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.

 

Bill with billions in health plan cuts passes House

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Bill with billions in health plan cuts passes House


www.newsdaily.com

The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday approved a bill that would shave billions of dollars in reimbursement from health plans that contract with the federal Medicare program.

Payment would be cut to health insurers such as Aetna Inc and Humana Inc under the bill sponsored by Democrats Charles Rangel of New York and John Dingell of Michigan.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Well, well... what ever happened to the Democrats, voices faltering and fists shaking in anger, saying that the Republican led Congress was cold and heartless when they cut Medicare spending in the past? I'd ask if the Democrats are that stupid that they believe their supporters will continue to vote for them when they platform on increased medical coverage and increased Medicare to our elderly and disabled, and then consistantly do exactly the opposite of what they campaigned on... but the better question is are their supporters so stupid they don't see right through these stunts. Judging from the fact that they keep getting elected, apparently so.

www.newsdaily.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Good to see.

This kind of crap is unconstitutional anyways, so the less money stolen from us and given to others in the form of healthcare can only be a good thing.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 


No, this is not good, and for many reasons. Firstly, what do you think is helping to drive up the cost of health care? It's all of the uninsured people who have nowhere else to go when they or their children are sick. There are many, many children on Medicare, do you want them to go without health care? Cutting health care dollars will result in even more overloaded emergency hospital rooms and this also greatly impacts the folks with insurance, since they have to wait even longer in the emergency room.

The cost of health care is going to skyrocket even more due to these measures. And where are they putting the money they are cutting? That's right, into war against Iraq, which is a lost cause, and now it seems, into another war, this time with Iran and whoever else supports Iran, such as Russia.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire
Good to see.

This kind of crap is unconstitutional anyways, so the less money stolen from us and given to others in the form of healthcare can only be a good thing.


It's attitudes like that that make me feel like some people belong in the stone age. Welcome to society, buddy.

It's surprising that this bill came from democrats, but I guess it's true that no politicians actually care about the little guy anymore. As I understand it, medicare doctors are already underpaid, and now they're about to take an 11% pay cut? It's hard to determine from the source article exactly why they're doing this, but I imagine there's got to be a good reason. Or else we need to throw these idiots out of office.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by endrun
reply to post by slackerwire
 


No, this is not good, and for many reasons. Firstly, what do you think is helping to drive up the cost of health care? It's all of the uninsured people who have nowhere else to go when they or their children are sick. There are many, many children on Medicare, do you want them to go without health care? Cutting health care dollars will result in even more overloaded emergency hospital rooms and this also greatly impacts the folks with insurance, since they have to wait even longer in the emergency room.

The cost of health care is going to skyrocket even more due to these measures. And where are they putting the money they are cutting? That's right, into war against Iraq, which is a lost cause, and now it seems, into another war, this time with Iran and whoever else supports Iran, such as Russia.


A) The use of federal taxpayer dollars to fund healthcare is unconstitutional.

B) Healthcare is expensive for 2 reasons: The one you mentioned as well as frivolous lawsuits requiring expensive malpractice insurance.

C) Emergency rooms and other providers need to withhold healthcare for the uninsured in all cases except those of extreme life and death circumstances.

D) It isn't the duty of responsible people to subsidize the children irresponsible choose to have when they know they cannot afford to properly provide for them.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


I have the Constitution on my side.

You have whiny "lets be compassionate when it comes to spending other peoples money" emotion on your side.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


I have the Constitution on my side.



I would like you to point to exactly which part of the constitution says we can't have universal healthcare. And I don't mean Hilary's "require everyone to buy health insurance" plan, which just puts more money into the insurance company's pockets. I mean a real universal healthcare system. Go ahead, try to find it.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Apparently they're taking the money from insurance providers and giving it to doctors to remove the 11% reduction. This isn't as cut & dried as I originally thought it was, because it now appears to be a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario for Congress. Either way they were going to end up doing something undesirable. I rescind this as an example of Democratic stupidity for the time being, although I will leave it on the table as an example of Congressional blundering as the money the insurance companies lose will almost certainly just be passed on to the insured in the form of much higher premiums and co-pays. Either way, it's robbing Peter to pay paul and it's the average American citizen who loses.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Well not so fast.. They aren't going to leave the elderly totally high and dry.


As early as today, the House will vote on legislation that aims to cut Medicare Advantage – a program that allows millions of seniors to use federal dollars to buy private health insurance.
source

The money they save by cutting Med Advantage will be put into a "fee-for-service" plan according to Obama (who has been honest with his intentions). Sure some argue that this is just a way for government to have more power and move towards "socialized medicine." Not entirely correct...


None of the leading Democratic candidates, however, has proposed anything like a single-payer system, much less a fully government-run program like Britain's National Health Service.
source



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


This plan cut payments from the government to HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES.

Which means Health Insurance companies, as they always do, will return a nice little favor to the government.

They will reduce, or stop coverage and supplement packages to Medicare users ...

Which means who becomes everyone's enemy? The Health Insurance Companies. Not the Gov. Smooth.

Idiocracy to an extreme.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd

reply to post by drwizardphd

I would like you to point to exactly which part of the constitution says we can't have universal healthcare. And I don't mean Hilary's "require everyone to buy health insurance" plan, which just puts more money into the insurance company's pockets. I mean a real universal healthcare system. Go ahead, try to find it.


Evidently your understanding of the Constitution needs some help.

Ya see, simply because it doesn't prohibit the government from doing something doesn't mean its ok. Using your own thought process, genocide would be ok because it isn't specifically prohibited either.

Do yourself a favor and try reading Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. It details the ONLY expenditures the federal government is allowed to spend taxpayer money on. Healthcare isn't included, nor has it ever been.

Sorry kid, you're S.O.L.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd
I would like you to point to exactly which part of the constitution says we can't have universal healthcare. And I don't mean Hilary's "require everyone to buy health insurance" plan, which just puts more money into the insurance company's pockets. I mean a real universal healthcare system. Go ahead, try to find it.


Technically speaking, the fact that it doesn't lay it out anywhere that providing universal healthcare is a federal issue, and since we've never had an ammendment added that grants that right, it is Constitutionally a state issue, not a federal one. 10th Ammendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If they didn't grant it to the feds implicitly, it isn't a federal matter. You could also look at it as the income tax ammendment was never properly ratified and, therefore, federal income tax is unconstitutional anyway, if you so chose. However, it seems that we're never going to rectify that wrong in this country so that's probably a dead issue to argue.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 


I guess I'll drag out this tired old quote, though it can be interpreted in a myriad ways:



To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


Do you not consider healthcare part of the "general welfare of the United States"?

I guess it's pretty obvious you don't, as you've demonstrated with your previous statements. I just hope the healthcare companies decide to provide you with the coverage you need when your number comes up.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Originally posted by drwizardphd
I would like you to point to exactly which part of the constitution says we can't have universal healthcare. And I don't mean Hilary's "require everyone to buy health insurance" plan, which just puts more money into the insurance company's pockets. I mean a real universal healthcare system. Go ahead, try to find it.


Technically speaking, the fact that it doesn't lay it out anywhere that providing universal healthcare is a federal issue, and since we've never had an ammendment added that grants that right, it is Constitutionally a state issue, not a federal one. 10th Ammendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."



I actually agree, and if it was treated as a state issue by our government than I wouldn't have any complaints about healthcare in our country.

Unfortunately, the issue of healthcare is currently left up to the healthcare companies, not the states, and we all know how great that's turning out.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd
reply to post by slackerwire
 


I guess I'll drag out this tired old quote, though it can be interpreted in a myriad ways:



To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


Do you not consider healthcare part of the "general welfare of the United States"?

I guess it's pretty obvious you don't, as you've demonstrated with your previous statements. I just hope the healthcare companies decide to provide you with the coverage you need when your number comes up.


I pay for the coverage I and my family need. Thats called being RESPONSIBLE.

General welfare, as in not INDIVIDUAL.

Surely you can back up your contention with a SCOTUS finding right?

Have anything to substantiate your claim other than your already proven to be uninformed opinion?

I'll save you the time: You don't.

Seriously, try educating yourself on Constitutional law before you choose to debate it.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Want to unf*ck healthcare?

Duncan Hunter had the best plan before he dropped out of the Presidential race.

Offer doctors tax free income if they provide $50 office visits. Let them do as many of those $50 office visits as they possibly can, and each and every dime they make on those visits would be tax free.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire

I pay for the coverage I and my family need. Thats called being RESPONSIBLE.

General welfare, as in not INDIVIDUAL.

Surely you can back up your contention with a SCOTUS finding right?

Have anything to substantiate your claim other than your already proven to be uninformed opinion?

I'll save you the time: You don't.

Seriously, try educating yourself on Constitutional law before you choose to debate it.


You're pretty rude so I'm just going to say my bit and leave.

As I said in my post, the wording of the constitution is up for scrupulous debate. You're nitpicking words, and so am I. Unfortunately, this is the nature of a constitutional debate.

In most cases, the general welfare is directly tied to the individual welfare. What is the general, if not many individuals? Or do you believe that the general welfare consists of only those wealthy enough to afford health care?

And while it is very responsible for you to provide your family with healthcare, unfortunately the healthcare companies regard your family as little more than a number. That number is the amount of money they spend on you, and they'll do anything to keep it down. Including letting you or one of your family members miss out on life-saving treatments. The only way to circumvent this problem is to provide unconditional healthcare to all citizens, and it is also the moral thing to do.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd


You're pretty rude so I'm just going to say my bit and leave.


Forgive me for being less than kind when dealing with someone who wants to take even more of my money and give it to others.

Hell, if someone ever breaks into my house, I will offer him cookies instead of painting my walls with his internal organs. Sound good?


As I said in my post, the wording of the constitution is up for scrupulous debate. You're nitpicking words, and so am I. Unfortunately, this is the nature of a constitutional debate.


Actually I am not nitpicking anything. The words are right there. You seem to have a problem giving those words different meanings in order to fit into your own belief system.


In most cases, the general welfare is directly tied to the individual welfare. What is the general, if not many individuals? Or do you believe that the general welfare consists of only those wealthy enough to afford health care?


wealthy enough to afford healthcare? One need not be wealthy in order to afford health insurance. You sound like you make poverty level wages. Do you?

If money is so tight for you that you simply cannot afford health insurance, how do you afford an internet service provider? It's called priorities.

Welfare of the nation, not the individual.

Do yourself a favor and read these words by men more intelligent than you or me for that matter. Remember them. Memorize them.


"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792



"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798



"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison



"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit." - President Grover Cleveland, 1887




The only way to circumvent this problem is to provide unconditional healthcare to all citizens, and it is also the moral thing to do.


You do know morals are subjective right?

What gives you the power to impose your morals on my wallet?

How do you propose funding this "unconditional healthcare"?

Have you ever considered moving to Sweden? If not, you should. They like people like you over there.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire
Good to see.

This kind of crap is unconstitutional anyways, so the less money stolen from us and given to others in the form of healthcare can only be a good thing.


I agree whole heartedly there are those that we still need to take care of but we need to pick and date and say no more new people after this date, I only say that because some have only known to count on this for their life our parents for example.. This country owes you nothing not one thing unless you are a Veteran a retired government worker otherwise you should be on your own if you can't eat grow a garden no money get a job but step away from my tax dollars please

Oh yeah and on the federal health care I don't want that either and won't take it period...

and welfare don't even get me started on that what a joke


[edit on 6/24/2008 by geocom]

[edit on 6/24/2008 by geocom]




top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join