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

Okay, we've all seen the chain "scare the hell out of everyone" emails promising gloom and doom, and the end of American civilization. The most paranoid interpretations possible of the bill are 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 the link to the original forum in which I found the analysis of the bill.
Why you should READ bills...


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

Page 22 talks about a government STUDY on different forms of health care coverage. .. Particularly Large group insured and self insured employer based health markets.

The difference between them and the risks faced by the self insured being able to pay obligations or otherwise becoming financially insolvent. Etc. NOWHERE on that page does it talk about auditing self insured businesses books.

> Pg 30 Sec 123 of bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you receive.

This talks about a government ADVISORY committee for both private and public options to RECOMMEND covered benefits and essential , enhanced and Premiume (in otherwords, to advise what level certain things falls under etc..


> 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

10 does not impose any annual or lifetime limit
11 on the coverage of covered health care items and
12 services;
The subsequent sections also talk about what insurance has to cover MINIMALLY.. and INCLUDES maternity.. WHICH .. BTW. Is not ALWAYS covered under every plan available NOW!

It limits cost sharing.. in otherwords.. out of pocket expenses for the insured individual so as not to be exorbetent and therefore overly expensive making insurance at the MINIMUM level much more expensive BEYOND the monthly premiums for the insured.
>

And.. those lines you are referring to.. talk about MAXIMUMS that cost sharing.. ie: money out of the insureds pocket CAN NOT EXCEED.. NOWHERE in there does it mention ANYTHING about rationing care!!!

> Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your Health care Benefits for you. You have no choice in the decision.
WOW.. they really know how to twist things don’t they.

His job is to make sure that INSURANCE PLANS THAT ARE OUT THERE AND OFFERED ON THE EXCHANGE MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARD SET FORTH AND AS MENTIONED ABOVE.

Again.. this is in response to plans that basically offer NOTHING.. THIS is so that ALL OF US who purchase insurance can be CONFIDENT that there is a MINIMUM STANDARD with things SET OUT that we KNOW will be covered at the very BASIC standard level!!!

He is also in charge of setting up the exchange of plans.. in otherwords.. all those submitted into the exchange comply with the law in regards to cost sharing/ standards/etc.
>
> PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - Healthcare will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise.

NO.. it says that INSURANCE on the exchange can not be denied for discriminatory reasons.. in otherwords and illegal immigrant CAN purchase insurance. NOWHERE in there does it even USE the words illegal and immigrant. ..
>
> Pg 58 - Govt will have real-time access to individual finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued.
Here is the text you are referring to
enable the real-time (or near real6
time) determination of an individual’s financial
7 responsibility at the point of service and, to the
8 extent possible, prior to service, including
9 whether the individual is eligible for a specific
10 service with a specific physician at a specific fa11
cility, which may include utilization of a ma12
chine-readable health plan beneficiary identi13
fication card;
>
Nowhere in there does it say ANYTHING About a National health Care CARD.. ONLY a BENEFITS CARD..which is basically your insurance ID card and talks about REAL TIME availability of information right there about what you are covered for and what your charges are. It cuts down on the paperwork.. and mistakes .


> Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for direct funds transfers.
>
NO.. it talks about standardized electronic Adminstrative Transactions.. in otherwords the Dr.s office and/or insurance company will automatically deduct your copay from your card. If you are on a government plan, then the government plan will withdraw your funds electronically ( ore really the doctor will at the point of transaction) this also eliminates paperwork.

BTW.. the DR. is the one who collects the copays NOT the insurance company be it a private or public company. AND. FYI .. most likely any insurance company ALREADY knows your bank account numbers etc… because it is there whenever you pay your bill!!

> PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).

to provide reim19
bursement to assist participating employment-based
20 plans with the cost of providing health benefits to
21 retirees and to eligible spouses, surviving spouses
22 and dependents of such retirees.
23 (

Huh? Acorn.. so Acorn is the only employer, employee group out there that provides insurance to retirees?? Yeah.. okay.. not one mention of ACORN in there AT ALL.
>
> Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating a Healthcare Exchange to bring private healthcare plans under Govt control.

No.. it’s setting up the exchange to make sure that plans SOLD to consumers meets the MINIMUM STANDARD of insurance.. Do you know how many people have insurance that is basically WORTHLESS and covers absolutely NOTHING of any substance?? And then that person thinking they were “insured” is actually NOT!! Not really?

It’s basically acting as a HUB of choices for individuals and businesses. AND in order to BE in that “exchange” you MUST meet quality standards set forth by the government. Simple to understand and it makes much sense!!
-------------

To be continued....

[edit on 8/13/2009 by Nightflyer28]

Continued from above....
----------
> PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private Healthcare plans in the Exchange
>
No.. once again.. it sets STANDARDS for the different levels.. so that you are getting a Basic if you pay for basic and arent’ thinkng you are paying for Premium when you are not getting the “level” deemed PREMIUM.

> PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specifics for Benefit Levels of Plans = The Government rations Healthcare based on cost benefits to government.

Rations.. LOL.. do you know or he know what rationing is?? NO. .it just sets the quality level for each level.. it doesn’t say that each person only gets X amount of dollars allotted to them or x amount of procedures.. Obviously the lame brain who made these comments does not know what they are talking about.. or they are really perverting what it actually says to scare people.. most of whom would not even do what I’m doing now.. actually READ each section. Geez.. it just blows my mind how ridiculous this is.
>
> PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Govt mandates linguistic appropriation services or translation services for illegal aliens.
>
Hmm.. there are plenty people here legally for whom English language is not their first language.. Are they not entitled to fully understand their doctors, nurses or the medical forms they are given? We are the “melting pot” of the world are we not. Which means that there are many people that live here legally and otherwise who do not speak fluint English nor would understand more complex language involved in forms that would be more comfortable reading it in their own language. Says NOTHING about illegal immigrants. Heck there are people here illegally that speak English better than some people who are here legally. This assertion is just ridiculous and meant to appeal to the right wingers who want to throw out health care reform for their own citizens , who far outnumber illegals, because of their stance on immigration or animosity toward illegals.

> Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups like ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt Healthcare plan

What is wrong with this? It talks about these groups REACHING OUT to the most vulnerable of the population.. the ones most likely unable to afford a private plan and teaching them about their options of a public plan AND all those that will be part of the exchange. They are utilizing group/ groups that already have the ability and who are already working in an outreach capacity to reach people that need to be reached in order to pull them from the ranks of the uninsured INTO the ranks of the insured.
>
> -PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid.
>
Yeah.. what’s wrong with this. They haven’t elected to role and they qualify for FREE healthcare under Medicaid because of their income levels. .. which means that they can’t afford any of the private or even the public option in the exchange. Medicaid is FREE!! They do nothing and are enrolled in it automatically!! If they get ill or need to be treated for something.. .they are COVERED!! They would get it anyway because..they are POOR . So .. what is the problem.

> pg 124 lines 24-25 No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" allowed against Govt monopoly

yeah.. so.. basically other insurance companies can’t sue the government because they offer cheaper plans.. .which, btw, is the point of offering a “cheaper” plan.. so that people can afford it.

Hey.. if someone can afford to pay more and is truly afraid of the government.. then they won’t chose the public option and will choose the private. Given how there are many that “fear’ government health care, I’m sure the higher cost private companies will not have any problems attracting buyers for a little more. Plus.. the lower cost government option may actually encourage some price competition within the private sector. How? Well for one they’ll have to forego corporate excess in order to compete.. in otherwords.. they won’t be able to pay one executive an excessive salary of 14M… not really a bad thing AT ALL.

It protects the governments ability to actually PROVIDE an alternative affordable option to the public should they chose to
>
> pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ AMA - The Govt will dictate what wage you are allowed to make. (Wage limits).

NO.. .. here it is:
PHYSICIANS.—The Secretary shall provide
2 for the annual participation of physicians under the
3 public health insurance option, for which payment
4 may be made for services furnished during the year,
5 in one of 2 classes:
6 (A) PREFERRED PHYSICIANS.—Those phy7
sicians who agree to accept the payment rate
8 established under section 223 (without regard
9 to cost-sharing) as the payment in full.
10 (B) PARTICIPATING, NON-PREFERRED
11 PHYSICIANS.—Those physicians who agree not
12 to impose charges (in relation to the payment
13 rate described in section 223 for such physi14
cians) that exceed the ratio permitted under
15 section 1848(g)(2)(C) of the Social Security
16 Act.

It talks about Doctors that CHOSE to Accept the FEES are basically IN the public plan network!!!

How is this any different than a doctor that agrees to accept the “fees” set forth and negotiated by the private insurance companies. It doesn’t dictate by any means a cap on a Dr’s income or any other health care service income.. ONLY the FEES that will be paid for the covered patient under the PUBLIC OPTION Plan!
----- to be continued again

Continued continued...
----------
17> Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employers MUST enroll their employees into the public option plan. THEY HAVE NO CHOICE, and neither do the employees.

NO.. it says that an employer MUST provide coverage to its employers AND must do so from one of the insurance companies/plans offered in the Exchange.. again.. the exchange sets up STANDARDS… MINIMUM standards so as to eliminate sub standard insurance and coverage which basically is crap. And it makes sure that employers are offering adequate coverage to their employees AND it states that the employer must AUTOMATICALLY ENROLL employee in the plans that they select from the exchange..

It also states that an employer can not contribute less than a set amount (75% individual / 65% family) meaning that an individual will pay no more than 25% of the premium and a family 35% of the premium.

Yes.. it appears in this section that insurance is MANDATED.. but we all knew that.. No surprise. And there is a section that asseses fines for those not in compliance with the mandate. I believe for individuals it’s a 2% of income fine.

I have no problem with mandating of insurance. Car insurance is mandated the same way. You can’t lift pre-existing condition clauses without mandating coverage.
>
> Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay premiums for every employee, part time employees AND their families as well.

I think this is referencing the wrong page
>
> Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Employer with a payroll of $400,000 will have an 8% tax levied on all payroll.

Again.. this is the option if a company does not want to provide insurance.. and yes, it means either buy insurance or pay what amounts to a fine. Mandation of coverage…
>
> pg 150 Lines 9-13 Employers with payroll between $251,000 & 400,000 who does not provide in full, the public option, will have a 6% tax on all payroll levied.

Yes.. they do not have to buy insurance, but because they are smaller they pay a slightly lower fine.. Mandation of insurance coverage.
>
> Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC coverage according to Govt mandate, will be taxed at 2.5% of their income for healthcare. So, you will have government healthcare coverage, or you will be punished.

No. you don’t have to HAVE the government option or be punished…you have your choices of different options INCLUDING a public one. You are not forced to take the public one or even private. If not you will be assessed a fine of 2.5%. It’s not like they are automatically enrolling you in the government plan and deducting the money or adding the premium to your tax bill.You are simply paying into the system for being uninsured.. and rightfully so. Because if you get ill and sick, who do you think is going to pick up your bill. Tax payers. At least the fines you pay will help alleviate that bill paid by the rest of us should that uninsured person fall ill.


Remember.. those uninsured cost hospitals 37B in unpaid bills a year and the government much more. If people decide they still don’t want coverage, they SHOULD pay a fine to the government who will end up picking up their bill later. Nothing wrong with this. People will decide what is cheaper.. buying insurance or paying the 2.5% fine. Lets say you make $30K a year.. that is $780 dollar you’ll be paying> maybe a person making that much will elect to pay that cheaper fine than paying for the premiums offered on the exchange (including the government one). OR.. if they qualify for Medicaid they don’t’ have toworry.. they’ll have Medicaid at no cost AND no fine to boot.>

> Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay)

Non resident aliens does not mean illegal aliens. However, since illegals don’t really file tax returns anyway I don’t understand what your objection is..LOL.they NEVER pay taxes.. Illegals are undocumented in all senses of the word.
>
> Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Administration (GOVT) will have total and complete access to ALL your personal financial, bank and investment information.

They basically have access to your tax return (which the government already has) to determine whether you qualify for health exchange subsidies. Um.. the government already has access to all that information.. Who do you think you are submitting your tax returns to? Some privately owned corporation???

>
> PG 203 Line 14-15 HC - "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" Yes, it says that.

> You need to finish that sentence.. because it then goes on to say for a certain purpose.. under a certain section.. text below
The tax im15
posed under this section shall not be treated as tax
16 imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining
17 the amount of any credit under this chapter or for
18 purposes of section 55.’’.
19 (
> Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid, Seniors, low income, and poor.

No… it talks about FEES Paid to physicians NOT actual services.
----------------------
To be continued continued

Continued continued continued...
> Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Wages for all doctors will be made the same. Specialists like Brain Surgeons will make the same money a General Practitioner makes.

No.. it talks about under the following categories of service provided the fees will be the same.. NOT over EVERYTHING provided by the specialists.. read the complete section below that that paragraph refers to;
9 ‘‘(5) SERVICE CATEGORIES.—For services fur10
nished on or after January 1, 2009, each of the fol11
lowing categories of physicians’ services (as defined
12 in paragraph (3)) shall be treated as a separate
13 ‘service category’:
14 ‘‘(A) Evaluation and management services
15 that are procedure codes (for services covered
16 under this title) for—
17 ‘‘(i) services in the category des18
ignated Evaluation and Management in the
19 Health Care Common Procedure Coding
20 System (established by the Secretary under
21 subsection (c)(5) as of December 31, 2009,
22 and as subsequently modified by the Sec23
retary); and
VerDate Nov 24 200823:22Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00240 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
241
·HR 3200 IH
1 ‘‘(ii) preventive services (as defined in
2 section 1861(iii)) for which payment is
3 made under this section.
4 ‘‘(B) All other services not described in
5 subparagraph (A).
6 Service categories established under this paragraph
7 shall apply without regard to the specialty of the
8 physician furnishing the service.’’.
>
> PG 253 Line 10-18 Govt sets value of Doctor's time. Govt. decides value of humans.
> It talks about the work and services of the DOCTOR.. NOT the value of the people the Doctor treats.. WOW.. how far the right will stretch!!!


> PG 265 Sec 1131Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries.

This pertains to the government in medicare/Medicaid arena.. NOT between private insurance and those companies, doctors etc. The government has every right to do just that…as private industry does just those things when pertaining to quality, cost, etc.
>
> PG 268 Sec 1141 Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs

Under Medicaid/medicare..no different than a private negotiates with each entity. This is NOT across the board.. this all falls under Medicaid/medicare.
>
> PG 272 SEC. 1145. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!
>
Rationing.. NO.. it talks about determining if some hospitals in the Medicaid/medicare network cost more than others that are just as effective is all. Nothing about limits on who gets what care or rationing.. Again.. a stretch and absurd accusation.
> Page 280 Sec 1151 The Govt will penalize hospitals for what Govt deems preventable re-admissions.
Again.. as related to medicare.. NOT as related to anything else other than who they pay for what.. that is the right of Medicaid/medicare.
>
> Pg 298 Lines 9-11 Doctors that treat a patient during initial admission will be penalized.
>
Under medicare.. in otherwords, the Dr. that treated is responsible for that treatment. If his work is sloppy.. he’ll get a reduced payment for not doing it right the first time..

> Pg 317 L 13-20 PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Government dictates what Doctors can make and how much they can own.
Ah.. this is talking about when a Dr. under medicare refers a patient to a specific hospital. This si to prevent Dr’s from referring patients to a hospital based on monetary compensation above and beyond their fees by referring them to a hospital in which they have an “ownership” stake. It’s a conflict of interest of sorts.. kind of like a “kickback”. Makes sense. Again.. this is under MEDICARE/Medicaid only.
>
> Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt mandates hospitals cannot expand without government approval.
Again.. only pertains to hospitals that qualify as providers under Medicaid/Medicare.. NOT across the boards.

>
> pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input and approval is required. Can you say ACORN?!!
All falls under Medicaid/medicare.. has nothing to do with other reform private or government public option.
>
> Pg335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339 - Govt mandates establishment of outcome based measures. Rationing

It’s going to make sure that patients utilizing services are actually having an good outcome of said service. In otherwords.. what doesn’t work will be thrown out in favor of what does. Makes sense. And again. . this is al under the Medicaid/medicare section .. NOT the section pertaining to private insurance and public insurance option, exchange etc.
>
> Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing people into the Govt plan.

If the plans do not meet the standards set forth under the criteria that they set up of MINIMUM standards in order to be a medicare/Medicaid provider, than they will not be a medicare/Medicaid provider. NOWHERE in that section does it say anything about then being pushed INTO the public option plan!!! THAT is a BOLD FACED LIE


> Pg 354 Sec 1177 - Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs persons for care. Can euthanasia be far behind for "undesirables"?

It means that someone can not enroll until the open enrollment period.. NOT that they can’t EVER enroll.
>
> Pg 379 Sec 1191 Govt creates more bureaucracy - Telehealth Advisory Committee. Can you say HC by phone?
It’s an EXPANSION of the telehealth.. meant to help those in RURAL areas.. as the title of that section indicates ; Medicare Rural Access Protections.
---------
To be continued continued continued continued...

Continued continued continued continued...
> PG 425 Lines 4-12 Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consultation. Euthanasia and Doctor-Assisted Suicide.

Mandates.. NO it provides seniors with counseling on setting up living wills, health care proxies and so on so that they along with their families, are prepared for what may come. It says nothing about killing off old people or Assisted Suicide. It counsels families about PALATIVE care and HOSPICE!!! It counsels on why it’s important to SET YOUR DIRECTIVE of what actions YOU want your family to take FOR YOU in the event you are unable to make decisions for yourself.. like.. do you want to be on life support if that is the only way to sustain your life..etc.Many people are not even aware of what these things are.. do you have ANY idea the turmoil of a family member not knowing what you may or may not want in the event of complete incapacitation has on people.
>
> Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, and assume power of attorney of all enrollees. Mandatory!

NOWHERE does it say that the State will then make the decision . And if someone hasn’t designated someone to make the decision, then what? Who does if the person can’t. Is it so wrong that if you are enrolled in medicare you have someone to make decision for you should you not be able to so that YOUR OWN WISHES are carried out? It says right there the PERSONS OWN WISHES.. NOT that of the state.
>
> PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Govt provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death decisions to end your life.

Here it is.. it’s basically just saying that the practitioner will provide a list of resources..RESOURCES!! All of which will help a person make the decisions THEY WANT!!!
An explanation by the practitioner of the
20 continuum of end-of-life services and supports avail21
able, including palliative care and hospice, and bene22
fits for such services and supports that are available
23 under this title.
VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:08 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00425 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLSThe Govt will mandate how your life ends.
The government doesn’t mandate anything. It provides you with all your options!!
>
> Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An "advance care planning consultant" will be used frequently as a patient's health deteriorates
>
> PG 429 Lines 10-12 "advance care consultation" may include an ORDER to initiate end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV to terminate a life.
>
No. .it talks about what constitutes a legal form of action set out by the patient for what THE PATIENT wants done as far as measures at the end of their life WHEN their health deteriorates.

Here is a line from it:
effectively communicates the individual’s
18 preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, in19
cluding an indication of the treatment and care de20
sired by the individual;

> Pg 429 Lines 13-25 - The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.
is signed and dated by a physician (as de9
fined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care
10 professional (as specified by the Secretary and who
11 is acting within the scope of the professional’s au12
thority under State law in signing such an order, in13
cluding a nurse practitioner or physician assistant)
14 and is in a form that permits it to stay with the in15
dividual and be followed by health care professionals
16 and providers across the continuum of care

Clearly they are talking about a physician that is well a legal physician.. not just any Joe Schmo on the street people.. LOL Come on..
>
> PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life
NO .. it talks about conditions in which the directive SET FORTH by the patient is carried out! NOT what the Government wants.. but what YOU, the person on medicare, set forth in your health proxy and living will.
>
> Pg 469 - Community Based Home Medical Services=Non profit orgs. Hello, ACORN Medical Services here!!?
>
ACORN?? Well unless ACORN meets all the medical criteria with their facilities set out in this section than Acorn won’t be doing ANYTHING regarding end of life. You know “community” “not for profit” could also include..oh CATHOLIC HOSPICES too you know!!!

> Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG. 1 monthly payment to a community-based org.

See my statement above.
>
> PG 489 Sec 1308 The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means government will now be involved in marriage and family decisions.

LOL. No.. it talks about how it will cover marriage counseling and mental health services.. same as it covers any medical condition it covers. Unless you thinkn Senators are going to be sitting in the room telling you what to do?? Are these people aware of what therapy/counseling actually is? Another stretch and false information put forth by the right wingers.. and it’s ridiculous

From the bill:
The term ‘marriage and family therapist
9 services’ means services performed by a marriage and
10 family therapist (as defined in paragraph (2)) for the diag11
nosis and treatment of mental illnesses, which the mar12
riage and family therapist is legally authorized to perform
13 under State law
>
> Pg 494-498 Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, rationing those services.

No.. it will provide coverage for mental illness..and just like anything else negotiated fees and approved physicians that comply with medicare/Medicaid standards.. no rationing. There isn’t a set amount of dollars for a set amount of people and no where does it even allude to that in the slightest.
>
> Here's the full Health Care bill that sits in the House.
-------

Whew! Finally done!

I know there are one or two people around here generally predisposed to assume the worst about everything beyond claims of how much your cat will love Meow Mix, but it probably couldn't hurt to at be sure whether your concerns are warranted...

First, kudos for hard work.

Second, let me sum up my opinion:

There is not one thing in this bill that you mentioned that the government is qualified to make decisions about!

Who is the government to create a panel deciding different levels of healthcare? Who is the government to decide what treatments are considered more important than others? What qualifications does the government have that allows them to determine how much doctors should be paid? (Note: Notice nobody decides what THEY get paid.)

Look, the government screws up everything it touches. Ask anybody that tried to decipher the new Medicare rules and regs. They had to produce entire books explaining what the original books meant to say. It's crazy.

I just don't understand why, when the gov't has proven time and time again to NOT be able to handle things (think AIG bonuses, BoA/Lynch merger, clunker program underfunded, troops still in Iraq, more troops needed for Afganistan, increased spending to atrocious amounts, signing statements, and on and on....) why on Earth would we give them an even bigger piece of America to manage??

Yes, there is a better way to handle healthcare in this country than it's being handled now. BUT THIS IS NOT THE ANSWER.

Originally posted by lpowell0627
Yes, there is a better way to handle healthcare in this country than it's being handled now. BUT THIS IS NOT THE ANSWER.

[Comment removed because I was a jerk] BH

Nightflyer28, thanks for bringing the "other side" that we haven't been hearing... S&F



[edit on 13-8-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

Then please, by all means, provide one.

I'm not debating the government's inefficiency or beurocratic meddling, what I will debate is how strikingly similar that healthcare proposal is to most managed care policies in existence already... without the pre existing conditions. The only difference I can see between a government advisory committee and the corporate board of say, Blue Cross and Blue Shield are the degrees they have... and how most, if not all of them bear no resemblance to medicine. Semantics; both options suck unless you're well-off or altogether rich and enjoy the coverage provided by your tens of thousands of dollars in premiums per year. At least this way you have two equally inept entities competing with one another, instead of one inept entity holding the monopoly. In short, at least this way you can vote for the valedictorian of summer school instead of having someone run unapposed for valedictorian... of SUMMER SCHOOL. Neither option is good, but at least they are options. Something we've had a serious lack of in health care for decades.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I read every single word of this thread.
I stand by what I said:

The government has no business mandating/controlling/overseeing healthcare. Period.

I could go on and tell you they have no business in the auto business either....but I would be accused of derailing...

reply to post by Nightflyer28


Well, i have seen enough.
I think we should throw this entire 1,000 page mess into the fireplace
and start over.
Step 1:keep the government away from our senior citizens.
Stop throwing them under the bus.

Originally posted by Legion2112
]Neither option is good, but at least they are options. Something we've had a serious lack of in health care for decades.

So, instead of working to find BETTER OPTIONS, let's just jump on this bandwagon, spend trillions more, and STILL be unhappy with a broken system and broken people running it?

This makes no sense to me. Why not, instead of rushing to ram more bills down our throats, step back and come up with a plan that doesn't suck?

Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

I read every single word of this thread.
I stand by what I said:

The government has no business mandating/controlling/overseeing healthcare. Period.

I could go on and tell you they have no business in the auto business either....but I would be accused of derailing...

Amen to that!
This social experiment has already been tried in Canada.
It's a mess.
The Canadians fly down here to the good old USA for surgery.
If we go down the toilet with the OmamaCare, the Canadians
plan to fly all the way to India!
OMG.......burn this bill today.
Start over.
2 words of wisdom : Tort Reform

Currently, tort reform is off the table due to $$$ buying their way
out of reform.

Originally posted by Legion2112
Then please, by all means, provide one.

I'm not debating the government's inefficiency or beurocratic meddling, what I will debate is how strikingly similar that healthcare proposal is to most managed care policies in existence already... without the pre existing conditions. The only difference I can see between a government advisory committee and the corporate board of say, Blue Cross and Blue Shield are the degrees they have... and how most, if not all of them bear no resemblance to medicine. Semantics; both options suck unless you're well-off or altogether rich and enjoy the coverage provided by your tens of thousands of dollars in premiums per year. At least this way you have two equally inept entities competing with one another, instead of one inept entity holding the monopoly. In short, at least this way you can vote for the valedictorian of summer school instead of having someone run unapposed for valedictorian... of SUMMER SCHOOL. Neither option is good, but at least they are options. Something we've had a serious lack of in health care for decades.

First, there is a big difference in the insurance companies we have now and the gov behemoth they are trying to pass. Blue Cross/Blue Shield is not gonna have the authority to come in your home and tell you how to raise your children. They don't have the authority to impose and take additional taxes from your pay if you refuse to purchase there insurance. Insurance can be fixed by regulating the insurance industry and laws that will be enforced to protect consumers from gouging, denying cause of pre existing conditions,fraud committed by the drs and insurance companies and expanding medicare for the poor. Get them outta hospitals and into doctors office and it will drive costs down. And send the illegals back home.

Alright, so how many more decades will it take to come up with something that you think doesn't suck? I'm all for weighing options and finding the best possible solution to a voluminously complex problem, but you and I both know that if such decisions are left to our beloved elected leadership, either those in office now or in four, eight or hell, even 20 years IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. As long is this society remains capitalistic enough to provide healthcare lobbyists with enough funding to literally buy politicians then hope is lost and we might as well just let the status quo be. Eff the one out of every five Americans who can't afford health care. In a perfect world I would love having an affordable public option that treats everyone with equity and that everyone loves. Needless to say this is not that world. It's not even in the same zip code. As such, I would honestly prefer a hastily thrown together proposal with room for change that at least addresses SOME of the issues facing the under or uninsured, even with the inept nature of the beast creating it, then leave the private healthcare companies to their own greedy, manipulative and borderline criminal devices.

If we can legitimately get our elected leadership to address actual reform in the healthcare industry, then I'm all for it! Why it's not being discussed as an option is beyond me, I'm simply responding to what's on the plate at hand. I'm actually quitting my job in healthcare because I can't stomach it any more. Prex should be criminalized and capitation fees are nothing more than legalized kickbacks to doctos from HMOs for simply paying their dues to the country club as it were. Reform would be much more cost effective than implementing a hastily concieved public option, but if a hastily concieved public option is all we have to drive down costs in private health insurance without legitimate reform then I'm willing to bite the bullet. It's not much of a start, but it's a start. My opinion, nothing more...

Originally posted by Legion2112
If we can legitimately get our elected leadership to address actual reform in the healthcare industry, then I'm all for it! Why it's not being discussed as an option is beyond me, I'm simply responding to what's on the plate at hand. I'm actually quitting my job in healthcare because I can't stomach it any more. Prex should be criminalized and capitation fees are nothing more than legalized kickbacks to doctos from HMOs for simply paying their dues to the country club as it were. Reform would be much more cost effective than implementing a hastily concieved public option, but if a hastily concieved public option is all we have to drive down costs in private health insurance without legitimate reform then I'm willing to bite the bullet. It's not much of a start, but it's a start. My opinion, nothing more...

Unfortunately, this present plan being discussed is no better. There are provisions in it that will allow the lobbying and bribes to continue. Our nations energy would be better utilized by fixing the system already in place rather than trying to shove Socialist healthcare down our throats and cause a huge uproar when we our country can least afford it.

Originally posted by lpowell0627
I read every single word of this thread.

You know, I'm sorry. I was out of line. My apologies.

Legion2112, I agree almost completely with you (although I don't think anyone should be put in jail. This bill is just a step toward what we really need as regards health insurance reform. It's messy and there are shady deals being made and there are things in the bill that I disagree with and the result will be that we have a choice, which is good. It's far from what I consider a good piece of legislation, though. But we've been trying to get some health insurance reform for YEARS and this is our chance to actually take a big step toward it. It's got momentum, one of Obama's BIG promises was health care, and he was voted in to do something about it (among other things).

lpowell0627, If he doesn't get it through now, there's a very good chance it will get usurped by something else in the future and one of his biggest promises to his voters would go unfulfilled. Besides, a "good" plan, that "we" would approve of would simply never pass. Because the bottom line is that their interests are different than ours. Congress isn't going to vote for a bill unless it serves their bottom line, which is their political and financial status. They'll try to serve us, too... But unless there's something in it for the majority of Congresspeople, we won't see a bill pass.

ohioriver, I don't know what you mean about telling us how to raise our children, but as far as being taxed for refusing health insurance: If a person doesn't want health insurance, I think they shouldn't have to have it. But then, when they get sick, WE are forced to pay by increased premiums on OUR insurance. This provision will do away with that. If we're really going for individual responsibility here (which I believe we all support) let's have every individual be responsible for their own health insurance instead of depending on the rest of us to take care of them when they do get sick.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by Nightflyer28

 

Well, i have seen enough.
I think we should throw this entire 1,000 page mess into the fireplace
and start over.
Step 1:keep the government away from our senior citizens.
Stop throwing them under the bus.

I've looked it over as well, with particular attention to the areas that others are making the major scary claims about.

I don't see any indications of 'throwing them under the bus,' or any of the really nasty claims about how seniors would have to 'live with' problems because of reduced options.

We seem to be getting different impressions from the same words.

Originally posted by lpowell0627
First, kudos for hard work.

Thanks, but I should make it clear that I didn't do the actual work, just copy-pasted from the original forum (linked to in the first segment) it was in.

I thought I had been clear enough on that, but it seems I went a bit light on that, so just so you know where it came from. ie, not me.

Originally posted by Nightflyer28

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by Nightflyer28

 

Well, i have seen enough.
I think we should throw this entire 1,000 page mess into the fireplace
and start over.
Step 1:keep the government away from our senior citizens.
Stop throwing them under the bus.

I've looked it over as well, with particular attention to the areas that others are making the major scary claims about.

I don't see any indications of 'throwing them under the bus,' or any of the really nasty claims about how seniors would have to 'live with' problems because of reduced options.

We seem to be getting different impressions from the same words.

It doesn't matter.
It's over.
Sarah Palin won.
Go check for yourself.
Rasmussen Reports
51% fear the government more than the insurance companies.
ObamaCare is imploding as we speak.
The nail in the coffin was when Pelosi called the senior citizens
that are complaining "Un-american".
All that did was throw gasoline on the fire.
I honestly don't think Pelosi has any common sense.
I'm glad she is there. She is an easy target.


[edit on 13-8-2009 by Eurisko2012]