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.

 

Health Care Bill Would Allow Feds To Snoop in Your Checkbook

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAssociate
 


so when do you want to organize a protest. ill attend. peaceful of course




posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhead57
reply to post by Strictsum
 
There is a shortage of Family doctors now because these specialists are making so much money.


I had to look hard to find a GP. And he has got to be well into his 70s but I can get an appt with him the same day I call for one.

Somehow I don't think Obama care will offer that.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
why isnt there a protest section on the furoms? have i just not seen it? id like to actually DO something proactive.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strictsum
reply to post by TheAssociate
 


There will be no specialist. Why spend the extra time learning a specialty if you make the same thing as a family doctor. It makes no sense.

Unless they force them. What if medical students were forced to specialize in certain areas depending on the amount currently available. I could actually see them trying something like this.


I think you are right. They will just require medical schools to train in a specialty with your other curriculum.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAssociate
reply to post by desertdreamer
 



Doctors are gonna get the shaft as well....

- Sec. 1121, Pg. 241, Lines 6-8 - Doctors, it does not matter what specialty you have; you’ll all be paid the same. “Service categories established under this paragraph shall apply without regard to the specialty of the physician furnishing the service.”


That's going to cause a massive decrease in the number of doctors, especially specialists.



I would have to know what the "service categories established under this paragraph" are. That has been selectively deleted from this quote. For all I know the service category could be putting on a bandaid, for which all physicians would be paid equally.

This thread is rife with people's INTERPRETATIONS of what a paragraph says.

This is just one example of how misleading that could be.

I prefer to read it myself. I don't trust many of the interpretations presented in this thread or in similar ones.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


Well I can assure you that I did not delete them. I have provided the links to where you can look....so go check it out and let us know what you find, and what you think. Thanks for the reply.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uniceft17


Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer. Barely True: Section 163 sets out goals for electronic health records. One of the goals is to include features that "enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation" between payment and billing. The legislative summary says the intent in the section is "to adopt standards for typical transactions" between insurance companies and health care providers. The legislation generically describes typical electronic banking transactions and does not outline any special access privileges.


Politifact

Could they be anymore vague about this section? Can someone describe what this means in laymans terms. It says no special acces priveleges? But they still have access? Does this make any sense?

[edit on 8/22/2009 by Uniceft17]


It makes perfect sense. "real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer" means they can do direct deposit and, is some sort of premium is involved automatic payment. Sort of like insurance companies do right now.

'the intent in the section is "to adopt standards for typical transactions" between insurance companies and health care providers' means that the gov't wants to do the same as is already done by insurance companies and health care providers -- in other words, the government will adopt the standard practices instead of instituting new ones.

Makes perfect sense to me and I would be a bit concerned it it wasn't the plan.



[edit on 23-8-2009 by metamagic]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by metamagic
 



This is what I would be worried about with that kind of setup

I think DrMatt summed it up nicely in one of his previous posts:




.GOV has access to your checking... Right? You are in emergency room with, say, kidney stones... You have outstanding checks yet you show a balance to pay for shattering said kidney stones... They debit... Your checks bounce because you have to pay for .GOV healthcare on the spot. Rather than be billed.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
But not everyone will have the government able to access their checkbooks. Only people with the government option. And if you don't need/want the government option you don't need to get it.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


So who will be required to get the Government option? Or, should I say, who will it be offered to?



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by amari

I foresee in the future a fat added on tax...

Good point! I wonder if there is any sort of blanket statement in those 1000+ pages mentioning someone in the new bureaucracy having the power to regulate lifestyle concerns, or something to that effect?

I'm not trying to start a rumor here; I really don't know. But the bailout bill had a ton of special powers given to the Secretary of Treasury with extremely vague language... why would this bill be any different?

I mean, think about it... IF they have access to transaction records, what's to prevent someone from checking to see how much you spent at McDonalds, how many cigarettes you bought, how much alcohol, etc., etc., etc.

I just myself turned down signing a form at work that actually gave my company access to that kind of records. What's scary is, most people signed it!

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by desertdreamer

The real question is, who will be forced financially or medically to get the government option due to the new regulations?

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


My understanding is that most everyone will have to have some kind of medical insurance, and all children must be covered. The more people there are in the insurance pool the lower the premiums will be.

But the government option is just that -- an option. Not a mandate. You can choose whatever insurance plan you want.

That's the way I understand it, anyway.

There is the possibility, I guess, that people with "unhealthy lifestyles" (who would decide?) might be charged more for their insurance, which would really bother me.

But I think insurance companies already do discriminate on that basis.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias

What is the difference between a mandate and an option?

It is required now to have automobile insurance if one drives a car. Is that a mandate? Not really. I always have the option of not driving my car. Of course, that option means that I would have to walk 10 miles to buy groceries. It means I can't get a job. It means I am trapped at home in this mountain. So really, it is not a viable option for me; it is a mandate.

As it can easily be with health insurance. The auto insurance rates did not go down when they became mandated; if anything they went up. This despite the same explanation that since there would be more people insured, insurance rates would drop. The real difference it means for me is that the lines are longer to get my tags, since they now have to see proof of insurance to issue them; I get to pay an insurance premium whether I want to or not; I have to make sure I carry that same proof of insurance in the glove box along with the tag receipt and title now, in case I get stopped for any reason; I now have to bring proof of insurance with me if I want to buy a car, because I can't buy it without such proof of insurance. And yet there are still uninsured people driving on the roads, as well as a greater number of underinsured drivers than ever before simply because so many people choose to take the bare minimum insurance. I am one of those.

Health insurance is a mandate under this new plan. That means there is no incentive to lower rates, because everyone will be forced to buy from someone. The free market pressure to keep prices low is gone. If I decide that a gallon of milk is too expensive, I can choose not to buy it. If enough people decide the price is too high, the price will drop, because the people who sell milk will make more at a lower price because more people will buy it. Insurance works the same way at present.

So insurance prices are not going to go down; that much is pretty well guaranteed based on historical evidence and market economics. This government option is the only thing that is being touted as a way to reduce rates. But what are the consequences of taking the government option? First of all, you will probably be besieged with paperwork; reference Medicaid/Medicare. Secondly, you will probably be given second-rate service because the payouts will be less than the 'normal' charge; reference Medicaid/Medicare. Thirdly, there will no doubt be delays in getting treatment and asinine restrictions that will decrease the effectiveness of the government option; reference any governmental program ever enacted.

So sure, if you want to go to cut-rate physicians that spend more time doing paperwork than seeing you, in order to wait an inordinate amount of time to even see them at all, so you can deal with silly restrictions on what is and is not covered, the government option is an option. But if you want good coverage, you will still have to deal with the insurance companies, who now have no incentive to lower their prices or increase their service; after all, you have only two choices now, them or the government bureaucracy.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I get Medicare and I'm pretty satisfied with it. I haven't met a doctor yet who won't take it although they don't get as much per visit as some insurance plans pay. I haven't ever felt like I was being discriminated against or received poor treatment.

If Medicare is an example of how the government will run a program I'm not worried about a similar program that will cover the whole population.

But then, my father was in the military and later a federal employee, so I grew up in a government family and we were always well taken care of healthwise and in other ways, like pensions.

So I'm just not as anti-government as some people on here.

About the cost of health insurance under the government option: As I understand it the government will charge less than most private insurance plans because they won't be in it for the profit. Therefore the private insurers will have to compete with government rates and so will have to lower their costs if they're going to get customers.

There undoubtedly will be people who will take out the minimum amount of insurance, but they'll be like those who do that now for auto insurance. If you have a pretty nice car and fairly good insurance, then if you hit somebody they will get paid. But if you get hit by somebody with the minimum insurance then you have to sue to collect any damages and even then you may be out of luck.

Some people will do that with health insurance. They'll take out the minimum and just go to the emergency room when they're sick or have an accident and get treated and not pay, as many people do now. The trouble with that is the rest of us have to pay more to make up for the free loaders.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 





I mean, think about it... IF they have access to transaction records, what's to prevent someone from checking to see how much you spent at McDonalds, how many cigarettes you bought, how much alcohol, etc., etc., etc.


I just myself turned down signing a form at work that actually gave my company access to that kind of records. What's scary is, most people signed it!


Yes I noticed the move towards this a couple of years ago. I receive a Human Resources newsletter. There was a lot of discussion about "life style" motification programs and how they could reduce insurance premiums and absenteeism. I keep on think of how you now have to pee in a bottle to get a job.... It is amazing the ways the government manages to find a way around our Constitutional rights by making it an "option"

There is also a heating up of the campaign against eating meat, from how many acres it takes to raise a pound of beef to the amount of pollution you get from cow belches. If you follow the money it is easy to see why the grain companies want us to eat GMO corn instead of the cows or chickens
.
Cow corn in a feed store costs about $15/100 lbs
Corn flour is about $95/100lbs
Corn tortillas are about $240/100 lbs. (Corn tortillas are close to 100% corn)

Obviously Tyson and Monsanto much rather sell you the corn tortillas than the chicken or beef because the profit is so much higher!



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
I can only see this benefitting my family. Private insurance through our employer for my son was like over a hundred dollars a paycheck for our baby. And they dont even cover all the costs, I still pay alot out of pocket.

Sicne we switched to medicaid everything for my second son is covered. All I pay is the taxes from my income. # private insurance. I dont think any industry which is supposed to look out for the health of individuals should be allowed to be run by a for-profit corporation.

IMO, congress should just give the President the emergency power to sieze all private insurance companies that exist now annd nationalize their assets. Noone has to lose their jobs, everything remains the same. The only difference is now the business mdoel is not run to profit, but actually provide thebest care possible. Sounds good to me. Even the Ceo's can stay on as board of the particular divisions for different regions of the country.

Or they can just go grow algae in the desert.

Im the guy that is totallly for nationalizing key industries in this country for the welfare of the people, including energy, transportation, healthcare, and higher education.

[edit on 8/24/2009 by DYepes]



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 





I would have to know what the "service categories established under this paragraph" are. That has been selectively deleted from this quote. For all I know the service category could be putting on a bandaid, for which all physicians would be paid equally.

This thread is rife with people's INTERPRETATIONS of what a paragraph says.

This is just one example of how misleading that could be.

I prefer to read it myself. I don't trust many of the interpretations presented in this thread or in similar ones.



But see that's the scary part. Look how many interpretations can be made from one paragraph. Think about 1000 pages of "iffy" paragraphs that no one really knows how to interpret because they can mean so many different things. Who gets to make that final interpretation?

They need to scrap this thing and write it in plain English that can't be interpreted 50 different ways. Let us KNOW what we are getting and not have to guess. They have us debating a bill written in code no one can understand except the person who wrote it and I'm not sure they even know what it says.

I think it was done this way on purpose, so they could interpret it however they want.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
When I read it it was in English. Last I checked, if you do not know what a word means, use a dictionary or thesaurus for one you might understand. There is only one meaning to any particualr sentence, and that is the way it is written.

He was referring to how peple are just replacing the actual text of sections of the bill with their own opinions and attempting to pass it as fact in order to meet their agenda.

It is happening.

[edit on 8/24/2009 by DYepes]



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by DYepes
 


Why is it happening though ?

Because the bill is written in legal speak that most Americans can't understand so they have to have someone interpret it for them. What that says about people, I don't know, but that's why it's happening. Also some people are trying to put their own spin on it, I admit that causes problems. But that just means that whoever is the final interpreter could do the same thing.

I forget who said it but it was someone in the congress or senate. He said something like, why read it, it will take 2 days and I would need 2 lawyers to interpret it. If he needs 2 lawyers to interpret it what makes you think John Doe from Cleveland Ohio can understand it?

If you have a bill and you honestly wanted everyone to debate it. You (at least I would) would write it so everyone could understand it.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join