Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Let's discuss what's in the Health Care Bill

page: 15
53
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Claim:

PG 126 Line 22-25 Employers MUST pay for HealthCare for part time employees AND their families.


I couldn't find anything on this claim.....

Well that is all of it I do believe, so now that we know what is in it we can actually discuss the merits based off of truths.

Edit to add -

You know for "Health Insurance Reform" there is a lot in here that has nothing to do with insurance, this bill is as I expected a power grab by .gov.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]




posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Pg 824-829 SEC. 1802. Government Sets up Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund. Another tax black hole.


It's actually on Page 523-524:

(g) FUNDING OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH.—For fiscal year 2010 and each subsequent fiscal year, amounts in the Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (referred to in this section as the ‘CERTF’) under section 9511 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be available, without the need for further appropriations and without fiscal year limitation, to the Secretary to carry out this section.


True, but they aren't doing it with this bill. H.R. 2502 is a bill currently in committee that will set up this trust fund.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


I'll look some more and see if I can figure out where that came from, but the rest of the claims have been covered.

Only took two days and four people. Makes me wonder why Congress can't read through it if we managed it that quickly.



EDIT: I ran a search for "part time employee" in the bill and only found it in one place, but it was a section of definitions so it was unrelated to that final claim.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by Jenna]



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


I'm not sure, sounds more like an excuse to me, as in they know exactly what is the bill and they just want something to fall back on as an excuse when it comes election time, somewhere to point the finger.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


Yeah, you're probably right... Politicians sure do seem to like to point the finger at anyone and anything they can to take the focus off themselves.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


Thanks for that addendum to the nursing home issues. I got lost in legalese. . .



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


Government "assisted" child rearing



14 ‘‘(iii) establish appropriate linkages
15 and referrals to other community resources
16 and supports;


This is a bit confusing and a lawyer would have a better stab at it than I could but I interpret this "linkage" to mean Social Services, doctor, nurse or a teacher noting "abnormal behavior" and the parent would gets a "visit" or signed up for the program



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Jenna, Hastobemoretolife, thanks for your hard work. I feel like a poor relation compared to the work you both put into it.

-cheers-



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfoot1212
 





here's an idea(it would never work but hey we can dream) what if every dr. nurse,etc. opposes this and just says fu obama and gubmint and just totally quit and refuse to treat people?


It is called going Galt or going John Galt (Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand) and is being discussed. Actually all it would take is the older physicians (no student loans out standing) all taking an extended vacation at the same time. No different than a Union Strike is it Mr Obama?



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by mhc_70
 





Has anybody else noticed the sharp contrast in the complexity of the wording on this page compared to others?


YES the rest seems to be designed to confuse you and make you quit reading. That is why I am following this thread instead of wading into this bill alone. I figure someone (or a few) doing a second read make catch something the first person did not. Too bad those who are snarking at the researchers do not get to work reading the bill too. I guess it is easier to make nasty comments than to actually READ the sections of the bill presented and determine if the interpertation is correct.

You guys are doing a great job. Thanks.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


Well ty, I will go ahead and read this thread based on what you just said, this being the thrird one on the issues, and I still have no clue what has been learned about the bill.

Cuppa and I will be back!



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 





PG 151 Line 1-3 Aggregate Rules-tax on employers payroll not on public option include payroll of other biz.

From pages 150-151 Lines
19-5 (3) ANNUAL PAYROLL.—For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘‘annual payroll’’ means, with respect to any employer for any calendar year, the aggregate wages paid by the employer during such calendar year.
(4) AGGREGATION RULES.—Related employers and predecessors shall be treated as a single employer for purposes of this subsection.

I don't really understand the claim, so I'm not sure what to call it. This section I do understand though, I think. I think this means that if I go work at companies A, B, and C all in the same calender year, my wages from those three employers will be considered to have been from the same source. It's entirely possible I'm way off on this one though. Anyone have a better idea as to what this section means?


"Related employers and predecessors shall be treated as a single employer" this is talking about EMPLOYERS not workers.

Lets say Proctor and Gamble owns Gillette and Gillette owns Buxton Leather. I work three months for Buxton leather apply for a job at Gillette and get it. I work there for two months and then I am transfered to headquarters and work for Proctor and Gamble for the rest of the year. This section says I have worked for the same EMPLOYER even though my pay stub lists the different companies. This keeps a corporation from calling each little department "a small Business" to evade the progressive tax.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 





PG 239 Line 14-24 Government will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected.
(c) LIMITATION ON PHYSICIANS’ SERVICES INCLUDED IN TARGET GROWTH RATE COMPUTATION TO SERVICES COVERED UNDER PHYSICIAN FEE SCHEDULE.—Effective for services furnished on or after January 18 1, 2009, section 1848(f)(4)(A) of such Act is amended
19 striking ‘‘(such as clinical’’ and all that follows through
20 ‘‘in a physician’s office’’ and inserting ‘‘for which payment 21 under this part is made under the fee schedule under this
22 section, for services for practitioners described in section
23 1842(b)(18)(C) on a basis related to such fee schedule,
24 or for services described in section 1861(p) (other than 1 such services when furnished in the facility of a provider 2 of services)’’.

I don't know what to make of this one. I'd have to say false, because there was no mention made.


I think the reference is to the title LIMITATION ON PHYSICIANS’ SERVICES INCLUDED IN TARGET GROWTH RATE COMPUTATION TO SERVICES COVERED UNDER PHYSICIAN FEE SCHEDULE.

It says quite clearly ]LIMITATION ON PHYSICIANS’ SERVICES INCLUDED IN TARGET GROWTH RATE COMPUTATION which definitely sounds ominous but the rest of the section does not address the title. It looks like a list of amendments instead.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by mikerussellus
 





PG 239 Line 14-24 Government will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected.
(c) LIMITATION ON PHYSICIANS’ SERVICES INCLUDED IN TARGET GROWTH RATE COMPUTATION TO SERVICES COVERED UNDER PHYSICIAN FEE SCHEDULE.—Effective for services furnished on or after January 18 1, 2009, section 1848(f)(4)(A) of such Act is amended
19 striking ‘‘(such as clinical’’ and all that follows through
20 ‘‘in a physician’s office’’ and inserting ‘‘for which payment 21 under this part is made under the fee schedule under this
22 section, for services for practitioners described in section
23 1842(b)(18)(C) on a basis related to such fee schedule,
24 or for services described in section 1861(p) (other than 1 such services when furnished in the facility of a provider 2 of services)’’.

I don't know what to make of this one. I'd have to say false, because there was no mention made.


I think the reference is to the title LIMITATION ON PHYSICIANS’ SERVICES INCLUDED IN TARGET GROWTH RATE COMPUTATION TO SERVICES COVERED UNDER PHYSICIAN FEE SCHEDULE.

It says quite clearly ]LIMITATION ON PHYSICIANS’ SERVICES INCLUDED IN TARGET GROWTH RATE COMPUTATION which definitely sounds ominous but the rest of the section does not address the title. It looks like a list of amendments instead.


I stand corrected, thank you.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty
reply to post by tasim
 


if you are not working, it seems that you will be placed into the medicaid type program.

For dental and or vision, you have to qualify for the Premium-Plus type plan from the government according to this bill.

And that is only if it is offered in your area.

Thread is only 9 pages long, you really should try to read the sections we have gone over & if you don't understand it at all, then look at the quote opening the post and the conclusion after the relevant portion of the bill to see if we think that the quote was correct or not


I have been trying to read this entire post and it makes my head hurt and the room spin. I do not understand any of it. Trying to read through this and find what is relevent to myself is a waste of time for me and only causes me to be even more confused than i am to begin with. That is why i am hoping someone that already understands all of this can answer my questions so i dont come to a conclusion that is false and stress myself out more than i already am over nothing.

So please, someone that understands this bill, Can you tell me how this will affect an unemployed person that has no insurance at all that wishes to pay out of pocket for health care and dental work. Will i be denied the health care i need? Will the problems i already have healthwise be ignored? I have health problems and have only been able to go to the ER about them over the years and have been told different things so i do not know exactly what is wrong with my health just that there are problems. To add, because of my situation where i am living and who i am living with i cannot get any kind of government assistance like medicaid or even food stamps.
I just want to know how this bill affects an unemployed or even an employed worker without insurance that pays for healthcare and dental out of their own pocket. I live in Arkansas if this is of an relevence.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by tasim
 


If you are unemployed you should be provided with the "basic" plan. No more out of pocket, it will be very similar to medicaid. But don't get excited yet. The bill was very vague when it came to unemployed folks. Plus, the government agencies that would oversee it would take time to start their program. There are also age factors, employment factors that would play into your government plan.

For RIGHT NOW, have you contacted a Patient Advocate service in your area? These are people that know how to work the system and can provide information that might be beneficial to you.

heres a link to one agency in Arkansas. . .
patientadvocateservices.org...



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


I get lost in the legalese too sometimes.
I still maintain that they word it that way on purpose.

And you put in quite a bit of work yourself helping get through all that.


reply to post by crimvelvet
 


Thanks for clearing that up. Too much legalese isn't good for the brain, makes you misinterpret things.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 

Thanks Jenna. Like I told Hastobemoretolife, I just hope people read it instead of spouting rhetoric, on both sides of the aisle.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Claim:

PG 95 Line 8-18 The Government will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Government HealthCare plan.


What it says:

8 (1) OUTREACH.—The Commissioner shall con
9 duct outreach activities consistent with subsection
10 (c), including through use of appropriate entities as
11 described in paragraph (4) of such subsection, to in
12 form and educate individuals and employers about
13 the Health Insurance Exchange and Exchange-par
14 ticipating health benefits plan options. Such out
15 reach shall include outreach specific to vulnerable
16 populations, such as children, individuals with dis
17 abilities, individuals with mental illness, and individ
18 uals with other cognitive impairments.


Ok and this is the subsection they are talking about:

15 (3) USE OF OTHER ENTITIES.—In carrying out
16 this subsection, the Commissioner may work with
17 other appropriate entities to facilitate the dissemina
18 tion of information under this subsection and to pro
19 vide assistance as described in paragraph (2).


The section is to vague to verify the claim.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Claim:

PG 98 Line 8 Americans - You will be paying for others HealthCare while paying for your own.


what it says:

12 (i) AFFORDABILITY CREDIT ELIGIBLE
13 INDIVIDUALS.—The individual—
14 (I) has applied for, and been de
15 termined eligible for, affordability
16 credits under subtitle C;
17 (II) has not opted out from re
18 ceiving such affordability credit; and
19 (III) does not otherwise enroll in
20 another Exchange-participating health
21 benefits plan.


I would have to say the claim is a little misleading, but is true to an extent.





new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join