It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Government Issues NASA Demand - ‘Get Humans to Mars By 2033’

page: 8
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Like most legal documents, the Act seems to give with one hand in one clause, while taking away with the other hand in another clause. If you get a lawyer to translate it for you, you will learn that your assumptions are wrong, your trust misplaced and your comprehension faulty.

...Yes, I read the Act. With my legal, open mind, and OCD attention to detail. There be loopholes big guy. YUUUUGE loopholes. I gotta say, It's a helluva deal! Makes me wish I were a corporate person.



Again, here's the problem:

The worst health effects occur after astronauts and space workers return to Earth gravity, and manifest as long term chronic disease. These health effects result largely from changes and mutations to the epigenome (not the genome), and are epigenetic.

The CONSPIRACY is that:

1. Government is specifically and clearly offloading the responsibility and cost of long term healthcare for astronauts and space workers, despite knowing that the known effects are debilitating, and many (most?) effects are still unknown, while

2. Insurance Companies Are Now Demanding Epigenetic Profiles.

POINT: Astronauts and space workers will NOT qualify for health insurance coverage when they return to Earth. As a direct result of their participation in the "Space Program" they will be chronically ill, debilitated and have no resources.


...You seem to be confused about the bits allowing for astronauts' "privacy and confidentiality" regarding health issues. fyi - that's there so damaging info can be buried like it always is in industry.











edit on 12-3-2017 by soficrow because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-3-2017 by soficrow because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

Of course it gives with one hand while taking away with the other. If not, we would have hypochondriacs suing the government for extensive but unneeded health services because they worked on the top floor of a high-rise, and were thus exposed to the vicinity of space.

Stoopid? Yes! But that's the world we live in.

That said, here's my down-to-earth, common-tongue understanding of the act:

 

Section 442:

    (a) This is what Congress has agreed on:

      (1) Space is dangerous. We already lost 24 astronauts.

      (2) Astronauts are exposed to several different kinds of special medical problems.

      (3) We got a set of identical twin astronauts that let us use them for guinea pigs, and we figured out a lot about the special medical problems thanks to them.

      (4) We already give our astronauts special healthcare while they're employed, but it ain't enough. NASA wants to provide that healthcare after they resign/retire.

    (b) This is what Congress wants to try and do:

      (1) we want to keep exploring space and try to get our butts to Mars.

      (2) If we keep treating our astronauts, we might learn stuff that will help the general public.

      (3) We need to keep providing special healthcare to astronauts, but we shouldn't make it mandatory for retirees to participate.

      (4) If a retiree wants to stay with their current health plan, they should be able to.

      (5) We need to use all this information we have about astronauts' health to make sure future astronauts are protected.

      (6) That awesome astronaut with the identical twin we mentioned?

        (A) He got us a lot of good data

        (B) We need to make good use of that data.
 


Now, that's what it says. It says nothing about removing the present medical services provided to active astronauts, but it does mention giving that same benefit to former astronauts. It says nothing at all about passing off insurance to private agencies, only that former astronauts cannot be forced to participate; they can keep their present plans if they want.

I think you've let your imagination run away with you. The text simply does not say what you claim it says; it actually says the opposite. Maybe you need to have that legaleeze filter checked out; it seems to be malfunctioning. Sure, somewhere down the line some idiot lawyer is going to try and make a name for himself by twisting the words around, but that would happen no matter what. My advice is to get mad at the idiot lawyer, not the people actually doing something good for a change.

TheRedneck

ETA: I'm not going to start up your other thread in this one, but I personally have no doubt your allegations against insurance companies are true. No insurance company ever paid a thin dime they didn't have to; they're the biggest penny-pinching misers on the planet, and not one of them has ever helped a single patient recover form a single disease or injury. That's why I oppose Obamacare so vehemently, and why I am presently looking at this supposed 'better' plan with a very skeptical eye.

But nothing in this act correlates to that. Healthcare for astronauts is provided directly by the Federal government, and will continue to be provided until one retires. Then the retiree has the option of going somewhere else, or continuing with the Federal government.



edit on 3/12/2017 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

...It may be that the GOP has gone all soft and gooey all of a sudden, and decided to implement the recommendations they've been blocking for the past decade+. If so, you may be right. I may have "mis-read" the Act. I'll read it again when I'm fresh.




Healthcare for astronauts is provided directly by the Federal government, and will continue to be provided until one retires.



No, it's not really.


Astronaut Health Care

NASA does not provide lifetime healthcare for spaceflight induced injuries or diseases that may develop
once the astronauts leave the Agency.
Currently, NASA provides comprehensive health exams to active
astronauts to ensure they are “flight ready” and, once an astronaut retires, offers occupational
surveillance screenings like blood chemistry panels and ocular assessments. However, beyond these
services, retired astronauts are entitled only to the standard benefits provided to all Federal civil servants and military personnel – benefits which themselves are tied to length of service and retirement
age. ...In a series of reports over the past decade, the IOM has stressed NASA’s moral obligation to provide
medical surveillance of and care to astronauts due to their occupational exposures. The IOM’s position
is that NASA should develop a policy addressing the practical consequences that a career as an
astronaut or the experience of space travel leaves individuals at increased risk for an adverse health
effects. The IOM was particularly concerned in cases where the effects of space travel do not become
obvious during or immediately after a space flight but develop only after the astronaut leaves active
duty and is no longer receiving medical care from NASA.
In the 2001 Safe Passages report, the IOM
stated that it is essential that NASA create a comprehensive healthcare system for the dual purpose of
maintaining astronaut health and collecting and analyzing data to inform future space travel. The IOM
advocated for a system that would include care for all astronauts and their families.

* NASA’S EFFORTS TO MANAGE HEALTH AND HUMAN PERFORMANCE RISKS FOR SPACE EXPLORATION
Report No. IG-16-003, October 29, 2015.




NASA's recommendations regarding healthcare never passed. Neither did their recommendations regarding the need to "develop an ethical framework to guide the informed consent and waiver process for astronauts," and to "be transparent with Congress and the public about the level of the risk involved in deep space missions." What happened was that space was privatized in 2004 to bypass these "problems."


Transparency of Risk Acceptance

For more than two decades, NASA has sought to understand the effects of space flight through the
Longitudinal Study of Astronaut Health (LSAH), investigating a variety of issues relating to astronaut
health both during and post mission. In addition, at NASA’s request, the IOM has studied and issued
reports on a variety of astronaut health issues and, in 2001, offered seven recommendations to improve
NASA’s medical care system and develop the infrastructure needed to support long duration missions.
In 2004, the IOM recommended NASA improve the validity of the LSAH database and assume
responsibility for the lifelong health care of its active and former astronauts.


CONCLUSION

.....NASA recognizes that the astronauts it sends on deep space missions will be exposed to a greater level
of risk than the Agency accepts for current missions to low Earth orbit. Therefore, it is crucial NASA
develop an ethical framework to guide the informed consent and waiver process for astronauts. In
addition, NASA must be transparent with Congress and the public about the level of the risk involved in
deep space missions.
Finally, NASA should continue to consider whether its current model for astronaut
health care meets its research needs and the health care needs of the astronaut community.





PS. My decades-old interest in the health impacts of 'take-off' and space travel has focused solely on the research and studies. The NASA document quoted above is new to me. Had I seen it 'before,' I would have criticized it - it soft-pedals many of the acknowledged risks, and completely ignores others.








edit on 12-3-2017 by soficrow because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-3-2017 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 03:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: soficrow
POINT: Astronauts and space workers will NOT qualify for health insurance coverage when they return to Earth. As a direct result of their participation in the "Space Program" they will be chronically ill, debilitated and have no resources.

When they return to Earth or when they leave NASA?



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 04:07 AM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

Well, I'm just going to throw this out there, think of it as brain candy or a brain fart.

Doesn't anyone think it is an incredibly lucky twist of fate, that only in the last 100 years or so, since we've been talking about planets and space travel, that we would see so many reports of Aliens and UFOs in our media?

In the past, these visitors were called Angels or demons, jinn or fairies, but thank God, in modern times we know better right? They were ancients Aliens who uh, tinkered with humanity, mined the earth for gold and left a long time ago right?

Isn't it odd how legitimate conspiracies like pedogate and certain false flags are immediately suppressed yet UFO and Alien conspiracies are actually encouraged in our media?

Anyone wonder if maybe, just maybe the Alien narrative is the controlled opposition?

Isn't it odd that the demon Aleister Crowley channelled looks so similar to a Gray Alien?

Do you think fake news is a recent phenomenon?

Ever wonder, if maybe, everything they've ever shown us about space is as fake as all the false flags they've forced upon us over the years? And I mean everything - every picture shot from space of the earth and the planets.

Have you ever really looked at the pictures that NASA has shown you of the planets, moon and stars? What do you want to bet, that NASA has never landed on the moon or that there has never been any rovers on mars? That every picture they've ever shown us of the earth from space (and everything else) was filmed in a Hollywood basement?

What if aliens are the psy-op?

(Also check out William Cooper's work --- and the bluebeam fake alien invasion)

As well, check out Jacques Vallee's work. He's one of the most well respected UFO researchers who has studied this phenomenon for a long time. And he conclued that UFOs are both interdimentional entities (ie. demons/reptilians) or straight up advanced government technology.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: soficrow


...It may be that the GOP has gone all soft and gooey all of a sudden...

Now who's bringing politics in?

All full-time Federal employees receive, as part of their employment, a health care package. That health care package extends into retirement, and is extremely inclusive. The only exception is military, which receive Federal healthcare directly until release from duty, and then are subjected to an outdated system that revolves around the VA. As I understand things, however, NASA also provides direct Federal healthcare to astronauts until retirement.

The health care package is built around private insurance... here, it uses the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Federal plan. Anyone who retires from a Federal job has that insurance for life, in addition to any other insurance like Medicare. Astronauts also receive, in addition to their health care package, special medical treatment to compensate for the special health requirements of their job, administered through, I believe, the Johnson Space Flight Center. This is similar to the health care received by the active military, administered by Federal physicians at no charge to the astronauts. Like the military, it is administered rigorously; there is no skipping appointments or refusing treatment. Astronauts are constantly monitored through this process, which is actually geared more toward research than wellness. Based on the links you provided, this auxiliary treatment only extends through the active duty of the astronaut and stops at retirement/resignation. After that, the standard health care package continues.

The link you provided purports to extend this special treatment into retirement, on a voluntary basis, to better assess long-term post-flight issues. I'd say that is probably a good thing.

I leave you with these words, spoken by a Democrat no less, that are responsible for the vast majority of the conveniences we have today, including the ability to discuss this issue.

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.


Thank you, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, for having the forethought, leadership, and insight to expand our knowledge and understanding, to cement our unity through a common but difficult goal, and to reach for the stars. Naysayers be damned.

Thank you, Donald John Trump, for attempting to follow in such large footsteps. We will meet the challenges as we did before, and we will set foot on new worlds. We will again persevere against the challenges ahead and advance ourselves, our country, and our world. Naysayers be damned.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

RE: Astronauts and space workers will NOT qualify for health insurance coverage when they return to Earth. As a direct result of their participation in the "Space Program" they will be chronically ill, debilitated and have no resources.



When they return to Earth or when they leave NASA?



When they leave NASA - but looks like when your tour is up, you're out - there are no provisions for downtime or "leave" at all. Some effects hit hard on the return, and NASA won't be carrying a whole bunch of employees who require extensive downtime for recuperation (which they will), and can't work. Besides, the longer term effects are the major issue.

The chicanery is in the "Weasel Clause" - there's no follow-up medical monitoring, diagnosis or treatment "for any psychological or medical condition that is not potentially associated with human space flight." NOTE: There WILL be 'medical conditions.' It's a given. Thing is, they don't know what to expect with space flight outside of low earth orbit - so they only talk about what they know already (the effects of low earth orbit, not long term space flight).

So this clause boxes the sick patient between Big Government and Big Insurance. Big Gov will say the medical condition is not associated with space flight; Big Insurance will say it is; the patient will be fubarred. Ergo, no coverage.

THE WEASEL CLAUSE:


(c) Exclusions.—The Administrator may not—

“(1) provide for medical monitoring or diagnosis of a former United States government astronaut or former payload specialist under subsection (a) for any psychological or medical condition that is not potentially associated with human space flight;

“(2) provide for treatment of a former United States government astronaut or former payload specialist under subsection (a) for any psychological or medical condition that is not associated with human space flight; or...




Moreover, seems the astronauts and other space workers will NOT have been fully informed about the risks, and will have been tricked into signing waivers based on inadequate, incomplete, (and misleading?) information.

This inadequacy could be handled if the astronauts and space workers were given the standard comprehensive health coverage other federal employees receive (according to TheRedneck), but such coverage is specifically disallowed in the Weasel Clause.






posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


Now who's bringing politics in?



Yes, I was in a hissy snit-fit yesterday. Not sorry for that very minor one-time shot.





All full-time Federal employees receive, as part of their employment, a health care package. That health care package extends into retirement, and is extremely inclusive. The only exception is military, ...however, NASA also provides direct Federal healthcare to astronauts until retirement.



NASA's current commitments to healthcare coverage are inadequate, and do NOT "provide lifetime healthcare for spaceflight induced injuries or diseases that may develop once the astronauts leave the Agency." They provide only the standard benefits provided to all Federal civil servants, which are limited, and as well, tied to length of service and retirement age. (So a 4 to 5-year tour of duty won't cut it.)

The new Act does call for medical monitoring, diagnosis and treatment for any psychological or medical condition that is potentially associated with human space flight - but does not and cannot define the "potential association." Moreover, it takes it back and muddies the waters even more with the "Weasel Clause."

As I told ArMap, the chicanery is in the "Weasel Clause" - there's NO follow-up medical monitoring, diagnosis or treatment "for any psychological or medical condition that is not potentially associated with human space flight." Meaning they get some special space stuff, but lose the standard coverage.
NOTE: There WILL be 'medical conditions.' It's a given. Thing is, they don't know what to expect with space flight outside of low earth orbit - so they only talk about what they know already (the effects of low earth orbit, not long term space flight).

So the Weasel Clause boxes the sick patient between Big Government and Big Insurance. Big Gov will say the medical condition is not associated with space flight; Big Insurance will say it is; the patient will be fubarred. Ergo, no coverage. Or at least, not in time.

NOTE: This inadequacy might be handled if the astronauts and space workers were given the standard comprehensive health coverage other federal employees receive, in addition to the special "monitoring, diagnosis and treatment," but such coverage is specifically disallowed in the Weasel Clause.


Astronaut Health Care

NASA does not provide lifetime healthcare for spaceflight induced injuries or diseases that may develop once the astronauts leave the Agency. Currently, NASA provides comprehensive health exams to active astronauts to ensure they are “flight ready” and, once an astronaut retires, offers occupational surveillance screenings like blood chemistry panels and ocular assessments. However, beyond these services, retired astronauts are entitled only to the standard benefits provided to all Federal civil servants and military personnel – benefits which themselves are tied to length of service and retirement age.

[Ed.: This is a comprehensive and informative document. You should at least scan it.]




THE WEASEL CLAUSE:


(c) Exclusions.—The Administrator may not—

“(1) provide for medical monitoring or diagnosis of a former United States government astronaut or former payload specialist under subsection (a) for any psychological or medical condition that is not potentially associated with human space flight;

“(2) provide for treatment of a former United States government astronaut or former payload specialist under subsection (a) for any psychological or medical condition that is not associated with human space flight; or...




posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow


Yes, I was in a hissy snit-fit yesterday.

Hey, it happens. It takes a big man to admit it, so much respect for that.

We're even.


NASA's current commitments to healthcare coverage are inadequate, and do NOT "provide lifetime healthcare for spaceflight induced injuries or diseases that may develop once the astronauts leave the Agency." They provide only the standard benefits provided to all Federal civil servants, which are limited, and as well, tied to length of service and retirement age. (So a 4 to 5-year tour of duty won't cut it.)

The issue here is that the wording downplays the extent of those "standard benefits." Compared to other industries in the private sector, government benefits, even if labelled as "standard," are quite impressive.

Space flight does, however, present unique challenges health-wise. Until recently, those effects were not considered to extend beyond the active duty period. Now we know they can, and this authorization serves to move toward official recognition of that. If you want to say it's inadequate... well, maybe. But to say it's a step in the wrong direction is simply incorrect.

Re: this Weasel Clause:

As I previously stated, insurance is not there to help anyone accomplish anything, save weight loss from one's wallet. The whole concept of insurance being necessary to pay for medical treatment is the single most destructive thing to have ever happened to our medical industry. I am old enough to remember when health insurance was considered a luxury, and it appears to me that our movement away from that philosophy has resulted in one group of people receiving great healthcare while the rest receive little to none, and are financially ruined even then.

The fix is simple: make it so damn expensive for an insurance company to try and deny benefits that they immediately fire any lawyer that even suggests it. Then make healthcare a right, and use those funds now going into insurance companies' pockets to pay the doctors and hospitals who actually provide care to those who can't afford it. It can be done, but it will require a complete re-write of the regulations covering the medical industry.

I have actually spelled out a three-phase plan on ATS in the past... no links, not enough time to do a search. But that plan made insurance a luxury again, not a necessity, and immediately guaranteed health care to everyone from day one., while at the same time ensuring healthcare providers were paid a reasonable fee for their services.

The issue is not something a government agency like NASA has the ability to address, but is rather an issue with our present social structure surrounding healthcare. Congress could address it, but I won't be holding my breath, and I certainly won't support stopping exploration over 435 idiots with tourniquets tied around their neck starving their brain of oxygen.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



We're even.



Not even close!



RE: NASA's current commitments to healthcare coverage are inadequate, and do NOT "provide lifetime healthcare for spaceflight induced injuries or diseases that may develop once the astronauts leave the Agency." They provide only the standard benefits provided to all Federal civil servants, which are limited, and as well, tied to length of service and retirement age. (So a 4 to 5-year tour of duty won't cut it.)


The issue here is that the wording downplays the extent of those "standard benefits." Compared to other industries in the private sector, government benefits, even if labelled as "standard," are quite impressive.



Don't think you get that I'm quoting from (and referring to) 2 different documents.

The "current commitments" described above are being replaced by the new Act, and the "Weasel Clause." In other words, the 'standard benefits' are being taken away outright, and replaced with the Weasel Clause.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow


The "current commitments" described above are being replaced by the new Act, and the "Weasel Clause." In other words, the 'standard benefits' are being taken away outright, and replaced with the Weasel Clause.

I saw nothing about denying standard healthcare packages. Where are you getting that?

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   
I saw some pretty convincing charts, and read convincing data, to conclude the ionospheric dynamo region of earth's atmosphere, starting around 60 miles up, is a glass ceiling around all earth.

This area is where radio signals travel. It seems like a very interesting region of the atmosphere for me to tune into.

Do NASA rockets, literally, have to break the glass ceiling to get into space???

If NASA rockets did break the glass ceiling, would that be harmful, to the radio information being transmitted throughout the ionospheric dynamo region of earth's atmosphere?



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: InachMarbank

You're taking the 'glass ceiling' metaphor too literally. The ionosphere is the outermost layers of the atmosphere, where the molecules are ionized by solar radiation. It is not solid, and we can't 'break' it. A rocket blasting through it might disrupt radio waves for a couple seconds, but solar radiation will close the 'hole' almost immediately. The only way to hurt the ionosphere would be to put out the sun.

The metaphor is simply trying to say that the ionized molecules act like a reflective surface to radio waves.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 03:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InachMarbank

You're taking the 'glass ceiling' metaphor too literally. The ionosphere is the outermost layers of the atmosphere, where the molecules are ionized by solar radiation. It is not solid, and we can't 'break' it. A rocket blasting through it might disrupt radio waves for a couple seconds, but solar radiation will close the 'hole' almost immediately. The only way to hurt the ionosphere would be to put out the sun.

The metaphor is simply trying to say that the ionized molecules act like a reflective surface to radio waves.

TheRedneck


Some points I came across regarding the "glass ceiling" are as follows.

1. At around 37 to 56 miles there is ionized nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere. And at around 57 to 75 miles there is only ionized oxygen in the atmosphere. But nitrogen is lighter than oxygen. Shouldn't nitrogen rise higher than oxygen, and not the other way? Why wouldn't there also be nitrogen at the higher altitude? Is there a barrier that keeps out the nitrogen at this altitude, and only oxygen is sealed in the area at this altitude?

2. Above a thunder and lightning storm transient luminous events are observed. The lumination from the events extend upward in a pretty straight fashion, until it gets flattened into a halo shape , at around 60 miles. Why would it get flattened?

3. At around 60 miles altitude, temperature change becomes extremely drastic. Maybe around the 60 mile altitude temperature will suddenly change from -50 degrees Celsius to 200 degrees Celsius. As you go higher temperatures reach 2000 and 2500 degrees Celsius by the 1000 mile altitude. What causes the temperature to cool so quickly around 60 miles altitude? Or what causes temperature to rise so much from 60 miles to 1000 miles altitude?

4. The northern and southern lights start around 60 miles altitude.

5. There is a huge field of glass, around a 30 to 80 mile ellipse, across the Nubian sand stone, around the borders of Lybia, Egypt, and Sudan. The glass is extremely pure, 100% silicon dioxide, is not native to the soil of that area, and there is no indication of any meteorite impact in that area. Where did this glass come from?

Perhaps you can address these points for me?
edit on 14-3-2017 by InachMarbank because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 09:17 AM
link   
NOTE: The "current commitments" (which are restricted to standard healthcare) are being replaced by the new Act, and the "Weasel Clause." The 'standard benefits' are taken away in the Weasel Clause. This boxes claimants between Big Gov and Big Insurance; claimants can only lose.


originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soficrow


The "current commitments" described above are being replaced by the new Act, and the "Weasel Clause." In other words, the 'standard benefits' are being taken away outright, and replaced with the Weasel Clause.

I saw nothing about denying standard healthcare packages. Where are you getting that?

TheRedneck


O goodlord! The Weasel Clause. In the new Act.

THE WEASEL CLAUSE:


(c) Exclusions.The Administrator may not

“(1) provide for medical monitoring or diagnosis of a former United States government astronaut or former payload specialist under subsection (a) for any psychological or medical condition that is not potentially associated with human space flight;

“(2) provide for treatment of a former United States government astronaut or former payload specialist under subsection (a) for any psychological or medical condition that is not associated with human space flight; or...









posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   
NOTE: The "current commitments" (which are restricted to standard healthcare) are being replaced by the new Act, and the "Weasel Clause." The 'standard benefits' are taken away in the Weasel Clause. This boxes claimants between Big Gov and Big Insurance; claimants can only lose.

Put this together with dismantling our Genetic Privacy protections, and demands to force epigenetic testing - and we're ALL fubarred, not just our astronauts.

In the new Act.

THE WEASEL CLAUSE:


(c) Exclusions.The Administrator may not

“(1) provide for medical monitoring or diagnosis of a former United States government astronaut or former payload specialist under subsection (a) for any psychological or medical condition that is not potentially associated with human space flight;

“(2) provide for treatment of a former United States government astronaut or former payload specialist under subsection (a) for any psychological or medical condition that is not associated with human space flight; or...




posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



originally posted by: soficrow
NOTE: The "current commitments" (which are restricted to standard healthcare) are being replaced by the new Act, and the "Weasel Clause." The 'standard benefits' are taken away in the Weasel Clause. This boxes claimants between Big Gov and Big Insurance; claimants can only lose.

Put this together with dismantling our Genetic Privacy protections, and demands to force epigenetic testing - and we're ALL fubarred, not just our astronauts.

In the new Act.

THE WEASEL CLAUSE:


(c) Exclusions.The Administrator may not

“(1) provide for medical monitoring or diagnosis of a former United States government astronaut or former payload specialist under subsection (a) for any psychological or medical condition that is not potentially associated with human space flight;

“(2) provide for treatment of a former United States government astronaut or former payload specialist under subsection (a) for any psychological or medical condition that is not associated with human space flight; or...








Ooops. THE WEASEL CLAUSE:


(c) Exclusions.The Administrator may not

“(1) provide for medical monitoring or diagnosis of a former United States government astronaut or former payload specialist under subsection (a) for any psychological or medical condition that is not potentially associated with human space flight;

“(2) provide for treatment of a former United States government astronaut or former payload specialist under subsection (a) for any psychological or medical condition that is not associated with human space flight; or...



edit on 14-3-2017 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

You do realize that posting the same thing three different times does not make it say something else, right?

Not a single word I have seen (including the section you referenced) has anything.... ANYTHING... to do with standard employee benefits. This is all concerning a secondary, more intensive program to ensure astronaut safety in the face of extraordinary conditions during the performance of their duties.

The act also does not change their pay grade, affect their 401k benefits, or anything else in their employment contract.

All full-time NASA employees, from the janitors to the secretaries, to the physicists, to the engineers, to the astronauts receive health insurance as part of their employees benefits. That is not changing! All that is changing is that NASA is being encouraged to extend the astronaut special care program to retirees, on a voluntary basis.

The three exclusions are:

(1) the special medical/psychological monitoring or diagnosis is only provided as it relates to performance as an astronaut. If you're 92 and think you have an enlarged prostate, go through your government-provided insurance..

(2) the special medical/psychological treatment cannot replace traditional insurance already provided unless it is related to performance as an astronaut. If you're 92 and have an enlarged prostate, go see your doctor using your government-provided insurance.

(3) the special medical/psychological monitoring, diagnosis, and treatment cannot be made mandatory to retirees. If you don't want to participate, NASA can't force you to.

THE ACT IS DOING EXACTLY WHAT YOU CLAIM TO SUPPORT, allowing retired astronauts to receive lifetime, free, government-paid treatment for conditions related to being an astronaut. It just won't apply if a retired astronaut has a car wreck, or falls off a ladder, or shoots himself in the foot cleaning his pistol. They already have insurance to cover that.

This is frustrating. I have not had time to dig into the other threads you have authored, but a quick glance tells me maybe I should. Then you start complaining about things you support by making claims that are simply not true, evidenced by your own links and the exact wording of the document you are angry about. How in the world am I to take your other threads seriously when you can't let go of your biases long enough to read an appropriations act?

Read the bloomin' document!

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: InachMarbank

I have been trying to figure out how to respond to you... this is the best I can come up with. You have asked some questions that require a background in particle physics to understand.

The phenomena you mention are caused by two things: lower density at elevation, and solar emissions. Certain types of emissions penetrate further into the atmosphere than others, and they affect atmospheric molecules in different ways. This leads to different conditions at different elevations.

You might want to verify those temperatures you mentioned, BTW. That sounds off.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



All full-time NASA employees, from the janitors to the secretaries, to the physicists, to the engineers, to the astronauts receive health insurance as part of their employees benefits. That is not changing!

...THE ACT IS DOING EXACTLY WHAT YOU CLAIM TO SUPPORT, allowing retired astronauts to receive lifetime, free, government-paid treatment for conditions related to being an astronaut. It just won't apply if a retired astronaut has a car wreck, or falls off a ladder, or shoots himself in the foot cleaning his pistol. They already have insurance to cover that.



lol. So which is it? Full lifetime health insurance coverage is part of the benefits package? OR... They don't need it 'cuz they already have private insurance?

btw - A bunch of guys who sign up to go to Mars will NOT get full-time benefits when they leave NASA. It will be a limited tour of duty, and they will not qualify when their tour is up. Same problem happens with military personnel. They time out on benefits. ...And the real health effects from space flight and travel are chronic, long term.


YOU need to read the documents. Maybe get Kellyanne to help you with your comprehension.

BUT YOU ARE RIGHT: I want them to have BOTH special attention for space related health stuff, AND regular comprehensive lifetime insurance for regular planetary health stuff. 'Cuz by the time it all mushes together you won't really be able to tell what's what any more. And I don't want our guys caught between Big Gov and Big Insurance having to fight for healthcare when they're already sick.






edit on 14-3-2017 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join