Pelosicare DeMystified...Discussion and Clarification Please - HELP!!!

[WhiskeyGirl]

I found the House bill here – http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

I have a question from page 9, can anyone help?

3 (1) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.—The term ‘‘ac
4  ceptable coverage’’ has the meaning given such term
5  in section 302(d)(2).

I looked up section 302, it is on page 1781 and is titled “3 ‘‘SEC. 302. SANITATION FACILITIES”

On page 1785, I found subsection “(d)” –

22 ‘‘(d) CERTAIN CAPABILITIES NOT PREREQUISITE.—
23 The financial and technical capability of an Indian Tribe,
24 Tribal Organization, or Indian community to safely oper
25  ate, manage, and maintain a sanitation facility shall not

VerDate Nov 24 2008 10:05 Oct 29, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 01785 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\AHCAA_001.XML HOLCPC
October 29, 2009 (10:05 a.m.)
F:\P11\NHI\TRICOMM\AHCAA_001.XML
f:\VHLC\102909\102909.022.xml (453769|4)

1786

1 be a prerequisite to the provision or construction of sanita
2 tion facilities by the Secretary.

This section relates to sanitary, plumbing, waste facilities for American Indian Tribes, Organizations, and Communities.

Where is the definition of acceptable coverage?

Did I miss something? 

Reading bills is not my expertise… 

[WhiskeyGirl]

Also from page 9 –

6 (2) BASIC PLAN.—The term ‘‘basic plan’’ has
7 the meaning given such term in section 303(c).

From page 1792 –

3 ‘‘SEC. 303. PREFERENCE TO INDIANS AND INDIAN FIRMS.
4 ‘‘(a) BUY INDIAN ACT.—The Secretary, acting
5 through the Service, may use the negotiating authority of
6 section 23 of the Act of June 25, 1910 (25 U.S.C. 47,
7 commonly known as the ‘Buy Indian Act’), to give pref
8 erence to any Indian or any enterprise, partnership, cor
9 poration, or other type of business organization owned and
10 controlled by an Indian or Indians including former or
11 currently federally recognized Indian Tribes in the State
12 of New York (hereinafter referred to as an ‘Indian firm’)
13 in the construction and renovation of Service facilities pur
14 suant to section 301 and in the construction of sanitation
15 facilities pursuant to section 302.

Section 303 = Basic Plan  or Preference to Indians and Indian Firms?

Why are Indian tribes formerly or currently recognized by the State of New York singled out? 

Is this an earmark?  Is this a special interest group?  Why would some no longer be recognized?

15 ‘‘(c) LABOR STANDARDS.—For the purposes of im
16 plementing the provisions of this title, contracts for the
17 construction or renovation of health care facilities, staff
18 quarters, and sanitation facilities, and related support in
19 frastructure, funded in whole or in part with funds made
20 available pursuant to this title, shall contain a provision
21 requiring compliance with subchapter IV of chapter 31 of
22 title 40, United States Code (commonly known as the
23 ‘Davis-Bacon Act’).

A union giveaway?  (40 U.S.C. 276a–276a-5, known as the
14 Davis-Bacon Act)?

Non-union firms need not apply?

[WhiskeyGirl]

From page 9 –

8 (3) COMMISSIONER.—The term ‘‘Commis
9 sioner’’ means the Health Choices Commissioner es
10 tablished under section 241.

From page 131 –

14 Subtitle E—Governance
15 SEC. 241. HEALTH CHOICES ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH
16 CHOICES COMMISSIONER.
17 (a) IN GENERAL.—There is hereby established, as an
18 independent agency in the executive branch of the Govern
19 ment, a Health Choices Administration (in this division
20 referred to as the ‘‘Administration’’).
21 (b) COMMISSIONER.—
22 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Administration shall be
23 headed by a Health Choices Commissioner (in this
24 division referred to as the ‘‘Commissioner’’) who

VerDate Nov 24 2008 10:05 Oct 29, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\AHCAA_001.XML HOLCPC
October 29, 2009 (10:05 a.m.)
F:\P11\NHI\TRICOMM\AHCAA_001.XML
f:\VHLC\102909\102909.022.xml (453769|4)

132

1 shall be appointed by the President, by and with the
2 advice and consent of the Senate.

This makes sense.

[WhiskeyGirl]

From page 9 –

11 (4) COST-SHARING.—The term ‘‘cost-sharing’’
12 includes deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, and
13 similar charges, but does not include premiums, bal
14 ance billing amounts for non-network providers, or
15 spending for non-covered services.

Balance billing, is it good for participants?  What if most providers in your area are non-network providers?  Choose not to participate? 

What if the government plan, like Medicare/Medicaid/Other start increasing the lists of non-covered services?   

Is this how Pelosicare will save money?  Just conclude through political manipulation that some services are non-covered?

What is balance billing?

Balance billing under Medicare: protecting beneficiaries and preserving physician participation.
Colby DC, Rice T, Bernstein J, Nelson L.
University of California at Los Angeles, USA.
Medicare's experience with balance billing provides valuable lessons for policy making for national or state health care reform. Medicare developed several policies to encourage physicians to become participating providers who accept Medicare-allowed charges as payment in full. Only nonparticipating physicians are permitted to bill for additional amounts beyond that paid by Medicare, and there are limits on the amount of balance billing per claim. As shown by the analysis of claims presented in this article, Medicare has successfully provided financial protection to beneficiaries. In 1986, more than 60 percent of expenditures for physician services were on assigned claims for which there could be no balance billing; by 1990, 80 percent of expenditures were on assigned claims. Balance billing decreased by about 30 percent during the same period. Although these policies have been successful in reducing total expenditures for balance billing, they may not provide financial protection to the most economically vulnerable beneficiaries. Using survey and claims data, we found that the poor have lower balance billing expenditures for services provided by primary care physicians, but that there is no relationship between poverty status and balance billing expenditures for services of nonprimary care physicians. In addition, most low-income beneficiaries are liable for balance bills. Under health care reform, adoption of Medicare's incentive-based approach with mandatory assignment for the poor would allow for some choice based on price and would provide financial protection for all consumers.

From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7738321

There are many services that are not covered.  One example that comes to mind is related to chiropractic care.  If you’re unlucky, lots of care is not covered and must be paid for by seniors.  Private insurance often covers the same service.

If the Medicare/Medicaid approved reimbursement rate is only say $50 for a procedure that the provider bills $500, who makes up the difference under balance billing?  The recipient.

How many complaints does Medicare/Medicaid currently receive about balance billing?

How much will balance billing cost consumers when they are forced onto the government plans?

[WhiskeyGirl]

Coverage for illegal aliens, foreign visitors, and people not citizen or here legally –

Where does it ensure that illegal aliens and foreigners are excluded?

I see lots of ways they WILL be included.

From page 302 –

“9 SEC. 302. EXCHANGE-ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS AND EMPLOY10
ERS.”

This section seems to include individuals that are Medicaid eligible.  In Wisconsin there is a Medicaid program that covers illegal aliens.   So, illegal aliens will continue to be covered forever?  Always eligible?

Same with the children of illegal aliens?  Other dependents?

There is also a grandfathering inclusion.  If you’re here illegally, and you have some kind of existing insurance coverage, you’ll just be grandfathered in?

 
Page 225

17 Subtitle C—Individual
18 Affordability Credits
19 SEC. 341. AVAILABILITY THROUGH HEALTH INSURANCE EX
20 CHANGE.

Page 228

14 (4) APPLICATION AND VERIFICATION OF RE
15 QUIREMENT OF CITIZENSHIP OR LAWFUL PRESENCE
16 IN THE UNITED STATES.—
17 (A) REQUIREMENT.—No individual shall
18 be an affordable credit eligible individual (as
19 defined in section 342(a)(1)) unless the indi
20 vidual is a citizen or national of the United
21 States or is lawfully present in a State in the
22 United States (other than as a nonimmigrant
23 described in a subparagraph (excluding sub
24 paragraphs (K), (T), (U), and (V)) of section

229

1 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality
2 Act).

I looked up section 101(a)(15) sub paragraphs (K), (T), (U), and (V) before –

101(a)(15)(K) subject to subsections (d) and (p) of section 214, an alien who--

101(a)(15)(K)(i) is the fiancÉe or fiancÉ of a citizen of the United States and who seeks to enter the United States solely to conclude a valid marriage with the petitioner within ninety days after admission;

101(a)(15)(K)(ii) has concluded a valid marriage with a citizen of the United States who is the petitioner, is the beneficiary of a petition to accord a status under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) that was filed under section 204 by the petitioner, and seeks to enter the United States to await the approval of such petition and the availability to the alien of an immigrant visa; or

101(a)(15)(K)(iii) is the minor child of an alien described in clause (i) or (ii) and is accompanying, or following to join, the alien; Leg Hist

101(a)(15)(T)

101(a)(15)(T)(i) subject to section 214(o), an alien who the Attorney General determines—

101(a)(15)(T)(i)(I) is or has been a victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons, as defined in section 103 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000,

101(a)(15)(T)(i)(II) is physically present in the United States, American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or at a port of entry thereto, on account of such trafficking,

101(a)(15)(T)(i)(III)

101(a)(15)(T)(i)(III)(aa) has complied with any reasonable request for assistance in the investigation or prosecution of acts of trafficking, or

101(a)(15)(T)(i)(III)(bb) has not attained 18 years of age, and

101(a)(15)(T)(i)(IV) the alien would suffer extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm upon removal; and

101(a)(15)(T)(ii) if the Attorney General considers it necessary to avoid extreme hardship—

101(a)(15)(T)(ii)(I) in the case of an alien described in clause (i) who is under 21 years of age, the spouse, children, unmarried siblings under 18 years of age on the date on which such alien applied for status under such clause, and parents of such alien; and

101(a)(15)(T)(ii)(II) in the case of an alien described in clause (i) who is 21 years of age or older, the spouse and children of such alien,

if accompanying, or following to join, the alien described in clause (i);

101(a)(15)(U)

101(a)(15)(U)(i) subject to section 214(p), an alien who files a petition for status under this subparagraph, if the Attorney General determines that

101(a)(15)(U)(i)(I) the alien has suffered substantial physical or mental abuse as a result of having been a victim of criminal activity described in clause (iii);

101(a)(15)(U)(i)(II) the alien (or in the case of an alien child under the age of 16, the parent, guardian, or next friend of the alien) possesses information concerning criminal activity described in clause (iii);

101(a)(15)(U)(i)(III) the alien (or in the case of an alien child under the age of 16, the parent, guardian, or next friend of the alien) has been helpful, is being helpful, or is likely to be helpful to a Federal, State, or local law enforcement official, to a Federal, State, or local prosecutor, to a Federal or State judge, to the Service, or to other Federal, State, or local authorities investigating or prosecuting criminal activity described in clause (iii); and

101(a)(15)(U)(i)(IV) the criminal activity described in clause (iii) violated the laws of the United States or occurred in the United States (including in Indian country and military installations) or the territories and possessions of the United States;

101(a)(15)(U)(ii) if the Attorney General considers it necessary to avoid extreme hardship to the spouse, the child, or, in the case of an alien child, the parent of the alien described in clause (i), the Attorney General may also grant status under this paragraph based upon certification of a government official listed in clause (i)(III) that an investigation or prosecution would be harmed without the assistance of the spouse, the child, or, in the case of an alien child, the parent of the alien; and

101(a)(15)(U)(iii) the criminal activity referred to in this clause is that involving one or more of the following or any similar activity in violation of Federal, State, or local criminal law: rape; torture; trafficking; incest; domestic violence; sexual assault; abusive sexual contact; prostitution; sexual exploitation; female genital mutilation; being held hostage; peonage; involuntary servitude; slave trade; kidnapping; abduction; unlawful criminal restraint; false imprisonment; blackmail; extortion; manslaughter; murder; felonious assault; witness tampering; obstruction of justice; perjury; or attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit any of the above mentioned crimes; or

101(a)(15)(V) subject to section 214(q), an alien who is the beneficiary (including a child of the principal alien, if eligible to receive a visa under section 203(d)) of a petition to accord a status under section 203(a)(2)(A) that was filed with the Attorney General under section 204 on or before the date of the enactment of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, if—

101(a)(15)(V)(i) such petition has been pending for 3 years or more; or

101(a)(15)(V)(ii) such petition has been approved, 3 years or more have elapsed since such filing date, and--

101(a)(15)(V)(ii)(I) an immigrant visa is not immediately available to the alien because of a waiting list of applicants for visas under section 203(a)(2)(A); or

101(a)(15)(V)(ii)(II) the alien's application for an immigrant visa, or the alien's application for adjustment of status under section 245, pursuant to the approval of such petition, remains pending.

This looks like the Attorney General just waves his wand and grants those here illegally access to all the healthcare benefits.

Is this the front or side door to illegal immigrants qualifying for the public plan? 

What if they are employed outside of the tax system?  No way to verify their income?

Does this allow the Attorney General to wave a magic wand in the future and let everyone who comes here illegally apply?

How will there ever be enough money for this public plan?  More and more folks get 'credits', higher and higher taxes for folks who report their income.

How is Obama planning on paying for this?  Stopping the flood of immigrants who will likely come here for free healthcare, and bring their families?

There have been surveys to suggest that amnesty will INCREASE the number of people coming and staying in the US illegally. 

What happens when illegal immigration is say 5 million a year and they all expect welfare, food share, and healthcare?

How are Pelosi and Obama planning to pay for this?

Who is going to pay going forward? 

[WhiskeyGirl]

I sometimes feel negative when I post.  I think you could do a lot to make the healthcare system better. 

I believe strongly that people need to participate in PAYING for their PERSONAL care and take responsibility for the care received by their families.

Healthcare isn't FREE.  Someone has to pay. 

People should take care of there daily and basic healthcare needs.  In the past, I've known many who have worked to provide healthcare for their families - it was considered a responsibility NOT a right.

People in the US have lots of access, and the ability to rack up medical bills and WALK away through the bankruptcy court.

How many will be able to walk away from excessive politically manipulated premiums and healthcare taxes?  How many will go to jail when they cannot afford to pay their healthcare taxes?

How many go to jail for filing bankruptcy?

iirc, Bankruptcy laws were put on the books because hundreds of years ago, people were sent to jail or the work house for accumulating debt they could not pay. 

What happens to those who cannot afford to pay healthcare premiums? 

What happens to those who cannot afford food for their children because of excessive Government taxation?

What happens to future generations that are in bondage to Pelosi and Obama debt?

Obama seems like the individuals throughout history that decided it's OK to sell others into slavery and make a profit.  It's OK to take the fruits of the labor of others.

Pelosi, Reid, and others are like the mules that take human traffic victims over borders, and deliver them into bondage.

Obama is the one that says, you'll have lots of opportunity.  Make some money, start a business, support your family back home...

Pelosi, Reid, and others are the one that keep the adding to the victims debt to ensure that it is never paid off.  These poor folks are abused and forced to work off an ever increasing debt.

In some circles human trafficking is a bad thing.  In the Obama administration it is the gateway to hell for future generations.

Just my humble opinions, observations, and analogies.

From Isaiah 65:21-23 about the Kingdom of God -

"They will build houses and dwell in them; they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit. No longer will they build houses and others live in them, or plant and others eat. For as the days of a tree, so will be the days of my people; my chosen ones will long enjoy the works of their hands. They will not toil in vain or bear children doomed to misfortune; for they will be a people blessed by the LORD, they and their descendants with them."

[WhiskeyGirl]

From page 56 -

"4 SEC. 111. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES."

The Corporate/Union welfare/subsidy/bailout?

[WhiskeyGirl]

Waxman: No Gov't Health Insurance for Illegals
Waxman says the Democrats' health care reform bill unveiled Thursday contains a "verification status" check if anyone is to receive any federal health care subsides

Is a subsidy the same as receiving coverage?

"No government funds will be used to pay for illegal immigrants to get health care coverage," said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA).
Waxman points out that the Democrats' health care reform bill unveiled Thursday contains a "verification status" check if anyone is to receive any federal health care subsides.

"Yes," exclaimed Waxman when a reporter asked the California Democrat if he personally thought illegal immigrants should be permitted to purchase health insurance. "Can they buy a car? They're people doing business in the U.S."

What about the indirect subsidy?  The premium rates?  The high risk subsidy?  The subsidy for families?

Medicare/Medicaid participation? 

"Should an illegal immigrant be allowed to drive down the Dulles Toll Road, paid for by federal dollars?" Waxman asked, referring to a major highway that links the nation's capital with Dulles International Airport in suburban Virginia. "Should illegal immigrants be allowed to buy health insurance from a private insurance company?"

read more here http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/29/waxman-govt-health-insurance-illegals/

I seem to recall that many ‘private insurance’ companies do not sell health or other insurance to people here illegally. 

PRIVATE health insurance companies have to comply with all kinds of government regulations that require them to KNOW who their customers are.

Are your customers here illegally?  Are they potentially involved in fraud?  Money laundering?  Terrorism?  Patriot Act? 

Why isn’t the GOVERNMENT plan being held to the same standards?

Why not implement a ‘layaway’ plan for insurance coverage?  Say a high deductible, and allow people to ‘layaway’ money for future expenses?  “layaway” plans helped Americans for generations.  What’s wrong with letting people keep their own money?  Enjoying the fruits of their labor?

[WhiskeyGirl]

From page 56 -

"4 SEC. 111. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES."

The Corporate/Union welfare/subsidy/bailout?

Another perk for special interests?  From page 331 -

13 SEC. 543. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME OF PAYMENTS
14 MADE UNDER REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR
15 RETIREES.
16 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 139A of the Internal Rev17
enue Code of 1986 is amended—
18 (1) by striking ‘‘Gross income’’ and inserting
19 the following:
20 ‘‘(a) FEDERAL SUBSIDIES FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUG
21 PLANS.—Gross income’’, and
22 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub
23 section:
24 ‘‘(b) FEDERAL REINSURANCE

332

1 apply with respect to payments made under section 111
2 of the Affordable Health Care for America Act.’’.
3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The heading of sec
4 tion 139A of such Code (and the item relating to such
5 section in the table of sections for part III of subchapter
6 B of chapter 1 of such Code) is amended by inserting
7 ‘‘AND RETIREE HEALTH PLANS’’ after ‘‘PRESCRIP
8 TION DRUG PLANS’’.
9 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by
10 this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the
11 date of the enactment of this Act.

Why don’t all Americans get this special treatment?  Why does it apply to those benefiting from the special reinsurance bonus/giveaway?

It seems like government could just GIVE the uninsured/selfinsured reinsurance for their claims too!!!  Take out the middle man and give those who pay taxes and work a break.

I want to be selfinsured and get 'reinsurance' too...

It should be an easy thing.  Is it complex to ensure that taxpayers get tricked and fooled?  Will the next president be saying of this boondoggle “Those people were tricked into…” much like president Obama does today?

[WhiskeyGirl]

Why doesn't Waxman just keep the immigration question simple? 

Use a program like E-Verify?  Is that Social Security number real?  Is this individual a legal immigrant or resident?

It shouldn't be this complicated unless you are trying to hide something.

The more government taxes, the more jobs seem to be lost...

The greater the welfare state, the greater attraction the US seems to have as a welfare magnet destination for those here illegally.

When do Americans come first?

When will the government step up to the plate and discourage people from being here illegally?  Close the border and welfare state?

[WhiskeyGirl]

From page 193

1 (3) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES DI
2 RECTLY OR BY CONTRACT.—The Commissioner may
3 provide services under paragraph (2) directly or by
4 contract with nonprofit entities that the Commis
5 sioner determines capable of carrying out such serv
6 ices.

Why do they keep using ‘nonprofit entities’?

I recall that many nonprofit businesses have for profit businesses too.   The word “mutual” in an insurance company does not guarantee that there it doesn’t own and operate a for profit business.

I also recall that some nonprofit community organization like ACORN, have many arms, and some are for profit entities.

Is ‘nonprofit’ just a cover to make this sound good?

What value is ‘nonprofit’?

I also recall people are supposed to look closely at nonprofits, as they sometimes exist for the profit of their boards and upper level employees. 

Jmho

Why all the ‘trust funds’ ?  The Social Security fund is empty, and there is no trust…

If private insurance is forced to accept everyone who applies, what about the fraud?  The concern about terrorism?  Money laundering?  Identity fraud?  Illegal aliens?

From page 216 –

13 (3) NO BAILOUTS.—In no case shall the public
14 health insurance option receive any Federal funds
15 for purposes of insolvency in any manner similar to
16 the manner in which entities receive Federal funding
17 under the Troubled Assets Relief Program of the
18 Secretary of the Treasury.

What happens when they are out of money?  Just raise taxes and premiums?

Who will pay for all the affordability credits?

Waiting lists?  Is a waiting list a form of rationing?

Will waiting lists, such as exist for organs, be political in nature?

[WhiskeyGirl]

From page 219 –

9 (b) REQUIREMENTS FOR INNOVATIVE PAYMENTS.—
10 The Secretary shall design and implement the payment
11 mechanisms and policies under this section in a manner
12 that—
13 (1) seeks to—
14 (A) improve health outcomes;
15 (B) reduce health disparities (including ra
16 cial, ethnic, and other disparities);
17 (C) provide efficient and affordable care;
18 (D) address geographic variation in the
19 provision of health services; or
20 (E) prevent or manage chronic illness; and
21 (2) promotes care that is integrated, patient
22 centered, quality, and efficient.

More racism?  Creating political favoritism? 

I also noticed that Indian tribes, organizations, and communities seem to get preferential treatment too.

Why not give everyone ACCESS to the same healthcare opportunities? 

Why should some groups be favored over others?

What is the worst thing that could happen if you treated everyone the same?  If everyone had the opportunity to buy healthcare at fair prices? 

It’s hard to prosper when your money is taken by greedy politicians hundreds of miles away.  It’s hard to prosper when you don’t know how much more GREEDY politicians will take tomorrow.  It’s hard to prosper when hard working people get the shaft and GREEDY politicians keep the GOLD mine.

[WhiskeyGirl]

From page 267 –

18 SEC. 347. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED
19 ALIENS.
20 Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments
21 for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are
22 not lawfully present in the United States.

Will people not lawfully present in the United States get payments/affordability credits for their children who may be here legally?

Or, in the example of a family, will the whole family, (legal and illegal) qualify for payment or credits or enrollment because one member is legal?

From page 247 –

24 (2) TREATMENT OF FAMILY.—Except as the
25 Commissioner may otherwise provide, members of

247

1 the same family who are affordable credit eligible in
2 dividuals shall be treated as a single affordable cred
3 it individual eligible for the applicable credit for such
4 a family under this subtitle.

How do you verify income for people here illegally, working under the table? 

If a child has no income, is here legally, and is part of a family, does the whole family get affordability credits?

A loophole?

[WhiskeyGirl]

I listened to the president talk about how this wouldn’t affect small businesses, it would make things better.  I remember hearing something that made me think that he meant small business was anyone with 500 or fewer employees.

I keep seeing small business defined in this bill as ‘100’.

From page 276 -

1 (1) shall be paid to the Health Choices Com
2 missioner for deposit into the Health Insurance Ex
3 change Trust Fund; and
4 (2) shall not be applied against the premium of
5 the employee under the Exchange-participating
6 health benefits plan in which the employee is en
7 rolled.
8 (b) SPECIAL RULES FOR SMALL EMPLOYERS.—
9 (1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any employer
10 who is a small employer for any calendar year, sub
11 section (a) shall be applied by substituting the appli
12 cable percentage determined in accordance with the
13 following table for ‘‘8 percent’’:

If the annual payroll of such employer for
the preceding calendar year:
The applicable
percentage is:

Does not exceed $500,000 ..................................... 0 percent
Exceeds $500,000, but does not exceed $585,000 2 percent
Exceeds $585,000, but does not exceed $670,000 4 percent
Exceeds $670,000, but does not exceed $750,000 6 percent

14 (2) SMALL EMPLOYER.—For purposes of this
15 subsection, the term ‘‘small employer’’ means any
16 employer for any calendar year if the annual payroll
17 of such employer for the preceding calendar year
18 does not exceed $750,000.

If one had 100 employees, making say $10 an hour/40 hour week, 52 week year, the payroll might be about $2,080,000.  8% of that is $166,400 or $1,664 per employee. 

It appears the Employer fine/levy/tax just disappears into the government “Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund” and there is no benefit to the employee.

How many employers will see this as a tax for maintaining a business in the US? 

Do foreign countries have similar taxes to attract businesses?

If you’re a small employer with a payroll of $750,000 your fine/levy/tax is 8% or $60,000?  No benefit to the employee?

What if you don’t offer coverage because your employees and their families are covered through spouses insurance, Medicare, or Tricare? 

I can see where jobs lose will hasten…

Sorry, no jobs for you American citizen and those here legally…

All the fines go into another government political slush fund..

jmho

[WhiskeyGirl]

From page 279 –

1 SEC. 416. STUDY ON EMPLOYER HARDSHIP EXEMPTION.
2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Labor together
3 with the Secretary of Treasury, the Secretary of Health
4 and Human Services, and the Commissioner, shall conduct
5 a study to examine the impact of the employer response
6 bility requirements described in section 415(a) and make
7 a recommendation to Congress about whether an employer
8 hardship exemption would be appropriate.
9 (b) ITEMS INCLUDED IN STUDY.—Within such study
10 the Secretaries and Commissioner shall examine cases
11 where such employer responsibility requirements may pose
12 a particular hardship, and specifically look at employers
13 by industry, profit margin, length of time in business, and
14 size. In this examination, the economic conditions shall be
15 considered, including the rate of increase in business costs,
16 the availability of short-term credit lines, and abilities to
17 restructure debt. In addition, the study shall examine the
18 impact an employer hardship waiver could have on employ
19 ees.
20 (c) REPORT.—Not later than January 1, 2012, the
21 Secretaries and Commissioner shall report to Congress on
22 their findings and make a recommendation regarding the
23 need or lack of need for a partial or complete employer
24 hardship waiver.

So how long is this wheel of hardship going to turn?  Will bank account be seized? 

Will another arm of the government determine that the company must be seized by Barney Frank and dissolved?  All because they couldn’t afford the health care ripoff/fine/taxes?

Is it the place of government to decide if any business makes to much money?  Isn’t spending enough on benefits?

For some reason, government seems to think unions and their employees get special treatments and reinsurance for benefits. 

Benefits are part of every employees package.  For some reason the union benefits are special… 

Why isn’t everyone treated the same?

What about the rest of America?  Small business? 
Just more corporate welfare for large companies?  Union bailouts?

Anyone know by Lehman is out of business?  How are they preventing corruption?

[WhiskeyGirl]

From page 299

25 ‘‘(5) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION.—

300

1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) shall
2 not apply to any individual (and any qualifying
3 child residing with such individual) for any pe
4 riod if such individual has in effect an exemp
5 tion which certifies that such individual is a
6 member of a recognized religious sect or divi
7 sion thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and
8 an adherent of established tenets or teachings
9 of such sect or division as described in such sec
10 tion.
11 ‘‘(B) EXEMPTION.—An application for the
12 exemption described in subparagraph (A) shall
13 be filed with the Secretary at such time and in
14 such form and manner as the Secretary may
15 prescribe. The Secretary may treat an applica
16 tion for exemption under section 1402(g)(1) as
17 an application for exemption under this section,
18 or may otherwise coordinate applications under
19 such sections, as the Secretary determines ap
20 propriate. Any such exemption granted by the
21 Secretary shall be effective for such period as
22 the Secretary determines appropriate.

Where is section 1402(g)(1)?  I couldn’t find section 1402.

[WhiskeyGirl]

From page 345 –

20 SEC. 554. DELAY IN APPLICATION OF WORLDWIDE ALLOCA
21 TION OF INTEREST.
22 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraphs (5)(D) and (6) of sec
23 tion 864(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are each
24 amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2010’’ and inserting
25 ‘‘December 31, 2019’’.

Something like this was in HR3200.  I couldn’t figure out want it appled to.

I looked up the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 on the web and found it here –

http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Internal_Revenue_Code:Sec._864._Definitions_and_special_rules

(5) Election to expand financial institution group of
        worldwide group.--
          (A) In general.--If a worldwide affiliated group
                elects the application of this subsection, all financial
                corporations which--
             (i) are members of such worldwide affiliated group, but
             (ii) are not corporations described in paragraph (4)(B),
                shall be treated as described in paragraph (4)(B) for
                purposes of applying paragraph
                (4)(A). <<NOTE: Applicability.>> This subsection (other
                than this paragraph) shall apply to any such group in
                the same manner as this subsection (other than this
                paragraph) applies to the pre-election worldwide
                affiliated group of which such group is a part.
          (B) Financial corporation.--For purposes of this
              paragraph, the term `financial corporation' means any
              corporation if at least 80 percent of its gross income
              is income described in section 904(d)(2)(D)(ii) and the
              regulations thereunder which is derived from
              transactions with persons who are not related (within
              the meaning of section 267(b) or 707(b)(1)) to the
              corporation. For purposes of the preceding sentence,
              there shall be disregarded any item of income or gain
              from a transaction or series of transactions a principal
              purpose of which is the qualification of any corporation
              as a financial corporation.
          (C) Anti-abuse rules.--In the case of a
              corporation which is a member of an electing financial
              institution group, to the extent that such corporation--
             (i) distributes dividends or makes other
                 distributions with respect to its stock after the
                 date of the enactment of this paragraph to any
                 member of the pre-election worldwide affiliated
                 group (other than to a member of the electing
                 financial institution group) in excess of the
                 greater of--
                (I) its average annual dividend
                    (expressed as a percentage of current
                    earnings and profits) during the 5-
                    taxable-year period ending with the
                    taxable year preceding the taxable year,
                    or
                (II) 25 percent of its average
                    annual earnings and profits for such 5-
                    taxable-year period, or
             (ii) deals with any person in any manner not
                 clearly reflecting the income of the corporation
                 (as determined under principles similar to the
                 principles of section 482),
              an amount of indebtedness of the electing financial
              institution group equal to the excess distribution or
              the understatement or overstatement of income, as the
              case may be, shall be recharacterized (for the taxable
              year and subsequent taxable years) for purposes of this
              paragraph as indebtedness of the worldwide affiliated
              group (excluding the electing financial institution
              group). If a corporation has not been in existence for 5
              taxable years, this subparagraph shall be applied with
              respect to the period it was in existence.
          (D) Election.--An election under this paragraph
              with respect to any financial institution group may be
              made only by the common parent of the pre-election
              worldwide affiliated group and may be made only for the
              first taxable year beginning after December 31, 2008, in
              which such affiliated group includes 1 or more financial
              corporations. Such an
              election, <<NOTE: Applicability.>> once made, shall
              apply to all financial corporations which are members of
              the electing financial institution group for such
              taxable year and all subsequent years unless revoked
              with the consent of the Secretary.
          (E) Definitions relating to groups.--For purposes
              of this paragraph--
             (i) Pre-election worldwide affiliated
                 group.--The term `pre-election worldwide
                 affiliated group' means, with respect to a
                 corporation, the worldwide affiliated group of
                 which such corporation would
                 (but for an election under this paragraph) be a
                 member for purposes of applying paragraph (1).
             (ii) Electing financial institution group.--
                 The term `electing financial institution group'
                 means the group of corporations to which this
                 subsection applies separately by reason of the
                 application of paragraph (4)(A) and which includes
                 financial corporations by reason of an election
                 under subparagraph (A).
          (F) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe
              such regulations as may be appropriate to carry out this
              subsection, including regulations--
             (i) providing for the direct allocation of
                 interest expense in other circumstances where such
                 allocation would be appropriate to carry out the
                 purposes of this subsection,
             (ii) preventing assets or interest expense
                 from being taken into account more than once, and
             (iii) dealing with changes in members of any
                 group (through acquisitions or otherwise) treated
                 under this paragraph as an affiliated group for
                 purposes of this subsection.
          (6) Election.--An election to have this subsection apply
        with respect to any worldwide affiliated group may be made only
        by the common parent of the domestic affiliated group referred
        to in paragraph (1)(C) and may be made only for the first
        taxable year beginning after December 31, 2008, in which a
        worldwide affiliated group exists which includes such affiliated
        group and at least 1 <<NOTE: Applicability.>> foreign
        corporation. Such an election, once made, shall apply to such
        common parent and all other corporations which are members of
        such worldwide affiliated group for such taxable year and all
        subsequent years unless revoked with the consent of the
        Secretary.

Not sure what this is at all.  Is it another gift/bailout for Wall Street?  Large global banks and financial institutions?

[WhiskeyGirl]

What if they had to do this allocation in 2008?  2010?

Are global banks, financial institutions, global employees getting a free ride at taxpayer expense?

[WhiskeyGirl]

From page 1149 -

10 SEC. 1786. PROHIBITIONS ON FEDERAL MEDICAID AND
11 CHIP PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED
12 ALIENS.
13 Nothing in this title shall change current prohibitions
14 against Federal Medicaid and CHIP payments under titles
15 XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act on behalf of indi
16 viduals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

What if there are no prohibitions?  In Wisconsin, there is a Medicaid program that pays for those not lawfully present in the US. 

It seems like US taxpayers are already pay, and there is NO current prohibition…

Where is the section that checks for legal status?  Just a quick self certification?  Anyone checking to see if SS or TIN numbers are real?  Immigration papers in order?

A deception?

[WhiskeyGirl]

There is so much spending and allocation of money for all kind of things that are currently NOT covered by private insurance plans...or healthcare.

Education grants, programs, grants...where is the money coming from to pay for all of this SPENDING?

Did the CBO even look at the spending identified or set aside amounts?