Hey Penguin, let's play

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Pacioli

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jan 10, 2009
    1,177
    36
    Baton Rouge
    You said...
    Not that I'll be able to change anyones mind, but how about a poi t by point discussion on what the bill does?

    Ok, let's start with this one....

    Employer Responsibility

    Under new IRC § 4980H, an “applicable large employer” that does not offer coverage for all its full-time employees, offers minimum essential coverage that is unaffordable, or offers minimum essential coverage that consists of a plan under which the plan’s share of the total allowed cost of benefits is less than 60%, is required to pay a penalty if any full-time employee is certified to the employer as having purchased health insurance through a state exchange with respect to which a tax credit or cost-sharing reduction is allowed or paid to the employee.

    An employer is an applicable large employer with respect to any calendar year if it employed an average of at least 50 full-time employees during the preceding calendar year.

    An applicable large employer who fails to offer its full-time employees and their dependents the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an employer-sponsored plan for any month is subject to a penalty if at least one of its full-time employees is certified to the employer as having enrolled in health insurance coverage purchased through a state exchange with respect to which a premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction is allowed or paid to such employee or employees. The penalty for any month is an excise tax equal to the number of full-time employees over a 30-employee threshold during the applicable month (regardless of how many employees are receiving a premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction) multiplied by one-twelfth of $2,000.

    An applicable large employer who offers, for any month, its full-time employees and their dependents the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an employer-sponsored plan is subject to a penalty if any full-time employee is certified to the employer as having enrolled in health insurance coverage purchased through a state exchange with respect to which a premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction is allowed or paid to such employee or employees.


    If you like more government, you're gonna get what you want. New Internal revenue code section, convoluted formulas, additonal administrative burden on employers. All administered by the IRS and HHS, agencies known for never causing you a problem by fining, levying or siezing using incorrect information. What could possibly go wrong?
     
    Last edited:

    Pacioli

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jan 10, 2009
    1,177
    36
    Baton Rouge
    Sounds like every business with more than 50 employees will be penalized.

    And that's just the beginning. The AICPA has a white paper out with nineteen pure tax issues created in this monstrosity. New fees, filing and record keeping requirements, new agency authorizations, new taxes on income, social security taxes, excise taxes, penalties, on and on.

    Here's a fun fact. If you sign up for one of the mandated state exchanges, you give permission for Treasury and HHS to compare notes on you. And if you're retired, Social Security gets to send your info around to Treasury and HHS.

    Tip of the iceberg, welcome to european socialism.
     

    Roc 1972

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 1, 2009
    60
    6
    St. Charles
    Here is the beginning of the "Hope and Change" that was promised and the sheeple voted for. If I remember a few words correctly, " We live in the greatest country on EARTH,,,, Now, help me change it!". Let the fun begin, just remember, that as of right now, they are not required to drink willingly at the same trough they want to force and dunk our head into. Nov-2010, can't get here fast enough!
     

    penguin

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 12, 2006
    1,821
    36
    Slidell, LA / NOLA
    Ok, I'll play when I have some time tomorrow. Like I said in another post, after some more careful review and thoughts on the matter I no longer support this bill. I think the burden is too great for states, individuals and businesses. I do, however, believe that there needs to be a massive overhaul of our current medical and insurance laws. Some things in this bill are great and some things suck. See, I'm not a 'crazed liberal'...lol
     

    scubasteve

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 12, 2007
    904
    16
    Baton Rouge
    I believe we all realize this bill wasn't about reform but control.
    I wish I knew/understopod the history of insurance, HMO's, PPO's, and all them other damn O's that make the medical industry so damn complicated and expensive.
    Fuggem, I'm gonna start using my dogs vet.
     

    Pacioli

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jan 10, 2009
    1,177
    36
    Baton Rouge
    Ok, I'll play when I have some time tomorrow. Like I said in another post, after some more careful review and thoughts on the matter I no longer support this bill. I think the burden is too great for states, individuals and businesses. I do, however, believe that there needs to be a massive overhaul of our current medical and insurance laws. Some things in this bill are great and some things suck. See, I'm not a 'crazed liberal'...lol

    Well now you're just taking all the fun out of it by being reasonable. But we can still play. I agree that the insurance companies have been in sore need of a good d^&k slap for years. And the whole system would work better if doctors lived in our neigborhoods and drove Fords. But as I read the legislation in an attempt to do a threat assessment for my company, it just makes my blood boil.
     

    CEHollier

    *Banned*
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Dec 29, 2007
    8,973
    38
    Prairieville
    I've often said the same thing. I seem to get more courtesy and compassion from my vet than most doctors.

    That's because there are some people out there that are complete assholes. Physicians, like many professions that deal with the public, become jaded to some degree by these individuals. Dogs on the otherhand are polite, complementary, and never have a bad day. ;)
     

    Pacioli

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jan 10, 2009
    1,177
    36
    Baton Rouge
    That's because there are some people out there that are complete assholes. Physicians, like many professions that deal with the public, become jaded to some degree by these individuals. Dogs on the otherhand are polite, complementary, and never have a bad day. ;)

    I, personally, would give them less reason to become jaded if they would value my time as much as their own. They could do this in any number of ways. The receptionist could show respect by saying "the doctor is running X minutes late this morning." Someone in the office could say, "sorry to keep you waiting." Someone could address the waiting room with "the doctor has been called to an emergency. We hope you understand, if you would like to reschedule....."

    One of my clients, a dentist, was told by an internist "I don't think an hour is too long to wait to see a doctor." That sort of god complex doesn't come from unpleasant interactions with the unwashed. And it is part of the ire fueling the resentment of the system that propelled Obama's usurpation of our rights.
     

    CloudStrife

    Why so serious?
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 5, 2010
    3,156
    36
    Baton Rouge, LA
    So a "applicable large business" is a business with over 50 employees? If I read that right then I would expect a "small business" with 55 employees to have 6 layoffs.

    Then the IRS will hire them.

    Just the mandates on insurance companies will cause their premiums to skyrocket... and put them out of business.
     
    Last edited:

    Pacioli

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jan 10, 2009
    1,177
    36
    Baton Rouge
    So a "applicable large business" is a business with over 50 employees? If I read that right then I would expect a "small business" with 55 employees to have 6 layoffs.

    This is another (as if we needed another) example of how out of touch congress is. The business I work for is a small business, by every measure. For 2009 I ran 138 W2s. Employee count is a faulty measure. Hedge funds will generate millions in revenue with six employees. Are they small businesses?
     

    Roc 1972

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 1, 2009
    60
    6
    St. Charles
    Even with their (control measure) excuse me OVERHAUL tactic, Congress already regulates everything. FDA- drugs, want to apply for a new drug for s/thing great, gotta go through that process. And who gets their pockets lined first? You know who, and now they get in lined again. Access to you checking acct, if you have too much in your savings, tax it some more. What if we all stopped and their were no mules left to "donate" to teh "Teet that all teh sheeple get their STUFF from"? Just a thought.
     
    Top Bottom