Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 51

Thread: White House Launches Web Site to Battle Health Care 'Rumors'

  1. #41
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: White House Launches Web Site to Battle Health Care 'Rumors'

    illegals covered by waxman/rangel per the failure of HELLER in rangel's ways and means, july 16

    Newsmax.com - Obama Health Plan to Cover 12 Million Illegals

  2. #42
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,226

    Re: White House Launches Web Site to Battle Health Care 'Rumors'

    Quote Originally Posted by sam_w View Post
    Well if there is a specific point of contention, point it out and dispute it. Show your sources, credible ones at that. But you now fall right into the same group as Palin, Beck, and co. and being capable of only telling lies, but not refuting them. Is there anything equal to Kill Granny and Big Govt. will be accessing your checking account? Euthanasia, govt. will decide who gets treatment, illegals will free healthcare, everyone will lose their coverage, and other nonsense.
    A point of contention? With a supporting source? Credible ones, at that? No ****? This has certainly been a Monday; broke a winch line, blowed out a tire, broke a tie-rod end, lost a load, pissed off one of my pards over nothing and cut off a finger, again. But, it's posts like this make it all ok.

    Here's my problem. I don't believe that I should be forced to pay all this money, just to keep the welfare class in insurance. They already have damn medicare and medicaid that I'm paying for. Enough is-a-goddamn-enough.

    As it stands, now, I will owe the government somewhere around $14,000 a year, aside from the rest of my expenses, fees and taxes. That's just nuts.

    Anyone who owns a small business, or works for a small business should be very concerned about this bill. This is going to cost more jobs.

    SEC. 411. ELECTION TO SATISFY HEALTH COVERAGE PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS.
    (a) In General- Chapter 43 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
    `SEC. 4980H. ELECTION WITH RESPECT TO HEALTH COVERAGE PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS.
    `(a) Election of Employer Responsibility To Provide Health Coverage-
    `(1) IN GENERAL- Subsection (b) shall apply to any employer with respect to whom an election under paragraph (2) is in effect.
    `(2) TIME AND MANNER- An employer may make an election under this paragraph at such time and in such form and manner as the Secretary may prescribe.
    `(3) AFFILIATED GROUPS- In the case of any employer which is part of a group of employers who are treated as a single employer under subsection (b), (c), (m), or (o) of section 414, the election under paragraph (2) shall be made by such person as the Secretary may provide. Any such election, once made, shall apply to all members of such group.
    `(4) SEPARATE ELECTIONS- Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, separate elections may be made under paragraph (2) with respect to–
    `(A) separate lines of business, and
    `(B) full-time employees and employees who are not full-time employees.
    `(5) TERMINATION OF ELECTION IN CASES OF SUBSTANTIAL NONCOMPLIANCE- The Secretary may terminate the election of any employer under paragraph (2) if the Secretary (in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner) determines that such employer is in substantial noncompliance with the health coverage participation requirements.
    `(b) Excise Tax With Respect to Failure To Meet Health Coverage Participation Requirements-
    `(1) IN GENERAL- In the case of any employer who fails (during any period with respect to which the election under subsection (a) is in effect) to satisfy the health coverage participation requirements with respect to any employee to whom such election applies, there is hereby imposed on each such failure with respect to each such employee a tax of $100 for each day in the period beginning on the date such failure first occurs and ending on the date such failure is corrected.
    `(2) LIMITATIONS ON AMOUNT OF TAX-
    `(A) TAX NOT TO APPLY WHERE FAILURE NOT DISCOVERED EXERCISING REASONABLE DILIGENCE- No tax shall be imposed by paragraph (1) on any failure during any period for which it is established to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the employer neither knew, nor exercising reasonable diligence would have known, that such failure existed.
    `(B) TAX NOT TO APPLY TO FAILURES CORRECTED WITHIN 30 DAYS- No tax shall be imposed by paragraph (1) on any failure if–
    `(i) such failure was due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect, and
    `(ii) such failure is corrected during the 30-day period beginning on the 1st date that the employer knew, or exercising reasonable diligence would have known, that such failure existed.
    `(C) OVERALL LIMITATION FOR UNINTENTIONAL FAILURES- In the case of failures which are due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect, the tax imposed by subsection (a) for failures during the taxable year of the employer shall not exceed the amount equal to the lesser of–
    `(i) 10 percent of the aggregate amount paid or incurred by the employer (or predecessor employer) during the preceding taxable year for employment-based health plans, or
    `(ii) $500,000.

    SEC. 412. RESPONSIBILITIES OF NONELECTING EMPLOYERS.
    (a) In General- Section 3111 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d) and by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:
    `(c) Employers Electing to Not Provide Health Benefits-
    `(1) IN GENERAL- In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every nonelecting employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to 8 percent of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b)).
    `(2) SPECIAL RULES FOR SMALL EMPLOYERS-
    `(A) IN GENERAL- In the case of any employer who is small employer for any calendar year, paragraph (1) shall be applied by substituting the applicable percentage determined in accordance with the following table for `8 percent’:
    ———————————————————————————————————————
    ———————————————————————————————————————
    `If the annual payroll of such employer for the preceding calendar year: The applicable percentage is:
    Does not exceed $250,000 0 percent
    Exceeds $250,000, but does not exceed $300,000 2 percent
    Exceeds $300,000, but does not exceed $350,000 4 percent
    Exceeds $350,000, but does not exceed $400,000 6 percent

    ———————————————————————————————————————
    `(B) SMALL EMPLOYER- For purposes of this paragraph, the term `small employer’ means any employer for any calendar year if the annual payroll of such employer for the preceding calendar year does not exceed $400,000.
    `(C) ANNUAL PAYROLL- For purposes of this paragraph, the term `annual payroll’ means, with respect to any employer for any calendar year, the aggregate wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b)) during such calendar year.
    `(3) NONELECTING EMPLOYER- For purposes of paragraph (1), the term `nonelecting employer’ means any employer for any period with respect to which such employer does not have an election under section 4980H(a) in effect.
    `(4) SPECIAL RULE FOR SEPARATE ELECTIONS- In the case of an employer who makes a separate election described in section 4980H(a)(4) for any period, paragraph (1) shall be applied for such period by taking into account only the wages paid to employees who are not subject to such election.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: White House Launches Web Site to Battle Health Care 'Rumors'

    Let's paraphrase, so those with partisan goggles on can better see things for what they are.

    White House practices free speech and answers critics of health care reform. -- that's the story, right? That's the BREAKING NEWS story. That the WH is putting information on the internet for people to evaluate. This thread seems to be about the fact that they are doing this. Answering questions. Answering their critics. Exercising, what is called again...? Oh, yeah... Free speech.

    Goddamn them and their free speech!! How dare they respond to critics in a thoughtful and appropriate way. Bastards!

    And guess what, Vicchio, we are all free to research, read, and fact check on our own. Of course the WH is making a hard sell, but when you go to any legitimate, non-partisan fact check site on the internet, you'll see that there are pros and cons to the bill.

    But how can we make up our own minds when Rush has already told us what to think!

    But, hell, let's just yell and scream out as many talking points until they give up and go home. Free speech, right?

    If you lie loud enough, it becomes true. It's even better if you do it for 4 hours a day on AM radio.

  4. #44
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,226

    Re: White House Launches Web Site to Battle Health Care 'Rumors'

    None of the Libbos dare address the info I posted. Should I be at all surprised by that?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  5. #45
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: White House Launches Web Site to Battle Health Care 'Rumors'

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Does Gay Marriage require the Govt to spend tons of money?

    Nope. So I could really care less.

    Abortion is a diff matter I won't let you drag this into, NICE TRY THOUGH.
    I wasn't trying to "drag you in"....I was honestly just curious how you felt about those particular issues. Its always an interesting dichotomy for many people. In the same way as Abortion and Capital Punishment often present conflicting ethical issues.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  6. #46
    Professor
    formerroadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    06-23-10 @ 08:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,014

    Re: White House Launches Web Site to Battle Health Care 'Rumors'

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    A point of contention? With a supporting source? Credible ones, at that? No ****? This has certainly been a Monday; broke a winch line, blowed out a tire, broke a tie-rod end, lost a load, pissed off one of my pards over nothing and cut off a finger, again. But, it's posts like this make it all ok.

    Here's my problem. I don't believe that I should be forced to pay all this money, just to keep the welfare class in insurance. They already have damn medicare and medicaid that I'm paying for. Enough is-a-goddamn-enough.

    As it stands, now, I will owe the government somewhere around $14,000 a year, aside from the rest of my expenses, fees and taxes. That's just nuts.

    Anyone who owns a small business, or works for a small business should be very concerned about this bill. This is going to cost more jobs.
    Wow. Thanks for showing us your valued and oh so complex cards. Amazing. I would love to see how the bill is bad for small business. Seems to be something that people shrill about, but I've yet to see solid evidence that lowering health care prices would hurt small businesses.

    How is it going to cost more jobs exactly? You see, Sam asked you for specifics but all you did was tell us about your bad day and then whine. When you have evidence for your shrill cries of wolf, let us know.

    Lastly, by saying there is a "welfare class," you also show your disdain for the poor. It's obvious that you have the false point of view that they all have the straps to pull up on their boots.

    Do you not have a house, food on your table, luxuries? I get tired of American's whining about how rich they are because they never realize how much they truly are rich.
    Last edited by formerroadie; 08-11-09 at 12:38 AM.
    It's time for a revolution in our country. Not a revolution forged with guns and bombs but a revolution forged of compassion and altruism. A revolution that extends a hand to those who don't have and who cannot. A revolution that makes Health Care available to all those in the US.

  7. #47
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: White House Launches Web Site to Battle Health Care 'Rumors'

    If this health care plan was so great then why isn't every single politician that is wanting it guaranteeing that they will join it as soon as it is passed? I think that alone would sway a lot of people.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  8. #48
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,226

    Re: White House Launches Web Site to Battle Health Care 'Rumors'

    Quote Originally Posted by formerroadie View Post
    Wow. Thanks for showing us your valued and oh so complex cards. Amazing. I would love to see how the bill is bad for small business. Seems to be something that people shrill about, but I've yet to see solid evidence that lowering health care prices would hurt small businesses.

    How is it going to cost more jobs exactly? You see, Sam asked you for specifics but all you did was tell us about your bad day and then whine. When you have evidence for your shrill cries of wolf, let us know.

    Lastly, by saying there is a "welfare class," you also show your disdain for the poor. It's obvious that you have the false point of view that they all have the straps to pull up on their boots.

    Do you not have a house, food on your table, luxuries? I get tired of American's whining about how rich they are because they never realize how much they truly are rich.
    You didn't even read the two sections that I posted, or you don't have a clue about what you read, or how businesses work. Which is it?

    What do you do for a living and how much money do you make? Please, tell me you're not another punk kid that doesn't work and has even less experience about how thing work in the real world.

    I come from a family of 12. My mom was a secretary and my dad was an oilfield hand, so spare me the downtrodden po' folks BS. Fair enough?
    Last edited by apdst; 08-11-09 at 12:50 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  9. #49
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: White House Launches Web Site to Battle Health Care 'Rumors'

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    I wasn't trying to "drag you in"....I was honestly just curious how you felt about those particular issues. Its always an interesting dichotomy for many people. In the same way as Abortion and Capital Punishment often present conflicting ethical issues.
    Okay, that' different then.

    I think the Feds should say out of both.

    If Cali want Steve and Adam to marry, aces. If they think 12 year old girls should get abortions without telling Mom and Dad, well that's Cali's business.

    However, that also mean if Texas rejects those two.. it should be left alone.

    Abortion and Capital Punishment aren't even in the same ball bark... it only causes problems for those with built in guilt complexes.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  10. #50
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: White House Launches Web Site to Battle Health Care 'Rumors'

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Okay, that' different then.

    I think the Feds should say out of both.

    If Cali want Steve and Adam to marry, aces. If they think 12 year old girls should get abortions without telling Mom and Dad, well that's Cali's business.

    However, that also mean if Texas rejects those two.. it should be left alone.

    Abortion and Capital Punishment aren't even in the same ball bark... it only causes problems for those with built in guilt complexes.
    I can understand your position. The problem that it presents for me is that when you have different standards for different states it complicates things. If Steve and Adam get married in California and move to Colorado...all of a sudden they aren't married? But Dick and Jane can move to Colorado and still be married? Seems like an equal protection problem to me.

    Same thing with abortion. Making it legal in one state and illegal in another doesn't affect the woman who can afford to travel to another state to have an abortion, but it does affect those who can't.

    Seems to me that it should either be illegal or not.


    As for abortion and capital punishment not being in the same league. I guess it all depends on how you interpret "thou shalt not kill" if you are at all religious. Certainly in Capital Punishment you are killing a human being. In abortion, if you believe that life as a human being begins at birth than you are killing as well. Either way you are killing if you accept that premise. Not exactly different ball parks.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •