Merged USA healthcare reform articles

boyntonstu

Banned
B
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
908
Democrats' Plan to Help 'Uninsurables' Requires 6-Month Wait

The Truth from FOX News.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/05/democrats-plan-help-uninsurables-questioned/

WASHINGTON - You're afraid your cancer is back, and a health insurance company just turned you down.

Under the health care bills in Congress, you could apply for coverage through a new high-risk pool that President Barack Obama promises would immediately start serving patients with pre-existing medical problems.
Wait a second. Read the fine print. You may have to be uninsured for six months to qualify.
 
And before the flood of "zomg fox news can't tell the truth!@!1eleventy" posts, please click on the link: it's written by the AP.

And they never lie, right? ;)
 
Newtons Bit said:
And before the flood of "zomg fox news can't tell the truth!@!1eleventy" posts,
Click to expand...

The OP says "The Truth from FOX News."

Not my fault if that's a stupid thing to say.

please click on the link: it's written by the AP.
Click to expand...

Which makes the statement "The Truth from FOX News" that much more stupid.

And they never lie, right? ;)
Click to expand...

The AP headline for this article is rather different. I wonder why...
 
If you are uninsurable, doesn't that sort of imply that you're uninsured?

A more substantive criticism is that the plan is underfunded:

Now, concerns are being raised about the design of the high-risk pools. In addition to the six-month wait, there's a more fundamental issue -- whether $5 billion set aside for the three-year program is enough. The money would be used to help people in poor health pay premiums.

Obama credits his Republican presidential rival, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, for the risk-pools idea. But when the GOP candidate proposed it in 2008, the estimated cost was $7 billion to $10 billion a year.
Click to expand...
 
Cleon said:
The AP headline for this article is rather different. I wonder why...
Click to expand...
Does the AP write headlines? I thought they just submit the story, and the editors of the various news outlets write the headline. So you can have multiple different headlines for the same story.
 
And now most of the comments on this thread are about the behavior of Fox News.

Oops. :o
 
With competing health plans preexisting conditions is difficult to tackle. Assume I don't have health care and I find out I have AIDS (a rather expensive condition). Is it fair for me to then sign up for a plan that pays my healthcare? Or if I switch plans based on the other plan paying a higher lifetime maximum or lower duductible.

If this is allowed, then wouldn't quite a lot of financially savvy people sign up for the cheapest plan (assuming they had to) and if something catastropic comes up they then switch plans to one that pays much more of the cost? What is to stop everyone from doing this?

I think the best solution to this dilemma is one national health care plan. This resolves the preexisting conditions problem. It also resolves uninsurable problems and makes a 6 month waiting period moot.

Plus, it very well could be cheaper than our current system. Other industrialized nations pay FAR LESS per person in coverage than we do. Many times half or even a third of what we average. And they get similar outcomes in regards to life expectancy and waits to see doctors.
 
Pay Pelosi Health Care Tax or go to Jail!

Pay Pelosi Health Care Tax or go to Jail!

http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/06/committee-confirms-comply-with-pelosi-care-or-go-to-jail/


Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
 
and what is the penalty if someone does not get health insurance, and then sticks the tax payers with $50,000 in emergency room bills?????
 
parky76 said:
and what is the penalty if someone does not get health insurance, and then sticks the tax payers with $50,000 in emergency room bills?????
Click to expand...

They don't stick the tax payer right now. They stick every other consumer at that hospital. Moving the burden from the individual hospital to the nation as a large evens things out a bit.

However, the OP in this is a bit misleading. If choose NOT to get health insurance, you must pay an additional excise tax (this is the thing that Obama said wasn't a tax). If you don't pay THAT tax, then you can go to jail.

It's not a big issue. Pay your taxes people.
 
Newtons Bit said:
They don't stick the tax payer right now. They stick every other consumer at that hospital. Moving the burden from the individual hospital to the nation as a large evens things out a bit.

However, the OP in this is a bit misleading. If choose NOT to get health insurance, you must pay an additional excise tax (this is the thing that Obama said wasn't a tax). If you don't pay THAT tax, then you can go to jail.

It's not a big issue. Pay your taxes people.
Click to expand...


Perhaps yes, perhaps no.

The prosecution dropped its allegations of tax evasion (on which the law provides a maximum prison term of five years)[7] against Cryer on July 9, 2007. Cryer was then tried on two counts of willful failure to file tax returns, for which the maximum jail sentence is one year in prison.[8]

Cryer was acquitted on July 11, 2007.[9] Cryer did not make any of his arguments about the legality of the income tax to the jury itself. Instead he asserted that he really did not believe that he owed the taxes, so there was no criminal intent. According to the New Hampshire Union Leader:

Cryer convinced jurors that he genuinely believed he was not liable for the $73,000 in taxes the government says he owes for tax years 2000 and 2001. Absent proof of criminal intent, the jury acquitted him.[10]

Cryer's 2009 Tax Court case

In 2009, Cryer's federal tax problems continued. On April 2, 2009, Cryer filed a petition in the United States Tax Court. Cryer's petition includes a copy of three statutory notices of deficiency issued by the Internal Revenue Service, all dated January 5, 2009, in which the IRS asserts that Cryer owes $1,719,436.71 in taxes and penalties for the years 1993 through 2001.

The IRS asserts that Cryer owes $848,806.00 in Federal income tax plus $615,384.37 in section 6651(f) penalties for fraudulent failure to file tax returns, $212,201.50 in section 6651(a)(2) penalties for failure to timely pay the taxes, and $43,044.84 in section 6654 penalties for failure to timely pay estimated taxes.[15]

Cryer's statement in the petition, in explanation of why he disagrees with the IRS determination, is: "The amount of the claimed deficiency is disputed. The correct amount is $0.00." Cryer has requested that the trial be held in New Orleans. No trial date has yet been set.[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cryer#Cryer_files_motions_to_dismiss_tax_evasion_charges

Don't hold your breath until a trial date is set.

I hope that the IRS will take him to trial because if they lose, game over.
 
boyntonstu said:
The Truth from FOX News.
Click to expand...

I didn't get past this part.

That's the problem with blowing a reputation. After it's gone, no one takes you seriously.

And that goes for anyone quoting that source as well. When a thread starts out with a quote from Fox News, I pretty much write it off.

ETA: I did read the AP link. Yeah, there are problems with the bill. There will be problems with any bill. Laws and sausages and all that.
 
Last edited:
Lurker said:
With competing health plans preexisting conditions is difficult to tackle. Assume I don't have health care and I find out I have AIDS (a rather expensive condition). Is it fair for me to then sign up for a plan that pays my healthcare? Or if I switch plans based on the other plan paying a higher lifetime maximum or lower duductible.

If this is allowed, then wouldn't quite a lot of financially savvy people sign up for the cheapest plan (assuming they had to) and if something catastropic comes up they then switch plans to one that pays much more of the cost? What is to stop everyone from doing this?

I think the best solution to this dilemma is one national health care plan. This resolves the preexisting conditions problem. It also resolves uninsurable problems and makes a 6 month waiting period moot.

Plus, it very well could be cheaper than our current system. Other industrialized nations pay FAR LESS per person in coverage than we do. Many times half or even a third of what we average. And they get similar outcomes in regards to life expectancy and waits to see doctors.
Click to expand...

Countries like Holland and France have tackled this with a risk equalization pool. In Holland, people pay about half of their health care premiums directly to the insurer, and the other half through the tax office. The tax office then distributes it to the insurers, based on the risk profile of their client database. The algorithm to distribute it works very well.

Whenever I read these threads, I get the definite impression that the US politicians try to reinvent the wheel, oblivious of what other nations have done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom