It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


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

page: 18
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 06:07 PM

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife

Pg 765 Section 1711 Government will require Preventative Services including vaccines. (Choice?)

What it says:

1 Subtitle B—Prevention
14 ‘‘(z) PREVENTIVE SERVICES.—The preventive serv
15 ices described in this subsection are services not otherwise
16 described in subsection (a) or (r) that the Secretary deter
17 mines are—
18 ‘‘(1)(A) recommended with a grade of A or B
19 by the Task Force for Clinical Preventive Services;
20 or
21 ‘‘(B) vaccines recommended for use as appro
22 priate by the Director of the Centers for Disease
23 Control and Prevention; and

This claim is true, there is no way we can refuse vaccines if this bill is enacted, or to use the new word I learned to day, promulgated.

Ok, I am working my way through this really long thread, and almost made it, but you totally missed the point of this section. We can refuse vaccines all day long if this bill is passed. What this section describes is the REQUIRED COVERAGE OF PREVENTIVE SERVICES. Meaning that benefits for vaccines will be covered.

More to come eventually...gotta make it to the

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 06:11 PM
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!

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 06:16 PM
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.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 06:28 PM
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

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 06:35 PM
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.

(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.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 06:38 PM
Ok, I give up. I got to page 14, I

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.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 06:47 PM
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???

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 06:53 PM
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.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 07:22 PM
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.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 08:10 PM
I found this to be particularly interesting. An escape clause.

16 If any provision of this Act, or any application of such
17 provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be un18
constitutional, the remainder of the provisions of this Act
19 and the application of the provision to any other person
20 or circumstance shall not be affected.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 08:20 PM
At least I found some good points:

8 ‘‘(b) LIMITATIONS ON USE OF DATA.—Nothing in
9 this section shall be construed to permit the use of infor10
mation collected under this section in a manner that would
11 adversely affect any individual.
12 ‘‘(c) PROTECTION OF DATA.—The Secretary shall en13
sure (through the promulgation of regulations or other14
wise) that all data collected pursuant to subsection (a)
15 are—
16 ‘‘(1) used and disclosed in a manner that meets
17 the HIPAA privacy and security law (as defined in
18 section 3009(a)(2) of the Public Health Service
19 Act), including any privacy or security standard
20 adopted under section 3004 of such Act; and
21 ‘‘(2) protected from all inappropriate internal
22 use by any entity that collects, stores, or receives the
23 data, including use of such data in determinations of
24 eligibility (or continued eligibility) in health plans,
VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:51 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\AAHCA0~1.XML HOLCPC
July 14, 2009 (12:51 p.m.)
f:\VHLC\071409\071409.140.xml (444390|2)
1 and from other inappropriate uses, as defined by the
2 Secretary.’’.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 08:38 PM
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.

21 CHIP.—
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).
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:\VHLC\071409\071409.140.xml (444390|2)
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.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 08:44 PM
This is unacceptable. The government will decide what is acceptable and if you don't don't agree then you will be punished.
Page 110

ceived in the Treasury under section 59B of the
4 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to re5
quirement of health insurance coverage for indi6

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 10:21 PM
I think this has been blown way out of proportion. The end of life order on here the way I understand it as written. It is not saying the government will decide how you die. It is more about requiring doctors to follow YOUR advance directives. It is not forced suicide.

13 ‘‘(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order
14 regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect
15 to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to
16 the treatment of that individual that—
17 ‘‘(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as de18
fined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care
19 professional (as specified by the Secretary and who
20 is acting within the scope of the professional’s au21
thority under State law in signing such an order, in22
cluding a nurse practitioner or physician assistant)
23 and is in a form that permits it to stay with the in24
dividual and be followed by health care professionals
25 and providers across the continuum of care;
VerDate Nov

It means you come up with an advance plan of action with your doctor and he and you sign the agreement.

Edited to add that is on page 429

[edit on 12-8-2009 by ohioriver]

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 01:23 AM
reply to post by rogerstigers

Okay thanks, my legalese is not that great.

I don't like this bill one iota.

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 02:21 AM
reply to post by rogerstigers

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

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:21 AM
This is an evil bill:


‘(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

‘(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.

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Jenna

PG 58 Government will have real-time access to individuals’ finances & a National ID HealthCare Card will be issued!

Page 58:

(D) enable the real-time (or near real time) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service

I believe this means the determination of your co-pay at the time of service which is no different than standard coverage systems now.

and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility,

I believe this means the standard verification of benefits just as is it currently done with private coverage.

which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card;

A card like the one I currently carry in my wallet from my private provider.

I don't want this particular bill either. I don't want the government in my life anymore than they already are. However, it will not help us defeat it if all we have is fear on our side so I wish the people (not you guys) putting this stuff out would be reasonable and honest.

Keep up the good work but also keep in mind there are currently 5 different versions of this bill and we are only looking at one.

Sorry - couldn't figure out how to break my comments out of the quotes.

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 04:45 PM
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]

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 04:47 PM
canceled to start new thread....
BTW, how do you delete posts you've left when you want to get rid of them?

[edit on 8/13/2009 by Nightflyer28]

top topics

<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in