Let's discuss what's in the Health Care Bill, page 18


Pages: <<  15    16    17    18    19  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 53 times


reply posted on 12-8-2009 @ 06:11 PM by redhatty
reply to post by rogerstigers



Thanks Rogerstiger!!!

That's why more eyes than mine are needed for this endeavor!!!

Feel free to point out any other items we have misunderstood!


reply posted on 12-8-2009 @ 06:16 PM by rogerstigers
reply to post by mikerussellus



Ok, sorry, had to interrupt my reading again, so hopefully this has not been already addressed. Yes, the government sets levels on ownership as referred to in your quote. The context of this section is critical for understanding this. This section refers to "self-referral", such as when a doctor refers a patient to get an MRI. This means that the doctor cannot refer the patient to an MRI company that they have gained and still have an ownership interest in since 1/1/2009.



reply posted on 12-8-2009 @ 06:28 PM by rogerstigers
reply to post by mikerussellus



Ok mike, as posted in my other thread that I requested closed, here is my take on the End of Life issue:

The specific section is on page 424, section 1233.

From what I am reading here, the bill mandates a discussion of the following:

1) Advance Care Planning (not defined in the bill, still trying to make sure I understand its implications)
2) Advance Directives, living wills, and durable powers of attorney
3) Health care proxies
4) Contact information for outside organizations that specialize in this sort of assistance
5) Advantages and Disadvantaes of Hospice and pallitive care facilities and what the medical insurance benefits are regarding such facilities.
6) What a order regarding life sustaining treatment is and why they are necessary
7) The information needed by a patient's surrogate (generally a family member) to make decisions regarding things such as "pulling the plug"
8) Contact information for outside organizations, including local and state organizations that specialize in this sort of counseling and assitance.
9) The federal regulations for counseling must meet or exceed the recommendations of the state in which the patient is receiving treatment.

So as far as I can tell, this is legislation mandating a conversation between a patient and their physician that they should be having anyway and I don't see anything here that puts the government directly in line with that dicussion other than mandating that the discussion must occur


reply posted on 12-8-2009 @ 06:35 PM by ohioriver
reply to post by Jenna



I see a huge problem with this. This will cause more lobbying and bribery to ensure their plans are treated more favorable than others.

Any insurance provider who wants to offer health benefits through the exchange will have to go through the Commissioner. Only plans he/she approves will be offered through the exchange.

PG 84 Line 203 Government mandates ALL benefit packages for private. HealthCare plans in the Exchange.


SEC. 203. BENEFITS PACKAGE LEVELS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall specify the benefits to be made available under Exchange-participating health benefits plans during each plan year, consistent with subtitle C of title I and this section.
(b) LIMITATION ON HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS OFFERED BY OFFERING ENTITIES.—The Commissioner may not enter into a contract with a QHBP offering entity under section 204(c) for the offering of an Exchange-participating health benefits plan in a service area unless the following requirements are met:
(1) REQUIRED OFFERING OF BASIC PLAN.—The entity offers only one basic plan for such service area.
(2) OPTIONAL OFFERING OF ENHANCED PLAN.—If and only if the entity offers a basic plan for such service area, the entity may offer one enhanced plan for such area.
(3) OPTIONAL OFFERING OF PREMIUM PLAN.— If and only if the entity offers an enhanced plan for such service area, the entity may offer one premium
plan for such area.
(4) OPTIONAL OFFERING OF PREMIUM-PLUS PLANS.—If and only if the entity offers a premium plan for such service area, the entity may offer one or more premium-plus plans for such area.


reply posted on 12-8-2009 @ 06:38 PM by rogerstigers
Ok, I give up. I got to page 14, I think..lol

Ok, Here is what I have gathered from this thread and my reading of the bill. There are a few facets to this bill:

1) It creates a public health insurance entity that behaves in many ways the same way as a private health insurance agency does including defining a framework for defining plans and coverage levels.
2) It makes a half hearted attempt at promoting preventative care and improving the overall general health of the US citizen through preventative action campaigns.
3) It establishes a new beaurocracy of waste that, while explicitly established for the purpose, holds the keys to systemically dismanteling an rebuilding the health care system.
4) It establishes that Health Care Exchange which, from my reading, is essentially a market where public companies can compete for your insurance dollars so long as they meet the minimum standards for participation.
5) It makes some half-hearted attempts to prevent conflicts of interest on the part of doctors who are also investors in medical institutions.

I also noticed that they tried to pacify the republicans by deciding to tax our medical benefits if we choose not to take the public option (that would be the self-insured option for employees of companies).

My overall take at this point is a resounding NO. This bill is junk and not for any partisan reason. It is a complicated, heavy handed, waste of money that puts onto the government a lot of burden that should lay firmly in the laps of us as people.

I think i will join the camp that says Tort Reform and regulation is a better solution. Honestly, I think we should do away with medical insurance altogether with the exception of crisis care insurance, enact protections and limits of liabilities on doctors, and mandate that all hospitals and physicians become not for profit.


reply posted on 12-8-2009 @ 06:47 PM by redhatty
reply to post by rogerstigers



Rogerstigers, but as you progress further into the legislation, you find that there is specific training to health care practitioners that "instructs" them on the "goals and use of orders for" life sustaining treatment.

The incredible amount of vagueness in this section (pg 426-427) leaves a lot of room for the .gov to decide that their goal is to NOT provide life sustaining treatment, even if it would be effective and the patient is in relatively good health otherwise.

Why should a person be manipulated into creating a living will if they do not WANT to do so?

Do you really think that the .gov is going to "instruct" HCPs to counsel their patients to order all possible life sustaining treatment??

Or is it more likely that the counseling will be to convince them that they are old, they had a good life & they should allow themselves to die???


reply posted on 12-8-2009 @ 06:53 PM by rogerstigers
reply to post by redhatty



Honestly, I don't think this thread is the place for this part of the discussion. It is for analyzing the bill in light of the claims being made, etc. If you ask me what the government *might* do if given a modicum of power my answer will be they will screw something up. We can talk more on U2U, but I am away from keyboard for a while... my eyes hurt.


reply posted on 12-8-2009 @ 07:22 PM by Jenna
reply to post by ohioriver



Unfortunately you're probably right. As if there isn't already enough bribery going on in Washington they have to go and add another avenue for it.


reply posted on 12-8-2009 @ 08:38 PM by ohioriver
Here is another fine mess that will be made worse. I believe this is for anchor babies. Illegal aliens that come to America for free health care and delivery.



20 (d) SPECIAL DUTIES RELATED TO MEDICAID AND
21 CHIP.—
22 (1) COVERAGE FOR CERTAIN NEWBORNS.—
23 (A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a child
24 born in the United States who at the time of
25 birth is not otherwise covered under acceptable
1 coverage, for the period of time beginning on
2 the date of birth and ending on the date the
3 child otherwise is covered under acceptable cov4
erage (or, if earlier, the end of the month in
5 which the 60-day period, beginning on the date
6 of birth, ends), the child shall be deemed—
7 (i) to be a non-traditional Medicaid el8
igible individual (as defined in subsection
9 (e)(5)) for purposes of this division and
10 Medicaid; and
11 (ii) to have elected to enroll in Med12
icaid through the application of paragraph
13 (3).
14 (B) EXTENDED TREATMENT AS TRADI15
TIONAL MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.—In
16 the case of a child described in subparagraph
17 (A) who at the end of the period referred to in
18 such subparagraph is not otherwise covered
19 under acceptable coverage, the child shall be
20 deemed (until such time as the child obtains
21 such coverage or the State otherwise makes a
22 determination of the child’s eligibility for med23
ical assistance under its Medicaid plan pursuant
24 to section 1943(c)(1) of the Social Security
25 Act) to be a traditional Medicaid eligible indi-
VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:51 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\AAHCA0~1.XML HOLCPC
July 14, 2009 (12:51 p.m.)
F:\P11\NHI\TRICOMM\AAHCA09_001.XML
f:\VHLC\071409\071409.140.xml (444390|2)
102
1 vidual described in section 1902(l)(1)(B) of
2 such Act.
3 (2) CHIP TRANSITION.—A child who, as of the
4 day before the first day of Y1, is eligible for child
5 health assistance under title XXI of the Social Secu6
rity Act (including a child receiving coverage under
7 an arrangement described in section 2101(a)(2) of
8 such Act) is deemed as of such first day to be an
9 Exchange-eligible individual unless the individual is
10 a traditional Medicaid eligible individual as of such
11 day.



reply posted on 13-8-2009 @ 01:23 AM by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by rogerstigers



Okay thanks, my legalese is not that great.

I don't like this bill one iota.


reply posted on 13-8-2009 @ 02:21 AM by HunkaHunka
reply to post by rogerstigers



We *can* refuse vaccines? Well that's a positive note isn't it?




reply posted on 13-8-2009 @ 07:21 AM by ohioriver
This is an evil bill:


‘SEC. 440. HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EXPECTING CHILDREN.

‘(a) Purpose- The purpose of this section is to improve the well-being, health, and development of children by enabling the establishment and expansion of high quality programs providing voluntary home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(b) Grant Application- A State that desires to receive a grant under this section shall submit to the Secretary for approval, at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may require, an application for the grant that includes the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(1) DESCRIPTION OF HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS- A description of the high quality programs of home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children that will be supported by a grant made to the State under this section, the outcomes the programs are intended to achieve, and the evidence supporting the effectiveness of the programs.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(2) RESULTS OF NEEDS ASSESSMENT- The results of a statewide needs assessment that describes--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(A) the number, quality, and capacity of home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children in the State;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(B) the number and types of families who are receiving services under the programs;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(C) the sources and amount of funding provided to the programs;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(D) the gaps in home visitation in the State, including identification of communities that are in high need of the services; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(E) training and technical assistance activities designed to achieve or support the goals of the programs.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(3) ASSURANCES- Assurances from the State that--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

1
‘(A) in supporting home visitation programs using funds provided under this section, the State shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families or a high incidence of child maltreatment;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(B) the State will reserve 5 percent of the grant funds for training and technical assistance to the home visitation programs using such funds;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(C) in supporting home visitation programs using funds provided under this section, the State will promote coordination and collaboration with other home visitation programs (including programs funded under title XIX) and with other child and family services, health services, income supports, and other related assistance;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(D) home visitation programs supported using such funds will, when appropriate, provide referrals to other programs serving children and families; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(E) the State will comply with subsection (i), and cooperate with any evaluation conducted under subsection (j).



I believe the voluntary part means that states have the choice of participating, not individuals. This will be even worse than CPS visits. I don't have children and this even alarms me. If they don't like the way you and your child talk to each other will they call in CPS? This is so wrong cause each family's dynamics are so widely differing that what is OK in one persons home would not be acceptable to another. Who is gonna monitor and decide the right way to raise your kids? Hey Congress and Obama step off! I don't need to read any more of this bill. This part is the dealbreaker.


reply posted on 13-8-2009 @ 04:45 PM by Nightflyer28
reply to post by redhatty



Gee, what a surprise. The most paranoid interpretations of the bill being passed around like a giant bong at a Grateful Dead concert.

Howzabout we have the democratic response, now.... And no, I didn't write it, but I sure read it.
-----------
This is a link to the original forum in which the claims about the bill were discussed and analyzed.

Or, if you don't want to link all the way over there, I've set up a new thread instead of sticking it all at the tail end of this one.
What's REALLY in the bill vs what chain-emails SAY is in it

[edit on 8/13/2009 by Nightflyer28]
Pages: <<  15    16    17    18    19  >>    ^^TOP^^



Give Obama a Break! He Isn\'t All That Bad.
  Posted 4 days ago with 32 member flags
Congress Is Fired
  Posted 13 days ago with 8 member flags
Why are Americans so scared of different Politcal Ideology
  Posted 7 days ago with 8 member flags
Mitt or Barack? - Give me a break!
  Posted 4 days ago with 3 member flags
What Happens When Taxpayers Strike?
  Posted 14 days ago with 2 member flags