Healthcare Bill Hit Parade!!

[MaggieMae]

I was beginning to wonder if anyone was ever going to notice this thread jr, as this thread from the actual bill. All the talk aside, about " you like your healthcare you can keep it" there is is in black and white for all to see. When a Govt. starts to mandate things and punish those who choose not to enroll it and clearly this bill intends to take away coverage on those people in plans it does not like. The intent is clear , and it's obvious that the sheer cost of doing this will bankrupt this nation. As for the Illegal Alein healthcare issue, what do you suppose the message will be to others wishing to enter the country illegally now?

Navy, you are quoting ONLY from the House version. The Senate has yet to pass anything, even out of committee, after which the agreed-upon FINAL DRAFT will go to conference committee (between the House and the Senate) for a final version. Go here to see where it's at, right now.

Please stop SCARING people into believing this is a DONE DEAL. IT IS NOT!!!!

Health Care for America NOW - Steps To Win

You mean like how cap and trade changed during the conference right? you mean I should wait and not inform people and let people listen to the propaganda comming from the President on this issue rather than the actual bill that is before the house? No thank you I would rather work from the actual legislation they are talking about rather than listen to the person that has made claims such as "unplolyment will not rise above 8.5% with the passage of this bill". If you find this scarry then good Maggie , you should find it scarry because it is. If you have not noticed our nation is deep in dept and with the advent of proposals like this , in an effort to socially norm everyone, some would take this nation down the same path that states like Ca. have already traveled. Perhaps you may one day like to receive a IOU from social security after you spent years paying into it, but personally I don't. So I will continue to post the REAL legislation and NOT the marketing version that the President would have people believe.

Um, cap and trade isn't a done deal yet either, Navy.

You'll notice I'm not disputing any of your points concerning your aversion to the House bill. I am simply reiterating as I have done a gazillion times before that any health care reform WILL NOT look like the House version that you've spent so many hours dissecting. Not even close.

That said, you constantly go off-topic and ramble on about differences in ideologies, which we all know exist. I get sick of the constant analogy to California; the constant yammering about how Democrats are the ones who will "take us down the road to...[fill in the blank], when it remains that the overall opinion found in poll after poll finds that two-thirds of Americans want SOME KIND of health care reform in order to control the costs. YOu can read that in ALL the polls here, going all the way back to the 90s.

Health Policy

 

[jreeves]

Yeah, I always go to YouTube or Twitter for my facts. I'd much rather my information come from more reliable, less partisan, sources.

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org

LMAO...

Sara Robinson | OurFuture.org

Sara has blogged on authoritarian and extremist movements at Orcinus since 2006; and is a founding member of Group News Blog, the successors to Steve Gilliard's original News Blog, where she still posts occasional lighter and more personal pieces. Her recent work has also appeared online at Firedoglake, DailyKos, OpenLeft, and Alternet; and in print at The Progressive Christian and Survival: The Journal of the International Institute of Strategic Studies. She is a consulting partner with the Cognitive Policy Works in Seattle, and a Fellow at the Campaign for America's Future.

So? Shall we all just in lockstep move over to reading your choice of partisan sites and publications? Don't be such a fucking hypocrite by continuing to believe there is only ONE solution to this mess--yours--and that millions of people should be scoffed at for blogging and otherwise writing about the OTHER side.

umm...I think I was citing Sec. directly from the bill being proposed in the House. Maybe you could show everyone how I have posted partisan sites and publications in this thread?

 

[jreeves]

First off, quit referring to ANYTHING CURRENTLY BEING DEBATED IN WASHINGTON as "UHC" (Universal Health Care). This continues to be distorted in the hopes that you'll get the masses of the clueless to believe it.

Second, determining whether or not a resident of Mexico with a LEGAL work visa will probably be considered on an individual basis, with consideration giving to whether that person actually did pay into our tax system, which is frankly highly doubtful. Those are points that ultimately will need to be worked out, and not points that are major enough in context to determine the character of the broader bill.

Considering advocates of UHC include the nearly 10 million non-Americans as among the 47 million Americans who are uninsured, yes I think they will be covered by this or any other version of UHC. So 10 million people's health care is not major enough?

No. ACCESS TO health care at reasonable costs through insurance is all that will be considered.

The Access would include the 10 million cited by advocates of UHC.

 

[MaggieMae]

what is a possession of the united states described in 937a? are you really sure this relates to illegal aliens in the continental usa?

Operative words. Illegal aliens will NOT be automatically covered.

Maggie, I think I have pointed out where in the legislation that Illegal Immigrants will be covered under this bill. In fact in the bill EVERYONE is considered automatically covered if they do not opt for a plan and there is NO proof of residence required in it. See ( Medicare/Medicade Section) As I have pointed out to you and others on here many times when there is a LACK of legislation to the contrary it is up to the commissioner to make the decision on who is covered. Further, when there is no legislation to the contrary it is assumed in the affirmitive.

You have not "proven" anything. I read the exchange with Care, and it is a matter of interpretation, and you are wrong. Go to the 14-page analysis by CBO, below, specifically the last paragraph of Page 4. Throughout the analysis, it refers to LEGAL residents.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/House_Tri-Committee.pdf

 

[jreeves]

Operative words. Illegal aliens will NOT be automatically covered.

Maggie, I think I have pointed out where in the legislation that Illegal Immigrants will be covered under this bill. In fact in the bill EVERYONE is considered automatically covered if they do not opt for a plan and there is NO proof of residence required in it. See ( Medicare/Medicade Section) As I have pointed out to you and others on here many times when there is a LACK of legislation to the contrary it is up to the commissioner to make the decision on who is covered. Further, when there is no legislation to the contrary it is assumed in the affirmitive.

You have not "proven" anything. I read the exchange with Care, and it is a matter of interpretation, and you are wrong. Go to the 14-page analysis by CBO, below, specifically the last paragraph of Page 4. Throughout the analysis, it refers to LEGAL residents.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/House_Tri-Committee.pdf

Huffington post...chuckle....

 

[jreeves]

Yeah, I always go to YouTube or Twitter for my facts. I'd much rather my information come from more reliable, less partisan, sources.

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org

LMAO...

Sara Robinson | OurFuture.org

Sara has blogged on authoritarian and extremist movements at Orcinus since 2006; and is a founding member of Group News Blog, the successors to Steve Gilliard's original News Blog, where she still posts occasional lighter and more personal pieces. Her recent work has also appeared online at Firedoglake, DailyKos, OpenLeft, and Alternet; and in print at The Progressive Christian and Survival: The Journal of the International Institute of Strategic Studies. She is a consulting partner with the Cognitive Policy Works in Seattle, and a Fellow at the Campaign for America's Future.

So? Shall we all just in lockstep move over to reading your choice of partisan sites and publications? Don't be such a fucking hypocrite by continuing to believe there is only ONE solution to this mess--yours--and that millions of people should be scoffed at for blogging and otherwise writing about the OTHER side.

BTW aren't you the one who said this?
Yeah, I always go to YouTube or Twitter for my facts. I'd much rather my information come from more reliable, less partisan, sources.

 

[MaggieMae]

Maybe could you post all of them?

I don't care, since they get red-lined and redrafted every passing minute. I won't care until something is finalized. We basically know what the issues are, the prime one being how to pay for any of it. Even the latest Republican plan will cost a trillion or so due to loss of revenue (tax cuts/credits) and offering primarily the same type of "reform" currently offered in the various other proposals at the same time.

That's the reason you post blogs by people who write for the DailyKOS and link websites that are funded by ACORN and labor unions....oh ok

Ah yes, it's always a big red flag that someone's got his eyeballs firmly planted in front of FOXNEWS and his ears to LIMBAUGH whenever any topic, any at all, is attempted to be rebutted by injecting the evil ACORN.

You don't even seem to know that DailyKos is an ultra-liberal website. There are very few ultra-liberal Democrats, genius. You're beyong cuckoo. Just dumb.

 

[jreeves]

I don't care, since they get red-lined and redrafted every passing minute. I won't care until something is finalized. We basically know what the issues are, the prime one being how to pay for any of it. Even the latest Republican plan will cost a trillion or so due to loss of revenue (tax cuts/credits) and offering primarily the same type of "reform" currently offered in the various other proposals at the same time.

That's the reason you post blogs by people who write for the DailyKOS and link websites that are funded by ACORN and labor unions....oh ok

Ah yes, it's always a big red flag that someone's got his eyeballs firmly planted in front of FOXNEWS and his ears to LIMBAUGH whenever any topic, any at all, is attempted to be rebutted by injecting the evil ACORN.

You don't even seem to know that DailyKos is an ultra-liberal website. There are very few ultra-liberal Democrats, genius. You're beyong cuckoo. Just dumb.

Again I have been citing the bill being considered in the House. You are the one who is citing, partisan websites.....that is truly

 

[MaggieMae]

Far be it from me not to be fair Maggie so you asked , and you will have *smiles* Here is a the Seante Version...

3 SEC. 141. ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING MEDICAID.
4 (a) ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING POLICY.—The Com5
mittee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the
6 Senate assumes that the provisions of the Affordable
7 Health Choices Act will be considered by the Senate as
8 part of legislation that amends title XIX of the Social Se9
curity Act to implement the following policies:
10 (1) All individuals currently eligible for Med11
icaid will remain eligible for Medicaid.
12 (2) All individuals will be eligible for Medicaid
13 at income levels up to 150 percent of poverty.

http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A84_xml.pdf

What is WRONG with you??!! That was ONE Senate committee's version. The next step, the crucial one, will be to take up ALL the proposals by Baucuses SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE next week.

 

[MaggieMae]

LMAO...

Sara Robinson | OurFuture.org

Sara has blogged on authoritarian and extremist movements at Orcinus since 2006; and is a founding member of Group News Blog, the successors to Steve Gilliard's original News Blog, where she still posts occasional lighter and more personal pieces. Her recent work has also appeared online at Firedoglake, DailyKos, OpenLeft, and Alternet; and in print at The Progressive Christian and Survival: The Journal of the International Institute of Strategic Studies. She is a consulting partner with the Cognitive Policy Works in Seattle, and a Fellow at the Campaign for America's Future.

So? Shall we all just in lockstep move over to reading your choice of partisan sites and publications? Don't be such a fucking hypocrite by continuing to believe there is only ONE solution to this mess--yours--and that millions of people should be scoffed at for blogging and otherwise writing about the OTHER side.

umm...I think I was citing Sec. directly from the bill being proposed in the House. Maybe you could show everyone how I have posted partisan sites and publications in this thread?

You screeched about the link I posted regarding Canadian health care as being leftist. I wasn't saying whether or not you've posted form right-wing blogs, but I was pointing out the hypocrisy of your accusatory point, period. You're a little slow on comprehension, too.

 

[MaggieMae]

Maggie, I think I have pointed out where in the legislation that Illegal Immigrants will be covered under this bill. In fact in the bill EVERYONE is considered automatically covered if they do not opt for a plan and there is NO proof of residence required in it. See ( Medicare/Medicade Section) As I have pointed out to you and others on here many times when there is a LACK of legislation to the contrary it is up to the commissioner to make the decision on who is covered. Further, when there is no legislation to the contrary it is assumed in the affirmitive.

You have not "proven" anything. I read the exchange with Care, and it is a matter of interpretation, and you are wrong. Go to the 14-page analysis by CBO, below, specifically the last paragraph of Page 4. Throughout the analysis, it refers to LEGAL residents.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/House_Tri-Committee.pdf

Huffington post...chuckle....

Hey, stupid, the link is to the PDF version of the CBO letter. Try sprinkling the top of your head; maybe half of the gray matter will start to move around inside.

 

[jreeves]

You have not "proven" anything. I read the exchange with Care, and it is a matter of interpretation, and you are wrong. Go to the 14-page analysis by CBO, below, specifically the last paragraph of Page 4. Throughout the analysis, it refers to LEGAL residents.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/House_Tri-Committee.pdf

Huffington post...chuckle....

Hey, stupid, the link is to the PDF version of the CBO letter. Try sprinkling the top of your head; maybe half of the gray matter will start to move around inside.

Excuse me, I didn't even click on the link, due to your past displays of

 

[MaggieMae]

LMAO...

Sara Robinson | OurFuture.org

Sara has blogged on authoritarian and extremist movements at Orcinus since 2006; and is a founding member of Group News Blog, the successors to Steve Gilliard's original News Blog, where she still posts occasional lighter and more personal pieces. Her recent work has also appeared online at Firedoglake, DailyKos, OpenLeft, and Alternet; and in print at The Progressive Christian and Survival: The Journal of the International Institute of Strategic Studies. She is a consulting partner with the Cognitive Policy Works in Seattle, and a Fellow at the Campaign for America's Future.

So? Shall we all just in lockstep move over to reading your choice of partisan sites and publications? Don't be such a fucking hypocrite by continuing to believe there is only ONE solution to this mess--yours--and that millions of people should be scoffed at for blogging and otherwise writing about the OTHER side.

BTW aren't you the one who said this?
Yeah, I always go to YouTube or Twitter for my facts. I'd much rather my information come from more reliable, less partisan, sources.

Your point? I get my information from a huge variety of sources, not the least of which is Congressional Daily, which is straight reporting. I watch/listen on average 15 hours per week of C-Span and also read THEIR links to sources. You will ever win an argument with me by just parroting opinions of others, so don't even try. On the other hand, if you're ever 'right' about something, I'll let you know.

 

[Navy1960]

Navy, you are quoting ONLY from the House version. The Senate has yet to pass anything, even out of committee, after which the agreed-upon FINAL DRAFT will go to conference committee (between the House and the Senate) for a final version. Go here to see where it's at, right now.

Please stop SCARING people into believing this is a DONE DEAL. IT IS NOT!!!!

Health Care for America NOW - Steps To Win

You mean like how cap and trade changed during the conference right? you mean I should wait and not inform people and let people listen to the propaganda comming from the President on this issue rather than the actual bill that is before the house? No thank you I would rather work from the actual legislation they are talking about rather than listen to the person that has made claims such as "unplolyment will not rise above 8.5% with the passage of this bill". If you find this scarry then good Maggie , you should find it scarry because it is. If you have not noticed our nation is deep in dept and with the advent of proposals like this , in an effort to socially norm everyone, some would take this nation down the same path that states like Ca. have already traveled. Perhaps you may one day like to receive a IOU from social security after you spent years paying into it, but personally I don't. So I will continue to post the REAL legislation and NOT the marketing version that the President would have people believe.

Um, cap and trade isn't a done deal yet either, Navy.

You'll notice I'm not disputing any of your points concerning your aversion to the House bill. I am simply reiterating as I have done a gazillion times before that any health care reform WILL NOT look like the House version that you've spent so many hours dissecting. Not even close.

That said, you constantly go off-topic and ramble on about differences in ideologies, which we all know exist. I get sick of the constant analogy to California; the constant yammering about how Democrats are the ones who will "take us down the road to...[fill in the blank], when it remains that the overall opinion found in poll after poll finds that two-thirds of Americans want SOME KIND of health care reform in order to control the costs. YOu can read that in ALL the polls here, going all the way back to the 90s.

Health Policy

Maggie, I'm not going off topic I'm simply addressing your points and as for Ca. if the bill(s) are perpetuated by the leader of the house who happens to be from Ca. and Mr. Waxman who also happens to be from Ca. and language contained in other bills i.e. cap and trade that point blank refers to Ca. then yes I will keep making reference to it. As for keeping costs down in healthcare , I don't think anyone here who has seen me discuss this issue can dispute that I have always held the position that healthcare costs need to be brought under control. However, I am also not under the mistaken impression that our Govt. is empowered to mandate healthcare for everyone. If you do not like discussing the actual legislation then thats fine with me Maggie, I can I suppose find some propaganda sites and begin to post opinions based as fact.

 

[Navy1960]

Operative words. Illegal aliens will NOT be automatically covered.

Maggie, I think I have pointed out where in the legislation that Illegal Immigrants will be covered under this bill. In fact in the bill EVERYONE is considered automatically covered if they do not opt for a plan and there is NO proof of residence required in it. See ( Medicare/Medicade Section) As I have pointed out to you and others on here many times when there is a LACK of legislation to the contrary it is up to the commissioner to make the decision on who is covered. Further, when there is no legislation to the contrary it is assumed in the affirmitive.

You have not "proven" anything. I read the exchange with Care, and it is a matter of interpretation, and you are wrong. Go to the 14-page analysis by CBO, below, specifically the last paragraph of Page 4. Throughout the analysis, it refers to LEGAL residents.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/House_Tri-Committee.pdf

Maggie I'm sorry that the contents of the bill disturb you, they should be disturbing to any free thinking American. I have pointed out in the BILL itself both the senate and the house versions on here where it maks reference to coverage. If you choose to to read an analysis from the huffington post and not the bill and have them make up your mind for you then of course your entitled to do that. As for me, I tend look at the text of the language unlike most of the members of congress who don't bother to even read the bills and take it as written. In my last posting from the Senate Version it makes it quite clear who the Senate considers is covered and makes NO REFERENCE to residence requirements or legal status. IF that doesn't make sense to you then of course you can choose to take it as you wish.

 

[Navy1960]

One more thing worthy of note here Maggie, this thread was started by me as a discussion thread on the merits of the bills themselves, and if I happen to take issue with various sections of the bills then that is within keeping of of this thread topic. Again, you have my apologies if the contents of the bill(s) fly in the face of what your being told by the sources you get your information from. However, I have always contented that perhaps that is why our Govt. spends money needlessly because they hope people will take on face value what they tell them and not bother to read what laws they hope to make us abide by,

"Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect
liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men
born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their
liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty
lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning
but without understanding."
-- Justice Louis Brandeis

 

[jreeves]

So? Shall we all just in lockstep move over to reading your choice of partisan sites and publications? Don't be such a fucking hypocrite by continuing to believe there is only ONE solution to this mess--yours--and that millions of people should be scoffed at for blogging and otherwise writing about the OTHER side.

BTW aren't you the one who said this?
Yeah, I always go to YouTube or Twitter for my facts. I'd much rather my information come from more reliable, less partisan, sources.

Your point? I get my information from a huge variety of sources, not the least of which is Congressional Daily, which is straight reporting. I watch/listen on average 15 hours per week of C-Span and also read THEIR links to sources. You will ever win an argument with me by just parroting opinions of others, so don't even try. On the other hand, if you're ever 'right' about something, I'll let you know.

In what way did you not parrot the blogger that has blogged for DailyKOS as well as other liberal websites?

 

[jreeves]

Yeah, I always go to YouTube or Twitter for my facts. I'd much rather my information come from more reliable, less partisan, sources.

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org

LMAO...

Sara Robinson | OurFuture.org

Sara has blogged on authoritarian and extremist movements at Orcinus since 2006; and is a founding member of Group News Blog, the successors to Steve Gilliard's original News Blog, where she still posts occasional lighter and more personal pieces. Her recent work has also appeared online at Firedoglake, DailyKos, OpenLeft, and Alternet; and in print at The Progressive Christian and Survival: The Journal of the International Institute of Strategic Studies. She is a consulting partner with the Cognitive Policy Works in Seattle, and a Fellow at the Campaign for America's Future.

So? Shall we all just in lockstep move over to reading your choice of partisan sites and publications? Don't be such a fucking hypocrite by continuing to believe there is only ONE solution to this mess--yours--and that millions of people should be scoffed at for blogging and otherwise writing about the OTHER side.

BTW she doesn't just write and blog for the other side...

She is a consultant for Cognitive Policy Works, here is a little about CPW.
Cognitive Policy Works
Cognitive Policy Works is an educational center and consulting service that provides strategic guidance to the progressive world.

 

[jreeves]

ILLEGAL ALIEN: An "illegal alien" is a foreigner who (1) does not owe allegiance to our country; and (2) who has violated our laws and customs in establishing residence in our country. He or she is therefore a criminal under applicable U.S. laws.

The term "illegal alien" is used by U.S. citizens who believe that non-citizens entering our country must comply with our immigration laws.

The term "illegal alien" is predicated upon U.S. immigration law which requires foreigners entering the U.S. to comply with our country's rules and laws regarding entry into, and residence within, our country.

FYI

YOU should know, that if you or reeves took the position I am holding on these regs that we have been arguing about, I would have taken the OPPOSITE position.

Not only do I enjoy playing devil's advocate, I find taking the position much more useful in helping me find out more information regarding the topic being argued, so that I can eventually make a decision based off of my own researched arguments or the arguments of those I chose to oppose... for the sake of opposing :, because their arguments or positions ended up better!

So please don't take any of this debating or arguing as some may see it, personally!!!



care

I enjoy debating you, at least your intellectually honest.

 

[Navy1960]

SEC. 2706. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INDI22
VIDUAL PARTICIPANTS AND BENEFICIARIES
23 BASED ON HEALTH STATUS.
24 ‘‘A group health plan and a health insurance issuer
25 offering group or individual health insurance coverage,
13
O:\BAI\BAI09A84.xml [file 1 of 6] S.L.C.
1 may not establish rules for eligibility (including continued
2 eligibility) of any individual to enroll under the terms of
3 the plan or coverage based on any of the following health
4 status-related factors in relation to the individual or a de5
pendent of the individual:
6 ‘‘(1) Health status.
7 ‘‘(2) Medical condition (including both physical
8 and mental illnesses).
9 ‘‘(3) Claims experience.
10 ‘‘(4) Receipt of health care.
11 ‘‘(5) Medical history.
12 ‘‘(6) Genetic information.
13 ‘‘(7) Evidence of insurability (including condi14
tions arising out of acts of domestic violence).
15 ‘‘(8) Disability.
16 ‘‘(9) Any other health status-related factor de17
termined appropriate by the Secretary.

As I have stated in the house version the language is clear for those of you who wish to deny it, it's completly up to the Sec. or commissioner as to who they will force the insurance companies to cover or have converage. This one happens to be from the Senate version