Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Chaoswizkid]

ACA could fine or shut down non-profit/charity hospitals (~60% of total hospitals in the US). Thanks, Obama.

[Max White]

I really, really hope the democrats find someone other than Clinton to run. If only because you need more than three names for 8 presidential terms.

Funny that the democrats seem very popular right now, yet they have less players on the field.

[IronyOwl]

I really, really hope the democrats find someone other than Clinton to run. If only because you need more than three names for 8 presidential terms.

Funny that the democrats seem very popular right now, yet they have less players on the field.

I would assume that's precisely why.

The Republicans don't have a "right answer" at the moment. Nobody's such an obvious, popular choice that of course they'll win, so they've got to go out and find someone. That leads to a lot of possible contenders.

The Democrats are doing pretty good and the Republicans aren't really threatening them much at the moment, so they're more likely to just shrug and go with the obvious choice. Or at least, possible contenders are more likely to shrug and go "Meh, I'm not gonna win against Clinton."


I could also point to differences emerging via the Tea Party, but I really find it hard to believe even a fractured Republican party is less coherent than a normal Democrat one.

[Frumple]

ACA could fine or shut down non-profit/charity hospitals (~60% of total hospitals in the US). Thanks, Obama.

... could you, like, quote or something from the article where it actually says that? The only thing the article notes is that the increase in insurance coverage may make current non-profits* have a harder time maintaining tax exempt status. Which. Just means they're no longer tax exempt, and perhaps no longer qualifying as charity. That doesn't mean they would stop being nonprofit, or have to shut down. Just that they'd no longer qualify as charity organizations.

Which means, more or less, that any taxable income they make (which is generally after expense deductions! It wouldn't be cutting into the amount they need to maintain operations, and only partially into what they'd use to expand them.) would start being taxed. That... if that forces a shutdown, that hospital probably didn't need to be running anyway, t'be honest.

I'm not seeing the problem. Or what you stated as possibly happening.

* And note that what it takes to qualify as a charity hospital is honestly kinda' disgusting, if that article is accurate. Seriously, <5% of your operating expenses sunk into charity to skirt taxation?

[mainiac]

ACA could fine or shut down non-profit/charity hospitals (~60% of total hospitals in the US). Thanks, Obama.

I'll be holding my breath.

I'm reserving judgement until after the 2014 elections. While NC has long been one of the most progressive Southern states, the last 3 years have been a sea change in state politics. We didn't have a Republican-led legislature for 100 years after Reconstruction and my hope is that after 2014, we won't have one for another 100 years.

If they stay in power, I think it could be an indication that Tarheel Blue might have been a temporary phase.

Oh they'll probably win again in 2014, the gerrymandering will do that.  But those elections aren't going to be reflecting the popular will, they're going to reflect gerrymandering.  That is the reality of american politics right now, the popular mandate might not matter.

Funny that the democrats seem very popular right now, yet they have less players on the field.

The Democrats have fewer prima donnas but they have plenty of people who are serious contenders in 2016.

[Lord Shonus]

ACA could fine or shut down non-profit/charity hospitals (~60% of total hospitals in the US). Thanks, Obama.

From that very article, the institutions that may lose tax-exempt status are ALREADY spending extremely tiny amounts on "charity" cases. Not only that, but it is a movement that began at the state level quite some time ago. True charity hospitals like the Shriners or St. Jude Children's Research Hospital would almost certainly be unaffected.

[lue]

ACA could fine or shut down non-profit/charity hospitals (~60% of total hospitals in the US). Thanks, Obama.

Huh, that's interesting, though I only skimmed it. (Also: only 7,000 hospitals in the US‽ That seems too little!) Later I'll look for another story on this though, because somewhere (forget exactly where) I read that forbes.com/sites is, as a rule of thumb, not to be trusted (because that place is for people who got the chance to write under the Forbes name, and thus is not necessarily what Forbes would actually publish.)

Also, I really hate gerrymandering. It's the Official Arch-nemesis of Democracy™

[Chaoswizkid]

ACA could fine or shut down non-profit/charity hospitals (~60% of total hospitals in the US). Thanks, Obama.

... could you, like, quote or something from the article where it actually says that?

Yeah, sorry, read several different articles that gave me a better picture of the whole scenario. Of them, only Forbes seemed reputable enough to link, but as lue pointed out, it's forbes.com/sites/. Grains of salt, then.

Essentially, non-profit/charity hospitals either have to go for-profit or comply with assessments of community needs. Those community needs assessments are pretty nebulous since they are community-specific, and with the (supposed) rise of insurance holders, the community may deem that they don't really need the hospital. Then its options are to either go for-profit or... stop existing. It's possible they could go completely private-funded and research-focused like St. Jude's, but who knows how many will be able to do that, especially if they only cater to small communities and if they have aging infrastructure. There's not really another way out.

The mention of a "fine" took me some digging to find what they were actually talking about, but it seems to be general IRS fines for not complying to 501(c) standards (which could also result in shutting them down) and an additional $50,000 fine for failing to comply with standards regarding the community needs assessments.

Therefore we're pretty much looking at the death of tax-exempt and charity hospitals. That said, Frumple, I agree with the disgust of how little is needed to maintain tax exempt status, or at least that's also my initial feeling. Notice that it's revenue and not profit. We'd have to look at expenses and profit/loss to really judge the amount.


You can look up some of the things that are being said about the topic here. It's a "Technical Explanation" of some of the revisions from back in 2010 compiled by the Joint Committee on Taxation from our lovable Congress.

[mainiac]

Dude, no hospital is going to go out of business because of a $50k fine.  Heck, even if it was a $50k fine several times a year that wouldn't drive them out of business.  Hospitals have operating budgets of tens of millions of dollars.

[lue]

Ever since I heard that tip I've been unnaturally paranoid about links to Forbes. Doesn't mean it's a pack of lies, but it does mean find more sources, which you seem to have done.

That said, if this is really going to cause non-profits to shut down (and I don't see why not, based on my surface understanding of the issue), then we quite obviously need to

• Make the qualification less disgusting (it is a laughable qualifier, I must say).
• Change those qualifications to not be dependent on helping the uninsured (maybe instead rules to help those who would otherwise still need ludicrous amounts of money even with insurance?)

And considering this was caught in 2010, there'd better be a damn good explanation for why this wasn't accounted for (or if there's actually nothing to be concerned about).

[Frumple]

Essentially, non-profit/charity hospitals either have to go for-profit or comply with assessments of community needs.

Yeah... I'm relatively certain (if not 100%) that they could just stay non-profit and just... pay taxes on taxable income. Might technically be a not-for-profit or something (iirc, there's a difference, though I don't recall what), but... yeah. Could also just go for-profit and do charity anyway. Businesses can do that. Tend to already, up the maximum (if feasible) extent it counts as a tax deduction

And to clarify, taxable income for businesses (non-profit or otherwise) is almost always revenue minus deductions, which tends to include most or all of operating expenses (at the least). So, it generally is profit (revenue minus expenses, simple as that) that gets taxed, minus other potential deductions. For the change to effect the hospitals at all, they couldn't be running a deficit or just covering expenses, which... would mean they'd be fine if they paid taxes on the profit. Less expansion capability, perhaps, but I'd say that's alright, m'self.

As for some of the "non-profit" hospitals no longer being able to call themselves that, well... the ones the change would seem to be effecting frankly seem to already be for-profit, just taking advantage of an administrative trick to avoid taxation. Could do without that, m'self.

General point being that while we might see a reduction in medical organizations legally qualifying as non-profit, if we see a reduction in medical charity because of it then it's pretty likely the ones we lose weren't in it for the charity to begin with. Might be able to do more good getting taxes from those ones.

The mention of a "fine" took me some digging to find what they were actually talking about, but it seems to be general IRS fines for not complying to 501(c) standards (which could also result in shutting them down) and an additional $50,000 fine for failing to comply with standards regarding the community needs assessments.

Though I have to admit, this one amuses me a bit. Blaming the ACA for the organizations being hit by the IRS for evidently lying on their taxes (some of them before the ACA came into effect) is kinda' hilarious

[Sheb]

Also, the article state that for-profit hospitals give a similar amount of free care to non-profit hospital (3.2 against 3.7%). And while non-profits hospitals may disappear, they'll simply start paying taxes. Don't see why they'd shut down rather than turn into a for-profit.

Honestly, are you really opposing the ACA because it's going to make people so much better than charities won't have enough people to help anymore?

[SealyStar]

I really, really hope the democrats find someone other than Clinton to run. If only because you need more than three names for 8 presidential terms.

Hillary, Rodham, Clinton. See? Three names.

[Max White]

So is there any reason why Hillary would run instead of Biden for next presidency? I mean you guys don't get preferential voting, so two rival democrats is suicide.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There's plenty of intra-party rivalry during the primaries.