“Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.”
“Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.”
“On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17 percent of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20 percent of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.”
Maybe I'm wrong but I had a strange idea once. It was that money should have no interference with ones health, that all should be taken care of without even thinking of financial compensation, that humanity besides value. Maybe I'm a fool to think not everything can be bought. Hmm,
“Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.”
You pay a tax to support a service. If tax needs to be increased or decreased to modify the service to better suit the needs of the population, what exactly is the problem with that? The amount of tax you pay changes often depending on the state of the country and reform to services provided. This is whining for the sake of whining. Anyway, let's go to the actual text to really see what's being said:
"MANNER OF NEGOTIATION- The Secretary shall negotiate such rates in a manner that results in payment rates that are not lower, in the aggregate, than rates under title XVIII of the Social Security Act, and not higher, in the aggregate, than the average rates paid by other Qualified Health Benefits Plan offering entities for services and health care providers." [source]
So, you won't be forced to pay any more than the average going rate for healthcare, ever. That is written in to this bill.
“Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.”
There is no section 59. It starts at section 101. Incidentally, there is also no 159, 259, 359, or 459 to speak of. Great source you got there Joe.
“On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17 percent of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20 percent of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.”
This is absolute crap. Do you actually read the primary sources yourself or do you rely on poor journalism to give you incorrect facts about the sources?
Here is what the report actually says:
"CBO estimates that the combination of provisions included in the amendment would reduce average private health insurance premiums per enrollee in the United States relative to what they would be under current law. The average reductions would be larger in the markets for small group and individually purchased policies,
which are the focus of many of the legislation’s provisions. In the small group market, which represents about 15 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by an estimated 7 percent to 10 percent compared with amounts under current law. In the market for individually purchased insurance, which represents a little more than 5 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by an estimated 5 percent to 8 percent compared with amounts under current law. And in the large group market, which represents nearly 80 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by zero to 3 percent compared with amounts under current law, according to CBO’s estimates. The figures are presented for 2016 as an illustrative example. " [source]
"I don't have to actually read the primary sources myself because the fact is that I don't want to be tax at a higher rate, period."
Did you not read the part about all insurance premiums going down?
"Anything less than that is highway robbery."
Talking about highways, how are you enjoying that socialised and paid-through-taxes luxury? Talking about robbery, how are you enjoying the socialised and paid-through-taxes police that keep you safe? :-)
You just proved my point. I am NOT enjoying the socialised and paid-through-taxes luxury of a highway because it is more of a parkway during rush hour traffic ;)
Nor am I enjoying the socialised and paid-through-taxes police that take more than an hour to respond to anything.
If it's socialised and paid-through-taxes it is more than likely sh*t.
"I am NOT enjoying the socialised and paid-through-taxes luxury of a highway because it is more of a parkway during rush hour traffic."
Then stay at home and don't use it. After all, you don't agree with taxes. Maybe you should spend a week not using any services that are paid for through taxation? That would be fun.
"Nor am I enjoying the socialised and paid-through-taxes police that take more than an hour to respond to anything."
That because they're dealing with all the gun crime. ;-)
Actually, you're right. There's no need for me to go to the office since I can work from home.... But then I wouldn't have anything to complain about ;)
Well, actually, you can't. You can't use the Internet as it was an innovation produced mostly by ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network) and DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), both of which are agencies of the United States Department of Defense, and therefore publicly funded.
Well actually I can because my tax dollars went towards it, whoops. ;)
Had my tax dollars not gone towards it I would have paid for the service, just like I'm doing now, whoops. ;)
And if the service cost more than what I currently pay, I would still pay it because the number of people that could afford it would be reduced and I wouldn't get so many e-mails about how to make my dick bigger and stay up longer, whoops. ;)
"Well actually I can because my tax dollars went towards it, whoops. ;) Had my tax dollars not gone towards it I would have paid for the service, just like I'm doing now, whoops. ;)"
I was clearly referencing my challenge to spend a week not using any services that were provided for or by through taxation. Without taxation, there would be no roads to drive on to get to work, there would be no internet to work from home. And you wouldn't be paying for the service because the service only existed because of the pulling together of funds. No matter how much you may like to think otherwise, you could not individually pay for the all the things that make your life the way it is.
Your continued insistence that you could survive and build a society similar to the one we have without taxation is incredibly naive.
What makes you think that left to my own devices I would want to build a society similar to the one we have? Just as an example, do you think I like driving so much that I want roads everywhere? Do you think that I would create a society where I have to get in the car everyday?
So your idea of a truly free society without the horrific burden of taxation would be one where people can only go within walking distance, or, alternatively, the millions of people in the US dependant on going further than within walking distance would have to depend solely on businesses operating horse and cart services along dust tracks? What you're proposing with a society ithout taxation is a return the middle ages. That sound great. Sign me up.
i went straight to their website and the first thing that appears is the budget deficit. For one fiscal year. Bush was bad really bad at 3.1 billion in 2008 but look at Obama 9.9 billion more than 3 times. The website is pretty cool you have to understand charts and some basic accounting. One of the interesting things that popped out to me was the projected deficit increase in billions. It a pretty heavy website. Some other things showind us adding more than 425 billion more to the already high deficit there is just no balancing in sight.
Thank you for the information. This is, unfortunately, one of the downfalls of trying to debate US politics when not actually American. Could you provide a link to the correct bill for me please?
Regardless, the OP is wrong and merely perpetuating fear-mongering. For example, section 59B simply says people without acceptable healthcare (who are eligible for acceptable healthcare) will be taxed ~3%, of the excess of their taxable, gross adjusted income. Basically, you'd be taxed nothing. But acceptable healthcare is described in sub-section (D) as basically any healthcare, including government provided healthcare (veterans affairs, medicare, medicaid etc.). Moreover, the whole illegal immigrant thing is just a disingenuous play on words. The bill would exempt non-resident aliens, which just means that people who are on Visas (as opposed to people with greencards, like me) don't have to have acceptable healthcare to not be taxed.
CBO estimates that the combination of provisions included in the amendment would reduce average private health insurance premiums per enrollee in the United States relative to what they would be under current law. The average reductions would be larger in the markets for small group and individually purchased policies,
Where did you pull this from? Because that is not what they said i just heard there report and it was the complete apposite. I want to ask because I don't know but did they leave in the plan that if business keeps their private health insurance that they will have to pay an 8% penalty for not going to the government plan. I know that is was in the beginning?
I can say from experience that as a former soldier, I had government run health care, and all of my expenses were paid for. I had free medical care, free medicine, free surgeries, free dental, free vision, even breast implants if I wanted. The government run health care that I had was great. They did not do unnecessary tests, they found the cause of the illness and treated it. I did not go to the doctor every time I had a runny nose, and if I did have to have a surgery or other major medical procedure, yes I would need to be scheduled in, but after now being in the civilian world, I find that I still have to schedule to have major medical procedures done, but at a much larger cost to me (with private insurance). Since I am a veteran, I have access to the VA, where I still receive government run health care, which is a benefit to me because it saves me a lot of money. I wonder if anyone has thought about their post retirement age, when medicare (if it is still around) will be something you need to utilize? Isn't that government run? After you retire, unless you are one of the lucky that has for your entire life budgeted your money to save enough to live on after you are unable to work, and still afford private health care, how do you propose to manage? It will be government run.
All I'm saying is that the government should not give handouts. Former soldiers earned their health care. People should not get "free" money. They should either have to pay it back, or work for it or something. It shouldn't just be handed to them.
I am a former soldier, but let's just say for a second that I wasn't. Let's say I have been working for a company for the past 12 years and got laid off because of this recession we are in. Now I'm not working, but should I get the "free money" you refer to or should I go without because of the turn our economy has taken? I'm sure you are aware of the current unemployment rates. There are thousands of people who are not working from no fault of their own. Or should it just be the homeless that are denied. Exactly who are you referring to that you don't want to have healthcare sir?
The operative word here is "free." And thus the answer is no. You should either have to pay it back once you get back on your feet or do something for the government while you're receiving a check from the government.
Why should she have to pay it back? In the example given, she has been paying taxes in to the system for the past 12 years. So what if she has to take some out due to an uncontrollable circumstance?
You make a very good point but that is ot what I meant. In the scenario that I envision that would change too.
Right now the employer pays the employment tax (not the employee). If they fire someone, the money is used to pay for that person until they get another job. The employer's tax goes up for some period of time with each person they fire. Any money the laid off employee gets is free money.
Under the system I envision, the amount of tax paid by the employer is decreased because it gets replenished by the employee.
Under the system I envision, the amount of tax paid by the employer is decreased because it gets replenished by the employee.
I see what you mean, but I do not agree with the employer's taxes being decreased. It seems that all your proposals simply help the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Any money the laid off employee gets is free money.
Once again, it is not free money as they pay income taxes.
My goal is not to "help the rich" nor do I understand the "They can aford it, make them pay" argument either.
My goal is to improve this country. As long as a person can go on unemployment and not have to pay that money back, there will be people taking advantage of that situation. If you make it so that they have to pay it back, you give people the incentive to get back to work. Productive individuals are what makes a country great.
I am not disputing that productive people lead to success however, making them pay it back will set them back even further in the long run, therefore, making the rich richer and the poor poorer. It is possible to have strict regulation to prevent people from taking advantage without making them pay it back.
Such as, a required amount of resumes handed out and interviews a week, weekly or monthly checkups on people who are unsuccessful at finding jobs and you could even provide access to job placement agencies.
No system is fail safe. The system you suggest will not really help them at all.
It should be enough if they don't have to pay it back with interest.
That is just outrageous, they got laid off or are starving so they should be thankful they are drowning in debt just because its not with interest? A government is not truly doing its job if it is not taking care of its people.
Are you on freaking drugs? The government is not here to take care of adults! Adults can (and should) take care of themselves! I don't need the government to take care of me. I'm not some small child who is dependent on his parents! Are you?
OMG you are just ignorant! Its not about being a child! Its about those that hit hard times! Show some compassion! You make everything sound so black and white, news flash......its not!!
Joe.. you disappoint me. For a smart funny guy who actually makes me smile at times your stance against NHC fucking pisses me off. Don't tell me it's about winding people up - cause that is fun, but I just can't find it funny this time.
I believe we should have a nationalized health care plan, however, I don't believe the one currently being proposed is the right one.
I am a full time working adult, my employer does not offer health insurance, it is a small privately owned, retail business, and health care quite simply is unaffordable for the owner. In this day and age, I feel lucky to have a job, so I can't fault the owner for not offering it.
I make enough to cover my basic living expense needs, but 1) just a little too much to qualify for free health care at the local clinic, and 2) not enough to be able to afford private insurance.
I had to go to the Dr. a couple of weeks ago (only needed a prescription renewed, the Dr. forced me to come in for a checkup), that cost me 2 days worth of pay. Plus the prescription expense. Any idea of how that affects my budget?
I'm fairly healthy, but what happens if I get seriously ill? Do I just die because I can't afford the treatment to cure me?
We working persons, pay taxes that support non working (but capable) adults, they get benefits that we poor working joes don't. Does this seem right to you?
So yes, I would support a government plan that would indeed make health care available and affordable for all.
There are doctors that will work with you if you do not have insurance and basically give you a break, However....
Your credit cannot be ruined by healthcare issues. I had a doctor tell me he was going to perform a procedure that was 100% covered by medicaid. It turns out it wasn't. So he came after me for the balance. I basically said, "Tough." He got a collection agency to come after me. I told them, "Tough." They said they were going to ruin my credit. I said, "Fine. I take that option. Stop calling me and ruin away." They called a few times more and finally realized that their scare tacticts were ineffective against me. So they finally stopped and my credit was fine.
Based on previous conversations, I am entirely convinced that you know nothing about this bill or the state of the country and the reasons we need it. Nor do I feel that you care to learn about it.
Therefore, I don't accept your opinion as educated or valid.
Based on our previous conversations, I am entirely convinced that you do not appreciate my sense of humor.
But that's OK because that's your role as a woman.
In other words, in order to be funny, you need to be able to see the humor in things. For example, if men are practicing with their bows and arrows and one of them gets shot in the ass, the other men will spill their beer laughing while a woman runs up screaming, "Oh my God! Call 911, get me a band-aid quick!" which only makes the men laugh even more. This is an evolutionary advantage because if women didn't take things seriously, we would become extinct. I mean, women are pretty much responsible for nurturing and preserving the species. Someone has to be the responsible adult. ;)
i don't know but if there right how we will kiss your feet. But if what they say about it is wrong then we will go deeper into debt and a bigger recession. I don't see how this is going to make health care less expensive.
The problem is that 72% of the country actually WANTS a nationalised healthcare system. [source] What the government is actually hearing is the vast majority of the country saying "Hell Yeah."
Here's exactly how the poll was carried out. If you can find fault, do so (rather than just ignoring it because of who it is).
And again, here are the questions that were asked.
Please, I beg you, provide a meaningful rebuke to the poll's questions or methods. I did so with your source, so do me the pleasure of returning the favour.
Hmmm...., yes..., you do check your sources first. But who has the most points? So you see, it's not all about facts and figures, it's about entertainment value ;)
Yeah..., I noticed. What cracks me up is that you took the time to contribute content to my debate which means that it was entertaining enough for you to participate lol
I mean, think about it. I was able to engage an English man, living in England, to search the Internet for data sources that back up his argument that the U.S. should have Nationalized Heath Care.
both the cartoon and the discussion about the cartoon ;)
Why would an Englishman care enough (one way or another) about U.S. politics to spend any time on it? It is all very interesting, no? Maybe he's thinking about moving to the U.S. but doesn't want to give up his nationalized health care or maybe it's because misery loves company and he wants Americans to be in the same boat as the Brits or maybe he's pissed off at the fact that the Americans kicked the English out of the U.S. during the revolution because we just don't like their form of government and he's still trying to force it down our throats. I have no idea, but that's what I call entertainment ;)
"Yeah..., I noticed. What cracks me up is that you took the time to contribute content to my debate which means that it was entertaining enough for you to participate lol"
I suppose I do find some strange entertainment value in shooting down your arguments every single time.
"Why would an Englishman care enough (one way or another) about U.S. politics to spend any time on it? It is all very interesting, no?"
The subject matter is interesting, and some of us are still interested in having an actual debate about the subject, because America is one of the most powerful countries in the world, and therefore it's important that the example it sets is the right one. And, believe it or not, I believe everyone should be given certain rights, whether they're American, British, Canadian, Indian, etc, that's why the fact that this debate is occurring in America is irrelevant to me.
America is wrongly held up as a beacon of hope and liberty and something to strive for for developing nations, and that annoys the crap out of me. It annoys me that what is considered the most powerful and free country in the world still does things that defy belief. It annoys me that you try to help Africa with one hand, and implement policies that cripple it with the other. It annoys me that you attempt to fight terrorism, pulling us in for the ride and causing a terrorist attack in my city, whilst at the same time nearly every single terrorist organisation has been funded by the US. It annoys me that, even when your own country suffered a terrible natural disaster, no one cared because it happened to poor people (I'm talking about Katrina). And yes, it annoys me that citizens of a country that continually talks about freedom and liberty can't be bothered to give a few dollars out of their pay packet (though, they would be paying less, but we'll ignore that for now and assume that it would cost you a bit extra) to ensure that everyone, rich or poor, can get healthcare treatment when they need it. That's why I get involved, and try to do my part (regardless of the fact that no one really cares on this site any more) to get involved in the debate and make my view heard.
And if you're wondering...
"Maybe he's thinking about moving to the U.S."
No, he's not. I don't want to live under your ideal of freedom and liberty to all (if you can afford it). Why the hell would I want to move to a country that doesn't give a crap about anyone else and continually tries to push its form of government down everyone's throat, even when they don't want it?
And you know what's really entertaining? The fact that every time we enter into an argument, you fall back on comedy rather than seeing through the actual debate. That just solidifies in my mind, with every single debate with have, that my views are right, moral, and justifiable. I can back mine up whilst you fall back into a corner and play the comedian card. At least have the balls to back up your views and see it through.
There was a time on this site where you actually used to fight your corner, but I suppose rather than modify your views in response to arguments that are obviously too compelling for you to be able to form arguments against, you'd rather just back down, forget about it, and continue to hold the views you do even though they've been tested time and time again and found to be lacking.
Pineapple had you absolutely pegged when she said: "Based on previous conversations, I am entirely convinced that you know nothing about this bill or the state of the country and the reasons we need it. Nor do I feel that you care to learn about it. Therefore, I don't accept your opinion as educated or valid." And it's a real shame.
As an American I am nauseated, and not a little, about the typical Americans’ sentiment of US holiness. And I find it quite extraordinary that an Englishman has a better sense of discernment about the US than most citizens of the US.
America is wrongly held up as a beacon of hope and liberty and something to strive for for developing nations, and that annoys the crap out of me. It annoys me that what is considered the most powerful and free country in the world..
And yes, it annoys me that citizens of a country that continually talks about freedom and liberty can't be bothered to give a few dollars out of their pay packet (though, they would be paying less, but we'll ignore that for now and assume that it would cost you a bit extra) to ensure that everyone, rich or poor, can get healthcare treatment when they need it.
Healthcare reform that seeks to trample upon both liberty and freedom is the antithesis of the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If group A decides that its happiness is Sample B of Healthcare reform, they have no right whatsoever to use their rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to trample everyone else’s right of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to not consent to sample B of Healthcare reform. Or stated another way, no man has the liberty and freedom to trample another man’s liberty, freedom, and pursuit of happiness. Ergo, that is why the proposed legislation of Healthcare reform is so hotly debated in the US.
The people of United States of America should never seek to impinge another man’s rights of life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, by imposing their will upon their fellow man for the sake of legislated compassion. And any people who take upon themselves this god-like mandate of legislating ‘loving thy neighbor’ better take in to account that their version of altruism may be the pinnacle of tyranny.
My solution to the healthcare issues that plague the US:
Eliminate health insurance! It’s simple and subtle, but far reaching.
I think that there may be an underlying flaw in your logic.
You seem to be assuming that allowing everyone healthcare would somehow take healthcare away from someone, it would "trample everyone else’s right of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as you would say.
I don't understand how this could be. It seems to be the same argument Joe regularly makes that allowing gays to be married somehow invalidates his own marriage.
It seems to be a fatal flaw in logic. I simply cannot comprehend what would lead a thinking person toward this conclusion.
Even if it did happen, which it would not, that having a public option would lead to higher prices for some,
It seems to me the equation, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, in no way gaurantees lower insurance rates.
In fact, the Life and Pursuit of Happiness parts of the quote you use several times,
would imply healthcare would be a right regardless of cost.
I mean, it seems people are forgetting we are talking about human lives. Does it matter that some would be poor, or if people like Joe hate them? They're humans still who as far as we know have done nothing wrong.
Why shouldn't they have as much a right to life, and as long and healthy a life, as anyone else?
It makes no sense morally, or even legally if one is going by the mantra you use continually "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
I'm afraid this constitutional argument simply falls short. There is nothing to lead anyone to believe providing healthcare is unconstitutional, quite the opposite in fact. (I know the quotes from the Declaration of Independence, but typical, the right's calling it a constitutional argument)
Okay, so I just don't get that argument at all, and I find it hard to believe you really buy into it... Joe okay, he's a moron, but I can't believe you think it's legitimate.
And getting rid of health insurance all together seems an even worse idea. I mean, literally at the most 1% of the world population could afford a simple procedure today like removing breast cancer. And that could be the difference between dying within the year, and living a long happy life and dying of old age. Why would we want that?
And how many bright people, if doctors decided to lower costs enough so that maybe 5% of the world population can afford a relatively simple procedures, would still want to be doctors?
7-10 years of higher education, and student loans anywhere from 100,000 to half a million. Who can afford that?
It seems to me getting rid of any health insurance at all is a one way trip back to the gilded age, where you have a handful of travelling doctors who don't know that much and do it out of the kindness of their hearts.
... unless you're talking about single payer national healthcare. In which case you retain your genious status and I'm all for it.
The flaw in your logic is that you think that health insurance is the best and cheapest way to provide health care. Health care insurance means that you are paying for (not only the doctors, the hospital's overhead, etc. but you are also paying for) everyone else that works for the insurance company. A company that's in business to make money. Money that could go towards actual health care instead of the insurance's pockets.
But lets follow your logic and see where it leads. Most people don't require health care every day. But the do require food every day. Now, since it is inhumane to let people go hungry, we should have nationalized meals for every citizen (a roast in every pot). But we need people in place to collect the money and distribute the money, etc. We'll call them the Nutrition Insurance Group (NIG). now, they need to get paid for their services but where is that money coming from? Oh yeah, the people. But it now cost more money to feed the same amount of people because we now have to pay for the NIG. No problem, we cut back on their rations (they're too fat anyway) and on the quality of the food. Now once people get used to the idea of NIG, we can raise the price of food because, "Don't worry about it. The insurance will take care of it." (I was literally told this by a doctor who wanted to perform what I considered to be a questionable procedure. He was adamant that it was necessary until I mentioned that I did not have insurance.)
Or we can leave it (conserve it) as it is (which is why we call ourselves conservatives). A pan handler can get at least $15 a day and get 3 happy meals at Mickey D's ;)
And no, I don't hate the poor. I just hate the fact that I am forced to provide for them. Poor people should either provide for themselves or force the Liberals to provide for them (without any help from conservatives ;).
Healthcare reform that seeks to trample upon both liberty and freedom is the antithesis of the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
SEC. 501. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
(a) In General- Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new part:
`PART VIII--HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES
`subpart a. tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
`Subpart A--Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage
`Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
`SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
`(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--
`(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
`(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
`(b) Limitations-
`(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the applicable national average premium for such taxable year.
`(B) APPLICABLE NATIONAL AVERAGE PREMIUM-
`(i) IN GENERAL- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the `applicable national average premium' means, with respect to any taxable year, the average premium (as determined by the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner) for self-only coverage under a basic plan which is offered in a Health Insurance Exchange for the calendar year in which such taxable year begins.
`(ii) FAILURE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL- In the case of any taxpayer who fails to meet the requirements of subsection (d) with respect to more than one individual during the taxable year, clause (i) shall be applied by substituting `family coverage' for `self-only coverage'.
I think it is fair to allow you an opportunity to evaluate the evidence I presented.
If those documents do not support my inference of the violation of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then we’ll debate my assertions.
I support you because you answer your own question about why it is I don't bother to back up my position. I can back up my position all day long and I will never get you to see my point of view. You will always think that your views are right, moral, and justifiable.
Yes, there was a time when I used to fight and got absolutely nowhere. Lets take the gay marriage issue for example. I have repeatedly stated that I am for gay marriage but that I did not believe that the current approach the gay community was taking was going to succeed. I suggested instead for them to get the government to drop the use of the word marriage and substitute civil union in its place. People bashed me and I was not able to change anyone's mind. Now, here we are and gay marriage proponents have been handed a hard blow in maine.
But OK, I'll give it one shot for old times sake.
What you want is to be able to force people to do what you think is right. If you think that Nationalized Health Care is right, then you want to force people into it.
What I want is the freedom for people to chose. If someone can't chose what they want because they can't afford it, they have no right to force me to pay for it. I don't care about the benefits I will be able to reap down the road. I don't ever want to be forced into something, period. Even if it's good for me.
The actual polls just last week Rasmussen polls show only 45% versus 52% appose. I just got that of the Rasmussen which is considered by most the most accurate. I don't know what poll you got 72% from? I think that the one may be skewed.
Someone needs to actually go the the CBO or CBC and pull what they said and what numbers they are giving back. that will add some smoke to the gun if what above is true.
Do you know at what time of day the polls were executed?
The source fails to provide that data. I mean if they were contacting welfare recipients and the un-employed during daytime working hours I could argue the poll is biased.
Polls have very little importance to me, when any.
I agree that that would be a fair argument, had the poll not asked about the salaries and social status of those questioned, which it did. One thing I did notice was a slightly larger number of people who voted for Obama, but also noticed (as a counter-balance) a larger number of people describing themselves as having conservative views.
"Polls have very little importance to me, when any."
I know I may have used it as a source, and I admit it was mainly show-boating on my part, but I agree with that completely. When you understand how easy it is to pose a question to be answered in the way you want it to be answered, polls (and referendums, for that matter) lose any real significance.
On reflection, I retract the poll and the argument made with it.
