![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 40. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Phillipa on March 23, 2010, at 1:05:59
Please keep here as of interest to anyone on med as The New Health Care Bill Was Passed Tonight And Then Ammended Less Than A Hour Later. This IS What I Received. Phillipa
Please comments good or bad do you feel?
From Medscape Medical News
House Amends Historic Healthcare Reform Bill
Robert Lowes
March 21, 2010 It seemed like an anticlimax to the history that had just been made on the floor of the House of Representatives, but it was an anticlimax that mattered a lot politically to healthcare reformers in Washington, DC.At roughly 10:45 pm EST, the House approved a Senate bill in a 219 to 212 vote that overhauls the nation's health system and extends insurance coverage to millions more Americans. Less than an hour later, the House amended that measure in a 220 to 211 vote to incorporate key changes sought by its own leadership as well as President Barack Obama.
The revisions to the Senate legislation appear in a budget reconciliation bill that lawmakers use to change revenue and spending lines in the federal budget. Casting those changes in the form of a reconciliation bill is important to congressional Democrats, because such a bill cannot be filibustered in the Senate, where Democrats lack the 60 votes needed to override a filibuster. The Senate is expected to vote on the reconciliation bill later this week to wrap up months of congressional debate on transforming one sixth of the nation's economy.
The Senate healthcare reform legislation that the House passed and then amended would, among other things, require most Americans to obtain health insurance, help needy individuals and families buy coverage through government-operated insurance "exchanges," prevent private insurers from denying someone a policy based on preexisting conditions, and increase Medicaid enrollment by almost 50%.
Amendments Include Medicaid Pay Raise for Primary-Care Physicians
The amendments approved today do not alter the basic framework of the Senate healthcare reform bill, but they do introduce significant embellishments, some key to the measure's passage. The reconciliation bill would:
Add 16 million additional Americans to the Medicaid program compared with 15 million under the Senate plan, and raise Medicaid reimbursement rates to Medicare levels for general internists, family physicians, and pediatricians in 2013 and 2014.
Eliminate a special deal for Nebraska that would have exempted it from funding its share of an expanded state Medicaid program, and instead beef up federal Medicaid funding for all states.
Eventually close the "doughnut hole" in the Medicare Part D prescription drug plan, a coverage gap that forces Medicare recipients to bear the full cost of medications.
Make steeper cuts in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans.
Levy a 3.8% Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) tax on unearned income for individuals who earn more than $200,000 ($250,000 for married couples). This comes on top of a 0.9% increase in the Medicare Part A tax on earned income for these individuals and couples under the Senate bill.
Delay the effective date of an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans from 2013 to 2018, and increase dollar thresholds for insurance costs that are subject to the tax.
Offer more generous subsidies to individuals and families purchasing required insurance coverage.
When the reconciliation amendments are incorporated, the Senate bill translates into health insurance coverage for 32 million additional Americans over 10 years at a cost of $938 billion while reducing the federal deficit by $143 billion during that period, according to the Congressional Budget Office.While the reconciliation bill must now receive Senate approval before the amendments take effect, the Senate bill itself now approved by the House will go to President Obama for his signature, according to a game plan for today's votes published on the Web site of House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD).
Posted by sdb on March 23, 2010, at 1:05:59
In reply to New Health Bill Passed + Ammended Hour Later, posted by Phillipa on March 22, 2010, at 0:35:03
Why is there so much angry and hate among people who are against the health reform?
I don't understand why it should be negative when the system does include people who can't afford medical coverage.
In Europe, health insurance is often obligatory or costless and it is considered as normal.
Has this something to do with US history?
Posted by SLS on March 23, 2010, at 1:05:59
In reply to Re: New Health Bill Passed + Ammended Hour Later, posted by sdb on March 22, 2010, at 6:09:39
> Why is there so much angry and hate among people who are against the health reform?
>
> I don't understand why it should be negative when the system does include people who can't afford medical coverage.
>
> In Europe, health insurance is often obligatory or costless and it is considered as normal.
>
> Has this something to do with US history?
----------------------------------------------- 1798: The Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen in 1798 marks the beginning of federal involvement in health care.
- 1854: President Franklin Pierce vetoes a national mental health bill on the basis
that it would be unconstitutional to regard health as anything but a private matter in
which government should not become involved.
Related- 1912: Former President Theodore Roosevelt campaigns as the Progressive Party
candidate on a platform calling for a single national health service.- 1920: The Snyder Act of 1920 is the first federal legislation to deal with health care for Native Americans, setting up the beginnings of what became the Indian Health Service.
- 1921: The Maternity and Infancy Act of 1921 (Sheppard-Towner Act) provides grants to
states to plan maternal and child health services. The legislation serves as a prototype for federal grants-in-aid to the states in the area of health.- 1924: The Veterans Act of 1924 codifies and extends federal responsibilities for health care services to veterans, who receive aid if they are injured in the line of
service.- 1939: The Wagner National Health Act of 1939, FDR's second push for national health insurance, fails as Southern Democrats align with Republicans to oppose government expansion.
- 1943: The National War Labor Board declares employer contributions for health insurance to be tax free, which encourages companies to offer health-insurance packages
to attract workers.
Related- 1943: The Wagner-Murray-Dingell bill is introduced, calling for broad additions to the Social Security Act, including health insurance measures. The bill never came to a vote in Congress. A revised version was introduced in May 1945 but was never acted upon.
- 1945: President Harry Truman recommends a national health insurance program during a
special address to Congress. The McCarran-Fergurson Act of 1945 exempts the insurance industry from federal antitrust legislation- 1946: The National Health Policy Hospital Survey and Construction Act of 1946 provides grants to states to inventory and survey existing hospital and public health
care facilities in each state and to plan for new ones.- 1948: Truman's National Health Insurance Initiative fails after the American Medical
Association criticizes it, and some Republicans compare it to communism.- 1951: Truman creates, by executive order, the President's Commission on the Health
Needs of the Nation. The commission was to determine the nation's health requirements,
both immediate and long-term, and to recommend courses of action to meet those needs.- 1952: Republican presidential candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower campaigns against national health insurance.
- 1954: President Dwight Eisenhower, with the objective of enabling private insurance companies to broaden their coverage, proposes a plan of federal reinsurance for any
private company as protection against heavy losses resulting from health insurance. After the first five years, the program would become self-financing with money derived from premiums paid by the insurance companies. The House soundly rejects the plan.
Eisenhower calls a conference to try to salvage it and is told the Senate can't fit the plan into its agenda.- 1959: A bill is introduced by Rep. Aime J. Forand, D-R.I., to provide hospital, surgical and nursing home benefits for old-age and survivors insurance beneficiaries using the Social Security administrative mechanism. The program is to be financed by an
increase in the Social Security tax. The bill fails.- 1960: Legislation is enacted establishing limited medical assistance for the aged
through the Social Security program. The act also provides aid to the states to help "medically indigent" people 65 or older. Participation by states is optional; 25 take part.
Related- 1962: President John F. Kennedy renews his 1961 request that the old-age, survivors
and disability provisions of the Social Security Act be amended to provide health insurance protection for the aged.- 1965: President Lyndon B. Johnson signs into law the landmark federal health
insurance programs known as Medicare and Medicaid.- 1971: Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., offers his national health insurance plan.
The "Health Security Act" calls for a universal single-player plan to be financed through payroll taxes. President Richard Nixon later advances his own version of a bill, the National Health Insurance Partnership Act. It would preserve private insurance but
require businesses to provide coverage to employees or make payments to a government-run
fund. It also endorses the concept of health maintenance organizations. The bill fails.- 1973: Legislation is enacted to encourage development of health maintenance organizations.
- 1974: Nixon proposes his Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan calling for universal coverage, voluntary employer participation and a separate program for the working poor
and the unemployed, replacing Medicaid. Organized labor lobbied successfully to kill the plan, hoping get a better deal after the next elections. That didn't happen.- 1977: The Health Care Financing Administration is created to manage Medicare and
Medicaid separately from the Social Security Administration.- 1979: Sen. Kennedy proposes that private insurance plans compete for customers who
would receive a card to use for hospital and physician's care. Employers would bear the
bulk of the cost for their workers, with the government picking up costs for the poor. President Jimmy Carter's plan, released a month later, proposes that businesses provide a minimum package of benefits, that public coverage for the poor and aged be expanded and that a new public corporation created to sell coverage to everyone else. Neither
proposal makes it through Congress.- 1985: The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), signed
into law by President Ronald Reagan, mandates an insurance program giving some employees
the ability to continue health insurance coverage from their workplace after leaving the
job. In addition, hospice care is made a permanent part of Medicare and extended to
states for Medicaid.- 1988: The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act provides the largest expansion of
benefits since the creation of the program and increases premiums. But act causes
dissension, in part because long-term services are not covered and more affluent beneficiaries don't need the expanded coverage. The act is repealed before provisions go into effect. The McKinney Act is signed into law, providing health care to the homeless.- 1990: The Americans with Disabilities Act provides a broad range of protections for
the disabled.- 1993: President Bill Clinton proposes the most ambitious reworking of the health
care system since Medicare and Medicaid, aiming squarely for universal coverage. But he
cannot persuade fellow Democrats in control of Congress to adopt it. The proposals drew
strong opposition from the health care industry and employers. The Childhood
Immunization Act supports the provision of vaccines for children eligible for Medicaid, children without health insurance, and Native American children.- 1996: The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act improves continuity of health insurance coverage in group and individual markets for people who lose their job. The act also promotes medical savings accounts and improves access to long-term care services and coverage.
- 1997: The State Children's Health Insurance Program is established to help provide
medical care to children in low-income families that are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid.- 2003: President George W. Bush signs a law adding prescription drugs to Medicare.
- Jan. 19, 2010: Republican Scott Brown's upset in the Massachusetts Senate seat
opened by Sen. Kennedy's death deprives Democrats of the 60 votes needed to move legislation forward. The effort to reconcile health overhaul bills passed by the House and Senate is stalled.- March 2010: Democratic leaders in Congress employ parliamentary maneuvers in hopes of enabling passage of Obama's plan with a simple majority in the Senate.
- March 21, 2010: On a 219-212 vote, House passes landmark legislation aimed at extending insurance to 32 million people and achieving nearly universal coverage.
Posted by manic666 on March 23, 2010, at 1:06:00
In reply to New Health Bill Passed + Ammended Hour Later, posted by Phillipa on March 22, 2010, at 0:35:03
Posted by Phillipa on March 23, 2010, at 1:06:00
In reply to Re: New Health Bill Passed + Ammended Hour Later, posted by SLS on March 22, 2010, at 7:08:30
Since I'm seriously clueless in politics is this good or bad for us older people on Disability a & b no advantage plans just plain old Medicaire? I've been so terrified that no docs will ever treat me again and I have physical problems too. I thought the docs took a 21.2% paycut? I know a lot are not taking any medicaire patients. Could someone help me stop panicing over this? Phillipa
Posted by sdb on March 23, 2010, at 1:06:00
In reply to Re: New Health Bill Passed + Ammended Hour Later, posted by SLS on March 22, 2010, at 7:08:30
I already know a tiny little bit about medicare / medicaid.
What's the difference more accurately, what can be critized at most, what can make somebody unhappy with that? Will medicaid benefits in the new bill enlarged but medicare benefits reduced?
Posted by Phillipa on March 23, 2010, at 1:06:00
In reply to Re: New Health Bill Passed + Ammended Hour Later, posted by sdb on March 22, 2010, at 15:44:01
sdb Please no one become upset this is just my own interpretation and I am not into politics at all. Medicaid is for those who do not contribute to any income tax. So then I think they also can own nothing no house. Now medicaire traditionally is for the older people who worked all their lives and contributed taxes to the government. At retirement it was supposed to help take care of them and their medical also. Disability falls under medicaire also. Say you get sick and can no longer work as happened to me I applied got Disability which is under Medicaire. I've paid taxes my whole life so this is like the government helping to care for me and help with meds. If you don't give should you get I think is foremost in a lot of minds. Also docs are not taking medicaire patients as the payment isn't as high as private insurance. Which I had from my job til could no longer work. Phillipa
Posted by Zyprexa on March 23, 2010, at 1:06:01
In reply to New Health Bill Passed + Ammended Hour Later, posted by Phillipa on March 22, 2010, at 0:35:03
This is excelent news!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Watched the whole thing on TV last night.
Now the insurance companies can't rip us off anymore!! Close the donut hole in medicare. Everyone can afford insurance and will be demanded to have it. I could go on.....
Posted by conundrum on March 23, 2010, at 1:06:01
In reply to Re: New Health Bill Passed, posted by Zyprexa on March 22, 2010, at 21:09:02
Nothing in the bill prevents insurance companies from ripping us off. In fact premiums will probably rise for most people. If they try to deny someone with a pre existiing condition they will pay a $100 dollar fine per day. Compare that to a 100,000 hospital bill.
Posted by conundrum on March 23, 2010, at 1:06:01
In reply to explain to me why its a bummer i havent got a clue (nm), posted by manic666 on March 22, 2010, at 9:24:58
In the United States we have a Bill of Rights to our constitution which provides certain rights to the states in the 10th amendment. This bill could be determined to be encroaching in states rights. It would be like the EU regulating health for all EU member states. The states of the U.S. are supposed to be much more autonomous than say the federal states of Germany.
Also the government is going to force people to buy healthcare. It really doesn't matter what you do in Europe. Its sounds pretty much unconstitutional and if we can just go against the law of land then we can just do whatever we want. The only thing I can think of similar is that the states require us to purchase car insurance. But thats the states not the federal government. I have a feeling some of the things in this bill will be found unconstitutional. Not to say that they are bad ideas, but they might contradict the current law of the land.
Posted by SLS on March 23, 2010, at 1:06:01
In reply to Re: explain to me why its a bummer i havent got a clue » manic666, posted by conundrum on March 22, 2010, at 22:26:26
> In the United States we have a Bill of Rights to our constitution which provides certain rights to the states in the 10th amendment.
I am not a student of the law, but this is the wording of the 10th amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
There is no provisioning of specific rights to the states in this amendment. I believe that it was the Federalists who helped to craft its wording so that it be ambiguous as to what powers were "delegated" to the federal government. They fought, and one, to exclude the word "expressly" so as to allow great latitude in the definition of federal powers. The 10th amendment has actually allowed for the expansion of the roles of the federal government based upon the purposeful ambiguity. The wording serves to suggest that the federal government has implied powers. For the most part, the US Supreme Court has affirmed that implied powers exist, and that they need not be expressly detailed in the US Constitution. However, the court does, at times, deem some laws unconstitutional so as to limit the reach of implied powers.
It will be interesting to see how long is the reach that the US Supreme Court allows the federal government in its implementation of the health care bill should it ultimately become law.
- Scott
Posted by manic666 on March 23, 2010, at 4:57:43
In reply to Re: explain to me why its a bummer i havent got a clue, posted by SLS on March 23, 2010, at 1:06:01
why dont you guys fly over to england an get it free //every one else does,///with the eu ,you c
get an english passport,// so if your in any eu connty an come her on the back of a truck with a false passport or on a plane with a real one.// you can have a heart bypass on me //i payed thousands of pounds in nhs subs an they pay sh*t . well they start to pay if they have a job but they go straight on benifits,//we now have TB back in the country an STD, is though the roof, an no docs or dentists,// oooooo we have polish docs who need interprters, //an dentist who are sadists,//phillipa i thought you had a e bay buisness how come you dont pay tax, mmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Posted by sdb on March 23, 2010, at 12:57:14
In reply to Re: explain to me why its a bummer i havent got a clue, posted by manic666 on March 23, 2010, at 4:57:43
Posted by Phillipa on March 23, 2010, at 19:15:41
In reply to Re: explain to me why its a bummer i havent got a clue, posted by manic666 on March 23, 2010, at 4:57:43
Manic I feel you could be confusing paying taxes and being provided free insurance. It's the insurance private I no longer receive. I pay taxes on the tiny income I receive from medicaire Disability and also as a family we pay federal, and state, county, city, and sales tax on our business Disability is also taxed and pay co-pays for all medical and meds and can be extremely expensive. My husband buys for himself private insurance. Me all I have is Disability. Can't afford to add me to a private policy as preexisting conditions make it too expensive plus my age. Is this a bit clearer? Lots of threads on Facebook also on this topic. A lot of angry people are the ones I've got on my page and friends pages. Phillipa
Posted by Phillipa on March 23, 2010, at 20:36:12
In reply to Re: explain to me why its a bummer i havent got a clue » manic666, posted by Phillipa on March 23, 2010, at 19:15:41
From Reuters Health Information
U.S. States Launch Lawsuits Against Healthcare Bill.March 22 - Less than 24 hours after the U.S. House of Representatives gave final approval to a sweeping overhaul of healthcare, attorneys general from several states on Monday said they will sue to block the plan on constitutional grounds.Republican attorneys general in 11 states warned that lawsuits will be filed to stop the federal government overstepping its constitutional powers and usurping states' sovereignty.
States are concerned the burden of providing healthcare will fall on them without enough federal support.
Ten of the attorneys general plan to band together in a collective lawsuit on behalf of Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.
"To protect all Texans' constitutional rights, preserve the constitutional framework intended by our nation's founders, and defend our state from further infringement by the federal government, the State of Texas and other states will legally challenge the federal health care legislation," said Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, in a statement.
The Republican attorney generals say the reforms infringe on state powers under the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights.
Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, who plans to file a lawsuit in federal court in Richmond, Virginia, said Congress lacks authority under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce to force people to buy insurance. The bill also conflicts with a state law that says Virginians cannot be required to buy insurance, he added.
"If a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person by definition is not engaging in commerce," Cuccinelli said in recorded comments. "If you are not engaging in commerce, how can the federal government regulate you?"
In addition to the pending lawsuits, bills and resolutions have been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures seeking to limit or oppose various aspects of the reform plan through laws or state constitutional amendments, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).
So far, only two states, Idaho and Virginia, have enacted laws, while an Arizona constitutional amendment is seeking voter approval on the November ballot. But the actual enactment of the bill by President Barack Obama could spur more movement on the measures by state lawmakers.
As is the case on the Congressional level, partisan politics is in play on the state level, where no anti-health care reform legislation has emerged in Democrat-dominated states like Illinois and New York, according to the NCSL.
Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican candidate running for governor, said the mandate would cost Florida at least $1.6 billion in Medicaid alone.
All states would receive extra funding to cover Medicaid costs that are expected to rise under the reform, including 100% federal coverage for new enrollees under the plan through 2016.
Posted by manic666 on March 24, 2010, at 5:01:03
In reply to Re: explain to me why its a bummer i havent got a clue » manic666, posted by Phillipa on March 23, 2010, at 19:15:41
in england if you finish work through ill health. youn get means tested, if you have more than a set amount in the bank .//you vertualy get nothing you have to spend you own money in your savings,// when that is down to a sh*t level you get means tested again an your payment may be increast,// but your husbands money is also taken into acount,//you are married an that means he a provider so if he earns money you may get nothing// if he dont work you get benifit as man an wife//an if you are court earning any kind of money with out declaring it you are fined an your benifits stopped , benifit fraud is big in england people claiming benifit an earning there own money as well//every other advert on tv warns you of jail for benifit fraud,if you get our sytem you will get our rules //that why you president has spent many hours talking with our health care an benifit system
Posted by Willful on March 24, 2010, at 10:09:17
In reply to Re: explain to me why its a bummer i havent got a clue » manic666, posted by conundrum on March 23, 2010, at 1:06:01
Actuallly, there's a long history of interpreting the constitution to mean that the federal government has priority over state governments in all sorts of matters.
Here's a concise statement of the issues, from a liberal blog, but one that strives for clarity and straightforwardness. It seems to me to set out the issues well.
It reads, as follows:"In recent media appearances, the AGs -- the most high-profile of whom have been Ken Cuccinelli of Virginia, Bill McCollum of Florida, and Henry McMaster of South Carolina -- have made a grab-bag of claims, among them that the bill violates state sovereignty. That's a contention that no court is likely to have much time for. As Steve Schwinn, an associate law professor at John Marshall Law School has written, state laws that aim to override the federal mandate "are almost surely unconstitutional, as conflicting directly with the federal requirement."
The stronger argument in the arsenal of the AGs -- many of whom happen to be running for governor -- relates to the Commerce Clause, the section of the Constitution that empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The AGs focus on the provision of the bill that requires almost all Americans to obtain health insurance. They argue that imposing a penalty on people merely for declining to buy insurance is outside the scope of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause."
The issue with the Commerce Clause is that it purports to allow the federal government to regulate "activity" among the states-- whereas some conservative scholars are trying to argue that not buying insurance (ie refusing to adhere to the mandate) is "inactivity" and thus not covered by the Commerce Clause. However, this argument would be considered to overturn a great deal of legal history, including Supreme Court ruling.
The article on this point reads as follows:
"Randy Barnett, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown Law School, agrees. "The individual mandate extends the commerce clause's power beyond economic activity, to economic inactivity. That is unprecedented," he wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that appeared this weekend. "Regulating the auto industry or paying "cash for clunkers" is one thing; making everyone buy a Chevy is quite another.""
An argument that rebuts this contention is as follows (also from the same blog posting):"Jack Balkin, a constitutional law professor at Yale Law School, extends that argument [against Barnett's point]. In a recent blog post, he notes that in the Raich case, Justice Scalia found that Congress can use the Commerce Clause to regulate, as Balkin put it, "even non-economic activities if it believes that this is necessary to make its regulation of interstate commerce effective"...). People who don't buy health insurance, Balkin argues, aren't simply "doing nothing," as Rivkin, Barnett et al. claim. These people pass on their health-care costs by going to the emergency room, or buying over-the-counter cures. "All these activities are economic, and they have a cumulative effect on interstate commerce," writes Balkin."
Hence the blog concludes that it would be an extraordinary stretch for the Supreme Court-- or any court-- to overturn the Health Care Reform Act.
I personally think it's a great step forwrard for our country and long overdue.
Willful
Posted by Willful on March 24, 2010, at 19:26:02
In reply to , posted by on December 31, 1969, at 18:00:00
Hi. Could you cite where you found the information about the size of the penalty insurance companies would pay if they denied coverage to people with pre-existing conditions?
thanks,
Willful
Posted by Phillipa on March 24, 2010, at 22:24:12
In reply to Re: New Health Bill Passed » conundrum, posted by Willful on March 24, 2010, at 19:26:02
Posted by Phillipa on March 24, 2010, at 22:32:11
In reply to Re: explain to me why its a bummer i havent got a clue, posted by manic666 on March 24, 2010, at 5:01:03
Manic I feel our government is set up a bit differently from England. In England you have a Queen here we has a President but he must consult and go through Congress and all sorts of legal things first. This is not over yet either. But That's another subject. As to your question here you are allowed to earn a set amount of income even on Disability or Mediciare for elderly don't think there is a cap? Please someone with more knowledge correct if wrong on that one. Also marrieds can file either jointly or single status on income tax. Some people incorportate their business so it's a separate entity from their personal assets. So then there is separate business. Very complicated. But I think your're talking more in the line of medicaid and medicaid fraud. Those that have nothing claimed and if found out did surely that would be a penalty of some sort. Medicaire is a bit different. Phillipa
Posted by Phillipa on March 24, 2010, at 22:51:46
In reply to Re: New Health Bill Passed » conundrum, posted by Willful on March 24, 2010, at 19:26:02
Willful hoping this link works if not sorry as it answers your questions of penalties if don't buy health insurance and goes up yearly. But these changes are not til 2013 or 2014. Soursce a newsletter and if name doesn't appear I will have to post it but this is my third post. Phillipa well will give it a go.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/19/interactive.health.care.benefits/index.html?hpt=Sbin
Posted by manic666 on March 25, 2010, at 4:43:13
In reply to Re: New Health Bill Passed » Willful, posted by Phillipa on March 24, 2010, at 22:51:46
the queen, has nothing to do with the goverment,//we have a priminister like you have a president.// goverment parties we the people vote in// they set the rules//we have just had a buget were we get told what price things are like vat tax disabilaty payments.// an they are putting up the national insurence tax level//that a set amout of money that comes out your wages every week to pay your heath care.//the more you earn the more you pay.//thats how the nhs is run//we pay for it ,nobody else. but its free to every one who is has british passport// so imigrants get the same deal for nothing ,so there putting up the rate we pay to support someone who has payed nothing.///the queen jesus she is are ambasidor an tourist atraction ,who travals the would to show people what real royalty is.remember all are armed forces are royal. ie royal navy ,royal air force royal army,that why we are proud of are heritige, whitch is being iroaded by the eu// a vote our parliment sneaked in low key, so the voters were railroaded does that sound familure
Posted by bleauberry on March 25, 2010, at 20:45:12
In reply to New Health Bill Passed Ammended Hour Later, posted by Phillipa on March 23, 2010, at 1:05:59
Opinions follow. Strong. Be it known they are shared by a significant majority of americans.
This is a disasterous bill.
If I told you that many other countries have a program that sounds great on paper but in reality works poorly for the patients it was intended to help, you would want to try that right? Nowhere in the world has socialized medicine worked. Ever. Period.
We have the best health profession on the planet. That is due to the side effects of free enterprise and minimum government intervention. With government takeover, say bye bye to that.
You and your doctor will no longer be the ones who decide. A panel of white coats in washington will tell you what you can and cannot do, not your doctor and not you. Do you honestly think they are going to let you try that exotic combo you want, or the maoi you want, or brand instead of generic? Funny. Good luck. No, you will be restricted to the protocols their white coat teams deem to be your fate, based on percentage statistics, not individual response, flawed science, and primarily cost. The cheaper the better, doesn't matter if it's good for you or not.
People think this is free. Ha. Everyone is required to pay a premium whether you want it or not. If you don't, you pay a fine. If you don't, guess who comes looking for you. The IRS, which is hiring 10,000 new agents as we speak to do just that. Sounds like a third world dictatorship more than the USA I love.
Forget all the ugly details for a minute. Our government officials are elected to represent the will of the people who elected them. Every single poll shows americans are very much against this particular health care bill. The congressmen that voted for it knew that. They didn't care. They did it for their own power, not for you. They ignored the very people who elected them. They will pay a stiff price at election time. I hope they are updating their resumes. Tidal wave coming.
We really need health care improvement. Not a complete government takeover. Everyone including those that despise this bill know that we need things done. It's just that this bill does none of the things that need to be done, and instead turns over the best health care system in the world to a model that has failed every time it is tried.
Find a way to help those too poor, and leave everyone else alone. I happen to be happy with my health plan. I am pissed the government is screwing with it.
I feel badly for my children. They will grow up to a country much worse than I.
When was the last time any government program came in costing the same or less than predicted? Never. So when you see them lying all over TV saying how it will cost this or that, just know they are in fact calling you stupid. If any other goverment program is any indication, this one will cost minimum 4 times what is predicted.
They can't even effectively run a much smaller simpler program like Medicare, but think they can handle a monstrosity? What arrogance. Stupidity on display for all to see.
Insurance rates are going up real fast for several reasons. The biggest is this. Millions of people have lost their jobs and are now unable to keep insurance. The result is fewer people are paying the premiums. If you were the insurance company, and you lost a bunch of customers, you would likewise have no choice to but to charge more to your remaining customers.
The fault of that is too much government regulation and taxes too high.
The Reagan years. Here a guy hated by liberals took taxes on the rich down from 70% to 30%. In doing so, he created 350 million....yeah, million...new jobs. Sounds pretty good about now, yeah? That's a lot of people to pay premiums and get costs down. A side benefit was that the tax revenue flowing to washington didn't shrink as liberals predicted, but instead doubled. Imagine that, lower taxes and make more money. Well, anyone with an elementary level of math and economics knows why that is. Our current government does just the opposite. Everything they do stifles growth of anything except themselves.
People can get way too much money from medical lawsuits for damages that weren't worth that much money. False claims. Greed. One third of the money you pay your doctor goes to his malpractice insurance. That's a major reason healthcare is so expensive. Tort reform is needed to bring costs down.
Competition always brings costs down. But people can't shop around. Can't shop state to state or take your insurance with you. There needs to be competition with no boundaries. That does not exist right now.
This healtcare bill actually had nothing to do with healthcare. It had to do with a far leftist ideologue who hates many things about america, someone who is a great lier and charming, whos intention is to get as many people dependent on government as possible. He sees the great history and freedom of USA as a crime, not a God given blessing.
When it comes right down to it, the best health care we can all do is right at home. Water filters. Heavy on organic veggies and fruits. Organic meats. Exercise. Low sugars. If you can't pronounce and ingredient label or know what it is, don't eat it for pete's sake. It's no wonder americans get such heavy health problems despite the best health care system in the world.
Which it is not any longer.
The whole thing is unconstitutional and I am sure it will be challenged. Already is actually, by many states and individuals. The constitution has no place for allowing the government to require citizens to buy any particular product or service. This is the USA after all.
Anyone who likes this healthcare bill doesn't know what is in it, doesn't know history, doesn't know economics, and is basically going purely on emotion. Obviously the phrase "health care for everyone" sounds beautiful and wonderful. That is an emotional response completely out of touch with the reality of this particular bill.
Posted by desolationrower on March 25, 2010, at 23:31:22
In reply to Re: New Health Bill Passed Ammended Hour Later, posted by bleauberry on March 25, 2010, at 20:45:12
well i am a (former) law student, and i can say this bill is totally constitutional. at least under current law, though foaming-at-the-mouth teabaggers and the politicians wanting their votes might say otherwise.
i doubt Roberts and his crew will invalidate it, not because they are particularly disinclined to keep current law where it is (not that i think that is bad, in the abstract), but because this is the most conservative possible option that get to (almost) universal care and cost control. The very much more obviously constitutional option, medicare for all, would be what we'd get instead.
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
http://www.thegeekreport.net/reports/toptens/reports/photos/TTFights/TTStarWars.png
http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/images/2009/09/Barack-Obama-Light-Saber.jpg
notice is the blue vs. red motif!
-d/r
Posted by sdb on March 27, 2010, at 4:33:15
In reply to Re: New Health Bill Passed Ammended Hour Later, posted by desolationrower on March 25, 2010, at 23:31:22
whats the connection between 'boston tea party', 'republicans' and 'health reform'. why are these words often mentioned together?
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.