It would be a safe bet to say they are part of the 35% who favor Obamacare, but certainly not the 60% who find it unfavorable.
Administration Fears Obamacare So Flawed, It Could Bankrupt Insurance Companies
- Thread starter beenthere
- Start date
It would be a safe bet to say they are part of the 35% who favor Obamacare, but certainly not the 60% who find it unfavorable.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
The ones you are trying to pretend wanted "more" actually wanted something completely different, not more of this. Single payer completely excludes for profit insurance companies and would be totally different than ACA. Pelosi's minions deduced they could never get the population to allow government control over every single aspect of their healthcare, so they cobbled together this atrocity that does exactly that, but kept it hidden ("we have to pass the bill before we can know what's in the bill") until years after it passed. And they keep changing how they will apply it even to this day solely to hide the truth from the public because they know a disappointed public is about to vote them out of office.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Since when is handwaving and rude remarks, opposition? Could it be you need a timeout?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yes, that's exactly true.
schumer never asked the IRS to single out any specific party or group, he asked for scrutiny on ALL 501c4 groups.
i suppose you're too stupid to realize that.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
that's not how legislation works. our votes elect democratically elected representatives who then vote for us on legislation.
check the constitution, you unremitting failure.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
he also loves to lie directly through his teeth.
he'd better be careful, all that hot air he's blowing could start a fire.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
take your own goddamn advice, red.
stop lying, red. health insurance companies operate at a profit. it's even in the law.
Insurers must spend 80% (for individual or small group insurers) or 85% (for large group insurers) of premium dollars on health costs and claims, leaving only 20% or 15% respectively for administrative costs and profits, subject to various waivers and exemptions. If an insurer fails to meet this requirement, there is no penalty, but a rebate must be issued to the policy holder. This policy is known as the 'Medical Loss Ratio'.[SUP][36][/SUP][SUP][37][/SUP][SUP][38][/SUP][SUP][39][/SUP]
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
it's actual all legal because of transitional authority to implement the law. a president does have to "faithfully execute" laws, check the constitution.
Our eyes and ears are fooling us again, huh Bucky, just like they did when Obama never said "you can keep your healthcare, if you like your healthcare"
You wear the clown shoes well.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
mandatory gun ownership in sweden.
Citation needed, because there is nothing in the US Constitution granting the president to implement budgetary laws by exercising executive order, that can only be done by congress.
Check the constitution.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
show me where schumer asks the IRS to give extra scrutiny to conservative groups specifically:
Dear Commissioner Shulman:
We write to ask the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”
to immediately change the administrative framework for enforcement of the tax code as it applies to groups designated as “social welfare” organizations. These groups receive tax and other advantages under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code (hereinafter, “IRC” or the “Code”, but some of them also are engaged in a substantial amount of political campaign activity. As you know, we sent a letter last month expressing concerns about the 501(c)(4) issue; an investigation this week by the New York Times has uncovered new, specific problems on how c)4)s conduct business. We wanted to address those new concerns in this letter.IRS regulations have long maintained that political campaign activity by a 501(c)(4) entity must not be the “primary purpose” of the organization. These regulations are intended to implement the statute, which requires that such organizations be operated exclusively for the public welfare. But we think the existing IRS regulations run afoul of the law since they only require social welfare activities to be the 'primary purpose' of a nonprofit when the Code says this must be its 'exclusive' purpose. In recent years, this daylight between the law and the IRS regulations has been exploited by groups devoted chiefly to political election activities who operate behind a facade of charity work.
A related concern, raised in a March 7[SUP]th [/SUP]New York Times article, concerns whether certain nonprofits may be soliciting corporate contributions that are then treated by the company as a business expense eligible for a tax deduction. The Times wrote: “Under current law, there is little to no way to tell whether contributions are being deducted, especially because many of the most political companies are privately held.” This potential abuse distorts the objectives of vital revenue mechanisms and undermines the faith that we ask citizens to place in their electoral system.
We propose that the IRS make three administrative changes to curtail these questionable practices and bring IRS tax regulations back into alignment with the letter and spirit intended by those who crafted the Code:
· First, we urge the IRS to adopt a bright line test in applying its “primary purpose” regulation that is consistent with the Code’s 501(c)(4) exclusivity language. The IRS currently only requires that the purpose of these non-profits be “primarily” related to social welfare activities, without defining what “primarily” means. This standard should be spelled out more fully by the IRS. Some have suggested 51 percent as an appropriate threshold for establishing that a nonprofit is adhering to its mission, but even this number would seem to allow for more political election activity than should be permitted under the law. In the absence of clarity in the administration of section 501(c)(4), organizations are tempted to abuse its vagueness, or worse, to organize under section 501(c)(4) so that they may avail themselves of its advantages even though they are not legitimate social welfare organizations. If the IRS does not adopt a bright line test, or if it adopts one that is inconsistent with the Code’s exclusivity language, then we plan to pursue legislation codifying such a test.
· Second, such organizations should be further obligated to document in their 990 IRS form the exact percentage of their undertakings dedicated to “social welfare.” Organizations should be required to “show their math” to demonstrate that political election activities and other statutorily limited or prohibited activities do not violate the “primary purpose” regulation.
· Third, 501(c)(4) organizations should be required to state forthrightly to potential donors what percentage of a donation, if any, may be taken as a business expense deduction. As the New York Times reported in its March 7[SUP]th[/SUP]article, some of these organizations do not currently inform donors whether a contribution is tax deductible as a business expense at all.
The IRS should already possess the authority to issue immediate guidance on this matter. We urge the IRS to take these steps immediately to prevent abuse of the tax code by political groups focused on federal election activities. But if the IRS is unable to issue administrative guidance in this area then we plan to introduce legislation to accomplish these important changes.
Sincerely,
Senators Charles E. Schumer, Michael Bennet, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Tom Udall, Jeanne Shaheen and Al Franken
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
here it is.
he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed
souce: constitution
16 - 44 seconds of the video.
I'm done arguing with you on this one, everyone on RIU witnessed you getting your ass handed to you, suck it up.
[video=youtube_share;VO7e2oU8IpQ]http://youtu.be/VO7e2oU8IpQ[/video]
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
that video shows schumer addressing a political group, not making a request of the IRS.
i will repeat my request even though you are clearly too stupid to answer it correctly:
show me where schumer asks the IRS to give extra scrutiny to conservative groups specifically
Take a hint moron, where's all your friends defending you???????
They're not as stupid as you, they all know better.
Now take your lumps like a man, you little lying whiner.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
are you telling me that you can't show me where schumer asks the IRS to give extra scrutiny to conservative groups specifically?
WHY YES, THAT IS INDEED HAPPENING HERE.
WOOOOOOOOOOPS. NOW I HAVE AN ERECTION. SO BULBOUS AND PURPLE AND MAGNIFICENT.
Similar threads
