If the new healthcare bill is so awesome...

[Veritas]

...why did our elected officials exempt themselves from it, as well as unions until 2018 and (?) the Amish?

****, call me Rosie the buggy-driving comptroller/riveter.

[yermom]

have i neglected to tell you guys i was Amish?

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Now if I could just find a parking spot for my horse drawn carriage.

[ouduckhunter]

have i neglected to tell you guys i was Amish?

I'm looking for loopholes and becoming Amish seems to be the way to go!

BTW, who would think that the Amish would have such a powerful lobby?

[yermom]

they still have to pay the extra medicare taxes though, don't they? they just don't have to pay the fines?

[olevetonahill]

WE need to get a Nation wide petition going about Congress will enact NO laws that they are exempt from. Retro active to include SS

[OklahomaTuba]

Interesting article on what a POS this thing really is...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/fact-sheet-the-truth-abou_b_506026.html

[OklahomaTuba]

Brave New World of ObamaCare.


"We, as consumers, are going to have to change our spending habits. We'll have to stop demanding the latest of everything because we think it's the best." - Dr. Tim Johnson on ABC World Newshttp://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/health-care-reform-costs-10173838

Thanks Obama!!!

[Veritas]

"We, as consumers, are going to have to change our spending habits. We'll have to stop demanding the latest of everything because we think it's the best." - Dr. Tim Johnson on ABC World News

I can't find anything there in that statement that I disagree with. Consumer spending habits *do* need to change.

[Scott D]

you did it now Veritas, you're clearly a dirty lib now. ;)

I'd tell you why congress did that, except I'm off voting to give myself another undeserved pay raise on top of the bribes...er 'donations' from lobbyists.

[OklahomaTuba]

"We, as consumers, are going to have to change our spending habits. We'll have to stop demanding the latest of everything because we think it's the best." - Dr. Tim Johnson on ABC World News

I can't find anything there in that statement that I disagree with. Consumer spending habits *do* need to change.Whys that?

Consumer spending habits are what drive innovation. If they need to change, let the consumer decide for themselves, not some commissar telling us what we do and don't need.

[Veritas]

Whys that?

Consumer spending habits are what drive innovation. If they need to change, let the consumer decide for themselves, not some commissar telling us what we do and don't need.
No, innovation takes place to create new and better products to induce consumers to spend. We have cool amazing techological stuff not because the companies have some benevolent urges but because there is a revenue motive and a need to stay ahead of the competition. Know why your cell phone is so cool? Capitalism, baby.

[OklahomaTuba]

No, innovation takes place to create new and better products to induce consumers to spend. We have cool amazing techological stuff not because the companies have some benevolent urges but because there is a revenue motive and a need to stay ahead of the competition. Know why your cell phone is so cool? Capitalism, baby.That's basically what I meant in not so many words, although I would add that this innovation, or risk rather, would not occur if there wasn't a market for it to begin with.

[C&CDean]

Now y'all are back to the chicken or the egg dammit.

[Scott D]

This is full of fail

[Dio]

This is full of fail

The thread or the bill?

[Veritas]

The thread or the bill?
Oh, both. My threads are an automatic fail.

[Boarder]

...why did our elected officials exempt themselves from it, as well as unions until 2018 and (?) the Amish?

****, call me Rosie the buggy-driving comptroller/riveter.
Where did you hear/read this? I have looked through the bill and cannot find any mention of union or Congress members. Here is a link to the religious exemption (which, of course, does not mention the Amish by name).

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/text?version=eas&nid=t0:eas:2360

Interesting, though, if you're like Rush wanted to be and are out of the country, you don't have to pay for insurance for that time.

[landrun]

Interesting article on what a POS this thing really is...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/fact-sheet-the-truth-abou_b_506026.html

Its interesting that this is from the Huffington Post. They're left wing big time and I'm shocked to see they're willing to admit this and print it. If you support this bill, I guess you're just an Obama homer who believes what you want in spite of all the evidence that this is a terrible bill which in the end, really helps no one but the powers that be to have more power.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Actually, one writer from another website had that opinion. Most of the commenters disagreed and I'm sure most of the other HP writers are either for the bill or only criticize the lack of a public option or full blown universal care. Many moderates and liberals complain about how much it actually appeases the insurance companies, despite the fact that they all claim it's gonna break them.

[CORNholio]

Yay!!! I gladly hand over my rights and freedoms to the government for a cookie. Anybody who thinks that "Honest John the Congressman" is not going to find a way to **** you with this bill need only pay more attention to politics.

[Stitch Face]

Here's an editorial from the Wash Times about it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/23/obamacare-for-everyone-but-obama/

[CORNholio]

In some way or another doesn't this violate that whole 'right to privacy' thing. Isn't that how abortion is legal? (Not a lawyer, real question). Isn't your medical treatment a private matter? what if you are into new age medicine or hell a witch doctor or herbs and ****, how is the government going to tell you to pay for a doctors visit with out violating your belief system (freedom of religion)?

[Stitch Face]

Okay, that link of Boarder's basically rickrolled my computer. Does the religious exemption have anything to do with Jehovah's Witnesses? I've been wondering if they would have to pay for coverage of blood transfusions. My guess would be they have to pay for coverage like anyone else, they just don't have to accept all the benefits.

[Stitch Face]

Found it.


the “Religious Exemption,” Section 1501(b), which states: “The term ‘applicable individual’ … shall not include any individual for any month if such individual is a member of a health care sharing ministry for the month.”

The bill then defines a “health care sharing ministry” to be any 501(c)(3) organization that has existed since at least 1999 whose members “share a common set of ethical or religious beliefs and share medical expenses among members in accordance with those beliefs.”

A legislative white paper written by the Citizens Council on Health Care in January 2010 just after the Senate inserted that exemption, noted that, “There are three medical sharing ministries in the United States: Medi-Share, Christian Healthcare Ministries, and Samaritan Ministries International. They serve from 25,000 to 42,000 people. … Common membership requirements include an agreement not to smoke, drink heavily or use illicit drugs. Members must attend church regularly, and agree not to have sex outside of marriage … monthly fees for a family of four are between $240 and 400.”


So either you're in the national plan or you're in one of the three "health ministries" is all; no specific cutouts for individual religious restrictions, etc.

[yermom]

In some way or another doesn't this violate that whole 'right to privacy' thing. Isn't that how abortion is legal? (Not a lawyer, real question). Isn't your medical treatment a private matter? what if you are into new age medicine or hell a witch doctor or herbs and ****, how is the government going to tell you to pay for a doctors visit with out violating your belief system (freedom of religion)?

i don't think they care if or when you go to the doctor :D

[Stitch Face]

i don't think they care if or when you go to the doctor :D

Exactly. As long as you're paying for your policy it's up to you to partake (or not) of any of the bene's.

[1890MilesToNorman]

I expect to be jailed if they ever fine me and don't receive my check. I suspect they will need to build some healthcare prisons to hold everyone who ain't gonna play this game.

[CORNholio]

this **** has to be unconstitutional on some level. whether those pussies in the supreme court will actually rule on it or just punk-out for their own party's favor is the real question though.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I think the Amish may have many new congregations around the country. Looking forward to that beard and funny clothes.

[TUSooner]

Its interesting that this is from the Huffington Post. They're left wing big time and I'm shocked to see they're willing to admit this and print it. If you support this bill, I guess you're just an Obama homer who believes what you want in spite of all the evidence that this is a terrible bill which in the end, really helps no one but the powers that be to have more power.

I had similar thoughts after reading the article. It was oddly comforting to know that it wasn't all the left had it cracked up to be. I now see the whole bill fiasco as a proxy for the underlying issue of Obama's and the Dems' raw power. Mostly symbolism, but with some negative substance. Apparently nobody thinks the bill is actually "good"; but it's "something" that the left just had to have. The Dems are so crappy that it's all the sadder that the GOP is still pandering to flat-earth right-wing zomboloids. Please, God, wake up the Republicans and send an intelligent, sensible conservative to lead them on the right path!

[soonerscuba]

GOP is still pandering to flat-earth right-wing zomboloids.Moderates don't cut checks, and the GOP, as it currently stands has a demographic that isn't going to tolerate moderate platform.

I will say this, the midterm elections are still tied to jobs and the economy. I think the Dems are going to lose seats, but I would be surprised if it's the blood letting that op-ed panel at the WSJ is predicting, mainly because running on repealing widely popular (and at this point, very cheap) benefits is a tough sell.

[Boarder]

Found it.




So either you're in the national plan or you're in one of the three "health ministries" is all; no specific cutouts for individual religious restrictions, etc.
The health ministries is in addition to the religious sects who oppose. From what I can find, it's basically the same type of thing as conscription conscientious objectors.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

I had similar thoughts after reading the article. It was oddly comforting to know that it wasn't all the left had it cracked up to be. I now see the whole bill fiasco as a proxy for the underlying issue of Obama's and the Dems' raw power. Mostly symbolism, but with some negative substance. Apparently nobody thinks the bill is actually "good"; but it's "something" that the left just had to have. The Dems are so crappy that it's all the sadder that the GOP is still pandering to flat-earth right-wing zomboloids. Please, God, wake up the Republicans and send an intelligent, sensible conservative to lead them on the right path!


In the end, this was a power exercise about getting a win. Obama clearly staked his presidency on it and from that standpoint you have to give him credit for getting it done by any means necessary. Bush had a chance to do the same thing with SS reform 5 years ago but caved when the going got tough.

To me though, as much as I detest single payer, it would have been preferable to this bill. At least in a single payer there's a means of controlling costs (by denying care). Whereas in this bill there no provisions for cost control and our debt is going to skyrocket.

[1890MilesToNorman]

The more I think about how much debt the US has the more I say go for it! We will never pay back our current debt, let alone the debt from future stupid legislation. When the **** hits the fan the American people will be forced to fend for themselves, I think that will probably be a good thing? They claim the debt is what 6-7 trillion when it's actually 40-50 trillion???

[Boarder]

Okay, that link of Boarder's basically rickrolled my computer. Does the religious exemption have anything to do with Jehovah's Witnesses? I've been wondering if they would have to pay for coverage of blood transfusions. My guess would be they have to pay for coverage like anyone else, they just don't have to accept all the benefits.
The link works great for me, what's up with that? Weird. Anyway, here's the section:


‘(1) IN GENERAL- The term ‘applicable individual’ means, with respect to any month, an individual other than an individual described in paragraph (2), (3), or (4).

‘(2) RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS-
‘(A) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION- Such term shall not include any individual for any month if such individual has in effect an exemption under section 1311(d)(4)(H) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section.
‘(B) HEALTH CARE SHARING MINISTRY-

‘(i) IN GENERAL- Such term shall not include any individual for any month if such individual is a member of a health care sharing ministry for the month.

‘(ii) HEALTH CARE SHARING MINISTRY- The term ‘health care sharing ministry’ means an organization--

‘(I) which is described in section 501(c)(3) and is exempt from taxation under section 501(a), {note: 501(c)(3) is a non-profit}

‘(II) members of which share a common set of ethical or religious beliefs and share medical expenses among members in accordance with those beliefs and without regard to the State in which a member resides or is employed,

‘(III) members of which retain membership even after they develop a medical condition,

‘(IV) which (or a predecessor of which) has been in existence at all times since December 31, 1999, and medical expenses of its members have been shared continuously and without interruption since at least December 31, 1999, and

‘(V) which conducts an annual audit which is performed by an independent certified public accounting firm in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and which is made available to the public upon request.

‘(3) INDIVIDUALS NOT LAWFULLY PRESENT- Such term shall not include an individual for any month if for the month the individual is not a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully present in the United States.

‘(4) INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS- Such term shall not include an individual for any month if for the month the individual is incarcerated, other than incarceration pending the disposition of charges.

Section 1402(g)(1) is in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. It excludes religons from paying taxes if they don't use any services, basically. You can look it up here. (http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Sec._1402._Definitions)

If you want an exemption, you get a certificate from the Secretary and it's based upon if you are one of these:

(A) In the case of an individual seeking exemption based on the individual’s status as a member of an exempt religious sect or division, as a member of a health care sharing ministry, as an Indian, or as an individual eligible for a hardship exemption, such information as the Secretary shall prescribe.

[btk108]

have i neglected to tell you guys i was Amish?

so that explains the beard....

[OklaPony]

Since we're in OK... how will this affect Native Americans who already receive health benefits through their respective tribe / BIA / etc.?

[Stitch Face]

Boarder, thanks for posting that. When I use the link my browser starts chugging and then stops responding.

[Boarder]

Since we're in OK... how will this affect Native Americans who already receive health benefits through their respective tribe / BIA / etc.?
They can get an exemption certificate from being required to have insurance.

[OklaPony]

They can get an exemption certificate from being required to have insurance.

Oh, as it states in the post that you made earlier. Duh, didn't see that the first time around. Thanks.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Boarder, thanks for posting that. When I use the link my browser starts chugging and then stops responding.

You really need to get around to upgrading from Netscape. :P

[Scott D]

The thread or the bill?

What Veritas replied to this post :)

[OklahomaTuba]

If "The Big F'n Deal" is so allsome, why do 55% already want repeal (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/march_2010/55_favor_repeal_of_health_care_bill) it?

[Crucifax Autumn]

blah...blah...

Reality is that it's about 40-40 and 20% are morons that still think Hillary did it or Ford is pres.

[Stitch Face]

We are so going to vote Ford's *** out of office whatever year that next election is

[Crucifax Autumn]

Hillbilly!

[Boarder]

We are so going to vote Ford's *** out of office whatever year that next election is
November, always November

[Boarder]

Where did you hear/read this? I have looked through the bill and cannot find any mention of union or Congress members.

Upon further review, I did find a mention of members of Congress. Not only are they not exempt, the only health plan that will be provided to members of Congress and their staff will be ones available through the State exchanges. So, they forced themselves to adhere to the plan. (Although, I suppose they could refuse the provided coverage and buy their own insurance)

Section 1312(d)(3)(D)