• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Biggest Reform EVER passed thread

Seems like they're building in an excuse.

It really does. This way Trump can A: cry that the process is too complicated, B: whine about bureaucracies which will rally his base, and C: blame Democrats for not voting against the former president's signature piece of legislation.
 
Last edited:
Per Andy Slavitt, it seems more like they need the $ savings to get under the $1.5T threshold necessary to pass with 50 votes. I assume they're banking on the idea that the individual mandate isn't as popular as the ACA as a whole. Also they still seem to think they can blame premium increases on the Dems.
 
Per Andy Slavitt, it seems more like they need the $ savings to get under the $1.5T threshold necessary to pass with 50 votes. I assume they're banking on the idea that the individual mandate isn't as popular as the ACA as a whole. Also they still seem to think they can blame premium increases on the Dems.

They are truly incapable of governing. ACA falls apart without the individual mandate. So the same people that voted no on replacing Obamacare are going to vote no on this.
 
Per Andy Slavitt, it seems more like they need the $ savings to get under the $1.5T threshold necessary to pass with 50 votes. I assume they're banking on the idea that the individual mandate isn't as popular as the ACA as a whole. Also they still seem to think they can blame premium increases on the Dems.

People who got a elected to fix something think they can get by with blaming the people they got elected over. Bold strategy.
 
How does getting rid of the individual mandate help them on budgeting? That seems like it would be an unfavorable Revenue factor?
 
not sure if you saw it but moonz recommended you get some vaginal wipes ready...?
 
They are truly incapable of governing. ACA falls apart without the individual mandate. So the same people that voted no on replacing Obamacare are going to vote no on this.

Not necessarily, McCain was against the lack of a normal process, not the bill. This is still super rushed but at least they can claim to have gone through the committee. They'll need one of Collins, Murkowski, or Corker though.

How does getting rid of the individual mandate help them on budgeting? That seems like it would be an unfavorable Revenue factor?

Rates increase and people that can't afford coverage and won't get subsidies offset the revenue from the mandate, per the CBO estimate. They also estimate people who qualify won't necessarily get Medicaid without the mandate.

Repealing the Individual Health Insurance Mandate: An Updated Estimate

Original CBO Report
 
As long as I can still renovate my kitchen and buy a new car for 1000 dollars I don’t care what they do.
 
Not necessarily, McCain was against the lack of a normal process, not the bill. This is still super rushed but at least they can claim to have gone through the committee. They'll need one of Collins, Murkowski, or Corker though.



Rates increase and people that can't afford coverage and won't get subsidies offset the revenue from the mandate, per the CBO estimate. They also estimate people who qualify won't necessarily get Medicaid without the mandate.

Repealing the Individual Health Insurance Mandate: An Updated Estimate

Original CBO Report

So basically, the middle class pays for it at their doctor’s office?
 
https://www.franken.senate.gov/?p=news&id=3600

I think Al Franken does as well as anyone at explaining why the ACA needs 3 critical parts to be successful, and later how the Republicans have constantly been sawing at each of it's legs, thus never even giving it a chance to stand on its own. The link is to a speech, but here is the gist of it:



"So they wanted to come up with a way to use the magic of the marketplace to solve the problem of providing everyone access to insurance. Here's what they came up with: a three-legged stool.

First leg: insurance companies can't deny coverage to people with a pre-existing condition.

We can all agree on that, right? President-elect Trump and I agree on that, for sure. It's a great idea. A great idea.

But there's a catch. If you can't turn people down because of a pre-existing condition, well then everyone will wait to buy health insurance until they get sick and need care. But the whole idea of health insurance is that at any given moment, most of the people paying premiums are healthy, so their premiums cover care for the sick people. If the only people with insurance are sick, the premiums will skyrocket. So you need a way to get healthy people into the system to bring the costs down. Which brings us to leg number two:

[Second Leg] Everyone has to be insured. Otherwise known as... the individual mandate.

This is what conservatives hate. The government says everyone has to buy insurance. But if you have to sell everyone insurance, then everyone has to buy it, or the cost explodes. Now look, if you've got a better way to keep people covered and keep costs down, show me the plan. Show me the plan. But this is the best one the Heritage Foundation could come up with.

But wait-what if someone can't afford that health insurance? That brings us to...

Third leg: The government will subsidize insurance for people who can't afford it.

And voila! There you have it. The Heritage Foundation plan. Which a Republican governor then implemented in a state, to huge success."
 
Last edited:
So basically, the middle class pays for it at their doctor’s office?

Yes, 13 million lose insurance, premiums go up by 10% across the board, all for a tax cut for the wealthy and corporations. Should be pretty toxic. We'll see.
 
Yes, 13 million lose insurance, premiums go up by 10% across the board, all for a tax cut for the wealthy and corporations. Should be pretty toxic. We'll see.

Toxic for the party who vote Yes! on pedophiles?
 
Yes, 13 million lose insurance, premiums go up by 10% across the board, all for a tax cut for the wealthy and corporations. Should be pretty toxic. We'll see.

Selling it completely as a tax cut for the wealthy is disingenuous. This bill is reasonable enough to debate without the partisan slant.
 
 
Ph -

If you are an american starting a company, it's almost always going to be easier to start a corporation under the law of one of our states. If, for example, you decided to form a Venezuelan SA de CV (their corporate equivalent), you'd need Venezuelan counsel, have Venezuelan fees, have to comply with Venezuela corporate law, and you receive the protection of their government. First point: do you feel good about Venezuela respecting your legal entity? There is definite value in having a US domicile because we historically have applied the rule of law fairly.

Second: if your Venezuelan company is operating in the US, it still has to file US tax returns, similar to if it was a US company. There are some differences, mainly not good. On the upside, your income from Venezuela, Mexico, China, and the rest of the world is subject to Venezuela taxes, which are a lot lower than US tax. So you still pay US tax on your US income, but lower on everywhere else. (If you incorporated in the US, you'd pay US tax on all of your worldwide income.)

The logical next step is to incorporate a US subsidiary and avoid the nuisances of having the Venezuela company file a foreign-based US return. Now all your income from the US is in a US company, and the rest of the world isn't in the US company. And if you're smart, you'll have the US company pay a fee to the parent company for the use of its IP, brand, etc, such that your US tax liability goes way down.

I have gotten a bit off topic of your original question, which is who cares where a corporation is domiciled, but hopefully that's useful info.
 
I have spent about 37 seconds on this, so my #hottake is not particularly well thought out.

GOP is proposing to cut a program that helps veterans find work when they are finished with service. How does that balance out with the GOP fervor over taking a knee during the national anthem?

Bootstraps?
 
Ph -

If you are an american starting a company, it's almost always going to be easier to start a corporation under the law of one of our states. If, for example, you decided to form a Venezuelan SA de CV (their corporate equivalent), you'd need Venezuelan counsel, have Venezuelan fees, have to comply with Venezuela corporate law, and you receive the protection of their government. First point: do you feel good about Venezuela respecting your legal entity? There is definite value in having a US domicile because we historically have applied the rule of law fairly.

Second: if your Venezuelan company is operating in the US, it still has to file US tax returns, similar to if it was a US company. There are some differences, mainly not good. On the upside, your income from Venezuela, Mexico, China, and the rest of the world is subject to Venezuela taxes, which are a lot lower than US tax. So you still pay US tax on your US income, but lower on everywhere else. (If you incorporated in the US, you'd pay US tax on all of your worldwide income.)

The logical next step is to incorporate a US subsidiary and avoid the nuisances of having the Venezuela company file a foreign-based US return. Now all your income from the US is in a US company, and the rest of the world isn't in the US company. And if you're smart, you'll have the US company pay a fee to the parent company for the use of its IP, brand, etc, such that your US tax liability goes way down.

I have gotten a bit off topic of your original question, which is who cares where a corporation is domiciled, but hopefully that's useful info.

Thanks. So what can be done to make it worthwhile to start a company in the US?
 
Per Andy Slavitt, it seems more like they need the $ savings to get under the $1.5T threshold necessary to pass with 50 votes. I assume they're banking on the idea that the individual mandate isn't as popular as the ACA as a whole. Also they still seem to think they can blame premium increases on the Dems.

Looks like to get it so that it doesn't add to the budget 10 years out, they are proposing to have all individual tax cuts expire in 2025. They've also further lowered the bracket amounts a half a percentage point, and are increasing the child tax credit to $2,000 (Which is a big deal, as this probably changes the game from the plan hurting people with lots of kids to helping those with lots of kids).

Pretty hard to find anyone who would be worse off now, for 8 or 9 years or so. I guess folks with million dollar homes are still hurt a bit.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/14/...enate-obamacare-individual-mandate-trump.html
 
Last edited:
Back
Top