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.
Originally posted by mikerussellus
Originally posted by mental modulator
GOD you guys do have double standards
Obama is not proposing or pursuing a single payer system, so who on EARTH does
this take away the choice of what works best for you?
I would say the dropping of coverage after a serious illness is discovered takes away
"THE ABILITY TO ACTUALLY CHOOSE WHAT IS BEST FOR YOU AND YOUR FAMILY".
it is like only referencing one portion of reality, you negate the fact the current system
is inefficient, over priced and is in effect is a tick to the lifeblood of the economy.
Obama is endorsing a single payer system. Call it public option, call it co-ops, it's all government mandated healthcare.
Read HR3200. If you are going to actually argue the bill, I recommend reading it.
Dropping of coverage is not a good thing. I do agree. But read what you wrote. "Dropping of coverage" implies that someone HAD coverage. Obama won't help you if your coverage is dropped. Explain how. Convince me otherwise.
I have read the bill. I will agree to argue the salient points. But if you are going to just regurgitate talking points then we have nothing else to discuss.
Originally posted by ufoptics
reply to post by mikerussellus
Beleive him...Mike has read the bill. By the way Mike is that thread still going on reading and understanding the Healthcare/insurance or whtever bill? I haven't checked it lately....
Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
I want to see an impeachment for the blatant lying the regime is displaying and admitting to. I know, just as back in Clinton's perjury phase, the left will totally ignore that.
Originally posted by mikerussellus
Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
I want to see an impeachment for the blatant lying the regime is displaying and admitting to. I know, just as back in Clinton's perjury phase, the left will totally ignore that.
I agree, but it will never happen.
Impeach the first black president? Racism! Riots!
Originally posted by VinceP1974
Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
I want to see an impeachment for the blatant lying the regime is displaying and admitting to. I know, just as back in Clinton's perjury phase, the left will totally ignore that.
I want impeachment based on his circumventing the Cabinet system an appointing more Czars than Russia
SEC. 162. ENDING HEALTH INSURANCE RESCISSION ABUSE.
(a) Clarification Regarding Application of Guaranteed Renewability of Individual Health Insurance Coverage- Section 2742 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-42) is amended--
(1) in its heading, by inserting ‘and continuation in force, including prohibition of rescission,’ after ‘guaranteed renewability’; and
(2) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘, including without rescission,’ after ‘continue in force’.
(b) Secretarial Guidance Regarding Rescissions- Section 2742 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-42) is amended by adding at the end the following:
8
‘(f) Rescission- A health insurance issuer may rescind health insurance coverage only upon clear and convincing evidence of fraud described in subsection (b)(2). The Secretary, no later than July 1, 2010, shall issue guidance implementing this requirement, including procedures for independent, external third party review.’.
1
(c) Opportunity for Independent, External Third Party Review in Certain Cases- Subpart 1 of part B of title XXVII of such Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-41 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘SEC. 2746. OPPORTUNITY FOR INDEPENDENT, EXTERNAL THIRD PARTY REVIEW IN CASES OF RESCISSION.
1
‘(a) Notice and Review Right- If a health insurance issuer determines to rescind health insurance coverage for an individual in the individual market, before such rescission may take effect the issuer shall provide the individual with notice of such proposed rescission and an opportunity for a review of such determination by an independent, external third party under procedures specified by the Secretary under section 2742(f).
‘(b) Independent Determination- If the individual requests such review by an independent, external third party of a rescission of health insurance coverage, the coverage shall remain in effect until such third party determines that the coverage may be rescinded under the guidance issued by the Secretary under section 2742(f).’.
2
(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply on and after October 1, 2010, with respect to health insurance coverage issued before, on, or after such date.
Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by mental modulator
There is none.
But, it is the government mandating these rules. It is the government telling private businesses how to operate. I can't say that every item in the bill is bad, but what you did not post was that if there was to be any change in the policy, then the individual would have to automatically switch to the government plan under a penalty of 2,800.00/year until they did switch. Once switched, they would be under government mandate then to resubmit their claims and have the governemnt determine if someone should be treated. Notice how I say treated.
Under conventional plans, they will determine whether or not to pay for such treatment. You still have the option (in most cases) but you may end up paying for it yourself.
Under the government plan, you lose that option. They will not determine whether or not to pay for the treatment, they will determine whether or not to TREAT.
Good reference though.
Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by mental modulator
Then you should be someone shouting louder than the rest of us. This bill would not have helped you or your family. Sorry. But it's true.
Does the current system need reform? Hell yes! But you don't fix a broken light bulb by shooting the family dog. This reform that they are pushing for, gives no measure to what you went through. In fact, it will probably make it worse.
I have read the bill BECAUSE I have family members that are elderly and will suffer under this program.
The single thing that would bring about some of the change that you so desperately need, is tort reform. And ironically enough, in the 1017 pages of this damn bill, not one word is said about that.
Proponents of damage caps fabricated a liability crisis in Texas earlier in the decade to push through tort reform. Yet malpractice premiums continued to rise, and didn't decrease until many of the Texas politicians who had supported tort reform began taking heat and demanded that the malpractice insurers lower their premiums. They're lower today, yet patients haven't seen any reduction in health care costs, and there's no evidence that the rise in costs has been slowed by tort reform. Doctors are still practicing defensive medicine.
Meanwhile, thousands to tens of thousands of Texans with meritous claims are unable to find lawyers to take their cases because it's no longer financially feasible for the lawyers to do so. If a child dies, there's no economic damages, and that child's life is worth $250,000 maximum. If a retired person dies, they're worth little more. As someone who lost their father to malpractice, I have trouble deciding whether it's hilarious or infuriating that the "death panel" crowd, who likely all support tort reform, apparently have absolutely no problem legislating the value of someone's life.
Originally posted by mental modulator
Like wasting $1,000,000,000,000.00 in Iraq?
Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by mental modulator
But, it is the government mandating these rules. It is the government telling private businesses how to operate.
Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by mental modulator
I've said it before. Tort reform first off. Stop those lawyers from the zillion dollar lawsuits.
Second, expose how big pharma and hospitals can charge 50 bucks for an asprin.
Third, allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. It is the government that is creating these outrageous costs by federal mandates that they place on insurance companies. And restrictions in where they can compete.
Actual competition will drive down costs. Promote business. Government run? Prices will stay high and get higher. Look at the post office, look at medicaid/medicare.
I never said that it didn't have problems. I've just had issue with how government wants to solve these problems.
[edit on 22-8-2009 by mikerussellus]
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Originally posted by mental modulator
Like wasting $1,000,000,000,000.00 in Iraq?
You're Barney Frank, aren't you?
If not your stealing his material.
Originally posted by Avenginggecko
Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by mental modulator
Then you should be someone shouting louder than the rest of us. This bill would not have helped you or your family. Sorry. But it's true.
Does the current system need reform? Hell yes! But you don't fix a broken light bulb by shooting the family dog. This reform that they are pushing for, gives no measure to what you went through. In fact, it will probably make it worse.
I have read the bill BECAUSE I have family members that are elderly and will suffer under this program.
The single thing that would bring about some of the change that you so desperately need, is tort reform. And ironically enough, in the 1017 pages of this damn bill, not one word is said about that.
Why is it that modern Conservatives believe that stripping individual power and ability is the answer to everything? Tort reform is not an answer to the healthcare solution, and if you would enlighten yourself as to the true cost of medical malpractices, you'd know that shifting the attention from the actual problem to the legal system is just another tactic of the insurance companies to keep you unwittingly playing their side.
.