FINALLY!

[Canceled2]

Here is a link to the the most egregious portions of the Health Care bill H.R. 3200. On this page is also a direct link to the entire bill.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/walnut-ridge-ar/TTPG4LRBUTDT15K2R



BELOW IS A SAMPLING

Peter Fleckstein (aka Fleckman) is reading it and has been posting on Twitter his findings. This is from his postings (Note: All comments are Fleckman's)

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!
Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits u get
Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!
Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose UR HC Benefits 4 you. U have no choice!
PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided 2 ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise
Pg 58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access 2 individs finances & a National ID Healthcard will b issued!
Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access 2 ur banks accts 4 elect. funds transfer
PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan 4 retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).
Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange 2 bring priv HC plans under Govt control.
PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs 4 priv. HC plans in the Exchange
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration ur Healthcare!
PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Govt mandates linguistic approp svcs. Example - Translation 4 illegal aliens
Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps 2 sign up indiv. for Govt HC plan
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs of Ben Levels 4 Plans.#AARP members - U Health care WILL b rationed
-PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Indiv. will b automat.enrolled in Medicaid. No choice
pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt Monop
pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/#AMA - The Govt will tell YOU what u can make.
Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into pub opt plan. NO CHOICE
Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay 4 HC 4 part time employees AND their families.

[uscitizen]

So the text to the right of the numbers in your sample is what it actually says in the bill or some politically spun intrepretation?

[Canceled2]

So the text to the right of the numbers in your sample is what it actually says in the bill or some politically spun intrepretation?

Why don't you go to the link. Then click on the link to the actual bill and look it the **** up yourself. Then you can come back here and inform all of us if the abridged statements are wrong. Now run along and do your own ******* leg work.

[uscitizen]

Why don't you go to the link. Then click on the link to the actual bill and look it the **** up yourself. Then you can come back here and inform all of us if the abridged statements are wrong. Now run along and do your own ******* leg work.

No, I already looked at this list from a chain email and did the leg work.

[Canceled2]

No, I already looked at this list from a chain email and did the leg work.

No, *******, it is not a chain email. It's a link to someone elses work. If you had done the leg work you would not have had to ask the fucking question as you'd know the abridgments are accurate.

[Cypress]

Here is a link to the the most egregious portions of the Health Care bill H.R. 3200. On this page is also a direct link to the entire bill.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/walnut-ridge-ar/TTPG4LRBUTDT15K2R

BELOW IS A SAMPLING

Peter Fleckstein (aka Fleckman) is reading it and has been posting on Twitter his findings. This is from his postings (Note: All comments are Fleckman's)

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!
Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits u get
Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!
Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose UR HC Benefits 4 you. U have no choice!
PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided 2 ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise
Pg 58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access 2 individs finances & a National ID Healthcard will b issued!
HC bill - Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs 4 priv. HC plans in the Exchange

snip.



Your link looks very authoritative and credible. :rolleyes:

I wonder what "Citizen" from Jonesboro, Arkansas medical credentials are?


http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/3315/presentation2b.jpg (http://img197.imageshack.us/i/presentation2b.jpg/)

[Canceled1]

Your link looks very authoritative and credible. :rolleyes:

I wonder what "Citizen" from Jonesboro, Arkansas medical credentials are?


http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/931/presentation2g.jpg (http://img198.imageshack.us/i/presentation2g.jpg/)

Probably right up there with your credentials that give you the authority to make a comment about their credentials. I mean who the hell are you but some randomly chosen name after a tree? What are you an expert arborist or something?

Stoopid

[Canceled2]

Probably right up there with your credentials that give you the authority to make a comment about their credentials. I mean who the hell are you but some randomly chosen name after a tree? What are you an expert arborist or something?

Stoopid

Yes, let cypress the dork on the short bus question a guy who is actually reading the (no one else in APP can use this term either) bill and providing salient points for the public's opinion. Because lord (no one else in APP can use this term either) knows all of our esteemed members of congress have medical degrees...why didn't ya know Loyal, that's why they don't even have to bother to read the damned thing!

[belme1201]

Here is a link to the the most egregious portions of the Health Care bill H.R. 3200. On this page is also a direct link to the entire bill.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/walnut-ridge-ar/TTPG4LRBUTDT15K2R



BELOW IS A SAMPLING

Peter Fleckstein (aka Fleckman) is reading it and has been posting on Twitter his findings. This is from his postings (Note: All comments are Fleckman's)

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!
Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits u get
Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!
Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose UR HC Benefits 4 you. U have no choice!
PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided 2 ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise
Pg 58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access 2 individs finances & a National ID Healthcard will b issued!
Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access 2 ur banks accts 4 elect. funds transfer
PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan 4 retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).
Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange 2 bring priv HC plans under Govt control.
PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs 4 priv. HC plans in the Exchange
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration ur Healthcare!
PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Govt mandates linguistic approp svcs. Example - Translation 4 illegal aliens
Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps 2 sign up indiv. for Govt HC plan
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs of Ben Levels 4 Plans.#AARP members - U Health care WILL b rationed
-PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Indiv. will b automat.enrolled in Medicaid. No choice
pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt Monop
pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/#AMA - The Govt will tell YOU what u can make.
Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into pub opt plan. NO CHOICE
Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay 4 HC 4 part time employees AND their families.


Come back with direct quotes IN CONTEXT please. Not out of context interpretation which you want to accept as fact.

[Good Luck]

Since when does one have to be a medical doctor to read a congressional bill and point out the areas where it gives government too much authority? How many doctors understand legalese to begin with?

If that is the only argument you have against the information presented, it shows how truly unthinking you are. You have NO idea what the bill actually says. You have NO idea to what degree it will result in government involvement in every day medical decisions. Yet you somehow have the knowledge to criticize those who oppose it. What are your credentials? Clairvoyance? Or are you a precog?

[Canceled2]

Come back with direct quotes IN CONTEXT please. Not out of context interpretation which you want to accept as fact.

Screw you belme...:) The fact that you are (*) not (*) able to see that the abridged quotes, by a person who is actually reading this albatross and providing salient points for people to discuss are accurate, is typical of you. Why? Because you think by making a comment insinuating that the guy's not accurate is real debating.

Unlike you I actually went to the link and also to the link to the actual bill so I could compare...the guy is right on the money. What's the matter, you don't like what you are reading or you haven't read it?

[Canceled2]

Since when does one have to be a medical doctor to read a congressional bill and point out the areas where it gives government too much authority? How many doctors understand legalese to begin with?

If that is the only argument you have against the information presented, it shows how truly unthinking you are. You have NO idea what the bill actually says. You have NO idea to what degree it will result in government involvement in every day medical decisions. Yet you somehow have the knowledge to criticize those who oppose it. What are your credentials? Clairvoyance? Or are you a precog?

I randomly picked 6 of the abridged statements and compared them to the page numbers he provided ...the guy is right on the money. I wonder is it that these cretins do not like what this bill say's or are they just flapping their jaws and have not even bothered to read what they are supporting???

[Canceled1]

Come back with direct quotes IN CONTEXT please. Not out of context interpretation which you want to accept as fact.

Why don't you put up a cogent argument yourself Einstein? You seem to believe you have the corner market on critiquing. Let's see what you got in that bag of tricks that is going to support the passage of this POS?

Come on now Belme. In context to the points raised above. Refute it line by line and until then? STFD and STFU!

[belme1201]

Why don't you put up a cogent argument yourself Einstein? You seem to believe you have the corner market on critiquing. Let's see what you got in that bag of tricks that is going to support the passage of this POS?

Come on now Belme. In context to the points raised above. Refute it line by line and until then? STFD and STFU!



Pardon me, I don't know who Fleckman is, why should I accept his interpretation as fact particularly when posted by one with a biased viewpoint? Why post interpretation without posting the content in context to support the conclusions unless there is something to hide? The lies are coming fast and furious, how can one trust interpretation from someone no-one knows?
Your language is very unbecoming, particularly on APP, Jamie Lee.

[belme1201]

I randomly picked 6 of the abridged statements and compared them to the page numbers he provided ...the guy is right on the money. I wonder is it that these cretins do not like what this bill say's or are they just flapping their jaws and have not even bothered to read what they are supporting???

Fleckman made commentary, not abridged quotes. You agree with him, now show the lines he's interpreting to back up his words and your agreement with them, unless you have something to hide.
If I merely give the same line numbers and say wrong , wrong, wrong, to each one without directly quoting the Bill in context, it will have just as much veracity as your post, and you will accuse me of bias.
I will abide by the rules of the APP. I have been reading the bill.

[Canceled2]

Fleckman made commentary, not abridged quotes. You agree with him, now show the lines he's interpreting to back up his words and your agreement with them, unless you have something to hide.
If I merely give the same line numbers and say wrong , wrong, wrong, to each one without directly quoting the Bill in context, it will have just as much veracity as your post, and you will accuse me of bias.
I will abide by the rules of the APP. I have been reading the bill.

Ok belme let me use the correct term. He summarized. He did not make commentary, he did not abridge it.

I do agree with him, don't you? If not, you need to show where he was wrong; you are after all making the assertion that he is wrong.

I looked at 6 of his summaries before posting them and they were all on the money. He is actually reading what the bill says and putting into a concise summary...if you are reading the pages he quotes in his summaries certainly you must agree since you have not provided any contradictions. :)

I am perusing the double spaced piece of crap legislation in small pieces. I find having a person to summarize this bill helps. Your assholiness is just that and not in any way productive. I suggest you go read the bill you so fully support so that you can intelligently dissect Fleckman's summaries instead of thinking you can order me to prove your imagined negative.

[Topspin]

this shit needs watering down.
Democrats are on crack if they think all these old folks are bused in. there are literally hundreds of thousands. I'd say some blue dogs are going to be motivated to water down or vote against.

[Mott the Hoople]

Why don't you go to the link. Then click on the link to the actual bill and look it the **** up yourself. Then you can come back here and inform all of us if the abridged statements are wrong. Now run along and do your own ******* leg work.It's your reference. It's incumbent upon you to defend it and answer USC's question.

[christiefan915]

So the text to the right of the numbers in your sample is what it actually says in the bill or some politically spun intrepretation?

Not to worry. Those smears have already been rebutted.

Here are the facts. Anyone can verify them by reading the bill at http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

Actual itemized contents of the Health Care Reform Bill:

"Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!"

TRUTH: This is not an "audit," it's a study. Moreover, the bill states (pp. 22-23) that the report will "include any recommendations the Commissioner deems appropriate to ensure that the law does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure or create adverse selection in the risk pools of large group insurers and self-insured employers." This is almost directly the opposite of the email's claim.

"Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!"

TRUTH: Page 29 continues to define the "essential benefits package" and discusses limits on what Americans will have to spend on health care under this minimum standard. In no way does this section stipulate the rationing of care.

"Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)"

TRUTH: Page 30 begins to describe the Health Benefits Advisory Committee which establishes certain minimum standards for health insurance plans. In no way does this committee deny treatments and benefits to Americans with health insurance.

"Page 42: The 'Health Choices Commissioner' will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None."

TRUTH: Page 42 begins to describe the Health Choices Commissioner's duties. The idea that this person will decide what benefits Americans receive is patently false, given that most Americans will keep their current plans under reform, and Americans within the exchange will have the choice of purchasing many different kinds of health plans. Rather, the Commissioner will establish minimum standards to protect Americans.

"Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services."

TRUTH: Pages 50-51 contain a provision stating that discrimination will not be allowed in the provision of health care services. Nowhere does the bill state that non-US citizens will be provided free health care services. The bill prohibits federal dollars from being used for undocumented immigrants.

"Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard."

TRUTH: Page 58, in the context of a discussion of administrative standards, mentions that "determination of an individual's financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility...may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card." In no way does the bill state that such a card would be national, or that it would be issued to every person, or that it would, in fact, be used at all.

"Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer."

TRUTH: Page 59 continues the discussion of administrative standards, and authorizes electronic transfers of money within the government. In no way does this provision grant the government access to individual bank accounts.

"Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)"

TRUTH: Here's what page 65 says: "Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish a temporary reinsurance program to provide reimbursement to assist participating employment-based plans with the cost of providing health benefits to retirees and to eligible spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees." No mention is made of unions or community organizations.

"Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange."

TRUTH: That's true! Plans have to have a minimum standard of benefits, bat can offer other plans as well. But that's fair, isn't it? Private insurers can continue to operate outside the exchange if they wish - should the government establish no standards for the exchange? In that case, how could reform end insurance industry abuses and help to control costs?

"Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)"

TRUTH: This section says is that if private health care plans want to operate in the Exchange, they must provide a basic benefit package.

"Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens"

TRUTH: Some American citizens are more comfortable speaking a language other than English, especially in a sensitive situation like a consultation with their doctor. This provision in no way opens the door for coverage of undocumented workers.

"Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan."

TRUTH: Page 95 makes no mention of ACORN and Americorps; all it says is that the Commissioner can conduct outreach to vulnerable populations, making them aware of their options.

"Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter."

TRUTH: People who are eligible for Medicaid will not have to face the burdens of paperwork and other bureaucratic struggles. Far from depriving people of choice, this measure will ensure coverage.

"Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No 'judicial review' is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed."

TRUTH: This section describes rate-setting under the public health insurance plan option, which will compete with private insurers, who can set their own rates. Because of inherent advantages like their established administrative and provider frameworks, private insurance companies will not be "crushed" by government competition.

"Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages."

TRUTH: The government will negotiate rates with providers under the public health insurance plan option. However, private insurers will continue to pay their own rates.

"Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives."

TRUTH: This is simply not true. Employers with more than 20 employees aren't even eligible to participate in the exchange, let alone the public plan, until several years after the exchange launches in 2013. Moreover, no employer will be forced to participate in the public plan.

"Page 146: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families."

TRUTH: Employers are required to pay some benefits for part-time employees on a basis proportional to what they pay for full-time employees. No language on this page or the next stipulates coverage for the families of part-time employees.

"Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll"

TRUTH: The payroll penalty applies to employers with payroll over $500,000 who do not provide insurance to their employees. The percentage for employers with payroll from $500,000 - $750,000 is 6%. Employers do not have to offer the public option to avoid this penalty, they can offer private insurance if they wish.

"Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll"

TRUTH: This is false, see above.

"Page 167: Any individual who doesn't' have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income."

TRUTH: Pages 167-173 detail what "acceptable health care" means (basically, insurance coverage) and also allow for many different kinds of exceptions to this rule.

"Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them)."

TRUTH: Non-resident aliens do not have to pay the penalty for not having health insurance, nor will the receive federal assistance, because they are not required to purchase health insurance. They are not exempted from individual taxes generally.

"Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records."

TRUTH: This is a gross overstatement. For the purposes of determining affordability credits for Americans who need financial assistance in purchasing health insurance, employees of the Health Choices Administration will have access to tax information that the federal government already keeps. As is clearly stated on page 196, "Return information... may be used by officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, only for the purposes of, and to the extent necessary in, establishing and verifying the appropriate amount of any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 and providing for the repayment of any such credit which was in excess of such appropriate amount.''

"Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that."

TRUTH: This quote is taken out of context, and is in fact referring to a calculation used in the bill. Full context of quote: "'(4) NOT TREATED AS TAX IMPOSED BY THIS CHAPTER FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.-The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55.''

"Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected."

TRUTH: This section has nothing whatsoever to do with reducing services. It makes much needed changes to the way in which physician reimbursement is recalculated every year. The bill will, in fact, create much more opportunity for seniors and the poor to receive necessary care.

"Page 241: Doctors: no matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)"

TRUTH: Page 241 does not say this. Nowhere does it say this. It does say that physicians will be grouped into certain categories regardless of specialty. These categories merely determine if the physician is engaged in primarily therapeutic or preventative care.

"Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc."

TRUTH: There is no good response to this assertion as it appears to have been made up completely. The section deals with 'misvalued codes' meaning that the government is potentially not paying an acceptable rate for a specific service. This will allow the government to, for example, pay more for services that require more payment, such as high-overhead procedures. The author of these criticisms separately attacks the bill for paying the same rate to all doctors, then attacks again for paying different rates.

"Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries."

TRUTH: This section amends the Social Security Act to include productivity measures. There is no mandate or control of anything. This merely updates the way in which doctors and hospitals are paid through Medicare.

"Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs."

TRUTH: This is simply not true. This slightly amends existing guidelines for payments for medical equipment, in this case power-driven wheelchairs. This section introduces no 'regulations' that are not in the Social Security Act.

"Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!"

TRUTH: Overusage of the hot-button word "rationing" is a way to deflect attention away from the actual language of the bill and incite unjustified fear. This section only compares costs incurred by cancer hospitals to costs incurred by similar hospitals, and adjusts payments to reduce the possibility of fraud and abuse.

"Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions."

TRUTH: This is almost correct. The section is one of the first efforts at targeting excessive readmissions. Excessive readmissions are physically and emotionally damaging to patients, while simultaneously putting them, and the health care system, in far more financial risk than is necessary. The American Hospital Association recommended reduced payments for avoidable readmission in testimony to Congress.


"Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government."

TRUTH: This is patently false. The section is about possible methods that the Secretary of Health and Human services might consider in order to address the growing problem of patient readmission. This section does not, in any way, create a penalty, nor does it even mandate policy. It merely provides examples of recourses that might be considered.

"Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited from owning and investing in healthcare companies!"

TRUTH: This provision only limits Doctor's investments in health care facilities that they refer patients to The effort to limit self-referral has been ongoing for many years as an effort to reduce fraud and abuse. This is, essentially, the medical community equivalent of insider trading. Limiting this incentive works to put the patient's health above all other considerations. Doctors remain free to engage in investment opportunities in areas that don't create a significant conflict of interest.

"Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval."

TRUTH: This section regulates physicians' investment in hospitals to make sure that physicians are not unfairly benefiting from their power to refer patients to hospitals they have a stake in. The section does not prohibit hospital expansion.

"Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on 'community' input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN."

TRUTH: In the ongoing effort to demonize community-based groups such as ACORN, every instance of the word "community" has become associated with that group's efforts. In reality, this provision allows for anyone to provide input. This includes homeowners, religious leaders, neighborhood groups, and others. There are no payoffs. There is no money exchanged in any way.

"Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing."

TRUTH: This provision is included in order to allow the government to base payments on practices that work. Nowhere does it say health care will be rationed. The attempt to isolate what works and what does not work in Medicare Advantage plans only benefits the health care system in general.

"Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc."

TRUTH: The government can disqualify some Medicare Advantage Plans from receiving some additional payments, but only if those plans are not meeting necessary requirements.

"Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals."

TRUTH: This section only deals with how to handle special needs individuals who need to enroll outside of the open enrollment period. Almost every type of plan operates with open enrollment periods. This section does not create more restrictions.

"Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone)."

TRUTH: This section merely expands existing Telehealth programs, which supplement but do not replace other health coverage, and provide a vital resource to Americans in rural and remote areas.

"Page 425-430: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?; Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time; Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death; Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends; Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT; Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life."

TRUTH: All of these hysterical claims have been debunked elsewhere. HR3200 provides for the reimbursement of a voluntary session of end-of-life counseling with your physician once every five years. This in no way means the government will make decisions for patients or encourage doctor-assisted suicide. Counseling simply makes patients and their families aware of their options.

"Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN."

TRUTH: ACORN is not a Community-Based Medical Home.

"Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN."

TRUTH: This is clearly still referring to community health groups, not ACORN.

"Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage."

TRUTH: Covering marriage and family therapy, as many private insurance plans do, does not mean that the government "intervenes in your marriage." The types of individuals who are recognized as therapists are clearly defined on page 491; in brief, professionals only, not bureaucrats.

"Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services."

TRUTH: This section expands government coverage for mental health services under various government programs, and ensures that all mental health services will be offered by qualified professionals.

http://fightthesmears.com/

[charver]

It's your reference. It's incumbent upon you to defend it and answer USC's question.

To be fair, she's most likely nursing a sore ******* finger after typing all those ******* asterisk *******.

It's a ******* ******* alright.

All to keep that ******* **** Damo sweet.

[belme1201]

Ok belme let me use the correct term. He summarized. He did not make commentary, he did not abridge it.

I do agree with him, don't you? If not, you need to show where he was wrong; you are after all making the assertion that he is wrong.

I looked at 6 of his summaries before posting them and they were all on the money. He is actually reading what the bill says and putting into a concise summary...if you are reading the pages he quotes in his summaries certainly you must agree since you have not provided any contradictions. :)

I am perusing the double spaced piece of crap legislation in small pieces. I find having a person to summarize this bill helps. Your assholiness is just that and not in any way productive. I suggest you go read the bill you so fully support so that you can intelligently dissect Fleckman's summaries instead of thinking you can order me to prove your imagined negative.

Fleckman's words are not "summaries". They are interpretation from his, obviously anti-bill, anti-Obama viewpoint with no attempt made to produce evidence. I don't know who he is and apparently you don't either, why am I supposed to accept his word as you do simply because he reflects your viewpoint?

[Cancel 2018. 3]

cypress....don't be such a partisan hack all the time....

the link in the OP gives that actual citations to the bill and links directly to the bill....

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf

[Canceled2]

Fleckman's words are not "summaries". They are interpretation from his, obviously anti-bill, anti-Obama viewpoint with no attempt made to produce evidence. I don't know who he is and apparently you don't either, why am I supposed to accept his word as you do simply because he reflects your viewpoint?

Ummm dorkman, the link to the actual bill is on his page. He cites page numbers so that a person who is really interested in knowing what the bill says can read it for themselves and compare his summaries.

You always manage to come off as an ass belme. You want to say someones work is incorrect and yet lack the ability to show how.

I do not need to know Fleckman to take the info he provides and compare it to the bill.

[Canceled2]

It's your reference. It's incumbent upon you to defend it and answer USC's question.

What BS! The guy has the link to the actual bill on his page. He cites page numbers to reference his work.

If someone brings an accusation they need to already have a case. i.e. show an example that the guys summary is wrong. The link to the bill is there. The page numbers are included. It really is VERY simple so that partisan hacks such as yourself can easily find the references...really

[belme1201]

Ummm dorkman, the link to the actual bill is on his page. He cites page numbers so that a person who is really interested in knowing what the bill says can read it for themselves and compare his summaries.

You always manage to come off as an ass belme. You want to say someones work is incorrect and yet lack the ability to show how.

I do not need to know Fleckman to take the info he provides and compare it to the bill.


Re: Fleckman

Page 33-wrong
Page 30 Section 123-wrong
Page 29 lines 4-16-wrong
Page 42-wrong
etc.
etc.
etc.........and so forth.


I have provided my opinion with the same evidence as Fleckman, for proof go to House Bill 3200 provided without abridgment at C-Span.org or the House website.

[cancel2 2022]

To be fair, she's most likely nursing a sore ******* finger after typing all those ******* asterisk *******.

It's a ******* ******* alright.

All to keep that ******* **** Damo sweet.

Yep, the pious Christian lady will have to say a shedload of Hail Marys to atone for that outburst!!

[Cancel 2018. 3]

What BS! The guy has the link to the actual bill on his page. He cites page numbers to reference his work.

If someone brings an accusation they need to already have a case. i.e. show an example that the guys summary is wrong. The link to the bill is there. The page numbers are included. It really is VERY simple so that partisan hacks such as yourself can easily find the references...really

^exactly^

this is the kind of serious debate on this issue i've been looking for....not surprisingly some libs act like hacks and ignore the citations and simply attack the messenger....

there are direct citations to the assertations folks....if they're false, it should be easy to prove

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Re: Fleckman

Page 33-wrong
Page 30 Section 123-wrong
Page 29 lines 4-16-wrong
Page 42-wrong
etc.
etc.
etc.d........


I have provided my opinion with the same evidence as Fleckman, for proof go to House Bill 3200 provided without abridgment at C-Span.org or the House website.

not true at all.....fleckman stated reasons, conclusion and a citation....you state conclusions with a citation....why don't you actually explain yoru position instead of acting like an ass

[Canceled2]

not true at all.....fleckman stated reasons, conclusion and a citation....you state conclusions with a citation....why don't you actually explain yoru position instead of acting like an ass

He's incapable of presenting a reasoned opinion against Fleckman's summary opinions that's why.

[Canceled2]

Re: Fleckman

Page 33-wrong
Page 30 Section 123-wrong
Page 29 lines 4-16-wrong
Page 42-wrong
etc.
etc.
etc.........and so forth.


I have provided my opinion with the same evidence as Fleckman, for proof go to House Bill 3200 provided without abridgment at C-Span.org or the House website.

No, you did not. Fleckman provided a summary of his opinions based on what he read. He cited the section and page number(s) to support his opinion. As per usual belme you have merely shown your ass.

[zappasguitar]

Come back with direct quotes IN CONTEXT please. Not out of context interpretation which you want to accept as fact.

Oh yeah, that's going to happen RIGHT away!

[belme1201]

not true at all.....fleckman stated reasons, conclusion and a citation....you state conclusions with a citation....why don't you actually explain yoru position instead of acting like an ass

I have stated my position, and I think he is wrong when the bill is presented accurately and in context. I also supplied all the evidence Fleckman did which was line and section numbers only, the rest is opinion without evidence, counselor. Why do you hold me to a different standard? See the full rebuttal posted above by christiefan, there is no need for me to re-post it. Fielding all the misinformation being crapped out there about the bill is a full time occupation, will you join me in correcting it?......unless you feel all criticism is truth although you experienced it regarding "grandfathering" with the Prophet. Distortion is a simple matter when accompanied by out of context, incomplete evidence accompanied by opinion.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I have stated my position, and I think he is wrong when the bill is presented accurately and in context. I also supplied all the evidence Fleckman did which was line and section numbers only, the rest is opinion without evidence, counselor. Why do you hold me to a different standard? See the full rebuttal posted above by christiefan, there is no need for me to re-post it. Fielding all the misinformation being crapped out there about the bill is a full time occupation, will you join me in correcting it?......unless you feel all criticism is truth although you experienced it regarding "grandfathering" with the Prophet. Distortion is a simple matter when accompanied by out of context, incomplete evidence accompanied by opinion.

fleckman explain what he thought the bill said and then gave cites

you just said....p. 436 wrong

quite different and if you don't know the difference i am not going to waste my time educating you....as apparently you just want to hang your hat on someone else's rebuttal instead of actually debating points yourself....

[belme1201]

fleckman explain what he thought the bill said and then gave cites

you just said....p. 436 wrong

quite different and if you don't know the difference i am not going to waste my time educating you....as apparently you just want to hang your hat on someone else's rebuttal instead of actually debating points yourself....

"fleckman explain what he THOUGHT the bill said and then gave cites"
I THINK he's wrong. If cites means line and section numbers, correct, anything else incorrect, only opinion. I gave and give the same "cites". As an arbiter of the matter, my opinion is just as valid or invalid as his, and for that matter, yours, thus, as arbiters, we are all disqualified and I accept that, however, there is only one truth..
No interest in quelling the misinformation/disinformation such as "death panels", infanticide, or floating old people on icebergs etc.?

[Damocles]

"fleckman explain what he THOUGHT the bill said and then gave cites"
I THINK he's wrong. If cites means line and section numbers, correct, anything else incorrect, only opinion. I gave and give the same "cites". As an arbiter of the matter, my opinion is just as valid or invalid as his, and for that matter, yours, thus, as arbiters, we are all disqualified and I accept that.
No interest in quelling the misinformation/disinformation such as "death panels", infanticide, or floating old people on icebergs etc.?
Which doesn't change anything at all, his cites are accurate and his opinion reasoned. You disagree, cool. Can you tell us where and the reason at each point you disagree?

[Canceled1]

Which doesn't change anything at all, his cites are accurate and his opinion reasoned. You disagree, cool. Can you tell us where and the reason at each point you disagree?

No, but he will let Christiefan do it for him!

[Cancel 2018. 3]

"fleckman explain what he THOUGHT the bill said and then gave cites"
I THINK he's wrong. If cites means line and section numbers, correct, anything else incorrect, only opinion. I gave and give the same "cites". As an arbiter of the matter, my opinion is just as valid or invalid as his, and for that matter, yours, thus, as arbiters, we are all disqualified and I accept that.
No interest in quelling the misinformation/disinformation such as "death panels", infanticide, or floating old people on icebergs etc.?

i never said your opinion is less valid....strawman

i said your debate is not the same as you did not give a reasoned opinion and then citing specifically to the section as fleckman did...as i asked before....why don't you explain or reason as to why you think fleckman is wrong instead of saying: wrong.....and then expecting us just to swallow your opinion....

that is not debating, that is not convincing

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Since when does one have to be a medical doctor to read a congressional bill and point out the areas where it gives government too much authority? How many doctors understand legalese to begin with?

If that is the only argument you have against the information presented, it shows how truly unthinking you are. You have NO idea what the bill actually says. You have NO idea to what degree it will result in government involvement in every day medical decisions. Yet you somehow have the knowledge to criticize those who oppose it. What are your credentials? Clairvoyance? Or are you a precog?

A random person posting on the internet has NO credibility.

[belme1201]

Which doesn't change anything at all, his cites are accurate and his opinion reasoned. You disagree, cool. Can you tell us where and the reason at each point you disagree?




"Page 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the govt. willaudit books of ALL EMPLOYERS
that self insure."

How is it different if I use the same "cites" he uses and merely add 'DOES NOT' before MANDATES? I have given no less information than he has. If you're asking for my reason for thinking he is wrong, it is that he presrnts opinion as fact. Is he an unbiased source? I'm not, you're not, and I think it's a good possibility he is also not unbiased.
My only point since coming aboard this thread is that I suspect out of context opinions masquerading as quotes, and his certainly qualify and were presented in that manner as "abridged". I know nothing about the man to be able to measure the weight of his opinions or his veracity. Am I too lazy to go to find the words in his "cites", or was he too lazy to supply them, and is the third alternative that he wants the reader to accept his conclusions at face value without him supplying the words, in context, about which he is providing an opinion? Certainly rules of evidence have not been reached here.
The rebuttal for his words are elsewhere, and in my OPINION, well done. My opinion regarding his piece is derived from the facts stated above.

[Damocles]

"Page 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the govt. willaudit books of ALL EMPLOYERS
that self insure."

How is it different if I use the same "cites" he uses and merely add 'DOES NOT' before MANDATES? I have given no less information than he has. If you're asking for my reason for thinking he is wrong, it is that he presrnts opinion as fact. Is he an unbiased source? I'm not, you're not, and I think it's a good possibility he is also not unbiased.
My only point since coming aboard this thread is that I suspect out of context opinions masquerading as quotes, and his certainly qualify and were presented in that manner as "abridged". I know nothing about the man to be able to measure the weight of his opinions or his veracity. Am I too lazy to go to find the words in his "cites", or was he too lazy to supply them, and is the third alternative that he wants the reader to accept his conclusions at face value without him supplying the words, in context, about which he is providing an opinion? Certainly rules of evidence have not been reached here.
The rebuttal for his words are elsewhere, and in my OPINION, well done. My opinion regarding his piece is derived from the facts stated above.
I see, so your objection is he "presents opinion as fact" and your answer is to refuse to point out where the opinion is wrong and say, "He does it too!"

When my 5 year old tells me that her sister was doing it too, I inform her of one fact. "She was doing it too!" is a confession as much as it is attempting to spread blame. Will you be better than her source? Will you recognize a conversation starter and use it as such? Will you do yourself what you insist others should do? Or will you repeat again, "They are doing it too."

The opinions are listed, they are not quotes as none are shown as quotes, they are cited, and they are reasoned. They may be concise but that doesn't change that he took the time to read, write a short concise opinion, and then to cite his work.

[belme1201]

i never said your opinion is less valid....strawman

i said your debate is not the same as you did not give a reasoned opinion and then citing specifically to the section as fleckman did...as i asked before....why don't you explain or reason as to why you think fleckman is wrong instead of saying: wrong.....and then expecting us just to swallow your opinion....

that is not debating, that is not convincing

I am saying what you should understand, that opinion without supplying proper evidence is to be doubted, particularly from an unknown source. Being opinion in itself means there can be divergence. My issue is not what he has said but the fact that just supplying the locations at random and not exact quotes in context, in my mind, makes his conclusions suspect.
I don't expect you to swallow my OPINION, just as, for the above reasons, I do not swallow Fleckman's OPINION, which you expect me to accept as fact. Knowing where he seems to be coming from politically and watching what I have seen for the past few days, leaves me with the conclusion that his findings are likely to be thrown in the same dung pile as death panels, infanticide, icebergs, and bureaucrats in the exam room, etc.

[Damocles]

I am saying what you should understand, that opinion without supplying proper evidence is to be doubted, particularly from an unknown source. Being opinion in itself means there can be divergence. My issue is not what he has said but the fact that just supplying the locations at random and not exact quotes in context, in my mind, makes his conclusions suspect.
I don't expect you to swallow my OPINION, just as, for the above reasons, I do not swallow Fleckman's OPINION, which you expect me to accept as fact. Knowing where he seems to be coming from politically and watching what I have seen for the past few days, leaves me with the conclusion that his findings are likely to be thrown in the same dung pile as death panels, infanticide, icebergs, and bureaucrats in the exam room, etc.
No, he simply asked you to actually refute the opinions with reason rather than the fallacy of ad hominem. The fallacy of ad hominem works on the uneducated who decide their votes on commercials they see during the election cycle, it does not work here.

[belme1201]

I see, so your objection is he "presents opinion as fact" and your answer is to refuse to point out where the opinion is wrong and say, "He does it too!"

When my 5 year old tells me that her sister was doing it too, I inform her of one fact. "She was doing it too!" is a confession as much as it is attempting to spread blame. Will you be better than her source? Will you recognize a conversation starter and use it as such?


No, I am saying it seems to be alright when it is done by somone you agree with but not alright in opposition.

[Damocles]

No, I am saying it seems to be alright when it is done by somone you agree with but not alright in opposition.
Actually had yours been the original post I would ask others if they could refute the opinions listed as well. Your boggle seems to be on how the opinions were listed, supposedly it "confused" you into thinking they were quotes from the legislation. Nobody here is fooled by this charade, or by ad hominem attacks on sources or attempts at distracting to a different source so that you can argue against one that might be easier to refute.

[zappasguitar]

fleckman explain what he thought the bill said and then gave cites

you just said....p. 436 wrong

quite different and if you don't know the difference i am not going to waste my time educating you....as apparently you just want to hang your hat on someone else's rebuttal instead of actually debating points yourself....

But ***Dancer hanging her hat on Fleckman's rebuttal is acceptable?

Christie provided rebuttals to every point made by this "Fleckman" character. If ID can use Fleckman's opinions as debating points, then why can't belme do the same?

[Damocles]

But ***Dancer hanging her hat on Fleckman's rebuttal is acceptable?

Christie provided rebuttals to every point made by this "Fleckman" character. If ID can use Fleckman's opinions as debating points, then why can't belme do the same?
No, Christie didn't provide any rebuttal, she simply listed the 'rebuttal' from the DNC propaganda machine. She didn't reason out her own opinion, she sipped it from the fountain of kool-aid. Either it's okay to "astroturf" for both sides, or it's time to find different sourcing.

[Canceled1]

No, I am saying it seems to be alright when it is done by somone you agree with but not alright in opposition.

Oh this is rich!

Remove the plank from thine own eye, brother.

That's the way the ball bounces and will always bounce. That's why you subscribe to the beliefs of your political party and others subscribe to theirs.

Is this some kind of mystery like the lost tombs in Egypt?

Tell us belme. What alternate universe do you live in where you get to set the rules, change the rules, and dictate the rules and expect total acquiescense and then wax hysterical when someone dares to have an opinion different than yours?

If you're going to hurl out this question, point it toward yourself. How do you measure up?

Agreeing to disagree is one thing, but you're always milking every last drop to the point of ridiculousness.

[zappasguitar]

No, Christie didn't provide any rebuttal, she simply listed the 'rebuttal' from the DNC propaganda machine. She didn't reason out her own opinion, she sipped it from the fountain of kool-aid. Either it's okay to "astroturf" for both sides, or it's time to find different sourcing.

Whatever.

If you don't agree with someone, then any "rebuttal" they might present, no matter how well thought out or researched, you automatically discredit.

Ive been here 6 months and that is how it goes EVERY SINGLE TIME with you.

When are you going to drop the beard and just admit you're a Republican shill?

[belme1201]

No, he simply asked you to actually refute the opinions with reason rather than the fallacy of ad hominem. The fallacy of ad hominem works on the uneducated who decide their votes on commercials they see during the election cycle, it does not work here.


The opinions are not what I'm disputing, I am saying his words are presented without quoting the subject limited "cites" directly or in context and therefore I suspect his motives. I would love to discuss the piece point by point, but that's not my point. Unlike some others aboard, I have opinions of my own and don't need others to express what I think for me or tell me what to think and when to think it. Do you actually believe there are no campaign type ad hominem, less than truthful, commercials out there to "work on" the uneducated? Please.
What ad hominem are you referring to? Would you care to go back and read the entire thread here on APP once again?

[Damocles]

Whatever.

If you don't agree with someone, then any "rebuttal" they might present, no matter how well thought out or researched, you automatically discredit.

Ive been here 6 months and that is how it goes EVERY SINGLE TIME with you.

When are you going to drop the beard and just admit you're a Republican shill?
LOL. I wish I knew that much about people I've only known from contact on the internet for a few "months" where I have only participated for a few weeks... :rolleyes:

While I may scare up some opinion that counters theirs, I would take some time to explain my position.

And I have no shame in "admitting" I am a republican, but shill... Not even close. Maybe had I defended Bush's most egregious errors, maybe if I thought no republican could possibly do something wrong... But nether of those are true.

[Damocles]

The opinions are not what I'm disputing, I am saying his words are presented without quoting the subject limited "cites" directly or in context and therefore I suspect his motives. I would love to discuss the piece point by point, but that's not my point. Unlike some others aboard, I have opinions of my own and don't need others to express what I think for me or tell me what to think and when to think it. Do you actually believe there are no campaign type ad hominem, less than truthful, commercials out there to "work on" the uneducated? Please.
What ad hominem are you referring to? Would you care to go back and read the entire thread here on APP once again?
I believe that those commercials only work on the uninformed, which is what I stated. I have said that they don't work here, we're a bit more informed in these parts.

[belme1201]

No, Christie didn't provide any rebuttal, she simply listed the 'rebuttal' from the DNC propaganda machine. She didn't reason out her own opinion, she sipped it from the fountain of kool-aid. Either it's okay to "astroturf" for both sides, or it's time to find different sourcing.

I see, Fleckman is to be believed even though we know not who he is, BUT, if the source is a recognizable one whose positions are well known, the rebuttal is automatically rejected. What was the "reasoning of her own opinion" in post number one? Wasn't the original post a result of "astroturfing"?

[zappasguitar]

I see, Fleckman is to be believed even though we know not who he is, BUT, if the source is a recognizable one whose positions are well known, the rebuttal is automatically rejected. What was the "reasoning of her own opinion" in post number one? Wasn't the original post a result of "astroturfing"?

Round and round and round you go...

[Damocles]

I see, Fleckman is to be believed even though we know not who he is, BUT, if the source is a recognizable one whose positions are well known, the rebuttal is automatically rejected. What was the "reasoning of her own opinion" in post number one? Wasn't the original post a result of "astroturfing"?
Again, nobody said you should believe Fleckman, that is a straw man. We, myself and others on the thread, have asked that instead of attacking the source if you could attack the argument.

We understand you don't like the conciseness of what Fleckman said, let's get past that and get into the meat of the opinions.

[zappasguitar]

Again, nobody said you should believe Fleckman, that is a straw man. We, myself and others on the thread, have asked that instead of attacking the source if you could attack the argument.

We understand you don't like the conciseness of what Fleckman said, let's get past that and get into the meat of the opinions.


Right, and calling Christie a kool-aid drinker for the info in her rebuttal is attacking the argument and not the source.

[belme1201]

I believe that those commercials only work on the uninformed, which is what I stated. I have said that they don't work here, we're a bit more informed in these parts.

As they say, from your mouth to God's ears. I would not say always or never for anything, but, in my opinion, evidence here is that there are more exceptions to the above rule than you might think.

[Damocles]

Right, and calling Christie a kool-aid drinker for the info in her rebuttal is attacking the argument and not the source.
Her "rebuttal" was not hers, was not reasoned, it was simply bot-pasting the DNC propaganda. I will repeat that again too. Then Christie tried to defend her lack of ability to reason out an argument of her own by trying to distract to a different website and use the "they do it too" argument. She tried to mock with somebody else's propaganda rather than a reasoned argument of her own...

Although, if Christie had posted hers first and not used it in some sort of mock "rebuttal" I'd be mocking people that used Fleckman as a source of their rebuttal opinions...

[zappasguitar]

Her "rebuttal" was not hers, was not reasoned, it was simply bot-pasting the DNC propaganda. I will repeat that again too. Then Christie tried to defend her lack of ability to reason out an argument of her own by trying to distract to a different website and use the "they do it too" argument. She tried to mock with somebody else's opinion rather than a reasoned argument of her own...

And the original information/opinion posted by ID was her own?

Or was it "bot-pasted" from somewhere else?

[Damocles]

And the original information/opinion posted by ID was her own?

Or was it "bot-pasted" from somewhere else?
No, I will repeat it again, since you refuse to even quote it.

Had Christiefan posted hers first and others used Fleckman's opinion as rebuttal in this particular area where we are trying to encourage higher level debate I would mock those using Fleckman's opinion as their "rebuttal".

[belme1201]

Round and round and round you go...

and where it stops nobody knows, but everybody is so "well informed" here.

[Damocles]

and where it stops nobody knows, but everybody is so "well informed" here.
Straw man again. You seem to make a practice of that. I don't think the ads work on people here because we are better informed than those the ads target. Specifically the uninformed.

And yes, anybody that spends time on a political message board is more informed than almost any voter out there.

[christiefan915]

No, Christie didn't provide any rebuttal, she simply listed the 'rebuttal' from the DNC propaganda machine. She didn't reason out her own opinion, she sipped it from the fountain of kool-aid. Either it's okay to "astroturf" for both sides, or it's time to find different sourcing.

Um, ID didn't reason out her own opinion either, she posted Fleckbot's opinion with a link.

I give Fleckbot all the credibility I'd give any partisan poster on any forum.

[Damocles]

Um, ID didn't reason out her own opinion either, she posted Fleckbot's opinion with a link.

I give Fleckbot all the credibility I'd give any partisan poster on any forum.
And again, since you refuse to read and understand. Had yours not been a "rebuttal" I'd have been mocking the other side for being unable to debate the topic, rather sipping from the fountain of kool-aid. If this had been put forward to debate on merits then it would be taken as such, instead it was put forward in an attempt at mocking rebuttal.

[christiefan915]

fleckman explain what he thought the bill said and then gave cites

you just said....p. 436 wrong

quite different and if you don't know the difference i am not going to waste my time educating you....as apparently you just want to hang your hat on someone else's rebuttal instead of actually debating points yourself....

Then why aren't you picking apart Fleckbot's quotes and telling us why they're valid?

A tweet that reads: "Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!" or "OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investment" hardly indicates rigorous reasoning.

Please explain in your own words the comment "Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!", and why we should take this as truth.

[christiefan915]

And again, since you refuse to read and understand. Had yours not been a "rebuttal" I'd have been mocking the other side for being unable to debate the topic, rather sipping from the fountain of kool-aid. If this had been put forward to debate on merits then it would be taken as such, instead it was put forward in an attempt at mocking rebuttal.

Sorry, not mocking rebuttal but factual rebuttal. You just don't like the facts so you're going to turn it into a nit-picking farce, basically shooting the messenger.

[christiefan915]

Whatever.

If you don't agree with someone, then any "rebuttal" they might present, no matter how well thought out or researched, you automatically discredit.

Ive been here 6 months and that is how it goes EVERY SINGLE TIME with you.

When are you going to drop the beard and just admit you're a Republican shill?

You nailed it! Not one person picked out any of the facts in the post to criticize, just a lot of distraction about how those facts were presented.

[Damocles]

Sorry, not mocking rebuttal but factual rebuttal. You just don't like the facts so you're going to turn it into a nit-picking farce, basically shooting the messenger.
The attempt at mockery was clear in the title, any excuse when in a storm.

[christiefan915]

Again, nobody said you should believe Fleckman, that is a straw man. We, myself and others on the thread, have asked that instead of attacking the source if you could attack the argument.

We understand you don't like the conciseness of what Fleckman said, let's get past that and get into the meat of the opinions.

Okay.

Flackbot wrote: Pg. 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Govt. mandates linguistic approp. svcs. Example - Translation 4 illegal aliens.

Rebuttal: There isn't a single word in this bill that says illegal aliens will be covered.

Space for your rebuttal to the rebuttal:

[Bonestorm]

I haven't read this thread but the idea of reading and huge bill and posting your "findings" as to what the bill does in 140 characters or less is pretty funny.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I haven't read this thread but the idea of reading and huge bill and posting your "findings" as to what the bill does in 140 characters or less is pretty funny.

i see...but yet you support people voting for the bill even though they haven't read the full bill.....

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Then why aren't you picking apart Fleckbot's quotes and telling us why they're valid?

A tweet that reads: "Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!" or "OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investment" hardly indicates rigorous reasoning.

Please explain in your own words the comment "Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!", and why we should take this as truth.

as i said earlier in YOUR thread...i only had time to refute a few....i haven't had time to look over his cites...i looked over yours and you couldn't give me the time of day to respond....instead you whined and told me to go take it up with website you copied the stuff from...

wtf is a tweet?

[Cancel 2018. 3]

But ***Dancer hanging her hat on Fleckman's rebuttal is acceptable?

Christie provided rebuttals to every point made by this "Fleckman" character. If ID can use Fleckman's opinions as debating points, then why can't belme do the same?


No, Christie didn't provide any rebuttal, she simply listed the 'rebuttal' from the DNC propaganda machine. She didn't reason out her own opinion, she sipped it from the fountain of kool-aid. Either it's okay to "astroturf" for both sides, or it's time to find different sourcing.

atually i was taking to belme and she did not even offer a cite....she merely said:

wrong....

and claimed that was what fleckman did...that is false...fleckman reasoned a response, he did not simply say right or wrong....i don't care if someone uses a reasoned rebuttal from someone else, just don't whine that others won't rebut what you say...belme then in post 41 understood this and gave more of her or his reasoned thoughts

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I am saying what you should understand, that opinion without supplying proper evidence is to be doubted, particularly from an unknown source. Being opinion in itself means there can be divergence. My issue is not what he has said but the fact that just supplying the locations at random and not exact quotes in context, in my mind, makes his conclusions suspect.
I don't expect you to swallow my OPINION, just as, for the above reasons, I do not swallow Fleckman's OPINION, which you expect me to accept as fact. Knowing where he seems to be coming from politically and watching what I have seen for the past few days, leaves me with the conclusion that his findings are likely to be thrown in the same dung pile as death panels, infanticide, icebergs, and bureaucrats in the exam room, etc.

he actually provided page numbers and on some more specific issues line numbers....i consider that specific....and not at all suspect....you can either read the page or page and line number and make your opinion....

he has given ample citation for you or anyone else to be able to counter his opinions....and when i have time i will go through some and counter if see anything that needs countering....if i feel like it

[ib1yysguy]

Here is a link to the the most egregious portions of the Health Care bill H.R. 3200. On this page is also a direct link to the entire bill.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/walnut-ridge-ar/TTPG4LRBUTDT15K2R



BELOW IS A SAMPLING

Peter Fleckstein (aka Fleckman) is reading it and has been posting on Twitter his findings. This is from his postings (Note: All comments are Fleckman's)

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!
Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits u get
Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!
Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose UR HC Benefits 4 you. U have no choice!
PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided 2 ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise
Pg 58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access 2 individs finances & a National ID Healthcard will b issued!
Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access 2 ur banks accts 4 elect. funds transfer
PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan 4 retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).
Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange 2 bring priv HC plans under Govt control.
PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs 4 priv. HC plans in the Exchange
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration ur Healthcare!
PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Govt mandates linguistic approp svcs. Example - Translation 4 illegal aliens
Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps 2 sign up indiv. for Govt HC plan
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs of Ben Levels 4 Plans.#AARP members - U Health care WILL b rationed
-PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Indiv. will b automat.enrolled in Medicaid. No choice
pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt Monop
pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/#AMA - The Govt will tell YOU what u can make.
Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into pub opt plan. NO CHOICE
Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay 4 HC 4 part time employees AND their families.

Another bullshit dump so think it discourages any attempt to refute it because it's hard to imagine anyone looks at it and takes it seriously.

Look at this guys analyses. Somehow translation services means illegals. The bit about government telling doctors what to make? Also total bullshit. They're paying more than even medicare, AND IT ONLY APPLIES TO THE PUBLIC FRIKKING OPTION not all the private coverage you can buy. The health care exchange to bring private plans under government control? That just proves this is all total bullshit and this guy has no fucking idea what he'st alkign about.

How can anyone look at this and find it convincing of anything but the fact that a retarded guy wrote it based on a bill he couldn't understand when he read it.

[Damocles]

The following post is my opinion on the areas that Feckman listed. Since I have time when I get home to read the huge bill and tell you my opinion I waited until I was home...

The sampling...




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


This isn't quite a truth, in fact it studies the types of insurance given and how it might effect the large pools created by those in regular insurance. Only companies that were selected to be in the study would receive this type of attention. This also studies insurance companies to see how they are effected, these too would receive this attention.



Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits u get

This is true, IMO, the "advisory" committee is such that it can make choices based on costs as to what kinds of care you get at what time.



Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!


This part sets limits for the first tier of coverage. The bill separates care into three levels, "Essential" is the first level and this sets limits for that particular level of care to be adjusted in the future according to the Consumer Price Index. It also sets your copay to 30% of the actuarial tables as coverage is limited to 70%. (I will tell you, this level of coverage bites. When my wife had our first bio-child her costs more than quintupled the limits for a "family" on this plan and that was quite some time ago).



Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose UR HC Benefits 4 you. U have no choice!

True, but in reality it is no different than a company offering you their selected insurance benefits, you really don't have a "choice". In this case you could choose to pay more for a better level of benefits, from basic "essential" coverage to "premium" coverage.



PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided 2 ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise


The section guarantees that health care will be provided equally regardless of any extemporaneous qualities of the person. It does, however, exempt this rule from other sections of the bill, which are not evident here. It may not provide insurance to illegals, but I can't really see them taking away care for them.



Pg 58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access 2 individs finances & a National ID Healthcard will b issued!

This is one of the parts I have problems with. Whether it is their intention, this is definitely capable of becoming a national identification card that also links to your financial information. While I see that they are looking for fast paybacks and "near real time" transactions I see it as a huge, and unnecessary, invasion of privacy, no current insurance provider has access to this level of information.



Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access 2 ur banks accts 4 elect. funds transfer


This is actually written to happen in both ways, they'll take the payments directly from your accounts. Another thing I dislike. It does not speak to elective fund transfers in this area on this page, but it would be my hope that they would allow you to choose how you want to pay rather than just suck the funds from your accounts.



PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan 4 retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).

This pays reimbursement for coverage of those in a retirement plan if they meet requirements listed by the legislation.

Basically it begins to reimburse the organization for costs related to insurance for those who are retired. People who now have coverage through retirement would see no benefit from this, but the organizations that provide the coverage would, for sure, receive a reimbursement for costs they do not currently receive reimbursement for, I'd say this is true as it starts giving them money for what they would normally pay. Nor does this move them into coverage under any of the government approved insurance coverages it just simply starts reimbursing for what they would normally cover.



Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange 2 bring priv HC plans under Govt control.


I think we've already discussed this. This is also the part that some have listed as the place that forces you to take the government controlled option.



PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs 4 priv. HC plans in the Exchange

this area specifies four levels of coverage they can offer, all contingent on offering the previous level. If you offer the basic plan you can offer the Enhanced plan, if you offer the Enhanced plan you can offer the Premium plan, and if you offer the Premium plan you can offer a Premium plus plan.

No company could offer a Premium plan only, or an Enhanced plan only, they must offer the Basic plan to be able to offer the next tier up and so forth. Levels of coverage will be set so that you can select the basic plan and know exactly what coverages you will get. "Premium Plus" offers dental and vision coverage as well as medical coverage and only if approved by the Commissioner. As far as I can tell there would be no oral health or vision offered to adults under any of the government plans.



PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration ur Healthcare!

This talks about the levels of coverage for each of the tiers of insurance provided.



PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Govt mandates linguistic approp svcs. Example - Translation 4 illegal aliens

That could be one example, if the coverage is indeed inclusive of illegal immigrants. I haven't yet seen that they are covered.

However health care providers are already required to get translators for illegal immigrants I very much doubt that this would change.

It also could include such things as female doctors for muslim women and male doctors for muslim men and other cultural issues that may arise as well as linguistic challenges. It doesn't say that full effort must be made, just that linguistic services will be provided. I don't know what happens if they are in an area without a translator available or if they are very rural and cultural necessities may not be available.



Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps 2 sign up indiv. for Govt HC plan


True, outreach programs.



PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs of Ben Levels 4 Plans.#AARP members - U Health care WILL b rationed


This is a repeat of one I did earlier.



-PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Indiv. will b automat.enrolled in Medicaid. No choice

True, you will be automatically enrolled into this under this provision.

It says: "(3) AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT OF MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS INTO MEDICAID.—The Commissioner shall provide for a process under which an individual who is described in section 202(d)(3) and has not elected to enroll in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is automatically enrolled under Medicaid."



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

True, it specifically says there shall be "no judicial review" of any of the payment rate or methodology.



pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/#AMA - The Govt will tell YOU what u can make.

I see nothing in this that says they could choose to charge more at any time, to be eligible they must agree to accept the government levels as payment in full (of course they'd get the copay up front).



Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into pub opt plan. NO CHOICE


The employee would have a choice to pay for the enhanced, premium, or premium plus... and the only choice for the employer would be either this or the self-covered insurance for which they may end up being part of the "study" that will look through their books and check into levels of coverage...

[christiefan915]

as i said earlier in YOUR thread...i only had time to refute a few....i haven't had time to look over his cites...i looked over yours and you couldn't give me the time of day to respond....instead you whined and told me to go take it up with website you copied the stuff from...

wtf is a tweet?

I responded to you over 6 hours ago. For some reason you managed to comment on other posts on the same thread but "overlooked" mine. :rolleyes:

Twitter is a social network using IM's of 140 words or less in each message, or "tweet".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter

[christiefan915]

i see...but yet you support people voting for the bill even though they haven't read the full bill.....

Where's your link showing that they haven't read the full bill? :pke:

[belme1201]

i see...but yet you support people voting for the bill even though they haven't read the full bill.....




......but yet you support people making wild, unfounded charges about the bill....."even though they haven't read the full bill."

[cancel2 2022]

I responded to you over 6 hours ago. For some reason you managed to comment on other posts on the same thread but "overlooked" mine. :rolleyes:

Twitter is a social network using IM's of 140 words or less in each message, or "tweet".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter

It's amazing that he has never heard of Twitter.

[cancel2 2022]

The following post is my opinion on the areas that Feckman listed. Since I have time when I get home to read the huge bill and tell you my opinion I waited until I was home...

The sampling...



This isn't quite a truth, in fact it studies the types of insurance given and how it might effect the large pools created by those in regular insurance. Only companies that were selected to be in the study would receive this type of attention. This also studies insurance companies to see how they are effected, these too would receive this attention.


This is true, IMO, the "advisory" committee is such that it can make choices based on costs as to what kinds of care you get at what time.



This part sets limits for the first tier of coverage. The bill separates care into three levels, "Essential" is the first level and this sets limits for that particular level of care to be adjusted in the future according to the Consumer Price Index. It also sets your copay to 30% of the actuarial tables as coverage is limited to 70%. (I will tell you, this level of coverage bites. When my wife had our first bio-child her costs more than quintupled the limits for a "family" on this plan and that was quite some time ago).


True, but in reality it is no different than a company offering you their selected insurance benefits, you really don't have a "choice". In this case you could choose to pay more for a better level of benefits, from basic "essential" coverage to "premium" coverage.



The section guarantees that health care will be provided equally regardless of any extemporaneous qualities of the person. It does, however, exempt this rule from other sections of the bill, which are not evident here. It may not provide insurance to illegals, but I can't really see them taking away care for them.


This is one of the parts I have problems with. Whether it is their intention, this is definitely capable of becoming a national identification card that also links to your financial information. While I see that they are looking for fast paybacks and "near real time" transactions I see it as a huge, and unnecessary, invasion of privacy, no current insurance provider has access to this level of information.



This is actually written to happen in both ways, they'll take the payments directly from your accounts. Another thing I dislike. It does not speak to elective fund transfers in this area on this page, but it would be my hope that they would allow you to choose how you want to pay rather than just suck the funds from your accounts.


This pays reimbursement for coverage of those in a retirement plan if they meet requirements listed by the legislation.

Basically it begins to reimburse the organization for costs related to insurance for those who are retired. People who now have coverage through retirement would see no benefit from this, but the organizations that provide the coverage would, for sure, receive a reimbursement for costs they do not currently receive reimbursement for, I'd say this is true as it starts giving them money for what they would normally pay. Nor does this move them into coverage under any of the government approved insurance coverages it just simply starts reimbursing for what they would normally cover.



I think we've already discussed this. This is also the part that some have listed as the place that forces you to take the government controlled option.


this area specifies four levels of coverage they can offer, all contingent on offering the previous level. If you offer the basic plan you can offer the Enhanced plan, if you offer the Enhanced plan you can offer the Premium plan, and if you offer the Premium plan you can offer a Premium plus plan.

No company could offer a Premium plan only, or an Enhanced plan only, they must offer the Basic plan to be able to offer the next tier up and so forth. Levels of coverage will be set so that you can select the basic plan and know exactly what coverages you will get. "Premium Plus" offers dental and vision coverage as well as medical coverage and only if approved by the Commissioner. As far as I can tell there would be no oral health or vision offered to adults under any of the government plans.


This talks about the levels of coverage for each of the tiers of insurance provided.


That could be one example, if the coverage is indeed inclusive of illegal immigrants. I haven't yet seen that they are covered.

However health care providers are already required to get translators for illegal immigrants I very much doubt that this would change.

It also could include such things as female doctors for muslim women and male doctors for muslim men and other cultural issues that may arise as well as linguistic challenges. It doesn't say that full effort must be made, just that linguistic services will be provided. I don't know what happens if they are in an area without a translator available or if they are very rural and cultural necessities may not be available.



True, outreach programs.



This is a repeat of one I did earlier.


True, you will be automatically enrolled into this under this provision.

It says: "(3) AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT OF MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS INTO MEDICAID.—The Commissioner shall provide for a process under which an individual who is described in section 202(d)(3) and has not elected to enroll in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is automatically enrolled under Medicaid."


True, it specifically says there shall be "no judicial review" of any of the payment rate or methodology.


I see nothing in this that says they could choose to charge more at any time, to be eligible they must agree to accept the government levels as payment in full (of course they'd get the copay up front).



The employee would have a choice to pay for the enhanced, premium, or premium plus... and the only choice for the employer would be either this or the self-covered insurance for which they may end up being part of the "study" that will look through their books and check into levels of coverage...

What's a bio-child?

[TuTu Monroe]

......but yet you support people making wild, unfounded charges about the bill....."even though they haven't read the full bill."

Polly want a cracker, Polly want a cracker????? Squawk, squawk!!

[Damocles]

What's a bio-child?
One that isn't adopted, I have two children we had biologically, one that is adopted.

[cancel2 2022]

Polly want a cracker, Polly want a cracker????? Squawk, squawk!!

The most intelligent thing she has said in a long time, makes a change from her parroting statistics gleaned from blogs.

[Canceled2]

The following post is my opinion on the areas that Feckman listed. Since I have time when I get home to read the huge bill and tell you my opinion I waited until I was home...

The sampling...



This isn't quite a truth, in fact it studies the types of insurance given and how it might effect the large pools created by those in regular insurance. Only companies that were selected to be in the study would receive this type of attention. This also studies insurance companies to see how they are effected, these too would receive this attention.


This is true, IMO, the "advisory" committee is such that it can make choices based on costs as to what kinds of care you get at what time.



This part sets limits for the first tier of coverage. The bill separates care into three levels, "Essential" is the first level and this sets limits for that particular level of care to be adjusted in the future according to the Consumer Price Index. It also sets your copay to 30% of the actuarial tables as coverage is limited to 70%. (I will tell you, this level of coverage bites. When my wife had our first bio-child her costs more than quintupled the limits for a "family" on this plan and that was quite some time ago).


True, but in reality it is no different than a company offering you their selected insurance benefits, you really don't have a "choice". In this case you could choose to pay more for a better level of benefits, from basic "essential" coverage to "premium" coverage.



The section guarantees that health care will be provided equally regardless of any extemporaneous qualities of the person. It does, however, exempt this rule from other sections of the bill, which are not evident here. It may not provide insurance to illegals, but I can't really see them taking away care for them.


This is one of the parts I have problems with. Whether it is their intention, this is definitely capable of becoming a national identification card that also links to your financial information. While I see that they are looking for fast paybacks and "near real time" transactions I see it as a huge, and unnecessary, invasion of privacy, no current insurance provider has access to this level of information.



This is actually written to happen in both ways, they'll take the payments directly from your accounts. Another thing I dislike. It does not speak to elective fund transfers in this area on this page, but it would be my hope that they would allow you to choose how you want to pay rather than just suck the funds from your accounts.


This pays reimbursement for coverage of those in a retirement plan if they meet requirements listed by the legislation.

Basically it begins to reimburse the organization for costs related to insurance for those who are retired. People who now have coverage through retirement would see no benefit from this, but the organizations that provide the coverage would, for sure, receive a reimbursement for costs they do not currently receive reimbursement for, I'd say this is true as it starts giving them money for what they would normally pay. Nor does this move them into coverage under any of the government approved insurance coverages it just simply starts reimbursing for what they would normally cover.



I think we've already discussed this. This is also the part that some have listed as the place that forces you to take the government controlled option.


this area specifies four levels of coverage they can offer, all contingent on offering the previous level. If you offer the basic plan you can offer the Enhanced plan, if you offer the Enhanced plan you can offer the Premium plan, and if you offer the Premium plan you can offer a Premium plus plan.

No company could offer a Premium plan only, or an Enhanced plan only, they must offer the Basic plan to be able to offer the next tier up and so forth. Levels of coverage will be set so that you can select the basic plan and know exactly what coverages you will get. "Premium Plus" offers dental and vision coverage as well as medical coverage and only if approved by the Commissioner. As far as I can tell there would be no oral health or vision offered to adults under any of the government plans.


This talks about the levels of coverage for each of the tiers of insurance provided.


That could be one example, if the coverage is indeed inclusive of illegal immigrants. I haven't yet seen that they are covered.

However health care providers are already required to get translators for illegal immigrants I very much doubt that this would change.

It also could include such things as female doctors for muslim women and male doctors for muslim men and other cultural issues that may arise as well as linguistic challenges. It doesn't say that full effort must be made, just that linguistic services will be provided. I don't know what happens if they are in an area without a translator available or if they are very rural and cultural necessities may not be available.



True, outreach programs.



This is a repeat of one I did earlier.


True, you will be automatically enrolled into this under this provision.

It says: "(3) AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT OF MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS INTO MEDICAID.—The Commissioner shall provide for a process under which an individual who is described in section 202(d)(3) and has not elected to enroll in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is automatically enrolled under Medicaid."


True, it specifically says there shall be "no judicial review" of any of the payment rate or methodology.


I see nothing in this that says they could choose to charge more at any time, to be eligible they must agree to accept the government levels as payment in full (of course they'd get the copay up front).



The employee would have a choice to pay for the enhanced, premium, or premium plus... and the only choice for the employer would be either this or the self-covered insurance for which they may end up being part of the "study" that will look through their books and check into levels of coverage...

Great job Damo! As to which companies are selected to study? I did not read that a "sampling" would be done?
Yesterday a talk radio discussion took place with a local congressman; McDermott WA. He was confronted by a caller who asked "what company wouldn’t take advantage of the government plan?” The government plan is undercutting payroll percentages in some cases by as much as 1/2 of what employers are paying private insurers! This means we could see a huge dumping of employee's into the public system causing a potential economic crisis that will make our latest dance with economic disaster seem like a waltz. McDermott could not come up with a reason why this won't happen...and he's a pro HC democrat!

[Damocles]

Great job Damo! As to which companies are selected to study? I did not read that a "sampling" would be done?
Yesterday a talk radio discussion took place with a local congressman; McDermott WA. He was confronted by a caller who asked "what company wouldn’t take advantage of the government plan?” The government plan is undercutting payroll percentages in some cases by as much as 1/2 of what employers are paying private insurers! This means we could see a huge dumping of employee's into the public system causing a potential economic crisis that will make our latest dance with economic disaster seem like a waltz. McDermott could not come up with a reason why this won't happen...and he's a pro HC democrat!
It says that they'll select some of those who are self-insured and some that aren't to involuntarily participate in a study that will survey the effects of self-insured on the pools created by the insurance companies (and the new government pool). It is specifically done to verify that there isn't any incentive to self-insure, they want to create an incentive to use one of their approved coverages.

[Canceled2]

It says that they'll select some of those who are self-insured and some that aren't to involuntarily participate in a study that will survey the effects of self-insured on the pools created by the insurance companies (and the new government pool). It is specifically done to verify that there isn't any incentive to self-insure, they want to create an incentive to use one of their approved coverages.

Their "approved coverages?"

[Damocles]

Their "approved coverages?"
Yes, in order to become approved and part of the list of companies that they'll allow you to select there are specific coverages you must have. First you must have the basic coverage that is 70% paid by the insurance 30% by you with a $5000 deductible for singles and a $10,000 deductible for families. Then they have the "enhanced", the "Premium" and finally (only the private companies have this one) the "Premium Plus". For each of the tiers it is required that you provide the level before it.

The only coverage for dental and eye care for adults is in the "Premium Plus" plan that can be offered only if you offer all three of the other plans.

I do not know what this will do to current eye and dental insurance companies, if anything at all. But if they are included in this "no new customers" requirement that forces you onto their approved coverage lists it will simply make them go the way of the dinosaur.

[PostmodernProphet]

it will simply make them go the way of the dinosaur.
lords I wish I could get the liberals on this board to recognize that fact.....

[belme1201]

Polly want a cracker, Polly want a cracker????? Squawk, squawk!!



"yep"

[belme1201]

Yes, in order to become approved and part of the list of companies that they'll allow you to select there are specific coverages you must have. First you must have the basic coverage that is 70% paid by the insurance 30% by you with a $5000 deductible for singles and a $10,000 deductible for families. Then they have the "enhanced", the "Premium" and finally (only the private companies have this one) the "Premium Plus". For each of the tiers it is required that you provide the level before it.

The only coverage for dental and eye care for adults is in the "Premium Plus" plan that can be offered only if you offer all three of the other plans.

I do not know what this will do to current eye and dental insurance companies, if anything at all. But if they are included in this "no new customers" requirement that forces you onto their approved coverage lists it will simply make them go the way of the dinosaur.

Having seen some of the policies available for dental and eye care, most by carriers other than the usual health carriers, that may not be so bad, particularly when made a part of over all coverage by a reputable carrier.

[Damocles]

Having seen some of the policies available for dental and eye care, most by carriers other than the usual health carriers, that may not be so bad, particularly when made a part of over all coverage by a reputable carrier.
It would be bad. How many jobs are you willing to sacrifice on this altar? It doesn't matter how bad it gets we can all pretend it is "better" than what we have. This isn't even close to better than what we have, it isn't even as good as the first health insurance plan I had working at a gas station.

We can come up with a better solution than this, let's bridge it by expanding Medicare and adding graduated payments systems to cover the gap until we find that better solution. No need to rush into this craptacular piece of legislation that even my cat wouldn't deign to cover in his sandbox.

[belme1201]

It would be bad. How many jobs are you willing to sacrifice on this altar? It doesn't matter how bad it gets we can all pretend it is "better" than what we have. This isn't even close to better than what we have, it isn't even as good as the first health insurance plan I had working at a gas station.

We can come up with a better solution than this, let's bridge it by expanding Medicare and adding graduated payments systems to cover the gap until we find that better solution. No need to rush into this craptacular piece of legislation that even my cat wouldn't deign to cover in his sandbox.




I agree, Medicare for all with Congressional plans optional. No Donut Hole. No special rules for pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, banks, or creditors. No limitations on importation of approved drugs. No multi-million dollar salaries or billion dollar stock options added to the cost of healthcare. No advertising that ultimately raises the cost of a drug. No lobbying. No exceptions.

[TuTu Monroe]

lords I wish I could get the liberals on this board to recognize that fact.....

Forget it, they are too programmed to think any other way.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Forget it, they are too programmed to think any other way.

explain to me how pmp's statement is a fact.....i really want to know

i want you to explain it to me

[PostmodernProphet]

explain to me how pmp's statement is a fact.....i really want to know

i want you to explain it to me

why don't you read Damo's post again.....it's exactly what I have been trying to get across to you for two days.....

[Cancel 2018. 3]

why don't you read Damo's post again.....it's exactly what I have been trying to get across to you for two days.....

wuss

[PostmodernProphet]

wuss

???...why, you think you would understand it better if I explained it to you a sixth time?......you simply aren't going to accept it from me, you need to hear it from someone you think is "credible"......

[Cancel 2018. 3]

???...why, you think you would understand it better if I explained it to you a sixth time?......you simply aren't going to accept it from me, you need to hear it from someone you think is "credible"......

you can't explain it, so you fall back.....

oh the sixth time....geeee....i've told you "six" times that what you think the bill says....i don't see....i have asked you "six" times to explain it to me....now all you have is.......

nothing....you can't explain it any other way, so you mock me for not understanding you....nice try....but that doesn't cut it

[Damocles]

I agree, Medicare for all with Congressional plans optional. No Donut Hole. No special rules for pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, banks, or creditors. No limitations on importation of approved drugs. No multi-million dollar salaries or billion dollar stock options added to the cost of healthcare. No advertising that ultimately raises the cost of a drug. No lobbying. No exceptions.
No, just cover the doughnut hole as an interim solution while we find out where the false increase in cost is.

[PostmodernProphet]

you can't explain it, so you fall back.....

oh the sixth time....geeee....i've told you "six" times that what you think the bill says....i don't see....i have asked you "six" times to explain it to me....now all you have is.......

nothing....you can't explain it any other way, so you mock me for not understanding you....nice try....but that doesn't cut it

???...does ignoring six explanations "cut it"?.....what about the analogy to the building industry....did you even bother to respond to it?....did you even bother to read it?.....or did you just reject it and say I didn't try....asking me to try again.....

[Cancel 2018. 3]

???...does ignoring six explanations "cut it"?.....what about the analogy to the building industry....did you even bother to respond to it?....did you even bother to read it?.....or did you just reject it and say I didn't try....asking me to try again.....

what are you talking about?

if you have something you said to me and i didn't respond to, link it

else you're doing exactly what i said you're doing....claiming victory with no further discourse

[belme1201]

No, just cover the doughnut hole as an interim solution while we find out where the false increase in cost is.

The Donut Hole is the biggest problem and everything else can wait?
The Donut Hole only applies to those who signed on to Part D, fools that they were.
In 1994 the GOP and the industry defeated the bill and then presented us with the Donut Hole and a $500 billion additional Medicare bill as tokens of their appreciation. They then went on to fix nothing. However, their profits and stock prices soared so nothing was lost for the money they spent on Harry and Louise and other lies.
I wonder what their gift will be to us for the debate in 2024. I pray that those so firmly in opposition now and their families have the luxury of the total experience of today's healthcare system by then, because by then it very well may be too late. That will be divine justice.
Is it possible that the for-profit factor could be somewhat responsible for the "false increase in cost"?

[TuTu Monroe]

The Donut Hole is the biggest problem and everything else can wait?
The Donut Hole only applies to those who signed on to Part D, fools that they were.
In 1994 the GOP and the industry defeated the bill and then presented us with the Donut Hole and a $500 billion additional Medicare bill as tokens of their appreciation. They then went on to fix nothing. However, their profits and stock prices soared so nothing was lost for the money they spent on Harry and Louise and other lies.
I wonder what their gift will be to us for the debate in 2024. I pray that those so firmly in opposition now and their families have the luxury of the total experience of today's healthcare system by then, because by then it very well may be too late. That will be divine justice.
Is it possible that the for-profit factor could be somewhat responsible for the "false increase in cost"?

No, the first thing we have to do is to control the fraud and waste in Medicare and Medicaid, which is costing us billions of dollars per year.

[Damocles]

The Donut Hole is the biggest problem and everything else can wait?
The Donut Hole only applies to those who signed on to Part D, fools that they were.
In 1994 the GOP and the industry defeated the bill and then presented us with the Donut Hole and a $500 billion additional Medicare bill as tokens of their appreciation. They then went on to fix nothing. However, their profits and stock prices soared so nothing was lost for the money they spent on Harry and Louise and other lies.
I wonder what their gift will be to us for the debate in 2024. I pray that those so firmly in opposition now and their families have the luxury of the total experience of today's healthcare system by then, because by then it very well may be too late. That will be divine justice.
Is it possible that the for-profit factor could be somewhat responsible for the "false increase in cost"?
Yes, that is the problem as described so consistently by Obama during the campaign and now. However that is not "the biggest problem" IMO, the biggest problem is the unprecedented increase in cost. We can find it and cure it.

The problem that I see with your solution is trusting in the altruism of government. Changing to one faceless bureaucracy that excludes itself from lawsuits from a different group of ones that cannot is not an improvement.

[belme1201]

No, the first thing we have to do is to control the fraud and waste in Medicare and Medicaid, which is costing us billions of dollars per year.

The fraud and waste is from private sector abuse of the Medicare System. What controls do you suggest? Prison and loss of license to practice would be fine with me, any chance?

[belme1201]

Yes, that is the problem as described so consistently by Obama during the campaign and now. However that is not "the biggest problem" IMO, the biggest problem is the unprecedented increase in cost. We can find it and cure it.

The problem that I see with your solution is trusting in the altruism of government. Changing to one faceless bureaucracy that excludes itself from lawsuits from a different group of ones that cannot is not an improvement.


Which is more unrealistic, my trust in the altruism of government or your trust in the altruism of the for-profit private sector and the GOP?
I have the experience of the past 15 years as evidence. We have already tested the alternative of waiting or, in other words, doing nothing, it failed.

I asked if you thought the private, for-profit motivation 'might' have an effect on the "unprecedented increase in cost". Isn't the price of their stock, increased profits, and skyrocketing exec remuneration coming out of the healthcare system?

[ib1yysguy]

If you want a comparison of private vs public run healthcare, look at Medicare vs Medicare Advantage for a modern example. Tell me which one is more wasteful, which one more fraud ridden, and which one costs more for the people it insures and you'll have answered the question of which sector does a better job with health insurance.

[belme1201]

If you want a comparison of private vs public run healthcare, look at Medicare vs Medicare Advantage for a modern example. Tell me which one is more wasteful, which one more fraud ridden, and which one costs more for the people it insures and you'll have answered the question of which sector does a better job with health insurance.




The Mayo Clinic has no problem taking Medicare, they dropped Medicare Advantage months ago leaving those who made the choice of taking it with far poorer choices in this area. Whose idea was that? 2 guesses! Just another private sector boondoggle from the G..you know who.

[Canceled2]

The fraud and waste is from private sector abuse of the Medicare System. What controls do you suggest? Prison and loss of license to practice would be fine with me, any chance?

No it is not. The waste in bureaucratic red tape and errors in billing and administration of benefits is a large part of the problem as well. Why; because government rarely manages well and really screws it up when it is invested where it should not be.

What we need is comprehensive reform that regulates the Free Market while not stifling it. Tax breaks for business and those who purchase healthcare for themselves and their families. Things like deregulation that creates portable coverage. We need to pass Tort reform that really matters, as opposed to the straw man that libs make it out to be. And last but not least, a complete overhaul of the single most wasteful program government manages...Medicare!

[TuTu Monroe]

The fraud and waste is from private sector abuse of the Medicare System. What controls do you suggest? Prison and loss of license to practice would be fine with me, any chance?

The problem with the system is not just the abuse of the private sector, but Medicare itself. We need to revamp our system so we can catch the abuse before it does the damage. If a business runs their business like Medicare and Medicaid does, they wouldn't be in business very long. Obama proposed an additional $313 billion in cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and other programs to pay for health care.

[Damocles]

Which is more unrealistic, my trust in the altruism of government or your trust in the altruism of the for-profit private sector and the GOP?
I have the experience of the past 15 years as evidence. We have already tested the alternative of waiting or, in other words, doing nothing, it failed.

I asked if you thought the private, for-profit motivation 'might' have an effect on the "unprecedented increase in cost". Isn't the price of their stock, increased profits, and skyrocketing exec remuneration coming out of the healthcare system?
Again, the ability to sue shows no trust in the altruism of the company, just an understanding that we may keep them honest, the inclusion of the exclusion from lawsuits from the government program makes it clear that my mistrust is well founded.

And I answered that there is some things good (implication of some things bad) in both ways to do this, and that I prefer what comes good from the "profit-based" system, I even gave examples.

[belme1201]

Again, the ability to sue shows no trust in the altruism of the company, just an understanding that we may keep them honest, the inclusion of the exclusion from lawsuits from the government program makes it clear that my mistrust is well founded.

And I answered that there is some things good (implication of some things bad) in both ways to do this, and that I prefer what comes good from the "profit-based" system, I even gave examples.

How will the usual GOP drumbeat for tort reform, if accomplished, keep the companies MORE honest? I still don't understand how huge increases in profits, stock prices, and executive compensation can possibly have a positive influence on healthcare costs. I will place my trust in a public option this time around because the private sector and your party choice have failed us since 1994. It's time for them to move over lest we delay action for 15 more years. I understand your position and it is on your last point that we differ.

[belme1201]

[QUOTE=TuTu Monroe;492900]The problem with the system is not just the abuse of the private sector, but Medicare itself. We need to revamp our system so we can catch the abuse before it does the damage. If a business runs their business like Medicare and Medicaid does, they wouldn't be in business very long. Obama proposed an additional $313 billion in cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and other programs to pay for health care.[/



Statistics have shown time and again that Medicare is operated more efficiently than the private sector and its participents are more likely to be pleased with it. Of course the GOP would like to revamp or destroy Medicare, it is an example of how wrong they've been for years.
The GOP added an additional 1/2 trillion dollar tab when they didn't fund Part D in the same manner that they didn't fund the Iraq War, thus tapping into the suplus. They then forbade it from negotiating for lower drug prices as do the VA and the private sector, driving up Medicare costs even more. Your friends throw up the road blocks and then complain about the results of those roadblocks! I should add they also made me a law breaker by saying I can't buy prescriptions from the cheapest sources available to me.(There go the GOP "free enterprise, free trade" arguments.)
I asked how you would handle the FRAUD which is overwhelmingly from the private sector.(Those great GOP bastians of Texas and South Florida being the areas of the greatest fraud. Coincidence?) Please direct me to the source for the "$313 billion in Medicare cuts." Are there expansions in other areas or are they new efficiencies?

[belme1201]

No it is not. The waste in bureaucratic red tape and errors in billing and administration of benefits is a large part of the problem as well. Why; because government rarely manages well and really screws it up when it is invested where it should not be.

What we need is comprehensive reform that regulates the Free Market while not stifling it. Tax breaks for business and those who purchase healthcare for themselves and their families. Things like deregulation that creates portable coverage. We need to pass Tort reform that really matters, as opposed to the straw man that libs make it out to be. And last but not least, a complete overhaul of the single most wasteful program government manages...Medicare!

The fact remains that the greatest amount of abuse comes from the private sector. If you mean to add additional inspectors to investigate the fraud, I'm for it. It is also a fact that Medicare is operated in a more effficient, at a lower cost to patient ratio than the private sector.
Tax Breaks, Supply Side?
"Tort Reform", when was the last time those who scream about it the loudest produced numbers to show what the resulting savings would be? Could it be a politically expedient red herring? What is fair tort reform when it comes to medical catastrophes?
Do you include fraud against Medicare in your "single most wasteful" comment? Also arguable.

[Damocles]

How will the usual GOP drumbeat for tort reform, if accomplished, keep the companies MORE honest? I still don't understand how huge increases in profits, stock prices, and executive compensation can possibly have a positive influence on healthcare costs. I will place my trust in a public option this time around because the private sector and your party choice have failed us since 1994. It's time for them to move over lest we delay action for 15 more years. I understand your position and it is on your last point that we differ.
Where have you heard cries for tort reform against insurance agencies? They want reform for the doctors not the insurance companies.

However, I'm willing to give up on "tort reform" (never wanted it anyway) to be able to have a system where the consumer has a check they can apply to it rather than have it specifically exempted from any recourse.

[zappasguitar]

The fact remains that the greatest amount of abuse comes from the private sector. If you mean to add additional inspectors to investigate the fraud, I'm for it. It is also a fact that Medicare is operated in a more effficient, at a lower cost to patient ratio than the private sector.
Tax Breaks, Supply Side?
"Tort Reform", when was the last time those who scream about it the loudest produced numbers to show what the resulting savings would be? Could it be a politically expedient red herring? What is fair tort reform when it comes to medical catastrophes?
Do you include fraud against Medicare in your "single most wasteful" comment? Also arguable.

Oh yeah, the conservatives here in Texas told us a few years ago if we voted for tort reform, then Doctor's Malparctice insurance would come down, bringing with it the price of health insurance.

Well, it got voted in, and guess what? Not only did Doctors NOT pass their saving on to their patients, but health insurance rates have risen every single year since, and are predicted to rise by as much as 40% THIS YEAR ALONE!

[Damocles]

Oh yeah, the conservatives here in Texas told us a few years ago if we voted for tort reform, then Doctor's Malparctice insurance would come down, bringing with it the price of health insurance.

Well, it got voted in, and guess what? Not only did Doctors NOT pass their saving on to their patients, but health insurance rates have risen every single year since, and are predicted to rise by as much as 40% THIS YEAR ALONE!
Yup. And this tells me that there is some hidden "cost" that is being passed on and will continue to be passed on with the government program. Covering the cost rather than dealing with it will bankrupt us.

Tort reform seems foolish to me if you do it by capping "rewards". It would be best to have losses covered by the side who loses, it would give incentives to fight false lawsuits rather than settle and incentive not to file frivolous lawsuits. One thing that I know, exempting the only available coverage from lawsuits certainly isn't beneficial to the consumer.

[zappasguitar]

Yup. And this tells me that there is some hidden "cost" that is being passed on and will continue to be passed on with the government program. Covering the cost rather than dealing with it will bankrupt us.

Tort reform seems foolish to me if you do it by capping "rewards". It would be best to have losses covered by the side who loses, it would give incentives to fight false lawsuits rather than settle and incentive not to file frivolous lawsuits. One thing that I know, exempting the only available coverage from lawsuits certainly isn't beneficial to the consumer.

NO, this tells us that despite all their pious claims that they will do right by you and me if only we get rid of all those pesky regulations, insurance companies will not make any real attempt at lowering costs unless forced to do so.

[Damocles]

NO, this tells us that despite all their pious claims that they will do right by you and me if only we get rid of all those pesky regulations, insurance companies will not make any real attempt at lowering costs unless forced to do so.
Hence my suggestion that we find where they are hiding the "increase" and fix it. It's insane to suggest the only option to do that is a government takeover disguised as an "option".

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Oh yeah, the conservatives here in Texas told us a few years ago if we voted for tort reform, then Doctor's Malparctice insurance would come down, bringing with it the price of health insurance.

Well, it got voted in, and guess what? Not only did Doctors NOT pass their saving on to their patients, but health insurance rates have risen every single year since, and are predicted to rise by as much as 40% THIS YEAR ALONE!

this is exactly true ....bunch of meadowmuffins

[belme1201]

Yup. And this tells me that there is some hidden "cost" that is being passed on and will continue to be passed on with the government program. Covering the cost rather than dealing with it will bankrupt us.

Tort reform seems foolish to me if you do it by capping "rewards". It would be best to have losses covered by the side who loses, it would give incentives to fight false lawsuits rather than settle and incentive not to file frivolous lawsuits. One thing that I know, exempting the only available coverage from lawsuits certainly isn't beneficial to the consumer.



Could it possibly be that the "hidden cost" is greed and hefty bank balances?

[ib1yysguy]

Could it possibly be that the "hidden cost" is greed and hefty bank balances?

... or a combination of profit margins, advertising budgets, lack of competition, CEO compensation, and inefficiency (20-40 percent overhead vs 2 percent for medicare)? In other words: everything that comes along with market monopolies.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Seriously... why not just expand medicare to everybody? Only giving it to seniors really doesn't make any sense, and it obviously has huge cost savings over even your best private plans.

[ib1yysguy]

Seriously... why not just expand medicare to everybody? Only giving it to seniors really doesn't make any sense, and it obviously has huge cost savings over even your best private plans.

No clue. It would also be harder for people to get seniors angry about it since they'd be attacking medicare, which would be retarded.

[belme1201]

... or a combination of profit margins, advertising budgets, lack of competition, CEO compensation, and inefficiency (20-40 percent overhead vs 2 percent for medicare)? In other words: everything that comes along with market monopolies.




The unanswered question. One of several.

[Damocles]

Could it possibly be that the "hidden cost" is greed and hefty bank balances?
If it is, it is easily resolved through regulation rather than government takeover.

[belme1201]

If it is, it is easily resolved through regulation rather than government takeover.

Do you believe that the threat of regulation of those issues would tame the crescendo from GOP naysayers and the for-profit industry? I have my doubts, demagogging any new healthcare plan is too good an issue for them to want to solve it.

[Damocles]

Do you believe that the threat of regulation of those issues would tame the crescendo from GOP naysayers and the for-profit industry? I have my doubts, demagogging any new healthcare plan is too good an issue for them to want to solve it.
I believe that it is far more realistic when coupled with an actual study on the costs. If we find that is where the extra costs lie then we would have reason for it. Hence my suggestion to help those in the doughnut hole while we find out where this problem lies in order to adjust to "fix" the problems.

We also need to decouple insurance from the job. IMO, this is the worst thing that the unions "gave" us, rather than simply an account to pay for insurance that is not attached to the job we have issues that we may not otherwise have because it was attached to employment. There are better solutions than government control, most especially in a land where privacy rights are strongly valued.

[TuTu Monroe]

[posted by Belme

Statistics have shown time and again that Medicare is operated more efficiently than the private sector and its participents are more likely to be pleased with it. Of course the GOP would like to revamp or destroy Medicare, it is an example of how wrong they've been for years.
The GOP added an additional 1/2 trillion dollar tab when they didn't fund Part D in the same manner that they didn't fund the Iraq War, thus tapping into the suplus. They then forbade it from negotiating for lower drug prices as do the VA and the private sector, driving up Medicare costs even more. Your friends throw up the road blocks and then complain about the results of those roadblocks! I should add they also made me a law breaker by saying I can't buy prescriptions from the cheapest sources available to me.(There go the GOP "free enterprise, free trade" arguments.)
I asked how you would handle the FRAUD which is overwhelmingly from the private sector.(Those great GOP bastians of Texas and South Florida being the areas of the greatest fraud. Coincidence?) Please direct me to the source for the "$313 billion in Medicare cuts." Are there expansions in other areas or are they new efficiencies?

The source is directly from Obama in one of his weekly radio programs in June.

How can you say that Medicare is operating efficiently when billions and billions of dollars are being bilked from them a year.

One defrauder said it's easy to steal from the government because they don't pay attention.

Remember Judge Davis saying "This thing (Medicare) is going broke and part of the reason is because money is going to criminals doing the $5 million whleelchairs and prosthesis, etc., etc., that don't come to anyone.

This is how our government works. It's out of control and we are the losers.

[cancel2 2022]

If it is, it is easily resolved through regulation rather than government takeover.


Explain to me why private healthcare companies have to run for profit anyway, why can't they be run the same way that BUPA is in the UK (http://www.healthinsurance.co.uk/news/2007/Apr/BUPA-may-sell-off-private-hospitals.html)?

[Cancel5]

Explain to me why private healthcare companies have to run for profit anyway, why can't they be run the same way that BUPA is in the UK (http://www.healthinsurance.co.uk/news/2007/Apr/BUPA-may-sell-off-private-hospitals.html)?

They don't and therein, lies the problem.

We are all about money in this country, screw poor people, they deserve what they get for being ignorant and uneducated, right? :eek:

[Cancel5]

Yep, the pious Christian lady will have to say a shedload of Hail Marys to atone for that outburst!!

Hail Mary's, those pagan catholic words, bite your tongue and sing, Bringing in the Sheaves!

[Cancel5]

Great work, you Sherlocked them!

[Cancel5]

Your link looks very authoritative and credible. :rolleyes:

I wonder what "Citizen" from Jonesboro, Arkansas medical credentials are?


http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/3315/presentation2b.jpg (http://img197.imageshack.us/i/presentation2b.jpg/)

hack?

[Cancel5]

Pardon me, I don't know who Fleckman is, why should I accept his interpretation as fact particularly when posted by one with a biased viewpoint? Why post interpretation without posting the content in context to support the conclusions unless there is something to hide? The lies are coming fast and furious, how can one trust interpretation from someone no-one knows?
Your language is very unbecoming, particularly on APP, Jamie Lee.

Einstein, you are moving up in the world of Harlequin!

[cancel2 2022]

Explain to me why private healthcare companies have to run for profit anyway, why can't they be run the same way that BUPA is in the UK (http://www.healthinsurance.co.uk/news/2007/Apr/BUPA-may-sell-off-private-hospitals.html)?

I guess that Damo has no answer to that.

[Damocles]

Explain to me why private healthcare companies have to run for profit anyway, why can't they be run the same way that BUPA is in the UK (http://www.healthinsurance.co.uk/news/2007/Apr/BUPA-may-sell-off-private-hospitals.html)?
They don't have to. They could be non-profit corps. Those have their own disadvantages, including less incentive to bring on new technologies.

[Damocles]

I guess that Damo has no answer to that.
Or it could be that I wasn't on at the time you posted and you have no patience. Of course the good thing about message boards is you can come back to things when you have time for them.

[Damocles]

hack?
No, Frogs... "Citizen" simply posted the tweets from Feckman.

[TuTu Monroe]

I guess that Damo has no answer to that.

I doubt Damo stays glued to this board 24/7 to answer dumb questions. He does have a life outside this board, you know.

[belme1201]

The source is directly from Obama in one of his weekly radio programs in June.

How can you say that Medicare is operating efficiently when billions and billions of dollars are being bilked from them a year.

One defrauder said it's easy to steal from the government because they don't pay attention.

Remember Judge Davis saying "This thing (Medicare) is going broke and part of the reason is because money is going to criminals doing the $5 million whleelchairs and prosthesis, etc., etc., that don't come to anyone.

This is how our government works. It's out of control and we are the losers.

...and it is the criminals in the private sector defrauding it. Thank you for your concurrence. Now lets's supply the funds for investigating the fraud and supplying the detention space for those defrauding it as well as taking their licenses to practice forever. Knowing your concern, I'm sure you must agree.

[Damocles]

...and it is the criminals in the private sector defrauding it. Thank you for your concurrence. Now lets's supply the funds for investigating the fraud and supplying the detention space for those defrauding it as well as taking their licenses to practice forever. Knowing your concern, I'm sure you must agree.
Well that and they pay 94 cents per 1.00 spent on health care, and the private sector picks up the slack in price increases.

[belme1201]

I believe that it is far more realistic when coupled with an actual study on the costs. If we find that is where the extra costs lie then we would have reason for it. Hence my suggestion to help those in the doughnut hole while we find out where this problem lies in order to adjust to "fix" the problems.

We also need to decouple insurance from the job. IMO, this is the worst thing that the unions "gave" us, rather than simply an account to pay for insurance that is not attached to the job we have issues that we may not otherwise have because it was attached to employment. There are better solutions than government control, most especially in a land where privacy rights are strongly valued.

Do I hear you saying you, as am I, are opposed to an employer based healthcare system? Where to after decoupling? When?

[Damocles]

Do I hear you saying you, as am I, are opposed to an employer based healthcare system? Where to after decoupling? When?
What do you mean "where to"? What is your car insurance coupled with?

I've been opposed to it for years and have said for at least a decade that it was the absolute worst thing the unions foisted upon us as improvements.

Just as I say that I believe that Social Security was one of the largest factors in almost eliminating the nuclear family.

[TuTu Monroe]

...and it is the criminals in the private sector defrauding it. Thank you for your concurrence. Now lets's supply the funds for investigating the fraud and supplying the detention space for those defrauding it as well as taking their licenses to practice forever. Knowing your concern, I'm sure you must agree.

We already do that, but for every one caught, 3 more take their place.

The GAO lists Medicare as a "high-risk" government program in need of reform, in part because of its vunerability to fraud and partly because of its long-term financial problems. Fewer than 5% of Medicare claims are audited.

[belme1201]

We already do that, but for every one caught, 3 more take their place.

The GAO lists Medicare as a "high-risk" government program in need of reform, in part because of its vunerability to fraud and partly because of its long-term financial problems. Fewer than 5% of Medicare claims are audited.

We agree once again, give them the resources for enough personel to audit and investigate EVERY suspected case of fraud, and to present those who defraud Medicare to authorities for prosecution. That, or establish a new branch in the FBI for that purpose. A few well publicised stiff sentences accompanied by losses of license may change things rapidly.
The problem would be no problem at all without a criminal segment of the private sector attempting to defraud a system many people are dependent upon.

[Damocles]

We agree once again, give them the resources for enough personel to audit and investigate EVERY suspected case of fraud, and to present those who defraud Medicare to authorities for prosecution. That, or establish a new branch in the FBI for that purpose. A few well publicised stiff sentences accompanied by losses of license may change things rapidly.
The problem would be no problem at all without a criminal segment of the private sector attempting to defraud a system many people are dependent upon.
How much do you think this will add to the already high cost of the bill?

[belme1201]

How much do you think this will add to the already high cost of the bill?

If the cost of fraud is as high as is being represented here, how much is too much if it accomplishes the purpose? What is another alternative?
I think this would be on another bill.

[Damocles]

If the cost of fraud is as high as is being represented here, how much is too much if it accomplishes the purpose? What is another alternative?
I think this would be on another bill.
Either way we pay.

I'm not saying we shouldn't look for fraud, I just think we should trade. Get rid of drug laws and make the DEA enforce medical fraud instead. (And regulations on the sale of what are currently illegal substances).

[belme1201]

Either way we pay.

I'm not saying we shouldn't look for fraud, I just think we should trade. Get rid of drug laws and make the DEA enforce medical fraud instead. (And regulations on the sale of what are currently illegal substances).


Now, that's an alternative!
Although I'm not a user, I totally agree. What are the chances? Very slight in the South I'm afraid.

[Minister of Truth]

Yes, I agree too!

:cig:

[cancel2 2022]

Or it could be that I wasn't on at the time you posted and you have no patience. Of course the good thing about message boards is you can come back to things when you have time for them.

OK thanks.

[Damocles]

Now, that's an alternative!
Although I'm not a user, I totally agree. What are the chances? Very slight in the South I'm afraid.
Until people realize that stricter punishment is not an alternative to rehabilitation it is unlikely. The land of the free has become the land of the imprisoned. However there is some hope, Tom Tancredo has come out in support of decriminalization. If Tom can see the light, anybody can with enough education.

[TuTu Monroe]

Yes, I agree too!

:cig:

Your smiley with the cigarette caught me off guard. I'm still laughing.

[TuTu Monroe]

We agree once again, give them the resources for enough personel to audit and investigate EVERY suspected case of fraud, and to present those who defraud Medicare to authorities for prosecution. That, or establish a new branch in the FBI for that purpose. A few well publicised stiff sentences accompanied by losses of license may change things rapidly.
The problem would be no problem at all without a criminal segment of the private sector attempting to defraud a system many people are dependent upon.

Yes, I agree with you on parts, but Medicare has not been run well to let this happen., probably for many years.

[belme1201]

Yes, I agree with you on parts, but Medicare has not been run well to let this happen., probably for many years.

For starters, and barely scratching the surface, I would suggest you look up McAllen/Hidalgo County, Texas for multiple examples of Medicare fraud by doctors and the private sector. Then, proceed to Miami/ Dade County Fla., and after that, please tell me where the problems are coming from and what you feel should be done about it.
For many years members of a certain party have wished Medicare didn't exist, so now it's convenient to blame the victim. Who from the right is pushing hard to eliminate the fraud, now or in the past administration?

[Cancel5]

For starters, and barely scratching the surface, I would suggest you look up McAllen/Hidalgo County, Texas for multiple examples of Medicare fraud by doctors and the private sector. Then, proceed to Miami/ Dade County Fla., and after that, please tell me where the problems are coming from and what you feel should be done about it.
For many years members of a certain party have wished Medicare didn't exist, so now it's convenient to blame the victim. Who from the right is pushing hard to eliminate the fraud, now or in the past administration?

Medicare hasn't been run well, but how many of those Townhall protesters would give theirs up?

[uscitizen]

With all the problems of medicare fraud and other problem it has still been ran much more efficiently than the private sector health insurance. Lots less administrative and overhead costs.

[belme1201]

Medicare hasn't been run well, but how many of those Townhall protesters would give theirs up?

We have experienced both systems in the past 3 years for comparison. I would have to say that Medicare has been a more pleasamt experience with the problems we did have. Wading through BCBS in my wife's case, was more difficult which was only solved with obstinence. The best part of the BCBS experience was the PUBLICLY operated state hospital(better than Mayo) and our choice of good doctors who were on our side vs BCBS. My guess is you found much the same thing. The Femara, as you know, is an ongoig thing and as a result, thanks to our GOP friends, I am a criminal. In this case they're right, it IS the government that's screwing things up, but it was their guys "running" it we have to thank.
BE WELL!

[PostmodernProphet]

With all the problems of medicare fraud and other problem it has still been ran much more efficiently than the private sector health insurance. Lots less administrative and overhead costs.

you know, that gets repeated a lot in defense of the health plan.....I'm curious, do you know how they calculate that?....what gets included in the costs of administering Medicare?.....do they include what the IRS spends in handling their accounts receivable?.....here in Michigan, Medicare claims are processed by BC/BS.....do your numbers include what Medicare pays them to handle that?......for that matter, if Medicare is so much cheaper, why do we even hire BC/BS in the first place?.....because we want to go with the more expensive option of administration?........

[TuTu Monroe]

For starters, and barely scratching the surface, I would suggest you look up McAllen/Hidalgo County, Texas for multiple examples of Medicare fraud by doctors and the private sector. Then, proceed to Miami/ Dade County Fla., and after that, please tell me where the problems are coming from and what you feel should be done about it.
For many years members of a certain party have wished Medicare didn't exist, so now it's convenient to blame the victim. Who from the right is pushing hard to eliminate the fraud, now or in the past administration?

Yes, I know about the fraud in those areas you mentioned and around the country. My suspicions are that Medicare has a shoddy accounting system and should be changed. For instance, (true story) there were 3 payments of $5,000 for a specialized wheelchair, yet the wheelchair was never sent to anyone. It was a bogus claim. I am saying these transactions should have been automatically flagged in their accounting system on the spot as suspicious and checked out before the money was ever sent out. This is an ongoing problem.

This can result in higher Medicare premiums, deductibles and co-payments for everyone. Losses due to fraud may also prevent Medicare from offering more services and better coverage.

Can't you say one thing without blaming the GOP? That hang-up of yours is getting old.

[Canceled2]

Yes, I agree with you on parts, but Medicare has not been run well to let this happen., probably for many years.

Do you recall the couple week’s belme argued that Medicare was a shining example of how well run government programs could be? I linked him up to statistic that showed it was the worst run program contributing to more fraud and mismanagement than any other single program by billions a year?

The Medicare program is top heavy bureaucracy where billions are lost in waste error. It is so inefficient that billions more are defrauded while the gate keepers watch.

So, let’s reform Health Care first by working towards dealing with the inefficiencies and fraud in Medicare. Let's make private health care portable and create an open border between states to make health care more competitive. Let's cap tort claims. Then in 4 years let's see where we are at.

[Canceled1]

Do you recall the couple week’s belme argued that Medicare was a shining example of how well run government programs could be? I linked him up to statistic that showed it was the worst run program contributing to more fraud and mismanagement than any other single program by billions a year?

The Medicare program is top heavy bureaucracy where billions are lost in waste error. It is so inefficient that billions more are defrauded while the gate keepers watch.

So, let’s reform Health Care first by working towards dealing with the inefficiencies and fraud in Medicare. Let's make private health care portable and create an open border between states to make health care more competitive. Let's cap tort claims. Then in 4 years let's see where we are at.

I guess this means belme is capable of being convinced he may be wrong.

Wow! :readit:

[uscitizen]

Provide a few jobs by hiring some Medicare auditors and investigators.

[PostmodernProphet]

you know, that gets repeated a lot in defense of the health plan.....I'm curious, do you know how they calculate that?....what gets included in the costs of administering Medicare?.....do they include what the IRS spends in handling their accounts receivable?.....here in Michigan, Medicare claims are processed by BC/BS.....do your numbers include what Medicare pays them to handle that?......for that matter, if Medicare is so much cheaper, why do we even hire BC/BS in the first place?.....because we want to go with the more expensive option of administration?........

bump...USC, you were on but you didn't answer.....

[belme1201]

Do you recall the couple week’s belme argued that Medicare was a shining example of how well run government programs could be? I linked him up to statistic that showed it was the worst run program contributing to more fraud and mismanagement than any other single program by billions a year?

The Medicare program is top heavy bureaucracy where billions are lost in waste error. It is so inefficient that billions more are defrauded while the gate keepers watch.

So, let’s reform Health Care first by working towards dealing with the inefficiencies and fraud in Medicare. Let's make private health care portable and create an open border between states to make health care more competitive. Let's cap tort claims. Then in 4 years let's see where we are at.

I stated then and I state now that Medicare is more efficiently operated than private sector carriers born out by the numbers. I also stated that if it wasn't for dishonesty in the private sector, everything would be far better, however, you would have nothing to complain about. Recently it was disclosed that intense fraud investigation was not begun until 2008, anything ring a bell? Shall we call it the Waxman effect? I'm all for it, but I was 8 years ago also, unlike some. I might add that when the GOP added Part D, they failed to fund the additional $1/2 trillion cost, adding to the burden. I have yet to hear your alternative plan for Medicare itself, just to clarify the misunderstanding.
Once again you forgot to mention the Pentagon when talking about the most wasteful departments, recently re-iterated by the GAO.

[belme1201]

Until people realize that stricter punishment is not an alternative to rehabilitation it is unlikely. The land of the free has become the land of the imprisoned. However there is some hope, Tom Tancredo has come out in support of decriminalization. If Tom can see the light, anybody can with enough education.




Amen.

[belme1201]

Yes, I know about the fraud in those areas you mentioned and around the country. My suspicions are that Medicare has a shoddy accounting system and should be changed. For instance, (true story) there were 3 payments of $5,000 for a specialized wheelchair, yet the wheelchair was never sent to anyone. It was a bogus claim. I am saying these transactions should have been automatically flagged in their accounting system on the spot as suspicious and checked out before the money was ever sent out. This is an ongoing problem.

This can result in higher Medicare premiums, deductibles and co-payments for everyone. Losses due to fraud may also prevent Medicare from offering more services and better coverage.

Can't you say one thing without blaming the GOP? That hang-up of yours is getting old.

The funding for enforcement has been limited to a degree that they have been unable to handle the volume of fraud. Every bill should be audited, but when there is a personnel shortage where do you turn? When I was in the Army, at times there were piles of papers to be investigated a foot high on my desk. What does one do? You try to give the most heinous cases priority. The wheel chair case is mild compared to some, so what gets priority? One hospital in McAllen is willing to pay $25 million to settle their fraud, but who's going to prison? I say fund total investigation and prosecution and 'let er rip'!

Regarding the GOP, let the chips fall where they may, of course, the anti-Obama, anti-'Lib', anti-Dem, stuff is so rare here, I suppose I am being a tad unfair about what it was that happened until 7 months ago when all department heads were bush appointees, leading us to where we are today. Forgive me. I also understand that, in the anger of some because we are destroying the country, the death of us "Libs" is an understandable, normal response.

[belme1201]

I guess this means belme is capable of being convinced he may be wrong.

Wow! :readit:




Does a tree falling in the woods, with no one to hear, make a sound?

[PostmodernProphet]

but you fell on the boards....and we're all here.....

[Damocles]

Does a tree falling in the woods, with no one to hear, make a sound?
Does a turd in the woods with "nobody" to smell it still smell?

Of course it makes a sound. Unless you think that animals are part of the "nobody" there is something there to hear the sound.

[belme1201]

Does a turd in the woods with "nobody" to smell it still smell?

Of course it makes a sound. Unless you think that animals are part of the "nobody" there is something there to hear the sound.


You have made an interesting analogy and thus have opened yet another facet to an age old philosophical discussion.

[Damocles]

You have made an interesting analogy and thus have opened yet another facet to an age old philosophical discussion.
:D

An even better question...

If I am alone in the woods singing, will the trees commit suicide?

[Annie]

:D

An even better question...

If I am alone in the woods singing, will the trees commit suicide?

Are you tone deaf? Would the trees mind if you were?

[uscitizen]

You have made an interesting analogy and thus have opened yet another facet to an age old philosophical discussion.

sound is created whether anyone hears it or not.

[uscitizen]

:D

An even better question...

If I am alone in the woods singing, will the trees commit suicide?

I think they woodn't.

[Damocles]

Are you tone deaf? Would the trees mind if you were?
Good question! I don't know the answer to either, because I don't sing alone in the woods, and the shower doesn't have a life to give, or the car.

Yeah, I'm that guy, the one you see in the car next to you happily singing along with the tunes on his radio.

[Annie]

Good question! I don't know the answer to either, because I don't sing alone in the woods, and the shower doesn't have a life to give, or the car.

Yeah, I'm that guy, the one you see in the car next to you happily singing along with the tunes on his radio.

Well so am I, but I keep the windows up for environmental reasons! Have you ever heard a deaf person sing? LOL! Flat and wrong lyrics. Kills the plants every time.

[uscitizen]

Good question! I don't know the answer to either, because I don't sing alone in the woods, and the shower doesn't have a life to give, or the car.

Yeah, I'm that guy, the one you see in the car next to you happily singing along with the tunes on his radio.

Engines die in cars.

[Damocles]

Well so am I, but I keep the windows up for environmental reasons! Have you ever heard a deaf person sing? LOL! Flat and wrong lyrics. Kills the plants every time.
My first girlfriend was profoundly deaf, she used to serenade me outside my bedroom window. Not kidding. I thought it was quite endearing, but yeah I know exactly what you are saying.

[Canceled1]

Does a tree falling in the woods, with no one to hear, make a sound?

Yes, grasshopper, and watch out for the bears too.

[belme1201]

sound is created whether anyone hears it or not.

I agree, but who can verify it?

[belme1201]

:D

An even better question...

If I am alone in the woods singing, will the trees commit suicide?



I have never heard your singing.

[uscitizen]

I agree, but who can verify it?

It requires no verification. If a tree is found on the ground in a forest we know it made noise when it fell.
Just like we knew the majority of active voters were stupid in 2004 .

[belme1201]

It requires no verification. If a tree is found on the ground in a forest we know it made noise when it fell.
Just like we knew the majority of active voters were stupid in 2004 .

Some have had to defend both sides of the tree discussion.
2004? No argument, but maybe duped or misled are, in charity, better words than stupid.

[Taichiliberal]

Not to worry. Those smears have already been rebutted.

Here are the facts. Anyone can verify them by reading the bill at http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

Actual itemized contents of the Health Care Reform Bill:

"Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!"

TRUTH: This is not an "audit," it's a study. Moreover, the bill states (pp. 22-23) that the report will "include any recommendations the Commissioner deems appropriate to ensure that the law does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure or create adverse selection in the risk pools of large group insurers and self-insured employers." This is almost directly the opposite of the email's claim.

"Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!"

TRUTH: Page 29 continues to define the "essential benefits package" and discusses limits on what Americans will have to spend on health care under this minimum standard. In no way does this section stipulate the rationing of care.

"Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)"

TRUTH: Page 30 begins to describe the Health Benefits Advisory Committee which establishes certain minimum standards for health insurance plans. In no way does this committee deny treatments and benefits to Americans with health insurance.

"Page 42: The 'Health Choices Commissioner' will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None."

TRUTH: Page 42 begins to describe the Health Choices Commissioner's duties. The idea that this person will decide what benefits Americans receive is patently false, given that most Americans will keep their current plans under reform, and Americans within the exchange will have the choice of purchasing many different kinds of health plans. Rather, the Commissioner will establish minimum standards to protect Americans.

"Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services."

TRUTH: Pages 50-51 contain a provision stating that discrimination will not be allowed in the provision of health care services. Nowhere does the bill state that non-US citizens will be provided free health care services. The bill prohibits federal dollars from being used for undocumented immigrants.

"Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard."

TRUTH: Page 58, in the context of a discussion of administrative standards, mentions that "determination of an individual's financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility...may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card." In no way does the bill state that such a card would be national, or that it would be issued to every person, or that it would, in fact, be used at all.

"Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer."

TRUTH: Page 59 continues the discussion of administrative standards, and authorizes electronic transfers of money within the government. In no way does this provision grant the government access to individual bank accounts.

"Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)"

TRUTH: Here's what page 65 says: "Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish a temporary reinsurance program to provide reimbursement to assist participating employment-based plans with the cost of providing health benefits to retirees and to eligible spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees." No mention is made of unions or community organizations.

"Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange."

TRUTH: That's true! Plans have to have a minimum standard of benefits, bat can offer other plans as well. But that's fair, isn't it? Private insurers can continue to operate outside the exchange if they wish - should the government establish no standards for the exchange? In that case, how could reform end insurance industry abuses and help to control costs?

"Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)"

TRUTH: This section says is that if private health care plans want to operate in the Exchange, they must provide a basic benefit package.

"Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens"

TRUTH: Some American citizens are more comfortable speaking a language other than English, especially in a sensitive situation like a consultation with their doctor. This provision in no way opens the door for coverage of undocumented workers.

"Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan."

TRUTH: Page 95 makes no mention of ACORN and Americorps; all it says is that the Commissioner can conduct outreach to vulnerable populations, making them aware of their options.

"Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter."

TRUTH: People who are eligible for Medicaid will not have to face the burdens of paperwork and other bureaucratic struggles. Far from depriving people of choice, this measure will ensure coverage.

"Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No 'judicial review' is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed."

TRUTH: This section describes rate-setting under the public health insurance plan option, which will compete with private insurers, who can set their own rates. Because of inherent advantages like their established administrative and provider frameworks, private insurance companies will not be "crushed" by government competition.

"Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages."

TRUTH: The government will negotiate rates with providers under the public health insurance plan option. However, private insurers will continue to pay their own rates.

"Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives."

TRUTH: This is simply not true. Employers with more than 20 employees aren't even eligible to participate in the exchange, let alone the public plan, until several years after the exchange launches in 2013. Moreover, no employer will be forced to participate in the public plan.

"Page 146: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families."

TRUTH: Employers are required to pay some benefits for part-time employees on a basis proportional to what they pay for full-time employees. No language on this page or the next stipulates coverage for the families of part-time employees.

"Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll"

TRUTH: The payroll penalty applies to employers with payroll over $500,000 who do not provide insurance to their employees. The percentage for employers with payroll from $500,000 - $750,000 is 6%. Employers do not have to offer the public option to avoid this penalty, they can offer private insurance if they wish.

"Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll"

TRUTH: This is false, see above.

"Page 167: Any individual who doesn't' have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income."

TRUTH: Pages 167-173 detail what "acceptable health care" means (basically, insurance coverage) and also allow for many different kinds of exceptions to this rule.

"Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them)."

TRUTH: Non-resident aliens do not have to pay the penalty for not having health insurance, nor will the receive federal assistance, because they are not required to purchase health insurance. They are not exempted from individual taxes generally.

"Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records."

TRUTH: This is a gross overstatement. For the purposes of determining affordability credits for Americans who need financial assistance in purchasing health insurance, employees of the Health Choices Administration will have access to tax information that the federal government already keeps. As is clearly stated on page 196, "Return information... may be used by officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, only for the purposes of, and to the extent necessary in, establishing and verifying the appropriate amount of any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 and providing for the repayment of any such credit which was in excess of such appropriate amount.''

"Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that."

TRUTH: This quote is taken out of context, and is in fact referring to a calculation used in the bill. Full context of quote: "'(4) NOT TREATED AS TAX IMPOSED BY THIS CHAPTER FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.-The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55.''

"Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected."

TRUTH: This section has nothing whatsoever to do with reducing services. It makes much needed changes to the way in which physician reimbursement is recalculated every year. The bill will, in fact, create much more opportunity for seniors and the poor to receive necessary care.

"Page 241: Doctors: no matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)"

TRUTH: Page 241 does not say this. Nowhere does it say this. It does say that physicians will be grouped into certain categories regardless of specialty. These categories merely determine if the physician is engaged in primarily therapeutic or preventative care.

"Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc."

TRUTH: There is no good response to this assertion as it appears to have been made up completely. The section deals with 'misvalued codes' meaning that the government is potentially not paying an acceptable rate for a specific service. This will allow the government to, for example, pay more for services that require more payment, such as high-overhead procedures. The author of these criticisms separately attacks the bill for paying the same rate to all doctors, then attacks again for paying different rates.

"Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries."

TRUTH: This section amends the Social Security Act to include productivity measures. There is no mandate or control of anything. This merely updates the way in which doctors and hospitals are paid through Medicare.

"Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs."

TRUTH: This is simply not true. This slightly amends existing guidelines for payments for medical equipment, in this case power-driven wheelchairs. This section introduces no 'regulations' that are not in the Social Security Act.

"Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!"

TRUTH: Overusage of the hot-button word "rationing" is a way to deflect attention away from the actual language of the bill and incite unjustified fear. This section only compares costs incurred by cancer hospitals to costs incurred by similar hospitals, and adjusts payments to reduce the possibility of fraud and abuse.

"Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions."

TRUTH: This is almost correct. The section is one of the first efforts at targeting excessive readmissions. Excessive readmissions are physically and emotionally damaging to patients, while simultaneously putting them, and the health care system, in far more financial risk than is necessary. The American Hospital Association recommended reduced payments for avoidable readmission in testimony to Congress.


"Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government."

TRUTH: This is patently false. The section is about possible methods that the Secretary of Health and Human services might consider in order to address the growing problem of patient readmission. This section does not, in any way, create a penalty, nor does it even mandate policy. It merely provides examples of recourses that might be considered.

"Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited from owning and investing in healthcare companies!"

TRUTH: This provision only limits Doctor's investments in health care facilities that they refer patients to The effort to limit self-referral has been ongoing for many years as an effort to reduce fraud and abuse. This is, essentially, the medical community equivalent of insider trading. Limiting this incentive works to put the patient's health above all other considerations. Doctors remain free to engage in investment opportunities in areas that don't create a significant conflict of interest.

"Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval."

TRUTH: This section regulates physicians' investment in hospitals to make sure that physicians are not unfairly benefiting from their power to refer patients to hospitals they have a stake in. The section does not prohibit hospital expansion.

"Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on 'community' input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN."

TRUTH: In the ongoing effort to demonize community-based groups such as ACORN, every instance of the word "community" has become associated with that group's efforts. In reality, this provision allows for anyone to provide input. This includes homeowners, religious leaders, neighborhood groups, and others. There are no payoffs. There is no money exchanged in any way.

"Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing."

TRUTH: This provision is included in order to allow the government to base payments on practices that work. Nowhere does it say health care will be rationed. The attempt to isolate what works and what does not work in Medicare Advantage plans only benefits the health care system in general.

"Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc."

TRUTH: The government can disqualify some Medicare Advantage Plans from receiving some additional payments, but only if those plans are not meeting necessary requirements.

"Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals."

TRUTH: This section only deals with how to handle special needs individuals who need to enroll outside of the open enrollment period. Almost every type of plan operates with open enrollment periods. This section does not create more restrictions.

"Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone)."

TRUTH: This section merely expands existing Telehealth programs, which supplement but do not replace other health coverage, and provide a vital resource to Americans in rural and remote areas.

"Page 425-430: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?; Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time; Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death; Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends; Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT; Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life."

TRUTH: All of these hysterical claims have been debunked elsewhere. HR3200 provides for the reimbursement of a voluntary session of end-of-life counseling with your physician once every five years. This in no way means the government will make decisions for patients or encourage doctor-assisted suicide. Counseling simply makes patients and their families aware of their options.

"Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN."

TRUTH: ACORN is not a Community-Based Medical Home.

"Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN."

TRUTH: This is clearly still referring to community health groups, not ACORN.

"Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage."

TRUTH: Covering marriage and family therapy, as many private insurance plans do, does not mean that the government "intervenes in your marriage." The types of individuals who are recognized as therapists are clearly defined on page 491; in brief, professionals only, not bureaucrats.

"Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services."

TRUTH: This section expands government coverage for mental health services under various government programs, and ensures that all mental health services will be offered by qualified professionals.

http://fightthesmears.com/

:hand: Reading through the actual bill, one readily sees the same old neocon distortion bullhorn at work. Those who are opponents of ANY change coming from the Obama administration will side with Fleckman's flubbs in some form or another.

I'ts amazing....neocons wailed that if the Obama administration just posted on the net what was being discussed, people would be less likely to get frustrated and angry. Well, the FACTS are there, and all the neocons did was just use it as a platform for MORE lies for folks like Ice Dancer to slip on.

[Canceled2]

I stated then and I state now that Medicare is more efficiently operated than private sector carriers born out by the numbers. I also stated that if it wasn't for dishonesty in the private sector, everything would be far better, however, you would have nothing to complain about. Recently it was disclosed that intense fraud investigation was not begun until 2008, anything ring a bell? Shall we call it the Waxman effect? I'm all for it, but I was 8 years ago also, unlike some. I might add that when the GOP added Part D, they failed to fund the additional $1/2 trillion cost, adding to the burden. I have yet to hear your alternative plan for Medicare itself, just to clarify the misunderstanding.
Once again you forgot to mention the Pentagon when talking about the most wasteful departments, recently re-iterated by the GAO.

That isn't what you stated at all, and even if it were you'd be wrong.

You stated that Medicare was very efficient and hardly wasteful. You claimed that the worst was the military. I provided proof that no, in fact, it was medicare.

[PostmodernProphet]

:hand: Reading through the actual bill

have you done that, Touchie?

[Taichiliberal]

Reading through the actual bill, one readily sees the same old neocon distortion bullhorn at work. Those who are opponents of ANY change coming from the Obama administration will side with Fleckman's flubbs in some form or another.

I'ts amazing....neocons wailed that if the Obama administration just posted on the net what was being discussed, people would be less likely to get frustrated and angry. Well, the FACTS are there, and all the neocons did was just use it as a platform for MORE lies for folks like Ice Dancer to slip on.


have you done that, Touchie?

What's been provided to the masses, anyway....have you, you PostmodernFool? And if so, can you disprove anything in Christie's post? And do you really think that cutting out the parts of my posts that you can't refute or rebut really fools anyone? Grow up!

[uscitizen]

That isn't what you stated at all, and even if it were you'd be wrong.

You stated that Medicare was very efficient and hardly wasteful. You claimed that the worst was the military. I provided proof that no, in fact, it was medicare.

the military is very wasteful a half million dollar missle to kill a half dozen folks.

[PostmodernProphet]

...have you, you PostmodernFool?

so far I have read about 650 pages of it....and I have used what I have read to show that most of what the left has said about the bill are lies....I'm sure you've seen those threads.....I know you don't post in them, since they deal with facts and those scare you.....


And do you really think that cutting out the parts of my posts that you can't refute or rebut really fools anyone? Grow up!

I just trimmed off the worthless parts.....

[Taichiliberal]

so far I have read about 650 pages of it....and I have used what I have read to show that most of what the left has said about the bill are lies....I'm sure you've seen those threads.....I know you don't post in them, since they deal with facts and those scare you.....


I've read the threads....and while there is SOME valid criticisms, there is MUCH neocon rhetoric in your assesments that have been successfully debunked by others more patient and better versed on the subject than I.


I just trimmed off the worthless parts.....

Translation: I asked this blowhard if he could logically or factually disprove what Christie posted. He conveniently left that part out...and in his childish state, out of site is out of mind. Unfortunately for this Postmodernfool, the question remains, and he has yet to provide and FACTS that can debunk what Christie posted.

[PostmodernProphet]

I've read the threads....and while there is SOME valid criticisms, there is MUCH neocon rhetoric in your assesments that have been successfully debunked by others more patient and better versed on the subject than I.

nothing I have pointed out about the act is inaccurate.....



Translation: I asked this blowhard if he could logically or factually disprove what Christie posted. He conveniently left that part out...and in his childish state, out of site is out of mind. Unfortunately for this Postmodernfool, the question remains, and he has yet to provide and FACTS that can debunk what Christie posted.

pick one and present some evidence....I will be happy to debate it with you....Christie hasn't read the act, nor have you.....read it, talk about it.....don't just paste shit from some liberal rag....

here is one I would suggest.....

starting at page 65 the act provides government subsidies (in excess of the terms of the essential benefits defined by the act) for chosen employee benefit plans which are unable to meet the terms of the employee contract....the response that Christie pasted from where ever is simply ""Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish a temporary reinsurance program to provide reimbursement to assist participating employment-based plans with the cost of providing health benefits to retirees and to eligible spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees." No mention is made of unions or community organizations."

the provisions of the act go on for several pages and provide in part that the government will pick up the tab on all expenditures the employer is responsible for over the sum of $15k up to $90k per person, per year.....

since the act goes on far beyond the terms of Christie's response, I would like you to explain why the government should be picking up the tab for overly expensive union benefit programs above and beyond what is available to those who actually pay premiums under the government option......

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
I've read the threads....and while there is SOME valid criticisms, there is MUCH neocon rhetoric in your assesments that have been successfully debunked by others more patient and better versed on the subject than I.


nothing I have pointed out about the act is inaccurate.....
Says you....others have pointed out your penchant for over looking certain points and substituting your supposition and conjecture for fact.




Translation: I asked this blowhard if he could logically or factually disprove what Christie posted. He conveniently left that part out...and in his childish state, out of site is out of mind. Unfortunately for this Postmodernfool, the question remains, and he has yet to provide and FACTS that can debunk what Christie posted.

pick one and present some evidence....I will be happy to debate it with you....Christie hasn't read the act, nor have you.....read it, talk about it.....don't just paste shit from some liberal rag.... You need to get off the soapbox and get to the point, because quite frankly you're boring.


here is one I would suggest.....

starting at page 65 the act provides government subsidies (in excess of the terms of the essential benefits defined by the act) for chosen employee benefit plans which are unable to meet the terms of the employee contract....the response that Christie pasted from where ever is simply ""Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish a temporary reinsurance program to provide reimbursement to assist participating employment-based plans with the cost of providing health benefits to retirees and to eligible spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees." No mention is made of unions or community organizations."

the provisions of the act go on for several pages and provide in part that the government will pick up the tab on all expenditures the employer is responsible for over the sum of $15k up to $90k per person, per year.....

since the act goes on far beyond the terms of Christie's response, I would like you to explain why the government should be picking up the tab for overly expensive union benefit programs above and beyond what is available to those who actually pay premiums under the government option......

Nice try.....essentially you mix in your supposition and conjecture in order to paint a grey area regarding the source response Christie posted. You also misrepresent/distort the response. Here the lie again:

"Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)"

This statement is plainly wrong....and since you don't accept the first answer, here's and additional reason why your assertions are wrong. Remember:

"Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll"

TRUTH: The payroll penalty applies to employers with payroll over $500,000 who do not provide insurance to their employees. The percentage for employers with payroll from $500,000 - $750,000 is 6%. Employers do not have to offer the public option to avoid this penalty, they can offer private insurance if they wish.

"Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll"

TRUTH: This is false, see above.

[TuTu Monroe]

I have never heard your singing.

Damo's voice is great.........sexy.

[Damocles]

Damo's voice is great.........sexy.
So sexy that trees commit suicide upon realizing I'm never going to even hug them?

;)

(And I'm humble too!)

[belme1201]

That isn't what you stated at all, and even if it were you'd be wrong.

You stated that Medicare was very efficient and hardly wasteful. You claimed that the worst was the military. I provided proof that no, in fact, it was medicare.

I've never changed what I said about Medicare. It is the fraud inflicted upon it by the private sector and an additional 1/2 trillion in unfunded costs and limits placed upon it by the GOP in Mecicare Part D that are causing the bulk of its fiscal problem.
I used GAO numbers, they have been confirmed once again recently. That you will not accept them is not my problem.

[PostmodernProphet]

Nice try.....essentially you mix in your supposition and conjecture in order to paint a grey area regarding the source response Christie posted. You also misrepresent/distort the response. Here the lie again:

"Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)"

This statement is plainly wrong....and since you don't accept the first answer, here's and additional reason why your assertions are wrong. Remember:

"Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll"

TRUTH: The payroll penalty applies to employers with payroll over $500,000 who do not provide insurance to their employees. The percentage for employers with payroll from $500,000 - $750,000 is 6%. Employers do not have to offer the public option to avoid this penalty, they can offer private insurance if they wish.

"Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll"

TRUTH: This is false, see above.



I made no assertions about page 150 or page 149...I made an assertion about page 65, but for some reason you chose to respond to someone else's
assertion about page 65.....

is that because you weren't able to find something to cut and paste that was responsive to my question?.....

just give it a shot once, Touchie......read the text on page 65, think about it, formulate a response....type it down, hit send....share your wisdom with the world......

if it is any help to you, I will admit the response you did reply to is wrong....they complained that "Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans".....in truth, taxpayers will subsidize only those employer paid plans that the government appointed board accepts.....my question is, why are we subsidizing any at all......

[Canceled2]

I've never changed what I said about Medicare. It is the fraud inflicted upon it by the private sector and an additional 1/2 trillion in unfunded costs and limits placed upon it by the GOP in Mecicare Part D that are causing the bulk of its fiscal problem.
I used GAO numbers, they have been confirmed once again recently. That you will not accept them is not my problem.

You are now lying about what you had previously claimed.

Medicare fraud is only a piece of the billions wasted due to problems with billing, over-payments, fraud and waste. You bellowed on and on over a two week period about how great a government run program Medicare is. I provided stats that proved it to be the biggest behemoth of waste, fraud, and poor management than any other single government program...own it dude!

[belme1201]

You are now lying about what you had previously claimed.

Medicare fraud is only a piece of the billions wasted due to problems with billing, over-payments, fraud and waste. You bellowed on and on over a two week period about how great a government run program Medicare is. I provided stats that proved it to be the biggest behemoth of waste, fraud, and poor management than any other single government program...own it dude!


What I said about Medicare is that it is more efficient than the private sector in the cost of admininstering care for those enrolled, that fact remains. It also has the highest approval from those within it.
Your GOP friends are using the threat of loss of Medicare coverage as their current political ploy, can they have it both ways? It's good but on the other hand, it's awful?
You, use restrictions placed on it by your gang in the Part D to claim inefficiency such as overpaying for drugs, even though they were forbidden to negotiate for lower drug prices by your boys, going even further to make it illlegal to buy drugs out of the country at lower prices. Add to that the $1/2 trillion in additional unfunded costs added by your friends and BillyTauzin(R-LA now heading the industry Lobby) in a pharma boondoggle. The fact remains that fraud in the system is from the outside, not within.
I have asked what your solution would be, I have heard nothing. I fear your solution for Medicare would be to destroy it simply because it has a 'D' attached. Kill the patient, save the disease!
The GAO report I quoted stated the Pentagon was the most wasteful department of government. I gave numbers. Military acquisition is the largest boondoggle in the history of man, given the size of their budget. Iraq, estimated at "possibly$15 billion but I doubt it" by Rummy, this year reached $830 billion alone... OFF BUDGET! Sec. Gates recently made a similar comment about military waste. Our perspectives differ but I never said anything other than what I said above.

[uscitizen]

What I said about Medicare is that it is more efficient than the private sector in the cost of admininstering care for those enrolled, that fact remains. It also has the highest approval from those within it.
Your GOP friends are using the threat of loss of Medicare coverage as their current political ploy, can they have it both ways? It's good but on the other hand, it's awful?
You, use restrictions placed on it by your gang in the Part D to claim inefficiency such as overpaying for drugs, even though they were forbidden to negotiate for lower drug prices by your boys, going even further to make it illlegal to buy drugs out of the country at lower prices. Add to that the $1/2 trillion in additional unfunded costs added by your friends and BillyTauzin(R-LA now heading the industry Lobby) in a pharma boondoggle. The fact remains that fraud in the system is from the outside, not within.
I have asked what your solution would be, I have heard nothing. I fear your solution for Medicare would be to destroy it simply because it has a 'D' attached. Kill the patient, save the disease!
The GAO report I quoted stated the Pentagon was the most wasteful department of government. I gave numbers. Military acquisition is the largest boondoggle in the history of man, given the size of their budget. Iraq, estimated at "possibly$15 billion but I doubt it" by Rummy, this year reached $830 billion alone... OFF BUDGET! Sec. Gates recently made a similar comment about military waste. Our perspectives differ but I never said anything other than what I said above.

Very good post. Not that facts will do anything to convince certain ones on the right. Fact has little to do with faith based zealots.

[Taichiliberal]

I made no assertions about page 150 or page 149...I made an assertion about page 65, but for some reason you chose to respond to someone else's
assertion about page 65.....

Stop acting dumb....or if you are dumb my sympathies. These are all related to each other because "any employee" can hire union folk....the answers to the lies of 149 and 150 directly contradict the lie of #65 . PAY ATTENTION!

is that because you weren't able to find something to cut and paste that was responsive to my question?.....




just give it a shot once, Touchie......read the text on page 65, think about it, formulate a response....type it down, hit send....share your wisdom with the world......Are you actually that deluded to think that repeating this lame dodge of yours will make it valid?

if it is any help to you, I will admit the response you did reply to is wrong....they complained that "Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans".....in truth, taxpayers will subsidize only those employer paid plans that the government appointed board accepts.....my question is, why are we subsidizing any at all......

No, that is YOUR truth, that's NOT what is being proposed. Once again, the PostModernFool wants to impress HIS interpretation over what is actually being presented....and he fails as usual.

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - APP - FINALLY! (http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=500412&postcount=194)

[Annie]

So sexy that trees commit suicide upon realizing I'm never going to even hug them?

;)

(And I'm humble too!)

humble reminds me of bumble, which reminds me of bees. Which reminds me of fresh honey. Which reminds me of kudos at your choices and recompense for such. ;)

[uscitizen]

So sexy that trees commit suicide upon realizing I'm never going to even hug them?

;)

(And I'm humble too!)

I liked that :clink:

[PostmodernProphet]

No, that is YOUR truth, that's NOT what is being proposed. Once again, the PostModernFool wants to impress HIS interpretation over what is actually being presented....and he fails as usual.

did you read the article from the Detroit Free Press regarding the $10 billion being set aside for the UAW?.....

[Taichiliberal]

did you read the article from the Detroit Free Press regarding the $10 billion being set aside for the UAW?.....

Actually caught it on Bloomberg radio. Here's a print version......when analyzed, it's NOT out of the ordinary regarding the trend of agreements between the unions, the auto-industry management and the gov't that began during the Shrub's last year in office. Essentially, it's not refuting what Christies' source debunked.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601209&sid=aiMwk.T6AeXQ

[TuTu Monroe]

So sexy that trees commit suicide upon realizing I'm never going to even hug them?

;)

(And I'm humble too!)

Yes, you certainly are humble and being sexy is one of your greatest attributes.

[PostmodernProphet]

Actually caught it on Bloomberg radio. Here's a print version......when analyzed, it's NOT out of the ordinary regarding the trend of agreements between the unions, the auto-industry management and the gov't that began during the Shrub's last year in office.
I will take that as an admission that it is a stupid thing to do.....



Essentially, it's not refuting what Christies' source debunked.
????....essentially, it underscores the fact that Christie's source didn't debunk anything......Christie's source did nothing except claim it wasn't true.....this article shows it is......

[cancel2 2022]

Damo's voice is great.........sexy.

Oh God, the she wolf is on the prowl again.

[TuTu Monroe]

Oh God, the she wolf is on the prowl again.

It's a shame your life is so boring Tsk. Tsk.

[USFREEDOM911]

Oh God, the she wolf is on the prowl again.

OH, GAWD HELP US ALL!!! :eek:

Please don't tell everyone, that you're going to be putting on your Little Red Riding Hood outfit; AGAIN!!

[cancel2 2022]

It's a shame your life is so boring Tsk. Tsk.

You seem to spend a fair proportion of your time on message boards trying to rope a dope, excepting that the 'dopes' won't play ball.

[Canceled1]

I liked that :clink:


"He's too sexy for his trees, too sexy for his trees..."

[Canceled1]

OH, GAWD HELP US ALL!!! :eek:

Please don't tell everyone, that you're going to be putting on your Little Red Riding Hood outfit; AGAIN!!

My eyes! My eyes!! :eek:

[TuTu Monroe]

You seem to spend a fair proportion of your time on message boards trying to rope a dope, excepting that the 'dopes' won't play ball.

What business is it of yours, little girl gossip and spreader of lies?

[Cancel5]

What business is it of yours, little girl gossip and spreader of lies?
Oooooooooooooo, big internet tough guy! I still think you were robbed by SM

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Actually caught it on Bloomberg radio. Here's a print version......when analyzed, it's NOT out of the ordinary regarding the trend of agreements between the unions, the auto-industry management and the gov't that began during the Shrub's last year in office.


I will take that as an admission that it is a stupid thing to do.....

You can take the next train to Altoona, for all I care. The link I gave gives a pretty good analysis of the situation, and it sure as hell DOES NOT support the one note mantra that you and other stubborn yahoos storming town meetings are claiming....or your bizarre interpretations. You don't like it? Give a better alternative that is NOT akin to the current status quo.



Essentially, it's not refuting what Christies' source debunked.

????....essentially, it underscores the fact that Christie's source didn't debunk anything......Christie's source did nothing except claim it wasn't true.....this article shows it is......

Man, you are stubborn to the point of insipideness. First you refuse to acknowledge that your point regarding the #65 was wrong, and now your trying to avoid admitting that the Bloomberg article does NOT support YOUR contentions. No matter, the objective reader can follow the posts, read the links and see your folly. As for me, I'd like to see the final versions that are going to come out of Congress and the Senate...but in the meantime I'll just keep skeet shooting the neocon clay pidgens trying to pretend they're real. Carry on.

[PostmodernProphet]

First you refuse to acknowledge that your point regarding the #65 was wrong, and now your trying to avoid admitting that the Bloomberg article does NOT support YOUR contentions.

obviously I would refuse to admit such foolishness....now, can you explain why the UAW is expecting to receive $10 billion to bail out their benefits program under the act?.....

[Taichiliberal]

obviously I would refuse to admit such foolishness....now, can you explain why the UAW is expecting to receive $10 billion to bail out their benefits program under the act?.....

Been there, done that...you won't discuss what was presented, but just keep parroting your question. Sorry, but sometimes your BS supporting your convoluted "logic" just gets old. Let me know when you're actually ready to discuss the topic honestly instead repeating your BS and then using that BS to make false claims/allegations. If you can't, and opt for some stupid final salvo, then I'd say we're done here.

[PostmodernProphet]

now that we've all concluded that Taich has been pwned, can any one else explain why the bill includes a provision bailing out union benefit plans at a higher level than anyone else in the government plan?......

[USFREEDOM911]

now that we've all concluded that Taich has been pwned, can any one else explain why the bill includes a provision bailing out union benefit plans at a higher level than anyone else in the government plan?......

Could it be that they have a reeeeeeeeeeeeeealy big Union!!

[egordon0315]

Is there anyone else here who realizes that the word "audit" doesn't necessarily, or even usually, mean "IRS targeting an entity in the attempt to find or manufacture a misstep in that entity's finances"?

I have real problems with this bill, but the word "audit" is not one of them.


Here is a link to the the most egregious portions of the Health Care bill H.R. 3200. On this page is also a direct link to the entire bill.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/walnut-ridge-ar/TTPG4LRBUTDT15K2R



BELOW IS A SAMPLING

Peter Fleckstein (aka Fleckman) is reading it and has been posting on Twitter his findings. This is from his postings (Note: All comments are Fleckman's)

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!
Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits u get
Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!
Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose UR HC Benefits 4 you. U have no choice!
PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided 2 ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise
Pg 58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access 2 individs finances & a National ID Healthcard will b issued!
Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access 2 ur banks accts 4 elect. funds transfer
PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan 4 retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).
Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange 2 bring priv HC plans under Govt control.
PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs 4 priv. HC plans in the Exchange
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration ur Healthcare!
PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Govt mandates linguistic approp svcs. Example - Translation 4 illegal aliens
Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps 2 sign up indiv. for Govt HC plan
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs of Ben Levels 4 Plans.#AARP members - U Health care WILL b rationed
-PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Indiv. will b automat.enrolled in Medicaid. No choice
pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt Monop
pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/#AMA - The Govt will tell YOU what u can make.
Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into pub opt plan. NO CHOICE
Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay 4 HC 4 part time employees AND their families.

[PostmodernProphet]

Could it be that they have a reeeeeeeeeeeeeealy big Union!!

are they too big to fail?.....

[midcan5]

Fifteen pages of the right wing social darwinist cheap labor conservative republicans arguing against something that any modern society should take for granted as a right and not a privilege. Just too much. Some may have left the cave but the cave is still in them.

"Of all forms of government and society, those of free men and women are in many respects the most brittle. They give the fullest freedom for activities of private persons and groups who often identify their own interests, essentially selfish, with the general welfare." Dorothy Thompson


http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.display&item=HC09-main
http://blog.sojo.net/2009/08/06/truth-telling-and-responsibility-in-health-care/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-nejfelt/christians-weigh-in-on-he_b_250332.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-warmowski/christians-please-report_b_246730.html

[USFREEDOM911]

are they too big to fail?.....

NO; but they have to big of voting block, to be ALLOWED to fail.

It's the New Spin on buying votes.

[Cancel5]

Is there anyone else here who realizes that the word "audit" doesn't necessarily, or even usually, mean "IRS targeting an entity in the attempt to find or manufacture a misstep in that entity's finances"?

I have real problems with this bill, but the word "audit" is not one of them.
I just watched an incredible segment on Bill Moyer's Journal. Money Driven Medicine

I think you will find it informative. Bill Moyer, I believe is still one of the few investigative journalist we have on TV.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html

[Taichiliberal]

I just watched an incredible segment on Bill Moyer's Journal. Money Driven Medicine

I think you will find it informative. Bill Moyer, I believe is still one of the few investigative journalist we have on TV.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html

More and more, the evidence piles up....and the neocons and naysayers tighten their blinders and repeat their mantras louder. Like I said, they vote against their own best interests, and as long as they got theirs they really don't give a damn about anyone else....but they damn sure want all the little things in life to keep going and not be interrupted (coffee shop, shoe repair, etc.).

[PostmodernProphet]

More and more, the evidence piles up....

calling your 'evidence' a pile is certainly appropriate.....

[Cancel5]

calling your 'evidence' a pile is certainly appropriate.....
Hey, our evidence doesn't have piles, the neoconservative side has piles!

did you watch the segment, it is very good and I am also going to check out the Darthmoth study myself, ain't I smart

[Taichiliberal]

Hey, our evidence doesn't have piles, the neoconservative side has piles!

did you watch the segment, it is very good and I am also going to check out the Darthmoth study myself, ain't I smart

That's all they've got....snarls and barks with little to no substance behind them besides repeating their long disproved talking points. Hey, they've got theirs, to hell with everyone else.

[Cancel5]

That's all they've got....snarls and barks with little to no substance behind them besides repeating their long disproved talking points. Hey, they've got theirs, to hell with everyone else.
It is why we need to keep slaying the dragons, my friend!

[Taichiliberal]

It is why we need to keep slaying the dragons, my friend!

No problem, kid! :cool:

[christiefan915]

I just watched an incredible segment on Bill Moyer's Journal. Money Driven Medicine

I think you will find it informative. Bill Moyer, I believe is still one of the few investigative journalist we have on TV.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html

I watched it and he did a fantastic job. How could anybody argue about the facts when actual people are giving their stories about their problems. I'm guessing the majority has had "issues" with the system whether they're insured or not, or whether the problems have been major or minor.

[Canceled2]

Is there anyone else here who realizes that the word "audit" doesn't necessarily, or even usually, mean "IRS targeting an entity in the attempt to find or manufacture a misstep in that entity's finances"?

I have real problems with this bill, but the word "audit" is not one of them.

Who said it meant the IRS would be conducting the audits??? In fact the problem with the bill is that is is mostly unclear and ambiguous.

[Damocles]

Who said it meant the IRS would be conducting the audits??? In fact the problem with the bill is that is is mostly unclear and ambiguous.
Oh, I'm sure they wouldn't use the IRS, they'd make a whole new government entity with the power and authority to force compliance. Why use something that exists? It doesn't help to grow the government that way!

[Canceled2]

Oh, I'm sure they wouldn't use the IRS, they'd make a whole new government entity with the power and authority to force compliance. Why use something that exists? It doesn't help to grow the government that way!

WOW! Another opportunity for new czar position!