pudge's Journal: Legislators are Stupid and Annoying

I keep hearing that the health insurance reform bill will take a certain dollar from us if we don't buy insurance, or a percentage of our income, whichever is higher.

I can't find this in the original bill. It just gives a dollar amount.

I look for it in the reconciliation bill, and I see what appears to be modifying existing income tax rates, codified in Section 5000A(c)(2)(B). The problem is, in the original bill, I see no (B) in 5000A(c)(2) as created by H.R. 3590, Sec. 1501(b) ... let alone clauses i, ii, or iii. And I am sure I am in the right place, because the reconciliation bill goes on to modify 5000A(c)(3), and that's all there in the original bill.

Well, not all of it. It says in H.R. 4872 that it is changing $750 to $695, but $495 to $325. But there is no $325, it's $350. So I search on $495 and find that in Sec. 10106 -- an amendment -- $350 was changed to $495. Also, (B) was added to 5000A(c)(2), which increased the tax penalty percentage further.

Gotta love it when the text of a bill modifies an earlier section of the same bill. So even reading the bill you can't understand what the bill says unless you read the entire bill because it goes back on itself.

Speaking of going back on itself ... since this represents a very large income tax increase on families making less than $250K -- if they choose to not have health insurance -- it's also Obama going back on himself when he promised he wouldn't raise such taxes. Yes, he already violated that promise in many other ways, such as with the tobacco tax, but after election he revised his original promise to refer only to taxes on income, even though it was originally for all federal taxes, and this one is explicitly on income.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

SCOTUS vacancy

[Shakrai]

Hey pudge, off topic to your journal entry here, but did you see George Will's op-ed on 4/15 regarding the SCOTUS vacancy? He's one of my favorite writers and really hit the nail on the head (IMHO anyway) with his closing:

So conservatives should rethink their rhetoric about "judicial activism." The proper question is: Will the nominee be actively enough engaged in protecting liberty from depredations perpetrated by popular sovereignty?

Re:

[pudge]

If his point is that the rhetoric doesn't really work -- because liberals are liars and say that it is "activist" to defend the Constitution, even in the face of contradictory precedent -- then he's got a point. I heard Ed Rendell say the other day that, in re Citizens United, it was "activist" to disallow censoring political speech.

These people have no shame, but it's true that many people buy this ridiculous spin, and rather than using vague words we should more often say what we mean.

I'd not use Will's

Maybe not a choice

[Bakkster]

"since this represents a very large income tax increase on families making less than $250K -- if they choose to not have health insurance"

Of course, the worst part is that it might not even be a choice. They may not be able to afford insurance even if they want it, because while insurance companies will be prevented from denying coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, to my knowledge it doesn't have to be cheap. Since the point of insurance is averaging the cost of issues amongst a group, these

Re:

[pudge]

They may not be able to afford insurance even if they want it

True, although the bill has government subsidies for low-income families.

Re:

[Bakkster]

They may not be able to afford insurance even if they want it

True, although the bill has government subsidies for low-income families.

My thoughts are for those who make enough money to not receive subsidies (how much is the subsidy anyway?), yet don't work for a large enough company to receive health insurance as a benefit (small businesses are exempted from the mandate to provide corporate health care). Admittedly a small group, but someone will almost certainly slip through the cracks.

Again, it seems that in the rush to avoid 'socialism', we've ended up with a system with most of the problems of socialism, without any of the benefits.

Re:

[robi2106]

My thoughts are for those who make enough money to not receive subsidies (how much is the subsidy anyway?), yet don't work for a large enough company to receive health insurance as a benefit (small businesses are exempted from the mandate to provide corporate health care). Admittedly a small group, but someone will almost certainly slip through the cracks.

everyone who works for tech contracting firms as perma-temps (like I did in the past, and am no doing again) will take up up the ass here, especially those working for a certain printer manufacturer (and similar companies) whose contracting agency has a horrible health policy (because it is written to avoid a transient work force common to contracting). The contracting agency's group health policy ($220/wk for employee+spouse+family .... which is around 30% of weekly income down to 20% depending on pay) wi