Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 19
53
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
canceled to start new thread

[edit on 8/13/2009 by Nightflyer28]




posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Have you guys ever thought that Congress may intentionally leave ambiguous language or gaps in the bill to get the legislation passed, only to later come back and pass smaller bills to fill in the gaps?

I just feel that the bills Congress pass later to amend the original may create the most damage. Priority number one is to get something passed.

Great job on this thread.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
canceled to start new thread

[edit on 8/13/2009 by Nightflyer28]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
canceled to start new thread

[edit on 8/13/2009 by Nightflyer28]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Nightflyer28
 


I guess I'm a bit confused why you started a brand new thread saying basically the exact same things we've already said when we went through it all here.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


I've had that thought and it scares me worse than what's actually in the bill. Most amendments they'll end up making to this later on will be attached to other bills last minute and we won't even know about it till it's too late.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted 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.
-----------

www.city-data.com...

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]


I checked out that page and I do believe you missed the point.



> Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED.

Rationed? NO. .this sets a STANDARD of CARE for the ESSENTIAL BENEFITS Package as defined in another section.. in otherwords.. a level of insurance that is the MINIMUM acceptable to be considered GOOD coverage and NOT underinsurance. As a matter of fact.. here is a line from the previous page under that section


And who gets to decide just what is an acceptable level of benefits? Acceptable to the Insurance Companies? Doctors? Or the guy in charge of administering this health care bill who is also charged with keeping costs under control and most likely will not even have to have nor use the same plan?If they are going to shove this down our throats they should be required to participate in the same plan.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by Nightflyer28
 


I guess I'm a bit confused why you started a brand new thread saying basically the exact same things we've already said when we went through it all here.


Ah.

Well, I was in a bit of a rush, so I didn't actual check through the whole thread first....

D'oh!



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Nightflyer28
 


You should if you haven't already. Many of the claims were found to be false or misleading and I'd say the four of us who did most of the work combing through the bill did a fairly decent job of being as non-biased as possible. I for one don't support this bill, but I personally pointed out several claims that were completely false because the truth is what's important here.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Nightflyer28
 


Nightflyer28, you really should make sure you attribute all that other author's work in your thread. Plagiarism is very much against T&C of ATS.

Please take the time to actually read this thread & see all the work that has been done, with actual quotes of the bill as much as was possible.

We invite others who can read through the legalese to correct us if we have misunderstood anything.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty
reply to post by Nightflyer28
 


Nightflyer28, you really should make sure you attribute all that other author's work in your thread. Plagiarism is very much against T&C of ATS.


I pretty much assumed that was the case - that's why, in the first segment, I posted a link to the forum in which I originally found that list. But looking at it again, I see I didn't quite make it clear that that link led to the original forum, so I just went back and fixed it so there shouldn't be any further misunderstandings about the original source.



Please take the time to actually read this thread & see all the work that has been done, with actual quotes of the bill as much as was possible.


I'll do that, thanks.

Incidentally, what's your take on the points made in the forum? I just started looking through the points you made here, and you seem to have taken a fairly close look at it.

[edit on 8/13/2009 by Nightflyer28]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


No prob, Jenna - I'll have a closer look.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nightflyer28
I'll do that, thanks.

Incidentally, what's your take on the points made in the forum? I just started looking through the points you made here, and you seem to have taken a fairly close look at it.


My take, oh boy is that ever a can of worms...

Let me put it this way...

Show me ONE thing that the .gov has taken over that has ended up working more economically and efficiently. If you can do that, then maybe we have a baseline to point out to our congress critters - asking them to please use that "blueprint" while finalizing this bill.

I really think that the "health care reform" should begin with legislative reform of Tort law. Also laws that would make "for profit" hospitals illegal.

I don't think that any doctor should be limited by being "not for profit" in his practice. If a doc is good, he deserves to make his money. If a doc is bad, then he needs his license pulled. (he used only as a general pronoun, I am well aware that there are female docs).

While I agree low income folks need health care too, simply making hospitals and public clinics "not for profit" would allow much more flexibility for sliding scale payment schedules for those who don't have/qualify for medicaid.

Limiting malpractice costs and lawsuit windfalls would also reduce costs.

Hey, maybe some incentive to create medical supplied in this country !!! Then we get both jobs and (hopefully) cost efficient supplies


There is too much room in this particular bill for someone without real concern for the uninsured & real concern for his profit to twist things to benefit those who are behind this only for the profit they foresee.

I will be the first to admit that we need some changes, but I know this. According to this bill, the max out of pocket per year for an individual is $5K. BCBS OOP cap for 1 person is $2K. SO even with the co-pays and deductibles, I'm going to save money with BCBS rather than the .gov plan, even if I get REALLY SICK.

This bill is not going to make things better. Not for J6P, but I bet those who run the exchange & are sitting on the councils and such will get lots of hand grease from those ever generous lobbyists.

That's the only place I see any real change with this legislation, there will be more lobbyists, greasing more palms, for whoever they are promoting.

I also notice that Big Pharma is left COMPLETELY out of this "reform"

Why is that? Isn't that also a BIG part of health care?? Why the crickets coming from that side of the table?

There has to be a better way, this particular piece of legislation is NOT it.

IMVHO



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
little acorn is growing into a massive oak tree of gov't beaurocracy



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 





Have you guys ever thought that Congress may intentionally leave ambiguous language or gaps in the bill to get the legislation passed, only to later come back and pass smaller bills to fill in the gaps?


They do not bother with bills in Congress. They use regs in the Federal Register.

Here is an example of TPTB in action:
After NAIS (animal ID) failed as a bill in congress they put it in as a reg in the Federal Register" in January 2009. It got jumped on with both feet by the farmers. I read a lot of the comments and none were FOR the regs, so then they tried the equivalent of "town Hall meetings" and the "Delphi Technique" to lead farmers to the predetermined conclusion. Farmers already knew about the technique and again jumped all over the USDA with both feet. Supposedly Congress has now defunded the program but the last "food Safety bill I read had wording that implements NAIS type tracking for crops and livestock. Lord they do not take NO for an answer and they do not give up.

I mention the above example because only constant vigilance will protect our liberties from enchroachment. There are many ways to get a "law passed" besides Congress.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 





While I agree low income folks need health care too, simply making hospitals and public clinics "not for profit" would allow much more flexibility for sliding scale payment schedules for those who don't have/qualify for medicaid.


On page 17 I made a comment on what doctor's have to say such as this:



I accepted Medicaid for about 2 months of my practice. Even thought the reimbursement was substantially lower than my stingiest insurance, I figured it would allow me to treat kids that needed it and at least cover my staff costs. How wrong I was. They denied procedures all the time, delayed billing ( I didn’t get paid for up to 8 months post-op) and were a pain in the ass generally. The support was rude and clueless. Now insurance companies suck too, but Medicaid was like dealing with Nazi nurse Wratched. So I dropped out and now just see poor kids for free. No way in the world I will ever deal with a Government controlled care system again. Ever.


The one thing that struck me in the comments by the Doctors was the Doctors WANT to take a certain percentage of patients for free, some do so and IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO SEE PATIENTS FOR FREE!!! One doctor suggested tort limits, and a tax deduction for free treatment That certainly make more sense than a massive bureaucracy.

THE LAW AGAINST SEEING PATIENTS FOR FREE!!! is just like my Church being shut down for offering a warm place to sleep ( a members unused warehouse , it was BIG) to street people during the dead of winter in New England (northern MA). We were not "zoned" and "licensed" so we were shutdown, the people were kicked out and froze to death!!!! Of course the media jumped all over the story about the people freezing and ignored the part about them being kicked out of a warm place to stay by the authorities.

As far as I am concerned everything I see in the recent laws of the USA is about complete control of the population and not about the welfare of the people. If it was about the true welfare of the people, then why can't doctors treat people for free? Why can't Churches offer emergency shelter during bad weather?



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
The first 6 here:

“Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!”



STUDY.—The Commissioner, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Labor, shall conduct a study of the large group insured and self-insured employer health care markets. Such study shall examine the following:
(A) The types of employers by key characteristics, including size, that purchase insured products versus those that self-insure.
(B) The similarities and differences between typical insured and self-insured health plans.
(C) The financial solvency and capital reserve levels of employers that self-insure by employer size.
(D) The risk of self-insured employers not being able to pay obligations or otherwise becoming financially insolvent.
(E) The extent to which rating rules are likely to cause adverse selection in the large group market or to encourage small and mid size employers to self-insure


No where is a mention of an audit. That is purely alarmist propaganda.


Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benes u get



SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a private-public advisor committee which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.

(b) DUTIES.—
(1) RECOMMENDATIONS ON BENEFIT STANDARDS.—The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall recommend to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the ‘‘Secretary’’) benefit standards (as defined in paragraph (4)), and periodic updates to such standards. In developing such recommendations, the Committee shall take into account innovation in health care and consider how such standards could reduce health disparities.

BENEFIT STANDARDS DEFINED.—In this subtitle, the term ‘‘benefit standards’’ means standards respecting—
(A) the essential benefits package described in section 122, including categories of covered treatments, items and services within benefit classes, and cost-sharing; and
(B) the cost-sharing levels for enhanced plans and premium plans (as provided under section 203(c)) consistent with paragraph (5).


This is EXACTLY how private health insurance operates as well, only with private health insurance there is no clause written in that allows ht public to prepetition the government to get coverage types not already part of the insurance plan.

I thought this one was going to be a synch to disprove too, and then I read the sections question and had a nice giggle. Yes, the government IS going to choose what types of care you can receive but in the exact same fashion as a private company, only I am sure a bit better. So no free breasts for anyone out there because that will undoubtedly be deemed an elective surgery.

Try looking at your private health insurance policy, it tells you what is covered and what inset. It is an essential element of running a insurance program without a doubt, no conspiracy here.


Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!



(A) ANNUAL LIMITATION.—The cost-sharing incurred under the essential benefits package with respect to an individual (or family) for a year does not exceed the applicable level specified in subparagraph (B).
(B) APPLICABLE LEVEL.—The applicable level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (United States city average) applicable to such year.


This is a limitation on how much YOU pay per year, not on how much health care you get. Where oh where did anyone ever get the idea that this was about rationing health care? COST SHARING, meaning how much you pay is what is being limited not how much care you can get. This is one more example of the DEPERATION to create fear in a situation where it is not warranted.


Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose UR HC Benefits 4 you. U have no choice!



SEC. 142. DUTIES AND AUTHORITY OF COMMISSIONER.
(a) DUTIES.—The Commissioner is responsible for carrying out the following functions under this division:
(1) QUALIFIED PLAN STANDARDS.—The establishment of qualified health benefits plan standards under this title, including the enforcement of such standards in coordination with State insurance regalators and the Secretaries of Labor and the Treasury.
(2) HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE.—The establishment and operation of a Health Insurance Exchange under subtitle A of title II.
(3) INDIVIDUAL AFFORDABILITY CREDITS.—
The administration of individual affordability credits under subtitle C of title II, including determination of eligibility for such credits.
(4) ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS.—Such additional functions as may be specified in this division.


This is the same hype as in the second section cited by this terrible document. While it IS true they will be determining benefits and standards it is not true in the light you are showing it. As a paying member of a private insurance company, actually this is the 3rd I’ve been a member of I can assure you EVERY TIME I get a new policy I get what is called and ‘Explanation of Benefits’ and guess what it is? It is a document that tells me what the insurance company will cover, up to what dollar amount, and so forth, including what they will NOT cover.


PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided 2 ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise


EC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.
(b) IMPLEMENTATION.—To implement the requirement set forth in subsection (a), the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, promulgate such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to insure that all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act are provided (whether directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements) without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.


Nope. Nowhere in this section is there any reference to non-citizens, that is a fabrication as is so far every citation in this horrible document.


Pg 58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access 2 individs finances & a National ID Healthcard will b issued!



‘‘(D) enable the real-time (or near realtime) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service 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, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card;


Funny, how scary it would be in today’s health care climate if the hospital were able to check what you have to pay for and what your insurance paid for. That is all this is, it is not access to your personal financial records. As it clearly states it is access to your policy provisions telling the hospital what you are personally going to pay for and what your insurance will pay for and that is what the ‘health care id card’ would be used for. It really is no different than the card I HAVE to carry and provide to the hospital today to get my coverage.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 



“Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!”


STUDY.—The Commissioner, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Labor, shall conduct a study of the large group insured and self-insured employer health care markets. Such study shall examine the following:
(A) The types of employers by key characteristics, including size, that purchase insured products versus those that self-insure.
(B) The similarities and differences between typical insured and self-insured health plans.
(C) The financial solvency and capital reserve levels of employers that self-insure by employer size.
(D) The risk of self-insured employers not being able to pay obligations or otherwise becoming financially insolvent.
(E) The extent to which rating rules are likely to cause adverse selection in the large group market or to encourage small and mid size employers to self-insure



No where is a mention of an audit. That is purely alarmist propaganda.

You are wrong. Re-read the underlined text. That is indeed an audit.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   
I just don't understand how people can think that a bill and government take over, like this, is okay. I don't want the government telling me what to do in regards to anything, especially my health and my family. I think one of the most disturbing things was the line that said they would push for longer time between pregnancies. What the heck is this? People that are for this bill can't be reading it because if they did how is it possible they would support this. It is really scary to me. And it is only going to get worse. I think the people are doing a good job getting their voices heard and getting people's attention. We need to take a bigger stance though! I email, call, send letters and do things like this to my congressman so they understand that I am against this. I am only one person, but I know many that are doing the same things. Maybe we need to organize a march of some sort........ If we are loud enough, people will listen.
And the media just pisses me off honestly! If we are against this bill we are unAmerican, who the heck are they to say what we are? They are unAmerican!!!!!!! Thats what I say. America stands for freedom and democracy and choices, a plan like this is doing nothing but taking choices away from us! And giving illegal immagrants healthcare? I just do not understand this AT ALL!!!!!!!!! We need to get these people OUT of this country because if this goes through we will be even more infested with them. CLOSE THE BORDERS!!!! GET THESE PEOPLE OUT!!!! And they won't have to pay taxes towards this, yet they will get healthcare? WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON? GOD HELP US! PLEASE!






top topics



 
53
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution