Taxes of the healthbill
-
Many see the forced participation as "adversely effects every individual". Think of all the wackos that believe in faith healing. They will now have to pay for the evil medical services that they don't believe in for others. I do see why this is the route they went down though. If government participation was optional there would be very few things that would get a nickle out of me....
thrakazog wrote:
Many see the forced participation as "adversely effects every individual".
Well, that's not what he said, nor is it logical.
thrakazog wrote:
Think of all the wackos that believe in faith healing.
Not wanting to embarass you, but I believe in faith healing. I still have health insurance, and gladly pay my medicare levy. You mean people who think it's a lack of faith to accept medical care ? Those people die out soon enough.
thrakazog wrote:
They will now have to pay for the evil medical services that they don't believe in for others.
Actually, the link CSS posted says that people can claim exemption for religious reasons ( or someone said it below, I read it this morning )
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Web/20102724.htm[^] Ian, you will want to look at this. There are a plethora of new taxes and fees that will adversely effect every individual. Excise Tax on Uninsured Individuals – Individuals who fail to maintain minimum essential coverage will be subject to a penalty equal to $750. The fee for an uninsured individual under age 18 is one-half of the adult fee. Excise Tax on High-Cost Employer Plans – The federal government would impose a 40% tax on the value of employer-sponsored health coverage exceeding certain thresholds. Those levels are projected to be $8,500 for self only and $23,000 for any other level by the year 2013. This excise was announced with fanfare by the White House and labor unions in January and remains in the final bill. Increase in additional tax on distributions from Health Savings Accounts and Archer Medical Savings Accounts not used for qualified medical expenses – An increase from 10% to 20% on taxes of money in a health savings account not used for qualified medical expenses. For Archer medical savings accounts, an increase from 15% to 20%. Additional Hospital Insurance Tax on High-Income Taxpayers – High income tax payers, making on a joint return over $250,000 and a standard return over $200,000, are required to pay an additional 0.5% of wages. This applies to both self-employed, and regularly employed individuals. Fees on Health Plans – A fee applied to all health insurance providers based upon net premiums and any third party fees associated with the administration of those programs. The fees will total $6.7 billion annually. This figure begins at $8 billion in the Reconciliation Act and rises to $14.3 billion by 2018. Tax on Indoor Tanning Services – The act imposes a 10% tax on amounts paid for indoor tanning services. Like a sales tax, the tax will be collected from the person tanning when payment for the tanning services is made. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage – A 2.5% income tax on individuals who do not have health care coverage, limited to a cost less than the average national health care premium. Excise tax on elective cosmetic medical procedures – A tax of 5% is levied upon the am mount paid for any cosmetic surgery. This does not include the need for such surgeries created by trauma or
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Excise Tax on Uninsured Individuals – Individuals who fail to maintain minimum essential coverage will be subject to a penalty equal to $750. The fee for an uninsured individual under age 18 is one-half of the adult fee.
Already mentioned that in my post.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Excise Tax on High-Cost Employer Plans – The federal government would impose a 40% tax on the value of employer-sponsored health coverage exceeding certain thresholds. Those levels are projected to be $8,500 for self only and $23,000 for any other level by the year 2013. This excise was announced with fanfare by the White House and labor unions in January and remains in the final bill.
Mentioned that one in one of my replies on the other thread.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Increase in additional tax on distributions from Health Savings Accounts and Archer Medical Savings Accounts not used for qualified medical expenses – An increase from 10% to 20% on taxes of money in a health savings account not used for qualified medical expenses. For Archer medical savings accounts, an increase from 15% to 20%.
Knew about that. It also cuts the FSA limit in half.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Additional Hospital Insurance Tax on High-Income Taxpayers – High income tax payers, making on a joint return over $250,000 and a standard return over $200,000, are required to pay an additional 0.5% of wages. This applies to both self-employed, and regularly employed individuals.
Mentioned that one too.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Fees on Health Plans – A fee applied to all health insurance providers based upon net premiums and any third party fees associated with the administration of those programs. The fees will total $6.7 billion annually. This figure begins at $8 billion in the Reconciliation Act and rises to $14.3 billion by 2018.
How much is it? Not the national total... But how much are they hitting each provider for?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Tax on Indoor Tanning Services – The act imposes a 10% tax on amounts paid for indoor tanning services. Like a sales tax, the tax will be collected from the person tanning when payment for the tanning services is made.
Mentioned that sever
-
thrakazog wrote:
Many see the forced participation as "adversely effects every individual".
Well, that's not what he said, nor is it logical.
thrakazog wrote:
Think of all the wackos that believe in faith healing.
Not wanting to embarass you, but I believe in faith healing. I still have health insurance, and gladly pay my medicare levy. You mean people who think it's a lack of faith to accept medical care ? Those people die out soon enough.
thrakazog wrote:
They will now have to pay for the evil medical services that they don't believe in for others.
Actually, the link CSS posted says that people can claim exemption for religious reasons ( or someone said it below, I read it this morning )
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
You mean people who think it's a lack of faith to accept medical care ? Those people die out soon enough.
That's sorta what I was thinking. People like this.[^]
Christian Graus wrote:
people can claim exemption for religious reasons
I must have missed that. But it brings a new plan to mind. Step 1: Create new religion. Step 2: Claim this bill violates my religion it and avoid paying taxes. Step 3: Happy dance.
-
thrakazog wrote:
Many see the forced participation as "adversely effects every individual".
Well, that's not what he said, nor is it logical.
thrakazog wrote:
Think of all the wackos that believe in faith healing.
Not wanting to embarass you, but I believe in faith healing. I still have health insurance, and gladly pay my medicare levy. You mean people who think it's a lack of faith to accept medical care ? Those people die out soon enough.
thrakazog wrote:
They will now have to pay for the evil medical services that they don't believe in for others.
Actually, the link CSS posted says that people can claim exemption for religious reasons ( or someone said it below, I read it this morning )
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Actually, the link CSS posted says that people can claim exemption for religious reasons ( or someone said it below, I read it this morning )
I mentioned that on the previous thread :) Also exempt are American Indians (They're an exception to just about every rule), and low-income folks who just plain can't afford health care, but for some reason aren't on Medicare/Medicaid.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Christian Graus wrote:
You mean people who think it's a lack of faith to accept medical care ? Those people die out soon enough.
That's sorta what I was thinking. People like this.[^]
Christian Graus wrote:
people can claim exemption for religious reasons
I must have missed that. But it brings a new plan to mind. Step 1: Create new religion. Step 2: Claim this bill violates my religion it and avoid paying taxes. Step 3: Happy dance.
thrakazog wrote:
I must have missed that. But it brings a new plan to mind. Step 1: Create new religion. Step 2: Claim this bill violates my religion it and avoid paying taxes. Step 3: Happy dance.
I was thinking of that... I wonder how many people will try something of the sort... Always a sticky situation when the government has to judge whether a religion is valid.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Christian Graus wrote:
You mean people who think it's a lack of faith to accept medical care ? Those people die out soon enough.
That's sorta what I was thinking. People like this.[^]
Christian Graus wrote:
people can claim exemption for religious reasons
I must have missed that. But it brings a new plan to mind. Step 1: Create new religion. Step 2: Claim this bill violates my religion it and avoid paying taxes. Step 3: Happy dance.
thrakazog wrote:
Step 1: Create new religion.
Yes, it seems to me this is a loophole for every person who refuses to have religion. I don't see that as an issue, the bill is designed to help people who can't get insurance, not force people to have it, esp when it's not being run in the only logical way ( one insurer, run by the government )
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
thrakazog wrote:
Step 1: Create new religion.
Yes, it seems to me this is a loophole for every person who refuses to have religion. I don't see that as an issue, the bill is designed to help people who can't get insurance, not force people to have it, esp when it's not being run in the only logical way ( one insurer, run by the government )
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
the bill is designed to help people who can't get insurance, not force people to have it
One requires the other. If they removed the denial from pre-existing conditions, but didn't make it mandatory, then people could just drop their insurance until they get sick, then start a new policy. The risk pool would be worse all around, so premiums would skyrocket.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
thrakazog wrote:
I must have missed that. But it brings a new plan to mind. Step 1: Create new religion. Step 2: Claim this bill violates my religion it and avoid paying taxes. Step 3: Happy dance.
I was thinking of that... I wonder how many people will try something of the sort... Always a sticky situation when the government has to judge whether a religion is valid.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)What it makes me wonder is that the religious positions are based on strongly held beliefs. If I'm an atheist, and have a strongly held belief against this sort of thing... Should I not be entitled to some equal protection of my belief and be exempt? If I had a bunch of money to burn and a handful of lawyers this might be a fun one to test. :rolleyes:
-
Christian Graus wrote:
the bill is designed to help people who can't get insurance, not force people to have it
One requires the other. If they removed the denial from pre-existing conditions, but didn't make it mandatory, then people could just drop their insurance until they get sick, then start a new policy. The risk pool would be worse all around, so premiums would skyrocket.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Sure - I see that. But, so long as most people have jobs, and all jobs come with insurance, that's not really going to happen, is it ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
thrakazog wrote:
Step 1: Create new religion.
Yes, it seems to me this is a loophole for every person who refuses to have religion. I don't see that as an issue, the bill is designed to help people who can't get insurance, not force people to have it, esp when it's not being run in the only logical way ( one insurer, run by the government )
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
in the only logical way ( one insurer, run by the government )
That might be the more humane/compassionate way to run it. But I wouldn't say it's the most logical.
Well, if you want 100% coverage, and you want to spread risk, and you want to keep the cost down, that's the way to do it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Sure - I see that. But, so long as most people have jobs, and all jobs come with insurance, that's not really going to happen, is it ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
and all jobs come with insurance
This is something that has always annoyed me. My employer shouldn't have anything to do with my health insurance. I just want to work in exchange for money. What I spend that money on is my own business. But now it seems we'll be fining employers of certain sizes who don't provide health insurance. :doh:
-
Sure - I see that. But, so long as most people have jobs, and all jobs come with insurance, that's not really going to happen, is it ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
You can opt out of health insurance at most jobs. The option is there, in case your spouse/parent has a plan that covers you.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
thrakazog wrote:
Many see the forced participation as "adversely effects every individual".
Well, that's not what he said, nor is it logical.
thrakazog wrote:
Think of all the wackos that believe in faith healing.
Not wanting to embarass you, but I believe in faith healing. I still have health insurance, and gladly pay my medicare levy. You mean people who think it's a lack of faith to accept medical care ? Those people die out soon enough.
thrakazog wrote:
They will now have to pay for the evil medical services that they don't believe in for others.
Actually, the link CSS posted says that people can claim exemption for religious reasons ( or someone said it below, I read it this morning )
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Not wanting to embarass you, but I believe in faith healing.
Christian Graus wrote:
You mean people who think it's a lack of faith to accept medical care ? Those people die out soon enough.
Why, theologically, would anyone who believes in faith healing need medical care? Why would God be so taciturn as to cure one thing and yet not cure another? I'll answer rhetorically and say faith healing doesn't exist and never has. I personally think that this whole idea about Christ (and Peter and Paul later) wandering around and laying hands on people to cure them of their ills is a complete misnomer, and I would go further and say it is dangerous misinformation. The idea that Christ was some wandering magi or healer belittles His purpose on Earth: that He died and was resurrected so that we should all be able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I can't remember any passage in the Bible that says that Jesus will heal your bad back, prompt a limb to re-grow or cause your cold to disappear through faith. I do remember an awful lot of stuff about if we follow His way we are pretty much all certain to be persecuted. It may well be that Christ - as the literal embodiment of God - did perform these miracles, but the Bible doesn't teach that faith will heal in this world only that by following Christ we will be saved for the next. I've done a lot of research on the early church lately, specifically faith before and after the First Council of Nicea. It is my strong belief that a lot of what we know about Christ's miracles - raising Lazarus from the dead, feeding the five thousand, walking on water, turning water into wine, healing the woman who had bled for 12 years etc. - are fabrications designed to impart a false sense of what Christianity has to offer. I might be wrong, and it might turn out that Christ really did perform those miracles - but to me it doesn't matter. The very purpose of Christ was not to perform miracles but to die for our sins and guarantee our place by His side and not to provide health care to the masses.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
and all jobs come with insurance
This is something that has always annoyed me. My employer shouldn't have anything to do with my health insurance. I just want to work in exchange for money. What I spend that money on is my own business. But now it seems we'll be fining employers of certain sizes who don't provide health insurance. :doh:
Yes, I've always thought that the US system is insane on multiple levels.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Not wanting to embarass you, but I believe in faith healing.
Christian Graus wrote:
You mean people who think it's a lack of faith to accept medical care ? Those people die out soon enough.
Why, theologically, would anyone who believes in faith healing need medical care? Why would God be so taciturn as to cure one thing and yet not cure another? I'll answer rhetorically and say faith healing doesn't exist and never has. I personally think that this whole idea about Christ (and Peter and Paul later) wandering around and laying hands on people to cure them of their ills is a complete misnomer, and I would go further and say it is dangerous misinformation. The idea that Christ was some wandering magi or healer belittles His purpose on Earth: that He died and was resurrected so that we should all be able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I can't remember any passage in the Bible that says that Jesus will heal your bad back, prompt a limb to re-grow or cause your cold to disappear through faith. I do remember an awful lot of stuff about if we follow His way we are pretty much all certain to be persecuted. It may well be that Christ - as the literal embodiment of God - did perform these miracles, but the Bible doesn't teach that faith will heal in this world only that by following Christ we will be saved for the next. I've done a lot of research on the early church lately, specifically faith before and after the First Council of Nicea. It is my strong belief that a lot of what we know about Christ's miracles - raising Lazarus from the dead, feeding the five thousand, walking on water, turning water into wine, healing the woman who had bled for 12 years etc. - are fabrications designed to impart a false sense of what Christianity has to offer. I might be wrong, and it might turn out that Christ really did perform those miracles - but to me it doesn't matter. The very purpose of Christ was not to perform miracles but to die for our sins and guarantee our place by His side and not to provide health care to the masses.
martin_hughes wrote:
Why, theologically, would anyone who believes in faith healing need medical care? Why would God be so taciturn as to cure one thing and yet not cure another?
Because it's not meant to be a test for God that I get sick and refuse to take penicillin. Because healing in this life is not meant to mean we never get sick, or never die. It's not even really a fundamental of what Christianity is about.
martin_hughes wrote:
The idea that Christ was some wandering magi or healer belittles His purpose on Earth: that He died and was resurrected so that we should all be able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Healing in this age exists as a sign of God's ability to do what He said, it is indeed not what His core purpose was, any more than it was to give food to the hungry or money to the poor.
martin_hughes wrote:
I can't remember any passage in the Bible that says that Jesus will heal your bad back, prompt a limb to re-grow or cause your cold to disappear through faith.
Jam 5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. just off the top of my head. But I agree, it is not fundamental
martin_hughes wrote:
It may well be that Christ - as the literal embodiment of God - did perform these miracles, but the Bible doesn't teach that faith will heal in this world only that by following Christ we will be saved for the next.
No, that's not true. It certainly teaches that faith in the next world is more important than hoping for some sort of material blessing in this, but it doesn't teach that God is powerful, but does nothing for His people until they die.
martin_hughes wrote:
I might be wrong, and it might turn out that Christ really did perform those miracles - but to me it doesn't matter. The very purpose of Christ was not to perform miracles but to die for our sins and guarantee our place by His side and not to provide health care to the masses.
I don't disagree with this, in principle. But, I do disagree that this means that faith must be b
-
martin_hughes wrote:
Why, theologically, would anyone who believes in faith healing need medical care? Why would God be so taciturn as to cure one thing and yet not cure another?
Because it's not meant to be a test for God that I get sick and refuse to take penicillin. Because healing in this life is not meant to mean we never get sick, or never die. It's not even really a fundamental of what Christianity is about.
martin_hughes wrote:
The idea that Christ was some wandering magi or healer belittles His purpose on Earth: that He died and was resurrected so that we should all be able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Healing in this age exists as a sign of God's ability to do what He said, it is indeed not what His core purpose was, any more than it was to give food to the hungry or money to the poor.
martin_hughes wrote:
I can't remember any passage in the Bible that says that Jesus will heal your bad back, prompt a limb to re-grow or cause your cold to disappear through faith.
Jam 5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. just off the top of my head. But I agree, it is not fundamental
martin_hughes wrote:
It may well be that Christ - as the literal embodiment of God - did perform these miracles, but the Bible doesn't teach that faith will heal in this world only that by following Christ we will be saved for the next.
No, that's not true. It certainly teaches that faith in the next world is more important than hoping for some sort of material blessing in this, but it doesn't teach that God is powerful, but does nothing for His people until they die.
martin_hughes wrote:
I might be wrong, and it might turn out that Christ really did perform those miracles - but to me it doesn't matter. The very purpose of Christ was not to perform miracles but to die for our sins and guarantee our place by His side and not to provide health care to the masses.
I don't disagree with this, in principle. But, I do disagree that this means that faith must be b
Christian Graus wrote:
Jam 5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
To me, this one seems more metaphorical about the path to heaven, rather than a literal translation of getting out of bed...
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you need a laugh, check out my Vodafone World of Difference application | If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Not wanting to embarass you, but I believe in faith healing.
Christian Graus wrote:
You mean people who think it's a lack of faith to accept medical care ? Those people die out soon enough.
Why, theologically, would anyone who believes in faith healing need medical care? Why would God be so taciturn as to cure one thing and yet not cure another? I'll answer rhetorically and say faith healing doesn't exist and never has. I personally think that this whole idea about Christ (and Peter and Paul later) wandering around and laying hands on people to cure them of their ills is a complete misnomer, and I would go further and say it is dangerous misinformation. The idea that Christ was some wandering magi or healer belittles His purpose on Earth: that He died and was resurrected so that we should all be able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I can't remember any passage in the Bible that says that Jesus will heal your bad back, prompt a limb to re-grow or cause your cold to disappear through faith. I do remember an awful lot of stuff about if we follow His way we are pretty much all certain to be persecuted. It may well be that Christ - as the literal embodiment of God - did perform these miracles, but the Bible doesn't teach that faith will heal in this world only that by following Christ we will be saved for the next. I've done a lot of research on the early church lately, specifically faith before and after the First Council of Nicea. It is my strong belief that a lot of what we know about Christ's miracles - raising Lazarus from the dead, feeding the five thousand, walking on water, turning water into wine, healing the woman who had bled for 12 years etc. - are fabrications designed to impart a false sense of what Christianity has to offer. I might be wrong, and it might turn out that Christ really did perform those miracles - but to me it doesn't matter. The very purpose of Christ was not to perform miracles but to die for our sins and guarantee our place by His side and not to provide health care to the masses.
martin_hughes wrote:
I would go further and say it is dangerous misinformation.
I agree, he isn't following the laws of his country. Australians aren't free and never had been, they were settled by criminals in chains, they are a chaingang. I think his government should strip him of his land and property immediately for having those dangerous ideas.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Jam 5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
To me, this one seems more metaphorical about the path to heaven, rather than a literal translation of getting out of bed...
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you need a laugh, check out my Vodafone World of Difference application | If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
ROTFL !!
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
martin_hughes wrote:
I would go further and say it is dangerous misinformation.
I agree, he isn't following the laws of his country. Australians aren't free and never had been, they were settled by criminals in chains, they are a chaingang. I think his government should strip him of his land and property immediately for having those dangerous ideas.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
Thanks for your usual thoughtful expose.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.