Well, it's Division I, Title I, Section A... right after the definitions. First section of the legislation.
Elliot
|
Well, it's Division I, Title I, Section A... right after the definitions. First section of the legislation.
Elliot
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Of course the words DON'T say that. I don't know why you write something that's so easily debunked, and then challenge me to do it. Piece of cake - and, I'm going to use YOUR words to do it...
But, what's silly, is that I have to continually go back and tell you what was said, instead of actually arguing the issues. Maybe THAT, in and of itself, is a right wing ploy - just lie about who said what, and then you won't have to talk about how good health care reform will be for everybody... It's either that, or your short term memory is faulty.
No matter. Tiresome as it gets, that's why I'm here.
Synn, as you can plainly read above, said that "EVERYBODY MUST use the new system..." I asked for conformation.
We're I to take what YOU said CONFIRMS the term EVERYBODY MUST, I would have to assume that EVERYBODY, including ALL those self employed people who are paying for their own health insurance, will lose it within three years...
It's preposterous on its face, and demands nothing more than a quick read to see how far off the reservation you've slipped.
excon
Still waiting...Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
We're waiting on you to show us the words from the bill that support yours and Synnen point.
Just FYI---what was already a busy week just went to hell in a handbasket. My day off this week is Sunday... I'll try to find where I believe I read it then. Not ignoring you guys, just swamped.
I already have, NK. It is the ENTIRETY of Division 1, Title 1, Section A. It is several pages long, and it describes and defines who is allowed to get new, private insurance, who must get GOVERNMENT insurance because private insurance will not be available to them, and who is "grandfathered" in to their current system.
What it clearly states is that anyone without insurance as of Y1, and going forward, MUST get their insurance from the government, and cannot get it from a private insurance company. ONLY those with "qualified" private insurance plans as of Y1 can keep them.
Which means that if you lose your insurance due to changing jobs (and are therefore "without insurance as of Y1 and going forward"), you cannot get new private insurance with your new employer, but must get it from the government instead.
But I'm afraid that there isn't enough space here to paste the entire section, so you'll have to do a bit of homework on your own. You'll have to make do without me spoonfeeding you the information.
Elliot
As I am here. Hope it relaxes for you. Check out the link for wikisource, it allows you to navigate quickly through the bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
Fairly obvious you didn't read the rest of my answer. When you dig yourself a hole too deep to climb out sometimes you need a ladder to get out before you can start filling in the hole. I think the US has dug itself a dirty great hole because insurance has been an expedient but expensive way of dealing with the problem and the flaws require fundamental change in philosophy to fix the problem. Over reliance on the market often means government intervention to re-level the playing field. I think that some people have recognised this and know that change will take a long time to implement. There is no quick fix, but there are successful implementations you can learn from. We are interested because whatever you ultimately do may be copied and tried hereQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Okay, still sick as a dog, but I'll try to cut and paste what I've read and explain what my thinking was.
I'll admit straight out that the legalese of the actual bill has had me using Wiki's summaries, for the most part. Maybe that has skewed my opinion, but honestly---I hate legalese. Figuring out subtitle B and paragraph A1 have never been my forte. So--what I've read has been stuff summarized for me.
All quotes today are taken from America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . I've found that Wiki does a pretty good job of "dumbing down" what different bills are and having related proposals linked at some point in the article, so you can get a couple different views on it.
I'm reading this to be that the GOVERNMENT is going to decide what an acceptable insurance plan is, and force everyone to those standards. This is not necessarily a BAD thing. However, private insurance, in order to meet those standards, is going to have to get more expensive, making it impossible for the average person (or small business!) to afford anything but the public health care system. I'm also seeing that five year grace period as the last real time that anyone will have to start a new insurance policy outside of the UHC.Quote:
The act creates new standards, indented by lawmakers as methods of consumer protection, for what would be considered a minimally acceptable insurance plan. Employers that currently offer insurance have a five year grace period after the act begins before they would subject to the standards. Individuals would be free to purchase their own private insurance, or work with the public option, in this period and afterward.
While this isn't related to the "5 year" thing--this is part of the bill that is hotly debated, and really ticks me off. If this bill is passed, a PREVIOUS Amendment states that the government can't pay for abortions except in those cases that would take longer than the 9 months of a pregnancy to prove in a court of law. Abortion is a LEGAL medical procedure, and if people are going to be REQUIRED to have insurance, then it should be covered, period.Quote:
Abortion funding
The Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funding for abortions in government related health programs unless they are performed in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. A political controversy has broken out about whether the 'public plan' in HR 3200 will cover abortions, which -if done- would be funded by premiums paid by individuals to that agency and not by outside payments. Democratic Rep. Lois Capps of California created an amendment that specified that with the public plan would only cover abortions that do not fall into the Hyde Amendment's exceptions if the Secretary of Health and Human Services approved. The committee approved the addition. Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan drafted an alternate amendment stating that "any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion" could not be funded. The committee rejected the addition.[63]
NARAL Pro-Choice America criticized Stupak's proposal, stating that it could mean that people whose health insurance currently covers elective abortions will lose that service. Those who voted against his addition argued that the fact that the premiums of private individuals would pay for the abortions meant that the Hyde Amendment does not apply. The National Right to Life Committee criticized Capps' proposal, stating that the Secretary will choose to cover all kinds of abortions. Factcheck.org reviewed HR 3200 in August and concluded that the public plan would be allowed to cover all abortions.[63] In late September, Stupak stated that he wants a full vote on the House floor on the issue.
Digging through what NK posted earlier this week--I read that whole thing as a bit of health care reform. It's REQUIRING that private insurance meet certain guidelines, or it won't be considered acceptable insurance after the grace period. HOWEVER---that puts a lot of people in the bind of having to either have the UHC option or having to change their existing insurance to cover MORE than it currently does--often at a monetary disadvantage to the purchaser.
So basically--what I'm reading is that no one will "make" you switch your insurance to UHC after the 5 years... they'll just bleed your pocketbook until you do.
I'm sorry if the previous post was rambling and un-cohesive. I told you guys I'd post today, and I have... but I'm still really sick.
Stupid lingering flu.
Anyway--pick it apart! I won't be offended! I am, however, going to go lay down, and try to sleep for a week. I'll argue rebuttals with you when I feel better.
Hi again, Synn:Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
Hope you feel better.
There are several bills under consideration. The House Bill you quote may very well have the effect you think it will. I don't know. However, the Baucus Senate Bill (which number I can't find right now) IS the one that has the best chance of passing as it stands today. THAT bill has NO public option, or as you refer to it as "UHC".
IF the public option is IN the final bill that gets considered, we can discuss it then. However, it doesn't look to me like it will be, so you're worries are for naught.
The bill as it stands, just regulates the insurance companies. It prevents them from using the dreaded "pre-existing condition" to discriminate against people. I stops them from cutting sick people off. It does other good stuff like that that NOBODY thinks SHOULDN'T happen (except, perhaps, the Wolverine). As payback for doing that, the insurance companies are going to be rewarded with a HUGE tax payer subsidy to cover a whole new batch of customers...
There's a lot to dislike in that bill no matter where you stand. But, the public option shouldn't be one of them for you. It IS for me, of course. I WANT a public option, which is nothing more than an opportunity to buy into Medicare.
excon
Just curious Ex, if you are a veteran why not go to the VA? Why wait for another taxpayor funded entitlement? Is there anything that would lead you to believe that the proposed "public option" would be any better or worse than the current VA system?
Public option, co-op, what have you - just another way of getting productive taxpaying citizens to pay for not only social security, medicare, medicaid, and now another government health program. Never mind that medicare and social security are not financially stable, and that the projected costs of medicare, medicare part D, have all been woefully underestimated.
G&P
Hello again, in:Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Good question...
My interest in reforming the health care industry is for the good of my fellow man. Personally, I'm well taken care of. I'd just like to see EVERYBODY taken care of.
We'll come to the rescue of ANYBODY if their house is on fire... We'll send armed men to help ANYBODY, if somebody is trying to take their stuff. We should come to the rescue of people when their LIFE is in danger too.
I believe in a right to life, don't you?
excon
That line threw me.Quote:
I WANT a public option, which is nothing more than an opportunity to buy into Medicare.
When life is in danger, people already can get help. I see it every day in the hospital I work at. This is regardless of ability to pay.
Quote:
I believe in a right to life, don't you?
Absolutely, so we agree that taxpayor money should not be used to pay for abortions.
Bart Stupak, Leader of Antiabortion Democrats: 'Not Very Confident' on Healthcare - God & Country (usnews.com)
G&P
Hello again, in:Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Abortion IS a legal medical procedure. I don't want a government bureaucrat in the examining room standing between ANY doctor and ANY patient in ANY medical decision they make. That sounds like something a right wing person such as yourself would support...
You can't have it both ways, really. You WANT bureaucrats making medical decisions - or you don't.
excon
Evening Ex,
Just to add on what you said, as Im comoing from a country with a free medical health care, you are right that it is a an all or nothing system
The procedures available on the NHS (National Health Scheme) are governed by a code of ethics decided by the Governing Body of Doctors, rather than political demands
Under any scheme a code of ethics must decide medical treatment and never political - where they ens would that leads to
Abortion is an extremely controversial procedure, and in far more cases than not an elective procedure, or hadn't you heard? Why should my tax dollars go to pay for an elective procedure that takes an innocent life?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
a) It's not a "life" at that point.'Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
b) your tax dollars go towards killing thousands of civilians in US led "wars" but your hypocrisy blinds you from that.
a) It is undoubtedly life, whether you want to acknowledge the fetus as a person or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
b) War is not a medical procedure. Reverse the situation and who's the hypocrite, as I regret the loss of innocent life in either case.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:08 AM. |