds are automatically increased in 2018 if CBO is wrong in its forecast of the premium inflation rate between now and 2018.

Sec. 1402. Medicare tax. Modifies the tax to include net investment income in the taxable base. Currently, the Medicare tax does not apply to net investment income. The Medicare tax on net investment income does not apply if modified adjusted gross income is less than $250,000 in the case of a joint return, or $200,000 in the case of a single return. Net investment income is interest, dividends, royalties, rents, gross income from a trade or business involving passive activities, and net gain from disposition of property (other than property held in a trade or business). Net investment income is reduced by properly allocable deductions to such income.

Sec. 1403. Delay of the annual limitation on contributions to a health FSA. Delays the provision by two years until 2013.

Sec. 1404. Brand name pharmaceuticals. Delays the industry fee on sales of brand name pharmaceuticals for use in government health programs by one year to 2011, and increases revenue raised by the fee by $4.8 billion.

Sec. 1405. Excise tax on medical device manufacturers. Delays the tax by two years to 2013 and converts the industry fee to an excise tax on the first sale for use of medical devices at a rate of 2.9 percent. Exempts from the tax Class I medical devices, eyeglasses, contact lenses, hearing aids, and any device of a type that is generally purchased by the public at retail for individual use.

Sec. 1406. Health insurance providers. Delays the industry fee by 3 years to 2014 and modifies the annual industry fee for revenue neutrality. In the case of tax-exempt insurance providers, provides that only 50 percent of their net premiums that relate to their tax-exempt status are taken into account in calculating the fee. Provides exemptions for voluntary employee benefit associations (VEBAs) and nonprofit providers more than 80 percent of whose revenues is received from Social Security Act programs that target low income, elderly, or disabled populations.

Sec. 1407. Delay of elimination of deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare part D subsidy. Delays the provision by two years to 2013.

Sec. 1408. Elimination of unintended application of cellulosic biofuel producer credit. Adds an additional revenue provision. In 2008, Congress enacted a $1.01 per gallon tax credit for the production of biofuel from cellulosic feedstocks in order to encourage the development of new production capacity for biofuels that are not derived from food source materials. Congress is aware that some taxpayers are seeking to claim the cellulosic biofuel tax credit for unprocessed fuels, such as black liquor. The provision would limit eligibility for the tax credit to processed fuels (i.e., fuels that could be used in a car engine or in a home heating application).

Sec. 1409. Codification of economic substance doctrine and penalties. Adds an additional revenue provision. The economic substance doctrine is a judicial doctrine that has been used by the courts to deny tax benefits when the transaction generating these tax benefits lacks economic substance. The courts have not applied the economic substance doctrine uniformly. The provision would clarify the manner in which the economic substance doctrine should be applied by the courts and would impose a penalty on understatements attributable to a transaction lacking economic substance.

Sec. 1410. Time for payment of corporate estimated taxes. Provides for a one-time adjustment to corporate estimated taxes for payments made during calendar year 2014.

Sec. 1411. No impact on Social Security trust funds. Provides that Title II of the Social Security Act (the old age, survivor, and disability benefits program (OASDI)) is not amended or modified by the bill.

Subtitle F – Other Provisions

Sec. 1501. TAA for communities. Appropriates $500 Million a year for fiscal years 2010 through 2014 in the Community College and Career Training Grant program for community colleges to develop and improve educational or career training programs. Ensures that each state receives at least 0.5 percent of the total funds appropriated.

Title II – Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Subtitle A – Education

Section 2001. Short Title; References. Provides that this subtitle may be cited as the “SAFRA Act,” and that, except as otherwise provided, whenever an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or other provision of the Higher Education Act of 1965.

Part I—Investing in Students and Families

Section 2101. Federal Pell Grants. Amends the Higher Education Act to include mandatory funding for the Pell Grant. This provides additional mandatory funding to augment funds appropriated to increase the federal maximum Pell Grant award by the change in the Consumer Price Index. The mandatory component of the funding is determined by inflating the previous year’s total and subtracting the maximum award provided for in the appropriations act for the previous year or $4860, whichever is greater. Beginning in the 2018-2019 academic year, the maximum Pell award will be at the 2017-2018 level.

Section 2102. Student Financial Assistance. This section provides $13.5 billion in mandatory appropriations to the Federal Pell Grant program.

Section 2103. College Access Challenge Grant Program. This section amends section 786 of the Higher Education Act by authorizing and appropriating $150 million for fiscal years 2010 through 2014 for the College Access Challenge Grant program created under the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007. Provides that the allotment for each State under this section for a fiscal year shall not be an amount that is less than 1.0 percent of the total amount appropriated for a fiscal year.

Section 2104. Investment in Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Serving Institutions. This section amends section 371(b) of the Higher Education Act by extending funding for programs under this section created under the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 for programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and minority-serving institutions through 2019, including programs that help low-income students attain degrees in the fields of science, technology, engineering or mathematics by the following annual amounts: $100 million to Hispanic Serving Institutions, $85 million to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, $15 million to Predominantly Black Institutions, $30 million to Tribal Colleges and Universities, $15 million to Alaska, Hawaiian Native Institutions, $5 million to Asian American and Pacific Islander Institutions, and $5 million to Native American non-tribal serving institutions.

Part II—Student Loan Reform

Section 2201. Termination of Federal Family Education Loan Appropriations. This section terminates the authority to make or insure any additional loans in the Federal Family Education Loan program after June 30, 2010.

Section 2202. Termination of Federal loan Insurance Program. This section is a conforming amendment with regard to the termination of the FFEL program, limiting Federal insurance to those loans in the Federal Family Education Loan program for loans first disbursed prior to July 1, 2010.

Section 2203. Termination of Applicable Interest Rates. This section makes a conforming amendment with regard to the termination of the FFEL program limiting interest rate applicability to Stafford, Consolidation, and PLUS loans to those loans made before July 1, 2010.

Section 2204. Termination of Federal payments to Reduce Student Interest Costs. This section makes a conforming amendment with regard to the termination of the FFEL program by limiting subsidy payments to lenders for those loans for which the first disbursement is made before July 1, 2010.

Section 2205. Termination of FFEL PLUS Loans. This section makes a conforming change with regard to the termination of the FFEL program for federal PLUS loans by prohibiting further FFEL origination of loans after July 1, 2010.

Section 2206. Federal Consolidation Loans. This section makes conforming changes with regard to the termination of the FFEL program for federal consolidation loans. This section also provides that, for a 1 year period, borrowers who have loans under both the Direct Lending program and the FFEL program, or who have loans under either program as well as loans that have been sold to the Secretary, may consolidate such loans under the Direct Lending program regardless of whether such borrowers have entered repayment on such loans.

Section 2207. Termination of Unsubsidized Stafford loans for Middle-Income Borrowers. This section makes conforming changes with regard to the termination of the FFEL program for Unsubsidized Stafford loans by prohibiting further FFEL origination of loans after July 1, 2010.

Section 2208. Termination of Special Allowances. This section makes conforming changes with regard to the termination of the FFEL program by limiting special allowance payments to lenders under the FFEL program to loans first disbursed before July 1, 2010.

Section 2209. Origination of Direct Loans at Institutions Outside the United States. This section provides for the origination of federal Direct Loans at institutions located outside of the United States, through a financial institution designated by the Secretary.

Section 2210. Conforming amendments. This section makes conforming technical changes with regard to the termination of the FFEL program for Department of Education agreements with Direct Lending institutions.

Section 2211. Terms and Conditions of Loans. This section makes conforming technical changes with regard to the termination of the FFEL program to clarify the terms and conditions of Direct Loans.

Section 2212. Contracts. This section directs the Secretary to award contracts for servicing federal Direct Loans to eligible non-profit servicers. In addition, this section provides that for the first 100,000 borrower loan accounts, the Secretary shall establish a separate pricing tier. Specifies that the Secretary is to allocate the loan accounts of 100,000 borrowers to each eligible non-profit servicer. The section also permits the Secretary to reallocate, increase, reduce or terminate an eligible non-profit servicer’s allocation based on the performance of such servicer. In addition, this section appropriates mandatory funds to the Secretary to be obligated for administrative costs of servicing contracts with eligible non-profit servicers. This section also requires the Secretary to provide technical assistance to institutions of higher education participating or seeking to participate in the Direct Lending program. This section appropriates $50 million for fiscal year 2010 to pay for this technical assistance. Additionally, this section authorizes the Secretary to provide payments to loan servicers for retaining jobs at location in the United States where such servicers were operating on January 1, 2010. This section appropriates $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011 for such purpose.

Section 2213. Agreements with State-Owned Banks. This section amends Part D of Title IV to direct the Secretary to enter into an agreement with an eligible lender for the purpose of providing Federal loan insurance on student loans made by state-owned banks.

Section 2214. Income-Based Repayment. The section amends the Income-Based Repayment program to cap student loan payments for new borrowers after July 1, 2014 to 10% of adjusted income, from 15% percent, and to forgive remaining balances after 20 years of repayment, from 25 years.

Subtitle B – Health

Sec. 2301. Insurance Reforms. Extends the prohibition of lifetime limits, prohibition on rescissions, limitations on excessive waiting periods, and a requirement to provide coverage for non-dependent children up to age 26 to all existing health insurance plans starting six months after enactment. For group health plans, prohibits pre-existing condition exclusions in 2014, restricts annual limits beginning six months after enactment, and prohibits them starting in 2014. For coverage of non-dependent children prior to 2014, the requirement on group health plans is limited to those adult children without an employer offer of coverage.

Sec. 2302. Drugs Purchased by Covered Entities. Repeals the underlying 340B expansion to inpatient drugs and exemptions to GPO exclusion. Exempts orphan drugs from required discounts for new 340B entities.

Sec. 2303. Community Health Centers. Increases mandatory funding for community health centers to $11 billion over five years (FY 2011 – FY 2015).

Prepared by Committees on Ways & Means, Energy & Commerce, and Education & Labor, March 18, 2010
 
Well last time you had open revolution over a tax on tea... which was the only tax the kept after eliminating the other ones they wanted trying to appease you guys...
It wasn't about being taxed... it was about being taxed without having any representation in the House of Lords and the escalation on both of sides of the issue, which eventually triggered the Battles of Lexington and Concord (And the whole American Revolution). Also, that was only the FIRST time we had Open Revolution in the US. The last time we had it was the Civil War.[/QUOTE]

Meh, i don't see revolution = civil war myself...

Also, i don't think it was the House of Lords... it think that one is still hereditary...
 
Well last time you had open revolution over a tax on tea... which was the only tax the kept after eliminating the other ones they wanted trying to appease you guys...
It wasn't about being taxed... it was about being taxed without having any representation in the House of Lords and the escalation on both of sides of the issue, which eventually triggered the Battles of Lexington and Concord (And the whole American Revolution). Also, that was only the FIRST time we had Open Revolution in the US. The last time we had it was the Civil War.[/QUOTE]

Meh, i don't see revolution = civil war myself...

Also, i don't think it was the House of Lords... it think that one is still hereditary...[/QUOTE]

Your right, it was the Parliament, not the House of Lords. As for the Civil War not equaling a revolution... since when does an attempted act of Succession not equal a revolution? It doesn't have to succeed for it to be a revolution.
 
C

Chazwozel

haha, you guys should see the list of states that sued the government over medicare and medicaid. And those programs are still around. Once again we're going to have to drag republicans and conservatives through change and progress by the ear, with them kicking and screaming the entire way. Remember the whole shit storm that was the civil rights movement? A good majority of douchebags had a shit fit about that too; states sued etc...

I'm finding Glenn Beck's shit storms hilarious though. He keeps going back to "what the founding father's wanted and envisioned". FOR AMERICA TO WORK YOU CAN'T GO BY THE VISION OF A BUNCH OF 250 YEAR OLD DEAD GUYS! The founding father's didn't have to deal with depressions, health care, mass market modern economy, or hell even basic modern education issues. Stop. For the love of God, stop telling me what they fucking cared about. Their America was in a time where doctors felt placing leeches on your scrotum would cure you of constipation, for Christ's sake! Stop comparing health care reform to what the founding father's would want.
 

ElJuski

Staff member
The founding fathers on civil rights: "whoah whoah whoah, they're worth how many fifths now? And you can marry them?!"
 
C

Chazwozel

The founding fathers on civil rights: "whoah whoah whoah, they're worth how many fifths now? And you can marry them?!"
The founding father's on women's sufferage: "hang on fella's how's a woman supposed to hold a job while cooking and cleaning and taking car of the kids and giving her husband blowjobs? It just can't be done.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
1) This isn't the civil rights movement. It's apples and oranges. There is no "right" to health care, any more than there is a "right" to food or a place to live, and even if there were, that's not what it means to have a "right." The right to keep and bear arms does not mean it's the government's responsibility to PROVIDE you with a gun. The right to a free press does not mean the government PROVIDES you with a newspaper. And at any rate, the evidence is all around us that socializing health care will increase costs and decrease quality of service.
2) The vision of a bunch of 250 year old dead guys is what made our country powerful and rich in the first place - the concept that you be allowed to reap the rewards (or consequences) of your own efforts (or lack thereof). Marxist policy kills off the incentive to excel - after all, if you're going to receive according to your need, not your contribution, who's to say what your "ability" to contribute really is?
 
C

Chazwozel

1) This isn't the civil rights movement. It's apples and oranges. There is no "right" to health care, any more than there is a "right" to food or a place to live, and even if there were, that's not what it means to have a "right." The right to keep and bear arms does not mean it's the government's responsibility to PROVIDE you with a gun. The right to a free press does not mean the government PROVIDES you with a newspaper. And at any rate, the evidence is all around us that socializing health care will increase costs and decrease quality of service.
2) The vision of a bunch of 250 year old dead guys is what made our country powerful and rich in the first place - the concept that you be allowed to reap the rewards (or consequences) of your own efforts (or lack thereof). Marxist policy kills off the incentive to excel - after all, if you're going to receive according to your need, not your contribution, who's to say what your "ability" to contribute really is?
I disagree!



We French live zee good life on our socialized heatlh care, ranked #1 in the world.
 
With how easy it is for kids to get insurance, my kids would go to a pediatrician, have to make a check up appointment 5 months in advance, and if they were sick I had to take them to Urgent Care because there was never a sick child appointment opening, even when I called as the office opened. I gave up and started taking them to my family care doctor because at least then I knew if they were sick I could most likely get them in to see the doctor.

Now they are opening the door for more people to have insurance, when primary care is a dying field in med school. Hurrah, now I'm going to have to deal with the same thing at my PCP?

I'm not saying people shouldn't have healthcare. But for fucks sake can we fix the damn healthcare system before passing a bill that does nothing but throw MORE people into it? And honestly, after reading through the CBO report of the bill, I'm pretty skeptical on where the money for this bill is actually going to come from. Sure they say where they are getting money (and taking over student loans for good measure!) but some of this money seems to already be spoken for, or can't be cut easily.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top