Us Expats And Health Care Reform

[midas]

The games. Indeed...

Article. XVI.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

But it hasnt been put forward as a tax ?

Where in the Commerce Clause does it say that the government has the power to force people to buy something ?

Under the Constitution the federal government can not force any citizen to buy a product or service. Only the states can, and if they choose not to do so people will not buy health insurance.

But we will see in time if the Surpreme Court has also become corrupt.........just like every other

institutioin in USA

[ray23]

What else is hidden?

March 23, 2010

Exempted from "Obamacare:" The Authors

Ben Domenech: Some Interesting Provisions for Senior Democrat Staffers Who Helped Write the Bill

(The New Ledger) Benjamin Domenech, a former speechwriter and political appointee at the Department of Health and Human Services, is managing editor of Health Care News.

For as long as the political fight took over the past year, the abbreviated review process on the health care legislation currently pending on President Obama’s desk is unquestionably going to result in some surprises - as happens with any piece of mashed-up legislation - both for the congressmen who voted for it and for the American people.

One such surprise is found on page 158 of the legislation, which appears to create a carve out for senior staff members in the leadership offices and on congressional committees, essentially exempting those senior Democrat staffers who wrote the bill from being forced to purchase health care plans in the same way as other Americans.

A major story during the course of the health care debate was whether members of Congress would commit to placing themselves in the same health care exchanges as average citizens, or whether they would hang on to their government plans - that’s why leadership chose to add this portion to the bill, serving as a guarantee that members would participate in the same health plans as the people. Here’s the relevant text:

(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE-

(i) REQUIREMENT- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are-

(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or

(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

But as with a lot of legislative matters, the devil is in the details - or in this case, the definitions. As anyone who’s worked on Capitol Hill knows, the personal office staff for a member is governed by different rules than those who work on committees and in the leadership offices.

It appears from the way this language is written that those staffers NOT in personal offices, such as those working and paid under the committee structure (such as those working for Chairman Henry Waxman) or those working on leadership staff (such as those working for Speaker Nancy Pelosi) would be exempt from these requirements (emphasis added).

(ii) DEFINITIONS- In this section:

(I) MEMBER OF CONGRESS- The term `Member of Congress’ means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.

(II) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF- The term `congressional staff’ means all full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.

According to the Congressional Research Service, this definition of staff will only apply to those staffers employed within a member’s “personal office” - meaning that it will absolutely not apply to committee staff members, and may not apply to leadership staff.

This problem was acknowledged earlier in the process - last year, Senator Grassley tried to repair it, but he was rebuffed.

As Speaker Pelosi said a few weeks ago, it’s only after this legislation is passed that we’ll truly find out what’s in it.

By Ben Domenech:

Reprinted with permission from The New Ledger.

[midas]

What else is hidden?

March 23, 2010

Exempted from "Obamacare:" The Authors

Ben Domenech: Some Interesting Provisions for Senior Democrat Staffers Who Helped Write the Bill

(The New Ledger) Benjamin Domenech, a former speechwriter and political appointee at the Department of Health and Human Services, is managing editor of Health Care News.

For as long as the political fight took over the past year, the abbreviated review process on the health care legislation currently pending on President Obama’s desk is unquestionably going to result in some surprises - as happens with any piece of mashed-up legislation - both for the congressmen who voted for it and for the American people.

One such surprise is found on page 158 of the legislation, which appears to create a carve out for senior staff members in the leadership offices and on congressional committees, essentially exempting those senior Democrat staffers who wrote the bill from being forced to purchase health care plans in the same way as other Americans.

A major story during the course of the health care debate was whether members of Congress would commit to placing themselves in the same health care exchanges as average citizens, or whether they would hang on to their government plans - that’s why leadership chose to add this portion to the bill, serving as a guarantee that members would participate in the same health plans as the people. Here’s the relevant text:

(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE-

(i) REQUIREMENT- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are-

(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or

(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

But as with a lot of legislative matters, the devil is in the details - or in this case, the definitions. As anyone who’s worked on Capitol Hill knows, the personal office staff for a member is governed by different rules than those who work on committees and in the leadership offices.

It appears from the way this language is written that those staffers NOT in personal offices, such as those working and paid under the committee structure (such as those working for Chairman Henry Waxman) or those working on leadership staff (such as those working for Speaker Nancy Pelosi) would be exempt from these requirements (emphasis added).

(ii) DEFINITIONS- In this section:

(I) MEMBER OF CONGRESS- The term `Member of Congress’ means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.

(II) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF- The term `congressional staff’ means all full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.

According to the Congressional Research Service, this definition of staff will only apply to those staffers employed within a member’s “personal office” - meaning that it will absolutely not apply to committee staff members, and may not apply to leadership staff.

This problem was acknowledged earlier in the process - last year, Senator Grassley tried to repair it, but he was rebuffed.

As Speaker Pelosi said a few weeks ago, it’s only after this legislation is passed that we’ll truly find out what’s in it.

By Ben Domenech:

Reprinted with permission from The New Ledger.

" and may not apply to leadership staff " but probably will

Social equality under the " progessive " movement ............what a joke !!

[VegasVic]

The games. Indeed...

Article. XVI.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

But it hasnt been put forward as a tax ?

Where in the Commerce Clause does it say that the government has the power to force people to buy something ?

Under the Constitution the federal government can not force any citizen to buy a product or service. Only the states can, and if they choose not to do so people will not buy health insurance.

But we will see in time if the Surpreme Court has also become corrupt.........just like every other

institutioin in USA

The answer is that it is nowhere in the commerce clause, furthermore it is the states that regulate insurance issues within their own boundries, hence 19 state attorney generals have either filed or are in the process of filing lawsuits against the Federal governemnt on this issue This however is but a minor issue to the arrogant Obama administration as they move forward with this obscenity! I might also add that there is no wording in this bill directed towards expats, so even expats will be forced to purchase U.S. healthcare or be fined by the U.S. governement Of course the easiest way around this would be to just stop filiing income taxes if you live overseas on a permenent basis.

[ray23]

They been so busy with this they forgot people got to eat, where are the jobs?

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/89269-b...oyment-benefits

What a shame these idiots don't have a clue about the real world

[midas]

They been so busy with this they forgot people got to eat, where are the jobs?

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/89269-b...oyment-benefits

What a shame these idiots don't have a clue about the real world

They are not idiots ray…………..IMO

They know what they are doing because all part of a bigger game plan

It’s the people who they are supposed to be representing ( according the Oath of Office they took )

who they regard as idiots…………………

[midas]

The games. Indeed...

Article. XVI.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

But it hasnt been put forward as a tax ?

Where in the Commerce Clause does it say that the government has the power to force people to buy something ?

Under the Constitution the federal government can not force any citizen to buy a product or service. Only the states can, and if they choose not to do so people will not buy health insurance.

But we will see in time if the Surpreme Court has also become corrupt.........just like every other

institutioin in USA

The answer is that it is nowhere in the commerce clause, furthermore it is the states that regulate insurance issues within their own boundries, hence 19 state attorney generals have either filed or are in the process of filing lawsuits against the Federal governemnt on this issue This however is but a minor issue to the arrogant Obama administration as they move forward with this obscenity! I might also add that there is no wording in this bill directed towards expats, so even expats will be forced to purchase U.S. healthcare or be fined by the U.S. governement Of course the easiest way around this would be to just stop filiing income taxes if you live overseas on a permenent basis.

No no Vic

If they found it cost effective to do this………………

IRS agents aggressively & in person visit man in car wash to demand four cents[/size]

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/...mand-four-cents

Then they will definitely start going after people wherever they are……………and think of how buying all those international air tickets for 16,000 new IRS agents will stimulate spending and making Obama look even better ….you can run but can’t hide

Edited March 26, 2010 by midas

[midas]

So if you were Obama now, what would your next step be on this chess board -

as a first strike against the threat of lawsuits from the States regarding this new legislation ?

IMO Obama has desperately got to stack up the US Supreme Court with as many“ progressives “ as possible.

He already has Sonia Sotomayor in the bag so guess what he is doing now ?

If this happens………………IMO very bad news for USA

" The Senate Judiciary Committee was squaring up for a showdown this week over President Obama’s most controversial judicial nominee to date…………………………………..

Liu’s nomination is getting extra attention because conservatives are concerned that he could be on the fast track for the Supreme Court

surely “ fastrack “ says it all - why the need to do that !!!! )

That trail reads like good news for the LGBT community, but it screams “liberal” to Republicans. Republicans are “champing at the bit to grill Liu, who has described the Constitution as a living document, advocated for same-sex marriage and suggested health care is a right.” Oh oh

http://www.keennewsservice.com/2010/03/25/...ominee-delayed/

[ThailandLovr]

Obama wasn't just being rhetorical when he said he intended to "transform" America. This is just the beginning.

Although transparency was repeatedly promised, he waited until the last <deleted> minute to fully disclose the IRS's role in the reform, knowing it would otherwise deal a death blow to the bill. So just sneak it in, what the hel_l!

Edited March 26, 2010 by ThailandLovr

[InterestedObserver]

According to the SSA, some Medicare Advantage programs DO provide coverage outside of the US.

Medicare Advantage programs provide coverage within well defined geographic coverage areas, none of which are outside the US, for those with residences in the program area. While traveling on vacation you can get emergency treatment outside your coverage area, including overseas for some plans. Medicare does not provide routine healthcare coverage outside the US, especially if your are a resident of Thailand or any other foreign country.

[Jingthing]

A person earning 40K USD most definitely will be greatly helped financially by this bill, but not until 2014. At that time, that income will be well under the threshold for receiving government subsidies to purchase insurance.

Also, expats will NOT be required to buy US health insurance. I am still trying to figure out what it takes exactly to be officially considered an expat for purposes of the insurance requirement.

http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/...ericans-abroad/

Edited March 26, 2010 by Jingthing

[InterestedObserver]

A person earning 40K USD most definitely will be greatly helped financially by this bill, but not until 2014. At that time, that income will be well under the threshold for receiving government subsidies to purchase insurance.

Purchase all the subsidized, low cost insurance you want. When comes time to use it you won't be able to find a doctor or hospital accepting new patients. They plan to cut $500 billion from Medicare over the next 10 years and are overdue in cutting doctors reimbursements by 21%; this new program will turn out the same way, sorry were not accepting new patients at this time. Doctors and hospitals can't/won't treat people for the rates mandated by the US Government.

Edited March 26, 2010 by InterestedObserver

[jazzbo]

Kuhn JT -- Try this here from the IRS -- Foreign Earned Income Exclusion - Physical Presence Test:

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/intern...d=96968,00.html

Also, if there is a condition that if triggered could cause you to pay 2% (or whatever) of your annual income to the IRS, how can that not be considered a tax?

[Jingthing]

Don't put me in a position of DEFENDING the details of this bill. I believe in Canadian style health care. The Obama plan is a messy kludge. Of course it is increased taxation for some. My intent here primarily is to discuss impact on expats. Flaws in the Obama plan will be revealed over time. However I think the principle that US resident citizens should have access to health care as a RIGHT is the direction we have gone, and I applaud that, and don't believe we will now go backwards.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Jingthing

[jazzbo]

So all you guys are so fed up with the corruption, back-dealing, and bribery that you fled to... THAILAND?

[Jingthing]

I have seen nothing specifically written that states that the IRS rules for determining US non-residency are exactly the same as the rules for health care insurance requirement exemption based on non US residency. I think it is reasonable to assume they may turn out to be the same, but I don't see that we can yet say that with confidence. Also remember the requirement to have insurance even for those not exempt does not begin until 2014. So this isn't exactly an urgent matter.

[jazzbo]

HR 4872

8 TITLE III—SHARED

9 RESPONSIBILITY

10 Subtitle A—Individual

11 Responsibility

12 SEC. 301. INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY.

13 For an individual’s responsibility to obtain acceptable

14 coverage, see section 59B of the Internal Revenue Code

15 of 1986 (as added by section 401 of this division).

[Jingthing]

To repeat, expats are NOT required to buy US health insurance now, and will not be required to do so in 2014.

According to Tom Rose, chairman of the Association of Americans Resident Overseas‘ Committee on Social Security and Medicare, the legislation doesn’t have any effect on Americans abroad, except that it exempts them from the penalty for not subscribing to health insurance in the United States. “That is only logical as most Americans abroad have coverage in their country of residence,” Mr. Rose said.

Similarly, the Web site of the American Citizens Abroad organization pointed out that, as of January, neither the House nor Senate bill would tax Americans abroad for not having insurance in the United States, and both “specifically exclude overseas Americans from proposed mandatory U.S. health insurance coverage.”

According to the organization, an earlier version of the Senate health plan would have taxed Americans abroad.

http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/...ericans-abroad/

Politically, it is clear this bill does not enthuse people from the left or the right. it is a moderate bill that fails to address the real problems, cost control and complete access, when only a more leftist bill would have really solved those problems. The opposition never had any serious proposals that would have. I still say it is a step in the correct direction and once it sinks in that people with preexisting conditions will be able to get access (in 2014 and in a high cost high risk pool soon), people will never give that up, just like they will never give up social security or medicare. In other words, this issue isn't finished, this is only a first step. Obama and Pelosi only got things this far by the skin of their teeth. It is clear ideologically that Obama was in favor of a Canadian system from the start but he realized correctly that was not possible YET in the US, so he went for a moderate approach, and he won, and for that, many people do think he deserves a lot of credit.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Jingthing

[gregb]

I have seen nothing specifically written that states that the IRS rules for determining US non-residency are exactly the same as the rules for health care insurance requirement exemption based on non US residency. I think it is reasonable to assume they may turn out to be the same, but I don't see that we can yet say that with confidence.

I have read the complete text of the legislation. It took me several hours. I bet most congressmen haven't even done as much. It is quite clearly and definitely stated in unequivocal language that if you are outside the US for 330 days then you are automatically assumed to have met the health care requirements. I even posted the exact verbiage where this was defined including section, subparagraph and line earlier in this thread.

As much as I hate this legislation and the scum sucking slime who passed it, it is neither proper nor correct to imply that expats will have to purchase US health insurance. They are quite clearly excluded for now.

The jerk currently sitting in the white house, like the moron before him, can roll the printing presses to come up with $2 trillion to bail out his rich Wall Street banker buddies, but he can't do the same to find a few hundred billion a year for universal health care? So instead we get this piece of stinking organic fertilizer?

Since both the legislative and executive branches of the government have failed us, let us hope the judiciary brings some relief and throws this bill in the garbage dump where it belongs.

[gregb]

So all you guys are so fed up with the corruption, back-dealing, and bribery that you fled to... THAILAND?

Ironic isn't it?

Who would have guessed that Thailand is perceived as less corrupt than the USA?

[midas]

Since both the legislative and executive branches of the government have failed us, let us hope the judiciary brings some relief and throws this bill in the garbage dump where it belongs.

But if they are bought off it will be The United Progessive States of America ..........

a 60 year dream come true for Cloward–Piven enthusiasts

[PeaceBlondie]

The bona fide presence test has no definite requirement of days in the USA.

[ray23]

Thailand that's funny. Om a personal level I have more freedom here or illusion thereof, then I ever did in California. But in Udon it's not hard to stay out of the cross hairs.

This won't be settled till it meets the Supreme Courts evaluation and it will face that.

My thoughts as to the Law makers has not changed.

[jazzbo]

I think if people are hoping the SCOTUS will invoke some Article X. / Commerce Clause ruling - a la the Sen. Orrin Hatch - ACRU -FRC opinion piece in the WSJ -- I think they would be better off telling AJs Scalia and Thomas that it should be thrown in the garbage because the people that passed it are scum sucking slime and morons...

They may choose to rely upon the sage jurisprudence canon that 'If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck..." and if the IRS can collect from you 2% of your annual income, it is in the Article XVI. bailiwick.

Edited March 26, 2010 by jazzbo

[Jingthing]

I have seen nothing specifically written that states that the IRS rules for determining US non-residency are exactly the same as the rules for health care insurance requirement exemption based on non US residency. I think it is reasonable to assume they may turn out to be the same, but I don't see that we can yet say that with confidence.

I have read the complete text of the legislation. It took me several hours. I bet most congressmen haven't even done as much. It is quite clearly and definitely stated in unequivocal language that if you are outside the US for 330 days then you are automatically assumed to have met the health care requirements. I even posted the exact verbiage where this was defined including section, subparagraph and line earlier in this thread.

As much as I hate this legislation and the scum sucking slime who passed it, it is neither proper nor correct to imply that expats will have to purchase US health insurance. They are quite clearly excluded for now.

The jerk currently sitting in the white house, like the moron before him, can roll the printing presses to come up with $2 trillion to bail out his rich Wall Street banker buddies, but he can't do the same to find a few hundred billion a year for universal health care? So instead we get this piece of stinking organic fertilizer?

Since both the legislative and executive branches of the government have failed us, let us hope the judiciary brings some relief and throws this bill in the garbage dump where it belongs.

The president is only one branch of government. No president even with majorities in the house and senate has the authority to dictate universal single payer health care, if he can't get it passed through the house and senate. That's why. It is true, Obama didn't even try. That was a realpolitik strategic decision you may approve of or not. Edited March 26, 2010 by Jingthing

[hhgz]

"The president is only one branch of government."

Actually, the president is part of the EXECUTIVE branch of the US government.

[gregb]

I have seen nothing specifically written that states that the IRS rules for determining US non-residency are exactly the same as the rules for health care insurance requirement exemption based on non US residency. I think it is reasonable to assume they may turn out to be the same, but I don't see that we can yet say that with confidence.

I have read the complete text of the legislation. It took me several hours. I bet most congressmen haven't even done as much. It is quite clearly and definitely stated in unequivocal language that if you are outside the US for 330 days then you are automatically assumed to have met the health care requirements. I even posted the exact verbiage where this was defined including section, subparagraph and line earlier in this thread.

As much as I hate this legislation and the scum sucking slime who passed it, it is neither proper nor correct to imply that expats will have to purchase US health insurance. They are quite clearly excluded for now.

The jerk currently sitting in the white house, like the moron before him, can roll the printing presses to come up with $2 trillion to bail out his rich Wall Street banker buddies, but he can't do the same to find a few hundred billion a year for universal health care? So instead we get this piece of stinking organic fertilizer?

Since both the legislative and executive branches of the government have failed us, let us hope the judiciary brings some relief and throws this bill in the garbage dump where it belongs.

The president is only one branch of government. No president even with majorities in the house and senate has the authority to dictate universal single payer health care, if he can't get it passed through the house and senate. That's why. It is true, Obama didn't even try. That was a realpolitik strategic decision you may approve of or not.

OK Jing. You've proven yourself to be an honest, intelligent guy. It's midnight on a Friday night and I have nothing better to do. I want to ask you one question.

Answer honestly. Would you still support this legislation as vehemently as you do if the Republicans brought it to fruition?

I submit to you that you are judging this steaming pile of feces based on that fact that it is Obama's legislation, rather than on the merits of the legislation itself. Yes, it helps a few people, but only by disenchanting an even greater number of people. And not rich people either. This legislation mercilessly punishes the struggling middle class. Universal health care is a laudable goal. This legislation falls so far short of that goal that I maintain that the status quo was a better choice. The only reason this was done was for Obama's political agenda, and I have no respect for that.

You call it realpolitik. I call it real defecation. The only saving grace is that I am immune from it, for now. This is a large part of the reason I emmigrated to Thailand in the first place. But that doesn't mean I have lost my compassion for my friends and family back home.

I await your response.

[Jingthing]

Yes, of course I would support this legislation if it was from the republicans. But that it is an absurd question for modern republicans. They are now so far right wing, that would have never happened. I totally disagree with you that this law punishes the middle class. There will be subsidies for middle class people, not only the poor. It is a very kludgy way of expanding the pool as much as possible. For single payer, everyone is in the pool, and everyone pays something, except the poor. Everyone should be in the pool. That is the only way advance countries have made this work. The only way the democrats could push this forward was this kludge. Reason has little to do with it when dealing with an opposition that simply doesn't care. I am actually offended that you think this is about being a democrat. It is about moving the US health care access closer towards a civilized country. BTW, this isn't finished. People who understand the issue know this is only the first step. Yes the right wing wants to cancel it, but I think the chances they can do that are very slim.

This is not the same thing as saying I love the law. Nobody who believes in universal single payer could love this law. But Teddy Kennedy was right when he said, Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Codifying health care access as a right is the good in this law. The messy details will be adjusted over time. This law moves the US in the correct direction.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

"The president is only one branch of government."

Actually, the president is part of the EXECUTIVE branch of the US government.

So what? For a bill to become law it has to pass the congress, the senate, and the president has to sign it. You know what I meant. Cheers.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Jingthing

[SanSaiExPat]

Now that we have in essence entered the third term of Bush nothing would surprise.

Would be funny though to add a Vat as we near the beginning of the depression. See what that gets them.

The change that was promised turned out to be a hyper acceleration of what Bush & Greenspan started.

Lastly it is most funny to hear those that left America whine about change or better yet bennies.

LOL

Third term of Bush? You care to explain? Or was this just a "knee jerk" reaction coming from someone who's first response to any news from America is to bash Bush and his homeland that provides him with the social security he is living on.