The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[DC Tom]

No, that's amending

 

Here's the Bill passed in the House:

 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes.

 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

 

This Act may be cited as the `Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. WAIVER OF RECAPTURE OF FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER CREDIT FOR INDIVIDUALS ON QUALIFIED OFFICIAL EXTENDED DUTY.

 

(a) In General- Paragraph (4) of section 36(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(E) SPECIAL RULE FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES, ETC-

`(i) IN GENERAL- In the case of the disposition of a principal residence by an individual (or a cessation referred to in paragraph (2)) after December 31, 2008, in connection with Government orders received by such individual, or such individual's spouse, for qualified official extended duty service--

`(I) paragraph (2) and subsection (d)(2) shall not apply to such disposition (or cessation), and

`(II) if such residence was acquired before January 1, 2009, paragraph (1) shall not apply to the taxable year in which such disposition (or cessation) occurs or any subsequent taxable year.

`(ii) QUALIFIED OFFICIAL EXTENDED DUTY SERVICE- For purposes of this section, the term `qualified official extended duty service' means service on qualified official extended duty as--

`(I) a member of the uniformed services,

`(II) a member of the Foreign Service of the United States, or

`(III) as an employee of the intelligence community.

`(iii) DEFINITIONS- Any term used in this subparagraph which is also used in paragraph (9) of section 121(d) shall have the same meaning as when used in such paragraph.'.

(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by this section shall apply to dispositions and cessations after December 31, 2008.

SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER CREDIT FOR INDIVIDUALS ON QUALIFIED OFFICIAL EXTENDED DUTY OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

 

(a) In General- Subsection (h) of section 36 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--

(1) by striking `This section' and inserting the following:

`(1) IN GENERAL- This section', and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(2) SPECIAL RULES FOR INDIVIDUALS ON QUALIFIED OFFICIAL EXTENDED DUTY OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES- In the case of any individual who serves on qualified official extended duty service outside the United States for at least 90 days in calendar year 2009 and, if married, such individual's spouse--

`(A) paragraph (1) shall be applied by substituting `December 1, 2010' for `December 1, 2009',

`(B) subsection (f)(4)(D) shall be applied by substituting `December 1, 2010' for `December 1, 2009', and

`© in lieu of subsection (g), in the case of a purchase of a principal residence after December 31, 2009, and before July 1, 2010, the taxpayer may elect to treat such purchase as made on December 31, 2009, for purposes of this section (other than subsections © and (f)(4)(D)).'.

(b) Coordination With First-Time Homebuyer Credit for District of Columbia- Paragraph (4) of section 1400C(e) of such Code is amended by inserting `(December 1, 2010, in the case of a purchase subject to section 36(h)(2))' after `December 1, 2009'.

© Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to residences purchased after November 30, 2009.

SEC. 4. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME OF QUALIFIED MILITARY BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE FRINGE.

 

(a) In General- Subsection (n) of section 132 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--

(1) in subparagraph (1) by striking `this subsection) to offset the adverse effects on housing values as a result of a military base realignment or closure' and inserting `the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009)', and

(2) in subparagraph (2) by striking `clause (1) of'.

(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by this act shall apply to payments made after February 17, 2009.

SEC. 5. INCREASE IN PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO FILE A PARTNERSHIP OR S CORPORATION RETURN.

 

(a) In General- Sections 6698(b)(1) and 6699(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are each amended by striking `$89' and inserting `$110'.

(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to returns for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2009.

SEC. 6. TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE ESTIMATED TAXES.

 

The percentage under paragraph (1) of section 202(b) of the Corporate Estimated Tax Shift Act of 2009 in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act is increased by 0.5 percentage points.

Passed the House of Representatives October 8, 2009.

 

Attest:

 

Clerk.

 

Here is Section 1 of the Bill amended by the Senate

 

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:4:./temp/~c111P1sF0k:e784:

 

Show us anything in the Senate Bill, other than the number "3590" that originated in the House.

[B-Man]

Another Obamacare Exchange Bites the Dust

 

Massachusetts, cradle of Obamacare (and liberty), is shutting down its state-run health-insurance exchange, the second state to do so. Oregon dropped its state exchange, which never enrolled a single person electronically, a couple weeks ago, and decided to use the federal one, HealthCare.gov. Massachusetts is planning to use an off-the-shelf product that other states have used, but is considering the federal exchange if it fails.

 

Only 16 states tried to launch Obamacare on exchanges that they built, so two complete failures is nothing to scoff at — nor is the hundreds of millions of dollars states spent in their own money and federal grants to set them all up. (Oregon’s cost $305 million.)

 

more at the link:

 

 

PAPER: 90,000 Nevada Residents Could Lose Health Insurance Due To Obamacare...

By Jennifer Robison..........LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

 

Local business owners might be hoping the Affordable Care Act’s insurance mandates cover sticker shock.

 

The law’s employer coverage mandate doesn’t take effect until 2015, but early plan renewals are starting to roll in. And for some businesses, the premium jumps are positively painful.

 

Local insurance brokers are reporting spikes ranging from 35 percent to 120 percent on policies that renew from July to December. The increases are especially acute among employers with workforces made up of younger, healthier men. That’s because Obamacare prohibits offering lower rates to healthier groups. It also narrows the allowed premium gap between older and younger enrollees.

 

“It’s like if there were no more safe-driver discounts with State Farm,” said local insurance broker Frank Nolimal of Assurance Ltd. “Everybody has the same rate, whether you have three DUIs, or you’re a (nondrinking) churchgoing Mormon.”

 

The changes put as many as 90,000 policies across Nevada at risk of cancellation or nonrenewal this fall, said Las Vegas insurance broker William Wright, president of Chamber Insurance and Benefits. That’s more than three times the 25,000 enrollees affected in October, when Obamacare-compliant plans first hit the market.

Edited May 6, 2014 by B-Man

[DC Tom]

more at the link:

 

Three complete failures, actually. Maryland isn't going federal, but it is ditching theirs and buying Connecticut's.

[keepthefaith]

I asked you for ANY tangible, measurable and/or concrete reasons this law passed by both houses of congress has hurt anyone because of the way it was passed. You are now saying we have no constitution because of it? The law is over? Come on. If the house didn't like it they could have simply not voted for it, period

 

 

 

Broad support from both parties? Obama is a black guy, he'd never get any support from Republicans for anything. Have you not been paying attention?

 

How many black republicans in Congress supported the ACA?

[Tiberius]

Here's the Bill passed in the House:

 

 

 

Here is Section 1 of the Bill amended by the Senate

 

http://thomas.loc.go...111P1sF0k:e784:

 

Show us anything in the Senate Bill, other than the number "3590" that originated in the House.

They amended it alright. If you don't like it maybe you should go on a hunger strike or something

[TakeYouToTasker]

They amended it alright. If you don't like it maybe you should go on a hunger strike or something

Is there any difference between "amending", and scraping the entire intent, subject matter, and goals and composing an entirely new document with entirely different legislative intent completely unrelated in any way to the former document?

[Rob's House]

I've been away for a while, but I'm reminded of why JA chastises us for engaging gatorboy. He's either a troll (my guess - maybe an alt profile one of you guys use to get a rise out of people) or he's so blindly partisan he's incapable of rational thought. But it's not possible for someone to have enough intelligence to understand the issues, even to the minimal extent he does, and still find his arguments reasonable. It's just not possible.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Rob's House

[Tiberius]

Is there any difference between "amending", and scraping the entire intent, subject matter, and goals and composing an entirely new document with entirely different legislative intent completely unrelated in any way to the former document?

Amend means to change, and it was changed. Can't see the supreme court taking away nine million people's health insurance on such a technicality. Well, maybe four of the members lust after doing that, but probably not a majority

[Dorkington]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... as a progressive, I'm embarrassed that Gatorman is "representative" of "us" here.

 

---

 

I'm still curious how people propose to lower healthcare costs in the US, along with getting everyone coverage, with a purely free market/capitalist approach.

[3rdnlng]

Would the ACA have passed if the dems had foregone chicanery and followed the Constitution?

[Rob's House]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... as a progressive, I'm embarrassed that Gatorman is "representative" of "us" here.

 

---

 

I'm still curious how people propose to lower healthcare costs in the US, along with getting everyone coverage, with a purely free market/capitalist approach.

 

Don't worry, he's not. Everyone knows he's a special case.

[3rdnlng]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... as a progressive, I'm embarrassed that Gatorman is "representative" of "us" here.

 

---

 

I'm still curious how people propose to lower healthcare costs in the US, along with getting everyone coverage, with a purely free market/capitalist approach.

 

Well, obviously not with the ACA since by all accounts it has raised the cost of insurance substantially.

[Dorkington]

Considering the ACA is mostly just new regulations, increases were bound to happen. The only way insurance rates would go down would be if all the young/healthy people who aren't buying insurance, buy insurance. But even a mandate can't fix that, at least not without sufficient subsidies.

[Tiberius]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... as a progressive, I'm embarrassed that Gatorman is "representative" of "us" here.

 

---

Some conservative created a "Dork-poster" to be a pretend Progressive just to get at me? LOL, pretty desperate

[Dorkington]

Considering I've gone on record multiple times here, supporting single payer OR universal healthcare, you're grasping at straws.

 

I agree with many of your political view points, but do not agree with your tactics, extreme arguments, or trollish behavior.

[Rob's House]

Amend means to change, and it was changed. Can't see the supreme court taking away nine million people's health insurance on such a technicality. Well, maybe four of the members lust after doing that, but probably not a majority

 

I know a woman right now who's in her late 50s, makes $9/hr, Is one of the few who needs and wants health insurance, falls in the insurance gap, and is now being priced out of the market.

 

She can't get public assistance for housing or food stamps b/c her $9/hr disqualifies her, and only scrapes by because her daughter is able to give her a little extra to help her get by.

 

I know another guy in his late 50s who can't take care of himself and can't get assistance because he was convicted of a felony years ago, and is likely to die in the streets.

 

Then I know children of millionaires in their late 20s getting subsidized law school educations with subsidized health care; and I know able bodied 20 somethings that don't do **** except for lie around smoking pot, getting their kitty pounded, and popping out future criminals (that they give the most dumbass names imaginable) and they get subsidized housing, Medicaid, food stamps, and even cash.

 

This is Obama's miraculously successful welfare state.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Rob's House

[Dorkington]

If you know people who are abusing the system, wouldn't it be prudent to report them to the proper authorities, so that the system can continue for those who need it?

[Tiberius]

I know a woman right now who's in her late 50s, makes $9/hr, Is one of the few who needs and wants health insurance, falls in the insurance gap, and is now being priced out of the market.

 

She can't get public assistance for housing or food stamps b/c her $9/hr disqualifies her, and only scrapes by because her daughter is able to give her a little extra to help her get by.

 

I know another guy in his late 50s who can't take care of himself and can't get assistance because he was convicted of a felony years ago, and is likely to die in the streets.

 

Then I know children of millionaires in their late 20s getting subsidized law school educations with subsidized health care; and I know able bodied 20 somethings that don't do **** except for lie around smoking pot, getting their kitty pounded, and popping out future criminals (that they give the most demands names imaginable) and they get subsidized housing, Medicaid, food stamps, and even cash.

 

This is Obama's miraculously successful welfare state.

You are going to find something to be outraged about no matter what. If 9 million people are kicked off their insurance you will scream about something else next, so what? Are people getting insurance now who didn't have it before? Yes. Are there real and imagined problems, yes.

 

 

So do you really know pot heads pumping out kids? lol Friends?

[meazza]

If you know people who are abusing the system, wouldn't it be prudent to report them to the proper authorities, so that the system can continue for those who need it?

 

No one likes a rat...

[TakeYouToTasker]

Amend means to change, and it was changed. Can't see the supreme court taking away nine million people's health insurance on such a technicality. Well, maybe four of the members lust after doing that, but probably not a majority

Again, not a technicality, but rather the prescribed and purposful Constututional manner in which a bill becomes law.

 

Further, the Court's job is to uphold the Constitution, not to administer healthcare.

 

If the ACA's passage is ruled unConstitutional, and 9 minnion people lose their health insurance, this it the fault of Congressional Democrats who put politics ahead of legality, and didn't provide the public with a law that could withstand Constitutional rigor.