|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:36 pm Post subject: Idaho votes preemptive nullification on health care |
 |
|
BOISE, Idaho � Idaho took the lead in a growing, nationwide fight against health care overhaul Wednesday when its governor became the first to sign a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance.
Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states.
Constitutional law experts say the movement is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100318/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul_states
I guess Idaho wasn't happy with only going back to ca. 1900 (courtesy of the Supreme Court's Citizens United case) and prefers to revert to ca. 1850. I know people say the past is prolog to the present, but the past as our future? Arg. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pure political posturing. They know nothing can come of these laws, which gives them a perfect incentive to pass them. They get all the benefits of appearing to be against the health care bill, without taking any risk of depriving their citizens of its benefits should it turn out to be a success. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
T-J
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Location: Seoul EunpyungGu Yeonsinnae
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Has anyone discussed the taxation of overseas U.S. citizens if this reform is passed.
I for one do not want to pay $1900 a year for health insurance if I'm not able to use it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| T-J wrote: |
Has anyone discussed the taxation of overseas U.S. citizens if this reform is passed.
I for one do not want to pay $1900 a year for health insurance if I'm not able to use it. |
I was wondering the same thing, but wouldn't living overseas (Korea) and being covered by that country's HC system allow one to opt out? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
T-J
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Location: Seoul EunpyungGu Yeonsinnae
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| caniff wrote: |
| T-J wrote: |
Has anyone discussed the taxation of overseas U.S. citizens if this reform is passed.
I for one do not want to pay $1900 a year for health insurance if I'm not able to use it. |
I was wondering the same thing, but wouldn't living overseas (Korea) and being covered by that country's HC system allow one to opt out? |
The latest information that I have is that overseas Americans are required to pay. I would like to hear an update that we don't.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| T-J wrote: |
The latest information that I have is that overseas Americans are required to pay. |
Oops, I left my checkbook at "home" before I boarded the plane. They can send me a bill, however, and I'd be more than happy to look at it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just emailed one of my Senators about this issue T-J, and I suggest you do the same if you haven't. The health care coverage we carry here in Korea (or in any other country where we might work) needs to be sufficient to satisfy the law in question. This was clearly an oversight in the bill, and there's still time for it to be corrected.
As the bill is currently written, I believe insurance in other countries does not satisfy the condition. And we won't be receiving bills, just a tax liability that will either have to be paid or sit there waiting for us in case we ever return to our homeland. $1900 a year is totally unacceptable, especially given the alternative is to spend even more on totally useless health insurance.
I didn't like this bill even when it seemed like it wouldn't impact my life at all. This just makes me dislike it even more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| I just emailed one of my Senators about this issue T-J, and I suggest you do the same if you haven't. |
Should I also send an email to my senatorial "representative", or would that be a bad idea in that it'll have a 50/50 shot at being incoherent?
Don't answer that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| caniff wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| I just emailed one of my Senators about this issue T-J, and I suggest you do the same if you haven't. |
Should I also send an email to my senatorial "representative", or would that be a bad idea in that it'll have a 50/50 shot at being incoherent?
Don't answer that. |
Just do it sober and I'm sure it'll be fine. In fact, you can use this form letter -- which addresses the problem and suggests a simple solution -- to make it fool proof!
The Honorable���
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
November , 2009
RE: America�s Healthy Future Act of 2009
Dear Senator���,
As one of your constituents who resides outside of the United States, I write you as my Senator to request that you alert Senator Baucus and the drafters of �America�s Healthy Future Act of 2009″ concerning the urgent need for greater precision in the definition of those covered by the proposed legislation. In the version as released on September 16, 2009, there is wording which would inadvertently cause great hardship to American citizens living outside the United States. We hasten to bring this to your attention, so that it can be corrected early in the legislative process.
Overseas Americas should be exempted from the requirement to participate in the U.S. health plan and as a consequence, they should also be excluded to any right to claim a tax credit available for low income families in the United States under this health legislation.
Under Title 1, Subtitle D, �Shared Responsibility�, the Personal Responsibility Requirement currently states on page 28 that �Beginning in 2013, all U.S. citizens and legal residents� would be required to purchase coverage of one of the specified types of insurance coverage. This broad reference clearly includes U.S. citizens residing overseas. Yet citizens who are bona fide residents in foreign countries have health coverage plans valid in the country where they reside. If they subscribe to the U.S.-specific insurance outlined in the program - which they do not need and cannot use - they will be paying twice for health insurance. If they do not participate in the U.S. program, they will be subject to an excise tax to be levied on their IRS returns as defined in the bill on page 29.
The purpose of the excise tax is to encourage all Americans who benefit from the U.S. health program to participate in its financing. Americans residing overseas cannot benefit from the U.S. health system, so for them the excise tax is just that - a tax with no counter-part service. As per the September 22nd press release concerning the chairman�s markup, the maximum excise tax per family for non-participation, is $1,900, not a negligible amount.
Proposed solution:
A modest alteration in the present formulation would correct the legislation. Following is a suggested addition.:
�All U.S. citizens who meet the requirements of Sec. 911(d) (1)(A) or (B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, without regard to the tax home requirement in Sec. 911(d)(1), are exempt from any mandate to purchase insurance in the United States and are not subject to the excise tax for non-participation in a U.S. health insurance plan.�
This modification would align the Senate bill to the �America�s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009″ (H.R. 3200) presented in the House of Representatives, which specifically exempts overseas Americans from a tax on not subscribing to a U.S. domestic health plan under Section 401 of the Act (which adds Section 59B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986). America�s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 states under Part VIII - HEALTH RELATED TAXES
Subpart A -Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage
Section 59.B �Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Coverage
(c) Exceptions:
(3) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING OUTSIDE UNITED STATES
Any qualified individual (as defined in section 911(d)) (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) shall be treated for purposes of this section as covered by acceptable coverage during the period described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 911(d)(1), whichever is applicable.�
I thank you most sincerely for your attention to this important issue and trust that you will do all necessary to bring about the change in the text of the proposed legislation.
Sincerely yours,
(Your name) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moldy Rutabaga
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not American and so I have no dog in this fight. But doesn't the proposed health bill indicate that people below a certain income level would have enough tax deductions or forms of assistance to pay for health care?
In other words, those of us making $2,000 a month are probably not making enough to have to pay anyway. Does anyone know?
Canadians pay mandatory health fees, but not below a certain income level, and so I've never paid anything in or out of Canada. It is surprising that the US bill would be stricter, if this is the case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| caniff wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| I just emailed one of my Senators about this issue T-J, and I suggest you do the same if you haven't. |
Should I also send an email to my senatorial "representative", or would that be a bad idea in that it'll have a 50/50 shot at being incoherent?
Don't answer that. |
Just do it sober and I'm sure it'll be fine. In fact, you can use this form letter -- which addresses the problem and suggests a simple solution -- to make it fool proof!
The Honorable���
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
November , 2009
RE: America�s Healthy Future Act of 2009
Dear Senator���,
As one of your constituents who resides outside of the United States, I write you as my Senator to request that you alert Senator Baucus and the drafters of �America�s Healthy Future Act of 2009″ concerning the urgent need for greater precision in the definition of those covered by the proposed legislation. In the version as released on September 16, 2009, there is wording which would inadvertently cause great hardship to American citizens living outside the United States. We hasten to bring this to your attention, so that it can be corrected early in the legislative process.
Overseas Americas should be exempted from the requirement to participate in the U.S. health plan and as a consequence, they should also be excluded to any right to claim a tax credit available for low income families in the United States under this health legislation.
Under Title 1, Subtitle D, �Shared Responsibility�, the Personal Responsibility Requirement currently states on page 28 that �Beginning in 2013, all U.S. citizens and legal residents� would be required to purchase coverage of one of the specified types of insurance coverage. This broad reference clearly includes U.S. citizens residing overseas. Yet citizens who are bona fide residents in foreign countries have health coverage plans valid in the country where they reside. If they subscribe to the U.S.-specific insurance outlined in the program - which they do not need and cannot use - they will be paying twice for health insurance. If they do not participate in the U.S. program, they will be subject to an excise tax to be levied on their IRS returns as defined in the bill on page 29.
The purpose of the excise tax is to encourage all Americans who benefit from the U.S. health program to participate in its financing. Americans residing overseas cannot benefit from the U.S. health system, so for them the excise tax is just that - a tax with no counter-part service. As per the September 22nd press release concerning the chairman�s markup, the maximum excise tax per family for non-participation, is $1,900, not a negligible amount.
Proposed solution:
A modest alteration in the present formulation would correct the legislation. Following is a suggested addition.:
�All U.S. citizens who meet the requirements of Sec. 911(d) (1)(A) or (B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, without regard to the tax home requirement in Sec. 911(d)(1), are exempt from any mandate to purchase insurance in the United States and are not subject to the excise tax for non-participation in a U.S. health insurance plan.�
This modification would align the Senate bill to the �America�s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009″ (H.R. 3200) presented in the House of Representatives, which specifically exempts overseas Americans from a tax on not subscribing to a U.S. domestic health plan under Section 401 of the Act (which adds Section 59B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986). America�s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 states under Part VIII - HEALTH RELATED TAXES
Subpart A -Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage
Section 59.B �Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Coverage
(c) Exceptions:
(3) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING OUTSIDE UNITED STATES
Any qualified individual (as defined in section 911(d)) (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) shall be treated for purposes of this section as covered by acceptable coverage during the period described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 911(d)(1), whichever is applicable.�
I thank you most sincerely for your attention to this important issue and trust that you will do all necessary to bring about the change in the text of the proposed legislation.
Sincerely yours,
(Your name) |
Cool, you've drastically reduced the danger. Cheers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Moldy Rutabaga wrote: |
| I'm not American and so I have no dog in this fight. But doesn't the proposed health bill indicate that people below a certain income level would have enough tax deductions or forms of assistance to pay for health care? |
That's only true if you actually buy the insurance, and even then, the assistance won't pay for anywhere near 100% of it. It may turn out that just buying totally useless health insurance in the States and taking some sort of tax credit to help pay for it might be the most cost effective choice, but it would be far better for both us and for our country if they just let our Korean insurance qualify (or even simply exempted expatriates from the requirement entirely; after all, we're not making use of US health care). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Moldy Rutabaga wrote: |
I'm not American and so I have no dog in this fight. But doesn't the proposed health bill indicate that people below a certain income level would have enough tax deductions or forms of assistance to pay for health care?
In other words, those of us making $2,000 a month are probably not making enough to have to pay anyway. Does anyone know?
Canadians pay mandatory health fees, but not below a certain income level, and so I've never paid anything in or out of Canada. It is surprising that the US bill would be stricter, if this is the case. |
Not every province have health care fees. It's paid for via your income tax and whatever else they tax you on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not American, so I really haven't been following what happens in the US, but exactly what are you guys opposing?
Is it an increase in income tax to pay for Universal Health Care? What's so bad about that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jvalmer wrote: |
I'm not American, so I really haven't been following what happens in the US, but exactly what are you guys opposing?
Is it an increase in income tax to pay for Universal Health Care? What's so bad about that? |
The current health bill contains a provision that says you must purchase health insurance. If you do not, you are subject to an excise tax which can be as high as $1900.
The problem with this is that Korean health insurance -- at least currently -- does not count (nor does any other type of foreign insurance; only specific insurers in the United States qualify). As such, we're stuck with the choice of either buying totally useless, American based health insurance, or paying a tax.
The House of Representatives' version of health care reform contained language that rightly exempted expatriates, because we can't make use of the United States healthcare system while living overseas. The Senate version does not, presumably as an oversight.
This is not an income tax. It's a penalty for not buying United States-based health care. Nothing about the current bill provides universal health care. It simply says that you must purchase private health care, and if you don't, you'll get taxed for failing to do so. I'd be willing to pay to support a universal health care service in the United States. I'm not willing to simply hand money over to a private insurance company in return for nothing, though. That's stupid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
