Like the Health Insurance Mandate? Thank a Republican!

[F-Sharp]

Why? Because they invented it, along with most of what's included in the PPACA, ie. "Obamacare".

Meet Senate Bill 1770, "Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993", the roots of which can be traced back to some policy recommendations made by none other than the Heritage Foundation. This bill was sponsored by Sen. John Chafee (R) RI. Co-sponsors include no less than 18 different Republican Senators. Among those co-sponsors were Orrin Hatch (R) UT, and Chuck Grassley (R) IA. Both of whom are vehemently opposed to the mandate today. Guess what they called the penalty for not being insured back in 1993?

You guessed it, A TAX!

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/s1770

SEC. 1501. REQUIREMENT OF COVERAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL- Effective January 1, 2005, each individual who is a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States shall be covered under--
(1) a qualified health plan, or
(2) an equivalent health care program (as defined in section 1601(7)).

SEC. 5000A. FAILURE OF INDIVIDUALS WITH RESPECT TO HEALTH INSURANCE.

`(a) GENERAL RULE- There is hereby imposed a tax on the failure of any individual to comply with the requirements of section 1501 of the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993.
`(b) AMOUNT OF TAX- The amount of tax imposed by subsection (a) with respect to any calendar year shall be equal to 120 percent of the applicable dollar limit for such year for such individual (within the meaning of section 91(b)(2) and determined on an annual basis).

****************************** ****************************** ******************************

SEC. 1004. EXPANDED ACCESS TO EMPLOYER PLANS.

(a) QUALIFIED HEALTH PLANS MADE AVAILABLE- Each employer shall make available, either directly, through a purchasing group, or otherwise, enrollment in a qualified health plan to each eligible employee of such employer. A small employer may meet the requirement of the previous sentence only through a qualified insured health plan.

`SEC. 5000B. FAILURE OF EMPLOYERS OR LARGE EMPLOYER PLANS WITH RESPECT TO HEALTH INSURANCE.

`(a) GENERAL RULE- There is hereby imposed a tax on the failure of any person or plan to comply with the requirements of section 1004 or section 1201 of the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993 with respect to any employee of the person or enrollee of the plan.
`(b) AMOUNT OF TAX-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The amount of the tax imposed by subsection (a) on any failure with respect to an employee or enrollee shall be $100 for each day in the noncompliance period with respect to such failure.

[Artist Formally Known As]

Glad I am a conservative and not a republican!

WWE! If you think the government or any politician knows what is best for you then you are a fool. They only know what is best for themselves.....

When you have enough money that you can buy or go anywhere you want then what is left for you to attain. That is right you guessed it Power!

All politicians know how to grow and help one thing and that is to expand their role in the world.

Power and Control.

It all comes at us under the disguise of helping the little guy.

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by Artist Formally Known As

If you think the government or any politician knows what is best for you then you are a fool. They only know what is best for themselves.....

Under the PPACA, insurance companies will be required to spend at least 80%-85% of customer premiums on real medical care and not overhead, profits, or marketing expenses. The current average is around 74%. How exactly exactly does that benefit any politician?

[Artist Formally Known As]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

Under the PPACA, insurance companies will be required to spend at least 80%-85% of customer premiums on real medical care and not overhead, profits, or marketing expenses. The current average is around 74%. How exactly exactly does that benefit any politician?

SMH! You are so unable to see the big picture.

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by Artist Formally Known As

SMH! You are so unable to see the big picture.

Enlighten me.

[F-Sharp]

In case anyone thought I was kidding about the Heritage Foundation, you just can't make this sort of thing up!



http://www.scribd.com/doc/98897941/1...-All-Americans

[F-Sharp]

Wow. Where's the outrage? Where's the anger? Where are the insults now? I thought for certain you Tea Party types would have organized, marched to Utah and started throwing bricks through Orrin Hatch's windows by now. Should we just change the name to "Butlercare" and give credit where credit is due?

[il doctore]

Fsharp, you make such a good point. There are states out there that currently mandate the revenue margin...if they earn too much, it is returned to the insureds. That is one of the provisions of the ACA. I don't see anything wrong with that, lets not pretend we are truly a 100% free market (nafta, cafta, wto has seen to that). You know what 'insurance' company has the lowest operating margins at 2%...The US Gov't, medicare, medicaid, VA. By the way, Artist, did you know you can opt out of medicare and social security?

There is a place for govt in our society. Ever travel internationally? I do extensively for my job, Asia, Middle East, Brazil, Ireland...every airport and mass transit is clean, on time, build within the last 50 years. Ever fly out of Newark, JFK? Our infrastructure is crumbling...although the president today signed an infrastructure bill which will help to modernize our roads, bridges and airports. And create jobs...

Artist is also correct. The mandate does help insurance companies, but forcing people to buy insurance, their risk pool goes WAY up and thefore losses go WAY down. Obama should have just tried to pass medicare for all citizens...another reason he may not get my vote. Romney certainly won't...he likes havng kids stay on parents insurance to age 26, no prior medical condition exclusions, tort reform, purchasing across state lines...all in ACA but he doesn't like the individual mandate, the only way to PAY for all that. Sick of tax and spend reps.

[theaustinescorts]

Both bills benefit private insurance companies by roping into their system millions of people who otherwise would CHOOSE to opt-out.

I have no insurance and don't want it because I'm self-insured. If I had a company with employees I would run that company with self-insurance because the insurance industry and providers are gougers.

I worked for over seven years for a provider company and know the real reasons why US care is more expensive with worse outcomes than our foreign competitors. These reasons boil down to this: in the US every MD must practice "standard practice" medicine, meaning he MUST do what all other MDs would also do, whether it's proven to be effective or not. If they don't then when there's a bad outcome they'll be sued into the ground and likely have their license revoked. Standard practice however is determined not by the newest research and scientific proofs, but by whatever drug company or device manufacturer can pay prominent doctors to endorse, and thereby force other doctors into practicing. It results in adoption of guidlines and adoptions which support those who are selling the drug, device, or procedure supplies, whether the research justifies it or not. When the adoptin takes place there's ample research, but subsequent research usually finds that the initial research was flawed....often due to fraud. Today the most widely used drugs such as statins, SSRI's, and ADD treatments have been shown time and time again to have little or no clinical benefit. Vaccines are no longer tested for safety [since their exemption from product liability] and there is no evidence as to whether their benefits outweigh the thousands of crippled and dead victims of their negative reactions. Nor is there any evidence that the huge costs of "preventive screenings" such as mamograms, prostate and cervical cancer screens, etc., really have any net benefit.

Yet if any MD fails to order any of these, based on his own reading of the medical journals, he will be driven from the profession. It's not enough that an MD have scientific studies to back up his actions....he MUST do what other doctors would have done.

There's no need or benefit to the public for EVERYONE having insurance of any kind - either for health or for automobile liability, and mandates only serve to make unwilling customers out of millions of otherwise normal people who just want to be left alone. For decades before automobile liability became manditory anyone who chose to insure themselves against uninsured drivers hitting them were free to purchase that coverage. No one has anything to complain about by being hit from an uninsured driver if they CHOOSE not to purchase that coverage.

The private interests which have framed insurance as a necessity of living a worthwhile or responsible life are merely crooks who have devised a way to use the police powers of the state to force people to do what they wish not to.

The currrent health system mandate is enforced by means of a tax which is employed punitively. It is a fine collected through the Federal income tax.

[theaustinescorts]

Insurance if often a useful service, but the idea that it's necessary for everyone to have is absurd.

[il doctore]

TAE, wow, wrong on so many points. First, tort reform is in the ACA. Second, purchasing insurance across state lines is also in the ACA and is a major cost driver. I had surgery not long ago that was considered 'experimental' at the time, a Chiari malformation correction, the insurance company paid. The idea that preventative medicine isn't cost effective is staggeringly ill informed. Drs prescribe treatments all the time for reasons outside of the FDA approval...I take an SSRI due to dizziness from the Chiari, SSRIs have anti dizziness properties, my insurance pays for it. That vaccine comment is the best though, the primary driver of that was a lunatic in Pennsylvania I think, name escapes me, but he has since come out and said he falsified the risks of vaccines. They are tested and have saved countless lives.

[theaustinescorts]

Vaccines may have saved some lives but they've taken many more, and none of these victims can petition a normal court for relief any more.

Of course MDs sometimes prescribe remedies off-label. Each situation is a calculation as to what the risks and benefits would be, and if it's clear that there's no chance for a fatality involved then they often proceed. But for potentially fatal conditons like hypertension, cholesteral levels, cancers, diabetes, "ADD" and others that can develop into serious issues if not treated then the MD will always rely on "standard practice" [even if he personally believes it will not be effective].

Another situation is where an MD is so distinguished that he is above using "standard practice" anymore, and this is what I've learned to rely on.

When I was diagnosed with cancer in 2006 I interviewed seven surgeons in Texas seeking a very minimal excision of the lesion. None of the Texas surgeons would agree. They all recommended drastic amounts of tissue removal so they could guarantee that their procedures would be "curative." When I told them I prefered less they were offended, and usually just left the room [going on to more gullable patents]. If they said anything it would be, "that's not a decison I could participate in," or, "if you died your family could sue me."

I happened to know personally however a very distinguished surgeon at NYU Medical school who had treated me off-label in the past.

I showed up at that MD's office and had me sign a little slip of paper constituting an informed consent waver. Within an hour I was out the door with the lesioin removed. I've been cancer-free ever since.

The reason why that MD has such confidence is because he's convinced he can defend his practice, reputation and decisions against criticism.

My advice to anyone with a life-threatening conditon is......go the the most distinguished practiconer you can find, even if you have to travel thousands of miles, and be skeptical about what all the mediocre MDs are all doing.

[il doctore]

My god you are so wrong on vaccines its scary. I hope nobody reading takes that seriously. Vaccines saved some lives but have taken many more...how does that align with the near elimination of polio, smallpox? it doesn't.

Completely agree, of course, go the best Doc, always, I had brain surgery at Johns Hopkins, one of the best in the world.

[Txfishkiller]

you are full of shit!!!
F-Dullard:
the bill did not become law though did it?
but now it is and in 2014 will be the largest tax hike in world history and the rich will still have the best healthcare and everyone else will have equally shitty health care.

have you ever tried to get thru to the IRS or HHS?? thats what going to the doctor will be like.
you are an idiot, get your facts straight!!!!

[il doctore]

TX Fish Killer, first, it won't be anywhere close to largest tax hike ever...not even in the last decade. We are going to have the largest tax hike at the end of this year when the Bush tax cuts expire because the dems and reps can't come together (understand the proposal the president has made is to KEEP the tax cuts EXCEPT for those making 250K per year and above. No way they compromise, so the taxes will go up, primarily on the poor.

also understand those people getting 'taxed' are being taxed because they didn't purchase HC insurance.