DescentBB

Will Robinson wrote:I think the url for that link is going to look something like: slicks.rectum/pulledfromthere.yuk

I'll have to admit, that's pretty original.

To add to my earlier point about the 300,000 from Florida.

According to the CBO, up to 20 million people could lose their health insurance because the plan they are currently happy with (and Obama repeatedly promised they could keep) has been made illegal under ObamaCare. 

Waaait for it.

a look at the 'single payer conspiracy' theory::
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/2 ... conspiracy


also, I note that one Congressman in that hearing tried to use Woody's bogus number and got slapped down quick yesterday at those hearings.

And there it is.

SUBJECT CHANGE

Lol.....nailed!

um, a return to mention the original topic is a subject change? Really? Who knew?

Around here, anything that isn't in line with the resident paranoid delusions counts as "changing the subject."

CUDA wrote:To add to my earlier point about the 300,000 from Florida.

According to the CBO, up to 20 million people could lose their health insurance because the plan they are currently happy with (and Obama repeatedly promised they could keep) has been made illegal under ObamaCare. 

Waaait for it.

That was the sneaky gotcha that no one saw coming, although I had my suspicions 2 years ago and kept what I had. It turns out that if a person had made ANY changes to their plan, especially a change for a higher deductible, within the last 2 years, there was a 100% chance that they would've lost their insurance when the ACA was rolled out this year. I'm now willing to bet that within the next year, my present grandfathered plan will be dropped, because it is presently considerably cheaper than what I can get on the exchange, and I know my company likes to make more money off of me if they can. Like you say....."waaait for it".

Well, so far, I've found nothing to be upset about. Goes up 50 bucks for the gold plan if we quit smoking. The money rolls over and accumulates, all money I spend (except meds) goes towards deductible. I definitely prefer this over any kind of single-payer plan so let's see if it's sustainable or not.

well, gee-willikers! The Blue Cross rep was on Meet the Press and explained the 'cancellation' situation thusly: Cancellation notices, by law, have to be sent out when a policy contract is CHANGED, and no one who got those notices ever lost coverage. In the same notification packet, they were given up to 4 options as to which policy they chose to continue under, and at no time were cast out without coverage, nor were they going to lose coverage, unless THEY chose to stop. Another right-wing scare tactic debunked.

callmeslick wrote:well, gee-willikers! The Blue Cross rep was on Meet the Press and explained the 'cancellation' situation thusly: Cancellation notices, by law, have to be sent out when a policy contract is CHANGED, and no one who got those notices ever lost coverage. In the same notification packet, they were given up to 4 options as to which policy they chose to continue under, and at no time were cast out without coverage, nor were they going to lose coverage, unless THEY chose to stop. Another right-wing scare tactic debunked.

And the price was....?

And none of that stuff you pull out of the slick orifice of knowledge please.

That’s good to hear…but technically a change in policy is in fact a change in policy…where the president said we could keep them if we liked them, not...you will have to chose another.

Sure it’s a technical point…but still involves a lie. And I'm sure the price will increase due to the different coverage.

A quick Google search turns up this:

“The arithmetic is inescapable,” said Patrick Johnston, chief executive officer of the California Association of Health Plans. Costs must be spread, so while some consumers will see their premiums drop, others will pay more -- “no matter what people in Washington say.”

Health insurance experts say new prices will vary and much depends on where a person lives, their age and the type of policy they decide to buy. Some, including young people and those with skimpy or high-deductible plans, may see an increase. Others, including those with health problems or who buy coverage with higher deductibles than they have now, may see lower premiums.

Blue Shield of California sent roughly 119,000 cancellation notices out in mid-September, about 60 percent of its individual business. About two-thirds of those policyholders will see rate increases in their new policies, said spokesman Steve Shivinsky.

Like other insurers, the Blue Shield letters let customers know they have to make a decision by Dec. 31 or they will automatically be enrolled in a recommended plan.

Spidey wrote:Sure it’s a technical point…but still involves a lie.

GASP! A politician stretched the truth! ohnoes! We should probably abandon all our efforts to fix healthcare.

vision wrote:

Spidey wrote:Sure it’s a technical point…but still involves a lie.

GASP! A politician stretched the truth! ohnoes! We should probably abandon all our efforts to fix healthcare.

"

Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan. First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. (Applause.) Let me repeat this: Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.

It's how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it's time to give every American the same opportunity that we give ourselves.

First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future. (Applause.) I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize.

Now, add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years -- less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration.

Just a stretch.

It's how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it's time to give every American the same opportunity that we give ourselves.

Love this quote because they all opted out of the ACA

vision wrote:

Spidey wrote:Sure it’s a technical point…but still involves a lie.

GASP! A politician stretched the truth! ohnoes! We should probably abandon all our efforts to fix healthcare.

No it was a lie.

And no attempts have been made to fix “Healthcare” only Health Insurance, and the jury is gonna be out for a long time on that one.

And lying doesn’t help the credibility of Washington, nor does the disconnect between the public debate and the inside Washington debate…and then what actually ends up coming out of Washington.

Spidey wrote:

vision wrote:No it was a lie.

And no attempts have been made to fix “Healthcare” only Health Insurance, and the jury is gonna be out for a long time on that one.

Fixing health care includes fixing health insurance because they are currently inseparable, which sucks. I would go a step further and cap malpractice damages while we are at it, since that all plays into the big picture. And Obama didn't lie to me. I got the keep my plan with no change to cost or coverage. But yeah, it's going to take a long time before we know how this will all play out.

Health Insurance should not be all inclusive to ALL health care. We don't have that with car and home insurance. Small things we go out and pay for it on the open market, like painting the house or fixing something wrong with the car. Big things like disasters and accidents are what insurance is for. The medical industry needs revamping if Republicans want to go the "free market" route, because it's sure morphed into a disaster for the customer and a windfall for the healthcare insurance industry.

I think the thing that is really the barometer for how badly broken our system of healthcare is would be the number of bankruptcies that are filed because of medical expenses. In fact, the majority of all personal bankruptcies filed in the US are filed because of medical expenses, and the majority of those are filed from people who have medical insurance. Sure it sounds bad, but it isn't really your problem, or is it? Think about it a little more:

The way I see the future of the current medical system unfolding is at some point all these personal bankruptcies from medical expenses are going to ripple up the chain and we will begin to see it impact clinics and hospitals more significantly. First they will probably start consolidating into larger entities the remaining hospitals and clinics will absorb most or all of the loss of capacity with gains in efficiency. For quite a while things will actually look pretty good because of that and outlooks will also be optimistic, I mean we are always gaining more efficiency right? But as costs continue to rise and personal bankruptcies follow the costs, it will ever so slowly chip away at the foundations, not fast enough to raise any alarms. It will take time, but eventually the efficiency won't be able to keep up anymore (you can only physically heal from something so fast) and it will hit the S word: Shortage. What will crack first? Not enough beds/clinics for an aging population? Not enough supplies because some supplier didn't read demand correctly? Perhaps a particularly nasty flu season or an antibiotic resistant bacteria hits? (Actually it is impossible to really predict where it starts, the one that hits is always the one nobody saw coming in a complex system like this. You can just tell from the big picture that constantly rising costs are unsustainable.) Regardless of where it shorts, it is already too late; a system normally running at such high efficiency does not respond well and it makes costs abruptly spiral out of control. As an insured or probably healthy at the time consumer you might not even notice, nothing particularly newsworthy would seem to be going on that day. However, quietly, probably as software running on a bunch of computers, without anyone noticing the cycle has become a self reinforcing feedback loop of economic destruction. It doesn't hit the news till the volume of it all catches up to the insurance companies (which will likely be fully merged with the clinics and hospitals by then), which will not have the cash or assets to pay the bills. And that is where the federal government will be forced to get involved with yet another round of the biggest bailouts ever or the global recession that will already be in progress by then would quickly become the mother of all great depressions.

Does this scenario sound familiar perhaps?

ACA is not going to stop it either, at best it will delay it for a while. On our present course it will happen, it is just a question of when.

callmeslick wrote:well, gee-willikers! The Blue Cross rep was on Meet the Press and explained the 'cancellation' situation thusly: Cancellation notices, by law, have to be sent out when a policy contract is CHANGED, and no one who got those notices ever lost coverage. In the same notification packet, they were given up to 4 options as to which policy they chose to continue under, and at no time were cast out without coverage, nor were they going to lose coverage, unless THEY chose to stop. Another right-wing scare tactic debunked.

And if you cannot afford to pay twice what you were before, you won't be cast out?

vision wrote:

Spidey wrote:

vision wrote:No it was a lie.

And no attempts have been made to fix “Healthcare” only Health Insurance, and the jury is gonna be out for a long time on that one.

Fixing health care includes fixing health insurance because they are currently inseparable, which sucks. I would go a step further and cap malpractice damages while we are at it, since that all plays into the big picture. And Obama didn't lie to me. I got the keep my plan with no change to cost or coverage. But yeah, it's going to take a long time before we know how this will all play out.

Did you know that there are millions of people in this country that have insurance, and still go without care?

Let me explain my situation, I have no insurance, but I do have a chronic illness that requires me to spend a few thousand bucks a year in health care services. I pay about 1500 a year just on my bi-annual blood work.

Now, enter the ACA that will require me to get insurance that will cost me X thousands of dollars a year, but I will still have to pay for those ongoing expenses out of my pocket, because of the resetting deductible.

So in essence the insurance I will have to purchase will actually inhibit my ability to buy the health care I already need. Understand?

What some of you people with “thick skulls” don’t understand is this…I don’t need insurance…I need affordable health “care”! Get it?

and your income is such that you cannot get a subsidy that would allow you to get a better plan?? I see the scenario you present, but if you don't have insurance currently, I presume it can ONLY be because you don't have adequate resources(no other excuse in your situation), and, in that case, you are EXACTLY the sort of person this law ought to help. Can you provide details, as to income level, or at least WHY you aren't carrying insurance at present, because that makes ZERO sense.

I do not carry insurance right now because my immediate needs outweigh any possible future needs.

JEEZE...I thought I made that pretty clear.

Spidey wrote:I do not carry insurance right now because my immediate needs outweigh any possible future needs.

JEEZE...I thought I made that pretty clear.

those words are anything but clear......immediate needs, for what? If you don't have the money for immediate needs vs future needs to the extent that the money you mentioned is an issue, you should be eligible for Medicaid in PA, which wouldn't have the co-pay or the deductables at all. Now, I know, at one time, Corbit was refusing to expand the Medicaid cap up to 38K for an individual, so if he didn't, you might not be eligible. At any rate, NOT carrying insurance is VERY foolish.

As far as I know, Corbett just started looking into the Medicaid expansion a couple of weeks ago, so who knows when (or if) it'll actually happen. Medicaid was kind of a joke before this point: I tried to apply a year or two ago, and I was rejected because the most you were allowed to have in your combined bank accounts was all of $250. Which...yeah.

Top Gun wrote:As far as I know, Corbett just started looking into the Medicaid expansion a couple of weeks ago, so who knows when (or if) it'll actually happen. Medicaid was kind of a joke before this point: I tried to apply a year or two ago, and I was rejected because the most you were allowed to have in your combined bank accounts was all of $250. Which...yeah.

that cash limit may still be in place, but you should qualify for really generous subsidies on the non-Medicaid plans.

Will Robinson wrote:Ferno, the taxes and fees the IRS is the authority over are for income from wages and other sources of wealth acquisition...gift, capital gains, etc. etc.
Internal Revenue Service, a federal agency that has nation wide authority. That is federal tax. The punishment is carried out by a federal authority.

I'm already aware of that. They function almost identical to the CRA.

The FBI is a federal agency with the authority to enforce laws.

Federal laws, yes.

The Postal Inspectors office is a federal agency with the authority to enforce laws.

Only the laws they are empowered to enforce

The Treasury Department is a federal agency with the authority to enforce laws....etc. etc. etc. The list is long and they all have armed agents and they all can arrest you.

Only federal finance and tax laws.

And, the IRS is a federal agency with the authority to enforce laws.

The IRS has the power to impose civil penalties, not criminal law. There is a difference.

But stop dancing away from the points I raised.
Straight up, three main points:

*Do you believe, as I stated, the IRS can seize American citizens assets or property if they fail to pay their tax...federal tax...and the IRS has the authority to make that seizure without first prevailing in a court of law where the citizens have a chance to defend themselves?

This would fall under a civil manner, not federal law.

*Do you believe, as I stated, that the IRS is now the authority, as dictated in the ACA, to enforce the law and deliver the punishment if a citizen fails to comply with the federal governments rules as outlined in the ACA?

Unless there is a clause inside the ACA that supports this, I find it rather suspect. And if there was such a clause, it would make global headlines.

*Do you believe, as I stated, that the Supreme Court of the US has ruled that the penalty for not buying health care coverage as mandated by the ACA is a "tax, not a fine"?

No, I find this to land right in the middle of a conspiracy theory.

Because those three things are the truth. They are written into the US federal law.
They are easy for you to check for yourself if you don't want to believe me.
They are not, however, disproved by your confusing a repossession at a state court level with the enforcement of a federal tax by the IRS. Or are you grasping at straws because you just simply are in denial?

This is coming from a person who believes (in the face of evidence to the contrary) that a government site is somehow immune from human error.

By the way, what is taught in elementary school is that the Attorney General is the top policeman in the US. He works at the pleasure of the President and he is a political appointee. He is a member of the Presidents cabinet. He is very much the Federal "government" and he enforces the law every bit as much as a local policeman.

Then I suppose the Attorney General has similar responsibilities as a Commissioner

In fact he often tells the local police they have enforced it incorrectly and to stop doing it the way he doesn't like or else they risk his enforcing his authority over them!

I don't believe this for a second.

Are we done here? Or are you going to keep tossing mud at me? Everyone's seen you toss enough at me so far, and I haven't thrown any back. yet.

Ferno, the three points I singled out are true.
The Supreme Court ruling I cited is true.

(CNN) -- In its ruling last week on the national health care law, the Supreme Court found that penalties the law places on people who don't buy health insurance count as a tax protected by the Constitution.

The IRS's ability to seize property and assets is NOT a civil matter! If it was they would have to go to court BEFORE they call the bank and tell them to seal a citizens account.

Levy
A levy is a legal seizure of your property to satisfy a tax debt. Levies are different from liens. A lien is a claim used as security for the tax debt, while a levy actually takes the property to satisfy the tax debt.
If you do not pay your taxes (or make arrangements to settle your debt), the IRS may seize and sell any type of real or personal property that you own or have an interest in. For instance,
We could seize and sell property that you hold (such as your car, boat, or house), or
We could levy property that is yours but is held by someone else (such as your wages, retirement accounts, dividends, bank accounts, licenses, rental income, accounts receivables, the cash loan value of your life insurance, or commissions).
We usually levy only after these three requirements are met:
We assessed the tax and sent you a Notice and Demand for Payment;
You neglected or refused to pay the tax; and
We sent you a Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to A Hearing (levy notice) at least 30 days before the levy. We may give you this notice in person, leave it at your home or your usual place of business, or send it to your last known address by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested. Please note: if we levy your state tax refund, you may receive a Notice of Levy on Your State Tax Refund, Notice of Your Right to Hearing after the levy.
If a levy on your wages, bank account or other property is causing a hardship you should:
Contact the IRS at the telephone number on the levy or correspondence immediately and explain your financial situation. Service is available from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. local time, Monday through Friday.

Read about it here

Can the IRS actually take the assets? Initially they won't seize anything but they will apply the penalty and start charging interest. Then the taxpayer is in default of paying his taxes and all the weight of the IRS's enforcement becomes available to them to follow up with.

Unlike With Other Taxes, IRS Has Less Ability To Collect Penalty Payments2
“Section 5000A(g)(2) of the IRC limits the means the IRS may employ to collect the penalty established in the section. First, the taxpayer is protected from either criminal prosecution or penalty for failure to pay the penalty. Second, the IRS is prohibited from either filing a NFTL [notice of federal tax lien] or levying any property in an effort to collect the penalty.”

But IRS May Still Harass Americans, Impose Penalties, Charge Interest
“ There is no prohibition, however, on establishing a statutory lien against the taxpayer’s property under § 6321.

No additional limits are placed on the IRS using correspondence or phone calls, either through its own employees or through private collection agencies, in an effort to collect the amount owed. Additionally, no restriction was placed on the IRS’s ability to use the refund offset as a means of collecting the amount due. Those who are required to pay the penalty for failure to maintain minimum coverage but choose not to do so will be subject to increases in the amount owed due to interest and late payment penalties imposed on the penalty after it has been assessed by the IRS.

The IRS may impose interest on tax, including penalties, under § 6601(a), (e)(2), and it may impose penalties under § 6651(a)(3). A taxpayer who chooses not to pay the required penalty may ultimately forfeit more than the amount of the penalty if that taxpayer is ever in the position of having an overpayment to the IRS for any reason, since the refund offset applies not only to overpayments shown on original tax returns, but also to any subsequent adjustments, for example an audit by the IRS that results in an overpayment. Further, as explained above, it is possible that the IRS could present its claim when property is being sold and collect both the original penalty amount along with accrued interest and applicable penalties.
Millions of Americans Will Be Required to Give Personal Information To
The Secretary of HHS For Inclusion In A Federal Health Care Tax Database
“Among the information that is to be provided *to HHS+ is information regarding income and family size; the name, address, and employer identification number of the individual’s employer, if any; whether the individual is employed full time; whether the employer offers minimum essential coverage; and the cost of the cheapest health coverage options available from the employer and the employee’s required contribution.30”

The way it works is all the working stiffs who earn a paycheck with taxes deducted from their wages will see the penalty taken from their paycheck!

Then, the wealthy ones who don't get a standard paycheck will see the fines and interest start adding up and the IRS will have statutory liens in place so the credit and titles and deeds of the citizen are rendered useless until the fines and interest are paid. No borrowing, no credit lines, no selling of any property until the IRS gets its fines and interest....

And of course all that language about the IRS not enforcing the mandate has the disclaimer in the law that says it is completely up to the Secretary to continue holding back.....one email from her and the leash is removed completely.


Everything I said is true and verifiable. You can get all offended and call it mud slinging. I call it telling it like it is. What you do with it is on you....

The IRS's ability to seize property and assets is NOT a civil matter!

so you're telling all of us, that the IRS now has the power of federal law enforcement, and it's now a criminal offense to not pay into ACA...

I'm sorry.. I can't talk to you anymore. you've either become high as a kite, gone full on retard, been hit in the head, or all three.

Ferno wrote:The IRS has the power to impose civil penalties, not criminal law. There is a difference.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Criminal-Enforcement-1

Ferno wrote:

The IRS's ability to seize property and assets is NOT a civil matter!

so you're telling all of us, that the IRS now has the power of federal law enforcement, and it's now a criminal offense to not pay into ACA...

I'm sorry.. I can't talk to you anymore. you've either become high as a kite, gone full on retard, been hit in the head, or all three.

Im citing/linking federal law, mainstream media reports on Supreme Court rulings and US Federal Government/IRS web sites to supply you with the facts and you are relying on what exactly?!?

Here, click this then read it. It is a press release from the.....,wait for it.....Internal Revenue Service - Criminal Investigation Los Angeles Field Office


Pay special attention to the end where it has this part:

The investigation and prosecution of Chavez was conducted by IRS Criminal Investigation’s Los Angeles Field Office, in conjunction with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California.

Then tell me that the IRS isn't federal...that they don't enforce federal law....etc.

Here read more!,, then climb carefully of that high horse before you fall and hurt yourself! Because If anyone is high it is you