[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[Gadawg73]

Where is there any evidence that the ACA will "reduce emergency room visits"?
Where?
Amazing the left believes everything they hear if it feels good.

 

[Gadawg73]

IRS has already announced they do not fully know what their role is in all of this other than GATHERING the information which is VOLUNTARY to give.
Amazing the people that have voted in a law and have no clue what is in it.

 

[PMZ]

Wrong it's not a parking ticket which is a minor offense. A parking ticket goes on your record. Not paying insurance does not go on your record. There is no crime. It is not a mandate in the crime sense, it is a mandate in the tax deduction sense. If you adhere to the mandated behavior you pay less tax, if you don't adhere to the mandated behavior you pay more tax. You are trying to invent that it is a criminal act if you don't buy insurance, but that's just not true. Just because they called it a "mandate" does not mean it's a "mandate." Just because they called the act the affordable care act, does not mean it's affordable. Again there is no mandate forcing you to buy insurance. Just as there is no mandate forcing you to work. However, if you do work you pay personal income taxes at the specified rates that now includes a check box for whether or not you purchased insurance, just like the check box for dependents. If you don't have dependents you don't get the exemptions, if you did not buy insurance your tax rate is higher than if you did buy insurance. Same goes for AMT if you sinned by earning to much money you get penalized with additional taxes above and beyond the basic rates. This is the same thing. You are being punished with additional taxes if you do not adhere to the government recommended behavior of earning less and spending more in government approved ways.

Further you don't have to buy insurance. If you have no income there is no fine. There is only a fine based on your amount of income, further they will give you subsidy checks for your health insurance if your income is low just like any other form of welfare.

Lots of made up stuff here.

"Not paying insurance does not go on your record."

So you are saying that the mandate will not be enforced? I think that it will be when you pay your income tax. And what you will be taxed will be part of IRS records.

"Just because they called it a "mandate" does not mean it's a "mandate."

A mandate means something that you are required to or suffer the consequences. All laws are mandates.

"Again there is no mandate forcing you to buy insurance."

No law can force anyone to do anything. That's why, for instance, there are murders. After a crime has been committed, the convicted perp is forced into paying the prescribed penalty.

"Same goes for AMT if you sinned by earning to much money you get penalized with additional taxes above and beyond the basic rates."

You made the choice to make more despite the fact that you knew the you'd have to share it with your country. You knew that up front. If you object, you have clear alternatives. Don't make the money or make it somewhere else.

"Further you don't have to buy insurance."

You don't have to refrain from murder either.

Yes you do have to refrain from murder. Murder is a capital offense for which in some states you can get the death sentence and in others life in prison.

Not buying health insurance is not a a crime. Nor is it a minor offense.

And NO you don't have to pay the fine unless you have income and oddly, also have a return coming to you. Apparently this will be a tax that is only applied as a deduction to your rebate check. Very odd this tax. I suspect they had to do it that way to go around potential filibusters in the House. Of course we won't see the new process for this new type of tax / rebate deduction till the final 2013 IRS forms come out. Then after someone gets their rebate deducted they can then sue for damages, and the SCOTUS may eventually rule on the constitutionality of taxing by reducing a legally determined income tax deduction amount, essentially resulting in double taxation on the same income, similar to AMT. I think I remember somewhere that when AMT hit it had to be done a certain way and this is a new way that is just as freakishly odd as AMT was. Something about due process. I suspect people will eventually just be able to say yes they had health insurance without proof and that insurance was their own bank account and the proof that they don't have any outstanding unpaid health care bills.

"Yes you do have to refrain from murder."

There are murders every day. No way they can be prevented. So, you don't have to refrain from it. You do have to accept the legal consequences of it.

"Not buying health insurance is not a a crime. Nor is it a minor offense."

That's why the consequence is a tax, not a fine. It's not punishment but rather required reimbursement for the cost that you are likely to impose, one way or the other, on other people. Like all taxes, there is no sense in charging it to people who just don't have the means to pay it.

"I suspect people will eventually just be able to say yes they had health insurance without proof and that insurance was their own bank account"

This is like volunteer taxes that you advocate. It will never happen. It's just as easy for the government to confirm your health insurance as to confirm your income.

"and the proof that they don't have any outstanding unpaid health care bills."

Insurance is purchased before you have bills, not after. No outstanding bills is not, in any way, evidence that you've acted responsibly relative to health care costs.

 

[PMZ]

Where is there any evidence that the ACA will "reduce emergency room visits"?
Where?
Amazing the left believes everything they hear if it feels good.

If you have no money, and no health insurance, the only alternative that you have for health care is emergency room treatment. If you have insurance, you are not allowed to use the emergency room fonon emergency treatment.

"Amazing the left believes everything they hear if it feels good."

Did it make you feel good to believe that ACA won't reduce emergency room treatment before finding out that you were wrong?

 

[PMZ]

IRS has already announced they do not fully know what their role is in all of this other than GATHERING the information which is VOLUNTARY to give.
Amazing the people that have voted in a law and have no clue what is in it.

Clearly you don't know what's in it.

 

[ShawnChris13]

Where is there any evidence that the ACA will "reduce emergency room visits"?
Where?
Amazing the left believes everything they hear if it feels good.

If you have no money, and no health insurance, the only alternative that you have for health care is emergency room treatment. If you have insurance, you are not allowed to use the emergency room fonon emergency treatment.

"Amazing the left believes everything they hear if it feels good."

Did it make you feel good to believe that ACA won't reduce emergency room treatment before finding out that you were wrong?

If you have insurance, and you go to an emergency room, they can't turn you away. Most people don't know the rules of insurance even if they buy it. The reduction of emergency services will not be significant simply because many people just go to the emergency room and that's what they're used to.

 

[PMZ]

Where is there any evidence that the ACA will "reduce emergency room visits"?
Where?
Amazing the left believes everything they hear if it feels good.

If you have no money, and no health insurance, the only alternative that you have for health care is emergency room treatment. If you have insurance, you are not allowed to use the emergency room fonon emergency treatment.

"Amazing the left believes everything they hear if it feels good."

Did it make you feel good to believe that ACA won't reduce emergency room treatment before finding out that you were wrong?

If you have insurance, and you go to an emergency room, they can't turn you away. Most people don't know the rules of insurance even if they buy it. The reduction of emergency services will not be significant simply because many people just go to the emergency room and that's what they're used to.

They can if there is no emergency.

From Wikipedia

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide emergency health care treatment to anyone needing it regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment with the informed consent of the patient, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.[1]
EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals." The statute defines "participating hospitals" as those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program.[2] "Because there are very few hospitals that do not accept Medicare, the law applies to nearly all hospitals."[3] The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004,[4] or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA's provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients.[5][6]
The cost of emergency care required by EMTALA is not directly covered by the federal government. Because of this, the law has been criticized by some as an unfunded mandate.[7] Uncompensated care represents 6% of total hospital costs.[8]

 

[ShawnChris13]

If you have no money, and no health insurance, the only alternative that you have for health care is emergency room treatment. If you have insurance, you are not allowed to use the emergency room fonon emergency treatment.

"Amazing the left believes everything they hear if it feels good."

Did it make you feel good to believe that ACA won't reduce emergency room treatment before finding out that you were wrong?

If you have insurance, and you go to an emergency room, they can't turn you away. Most people don't know the rules of insurance even if they buy it. The reduction of emergency services will not be significant simply because many people just go to the emergency room and that's what they're used to.

They can if there is no emergency.

From Wikipedia

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide emergency health care treatment to anyone needing it regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment with the informed consent of the patient, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.[1]
EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals." The statute defines "participating hospitals" as those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program.[2] "Because there are very few hospitals that do not accept Medicare, the law applies to nearly all hospitals."[3] The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004,[4] or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA's provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients.[5][6]
The cost of emergency care required by EMTALA is not directly covered by the federal government. Because of this, the law has been criticized by some as an unfunded mandate.[7] Uncompensated care represents 6% of total hospital costs.[8]

So nothing in ACA changes that. Anyone who was previously turned away is still turned away. ACA does not address Emergency room care at all.

 

[PMZ]

If you have insurance, and you go to an emergency room, they can't turn you away. Most people don't know the rules of insurance even if they buy it. The reduction of emergency services will not be significant simply because many people just go to the emergency room and that's what they're used to.

They can if there is no emergency.

From Wikipedia

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide emergency health care treatment to anyone needing it regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment with the informed consent of the patient, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.[1]
EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals." The statute defines "participating hospitals" as those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program.[2] "Because there are very few hospitals that do not accept Medicare, the law applies to nearly all hospitals."[3] The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004,[4] or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA's provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients.[5][6]
The cost of emergency care required by EMTALA is not directly covered by the federal government. Because of this, the law has been criticized by some as an unfunded mandate.[7] Uncompensated care represents 6% of total hospital costs.[8]

So nothing in ACA changes that. Anyone who was previously turned away is still turned away. ACA does not address Emergency room care at all.

What a stupid remark. ACA gives people with no alternative but the emergency today, a better option. Go to a PCP and use your insurance.

 

[ShawnChris13]

They can if there is no emergency.

From Wikipedia

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide emergency health care treatment to anyone needing it regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment with the informed consent of the patient, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.[1]
EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals." The statute defines "participating hospitals" as those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program.[2] "Because there are very few hospitals that do not accept Medicare, the law applies to nearly all hospitals."[3] The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004,[4] or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA's provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients.[5][6]
The cost of emergency care required by EMTALA is not directly covered by the federal government. Because of this, the law has been criticized by some as an unfunded mandate.[7] Uncompensated care represents 6% of total hospital costs.[8]

So nothing in ACA changes that. Anyone who was previously turned away is still turned away. ACA does not address Emergency room care at all.

What a stupid remark. ACA gives people with no alternative but the emergency today, a better option. Go to a PCP and use your insurance.

Your argument is that people that don't have insurance go to the emergency room and get turned down because they don't have insurance so we have to stop that because of the rising cost of people who do t get medical service because they don't have insurance and that causes bankruptcies because they didn't get care because they don't have insurance and everyone has to pay for the care they didn't receive after getting turned down because they don't have insurance and that costs too much.

 

[PMZ]

So nothing in ACA changes that. Anyone who was previously turned away is still turned away. ACA does not address Emergency room care at all.

What a stupid remark. ACA gives people with no alternative but the emergency today, a better option. Go to a PCP and use your insurance.

Your argument is that people that don't have insurance go to the emergency room and get turned down because they don't have insurance so we have to stop that because of the rising cost of people who do t get medical service because they don't have insurance and that causes bankruptcies because they didn't get care because they don't have insurance and everyone has to pay for the care they didn't receive after getting turned down because they don't have insurance and that costs too much.

You certainly confuse easily.

6%, on the average, of every hospital bill is from president Reagan's EMTALA act which requires hospital emergency rooms to perform emergency treatment on anyone who requires it regardless of their ability to pay.

People with no means to pay for health care use that for both emergency and non emergency treatments because hospitals are reluctant to draw the line.

With ACA, people are required to have health insurance, and those who can't afford it are subsidized. That gives everyone the option to take advantage of more effective treatment of non emergency conditions at regular doctors offices.

In a perfect world that would reduce every hospital bill 6%. It's not a perfect world so experience suggests the actual savings would be somewhat less than 6%.

 

[ShawnChris13]

What a stupid remark. ACA gives people with no alternative but the emergency today, a better option. Go to a PCP and use your insurance.

Your argument is that people that don't have insurance go to the emergency room and get turned down because they don't have insurance so we have to stop that because of the rising cost of people who do t get medical service because they don't have insurance and that causes bankruptcies because they didn't get care because they don't have insurance and everyone has to pay for the care they didn't receive after getting turned down because they don't have insurance and that costs too much.

You certainly confuse easily.

6%, on the average, of every hospital bill is from president Reagan's EMTALA act which requires hospital emergency rooms to perform emergency treatment on anyone who requires it regardless of their ability to pay.

People with no means to pay for for health care use that for both emergency and non emergency treatments because hospitals are reluctant to draw the line.

With ACA, people are required to have health insurance, and those who can't afford it are subsidized. That gives everyone the option to take advantage of more effective treatment of non emergency conditions at regular doctors offices.

In a perfect world that would reduce every hospital bill 6%. It's not a perfect world so experience suggests the actual savings would be somewhat less than 6%.

Oh ok. So you're saying that 6% is a huge problem that must be addressed by over regulation and unconstitutional mandates. Well, hopefully we can hit at least 4%. That would make all this stuff worth it.

 

[PMZ]

Your argument is that people that don't have insurance go to the emergency room and get turned down because they don't have insurance so we have to stop that because of the rising cost of people who do t get medical service because they don't have insurance and that causes bankruptcies because they didn't get care because they don't have insurance and everyone has to pay for the care they didn't receive after getting turned down because they don't have insurance and that costs too much.

You certainly confuse easily.

6%, on the average, of every hospital bill is from president Reagan's EMTALA act which requires hospital emergency rooms to perform emergency treatment on anyone who requires it regardless of their ability to pay.

People with no means to pay for for health care use that for both emergency and non emergency treatments because hospitals are reluctant to draw the line.

With ACA, people are required to have health insurance, and those who can't afford it are subsidized. That gives everyone the option to take advantage of more effective treatment of non emergency conditions at regular doctors offices.

In a perfect world that would reduce every hospital bill 6%. It's not a perfect world so experience suggests the actual savings would be somewhat less than 6%.

Oh ok. So you're saying that 6% is a huge problem that must be addressed by over regulation and unconstitutional mandates. Well, hopefully we can hit at least 4%. That would make all this stuff worth it.

$43B in 2008 and rising every year.

The individual mandate is Constitutional.

You probably believe that murder is over regulated. I don't.

 

[ShawnChris13]

You certainly confuse easily.

6%, on the average, of every hospital bill is from president Reagan's EMTALA act which requires hospital emergency rooms to perform emergency treatment on anyone who requires it regardless of their ability to pay.

People with no means to pay for for health care use that for both emergency and non emergency treatments because hospitals are reluctant to draw the line.

With ACA, people are required to have health insurance, and those who can't afford it are subsidized. That gives everyone the option to take advantage of more effective treatment of non emergency conditions at regular doctors offices.

In a perfect world that would reduce every hospital bill 6%. It's not a perfect world so experience suggests the actual savings would be somewhat less than 6%.

Oh ok. So you're saying that 6% is a huge problem that must be addressed by over regulation and unconstitutional mandates. Well, hopefully we can hit at least 4%. That would make all this stuff worth it.

$43B in 2008 and rising every year.

The individual mandate is Constitutional.

You probably believe that murder is over regulated. I don't.

Bloated numbers to justify a law.

It is not constitutional.

Throwing out baseless accusations is juvenile and exactly what should be expected when one runs out of partisan rhetoric.

 

[PMZ]

Oh ok. So you're saying that 6% is a huge problem that must be addressed by over regulation and unconstitutional mandates. Well, hopefully we can hit at least 4%. That would make all this stuff worth it.

$43B in 2008 and rising every year.

The individual mandate is Constitutional.

You probably believe that murder is over regulated. I don't.

Bloated numbers to justify a law.

It is not constitutional.

Throwing out baseless accusations is juvenile and exactly what should be expected when one runs out of partisan rhetoric.

How about some evidence of "Bloated numbers" or "not constitutional" or "baseless accusations".

 

[RKMBrown]

IRS has already announced they do not fully know what their role is in all of this other than GATHERING the information which is VOLUNTARY to give.
Amazing the people that have voted in a law and have no clue what is in it.

Eggzactly, I suspect it will be an IQ test to tell them to reduce your rebate check because you did not buy health insurance.

 

[PMZ]

Goodbye Nelson Mandela. A gift to the world.

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

 

[P@triot]

Where is there any evidence that the ACA will "reduce emergency room visits"?
Where?
Amazing the left believes everything they hear if it feels good.

If you have no money, and no health insurance, the only alternative that you have for health care is emergency room treatment. If you have insurance, you are not allowed to use the emergency room fonon emergency treatment.

"Amazing the left believes everything they hear if it feels good."

Did it make you feel good to believe that ACA won't reduce emergency room treatment before finding out that you were wrong?

It's amazing how [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] illustrates his own ignorance... If you didn't have the money for health insurance before the ACA you won't magically have money for health insurance after the ACA

PMZ loves the ACA because I now have to provide health insurance for him since he's too fuck'n lazy to work and spends his money on frivolous items like high-speed internet instead of on necessities.

 

[P@triot]

You apparently don't like America much.

Yes great argument. Every time I point out so etching true you can't refute you resort to platitudes that mean nothing.

How would you refer to people who stand against our Constitution?

You mean people like you [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]? I refer to them as assholes. I also refer to them as parasites. The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to force citizens to purchase a good or service and you know it. But your desire to live as a parasite and receive freebies trumps your integrity to be honest about what you know is true (and painfully obviously so).

 

[PMZ]

Where is there any evidence that the ACA will "reduce emergency room visits"?
Where?
Amazing the left believes everything they hear if it feels good.

If you have no money, and no health insurance, the only alternative that you have for health care is emergency room treatment. If you have insurance, you are not allowed to use the emergency room fonon emergency treatment.

"Amazing the left believes everything they hear if it feels good."

Did it make you feel good to believe that ACA won't reduce emergency room treatment before finding out that you were wrong?

It's amazing how [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] illustrates his own ignorance... If you didn't have the money for health insurance before the ACA you won't magically have money for health insurance after the ACA

PMZ loves the ACA because I now have to provide health insurance for him since he's too fuck'n lazy to work and spends his money on frivolous items like high-speed internet instead of on necessities.

The only way that Rottweiner's story holds up is if he gets to imagine who those who disagree are. Propaganda 101.