It looks bad for the Obamacare mandate

[Skynet]

That could have been fixed if they just passed one bill to deal with pre-existing conditions.

Unfortuantely Obama and the democrats dont truly care, if they did they would have passed something small, targeted, and constitutional.

I bet conservatives would have supported a bill that focused solely on this one, very important, issue.

actually the new health care bill does eliminate this. there are no more pre existing condition exclusion. it makes it illegal for companies to drop your policy if you get sick. it also makes insurance companies use 80% of all premium dollars on patient care, allows children to stay on a parent plan to age 26, and prohibits insurance companies from raising rates on targeted individuals, you must raise the rates on all.

i know, all of these are terrible ideas and should be struck down

 

[Greenbeard]

Health care commissioner's duties
`(C) REJECTION OF BIDS- Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring the Secretary to accept any or every bid by an MA organization under this subsection.'.
Like I said who will be accepted and who will be denied

post the whole section and the link so its not out of context.

You didn't read the bill did you?
She has the right accept or deni bids
Look it up HR 3962 and it is not out of context this is the whole thing under Sec. C

H.R. 3962 is not the health bill that became law (e.g. there is no "commissioner," that position was an invention of the House bill that never became law). What you want to be reading is last session's H.R. 3590, as amended by H.R. 4872 (a nice compiled version is available here).

The actual law clarifies the circumstances under which Medicare Advantage bids may be rejected (when they significantly increase cost-sharing or cut benefits):

`(C) REJECTION OF BIDS-

`(i) IN GENERAL- Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring the Secretary to accept any or every bid submitted by an MA organization under this subsection.
`(ii) AUTHORITY TO DENY BIDS THAT PROPOSE SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN COST SHARING OR DECREASES IN BENEFITS- The Secretary may deny a bid submitted by an MA organization for an MA plan if it proposes significant increases in cost sharing or decreases in benefits offered under the plan.'.​

That could have been fixed if they just passed one bill to deal with pre-existing conditions.

What do you have in mind?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am not a moral relativist.

I think the fact the richest nation on earth does not provide healthcare for all its citizens immoral.

I do not accept the argument that in any society class, privilege, and wealth are the only determinants of good healthcare.

I think that access to good healthcare is a good and a foundation for any arguments on individual freedom.

How can any American, any person, argue that something that hurts children is just the way it is and the alternatives too costly.

How can a America without healthcare claim to be a religious, caring, just, freedom loving nation.

You are not only a moral relativist, you are a hypocrite and a liar.

I have a standing challenge that not one single person has ever come close to answering. Show me one person anywhere in the United States who has ever been denied health care. Even without insurance you can see a doctor or get a necessary operation. Your problem is not that you think everyone should have health care, your problem is that you think George should pay for it because you believe it is the right thing to do.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VILa0SE7CVo"]YouTube - ‪Juraj musí pomôc[/ame]

Unless you are willing to beat the crap out of George yourself and take his money from him you should shut the fuck up about getting the government to do it.

i have a friend who was diagnosed with a pre-existing condition due to an over active thyroid and because of this the following things happen.

she can not get health insurance on her own, no one will insure her because of her condition. she was eventually lucky enough to get on an employer plan, but many of her treatments and medications are not covered and she can not afford them as they cost thousands of dollars. so since she can not pay, so she goes without. good enough? (oh she in in Orange County, CA)

Sounds to me like she had a problem getting insurance. Did she ever get turned away from the hospital when she went in for treatment?

 

[Skynet]

You are not only a moral relativist, you are a hypocrite and a liar.

I have a standing challenge that not one single person has ever come close to answering. Show me one person anywhere in the United States who has ever been denied health care. Even without insurance you can see a doctor or get a necessary operation. Your problem is not that you think everyone should have health care, your problem is that you think George should pay for it because you believe it is the right thing to do.

YouTube - ‪Juraj musí pomôc

Unless you are willing to beat the crap out of George yourself and take his money from him you should shut the fuck up about getting the government to do it.

i have a friend who was diagnosed with a pre-existing condition due to an over active thyroid and because of this the following things happen.

she can not get health insurance on her own, no one will insure her because of her condition. she was eventually lucky enough to get on an employer plan, but many of her treatments and medications are not covered and she can not afford them as they cost thousands of dollars. so since she can not pay, so she goes without. good enough? (oh she in in Orange County, CA)

Sounds to me like she had a problem getting insurance. Did she ever get turned away from the hospital when she went in for treatment?

yes she has been turned away because her condition is not considered life threatening.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

and youre a right wing nut job.

and the response the fed came up with to the individual mandate was actually this:

"Chief Judge Joel Dubina, who was tapped by Republican President George H.W. Bush, struck early by asking the government's attorney "if we uphold the individual mandate in this case, are there any limits on Congressional power?" Circuit Judges Frank Hull and Stanley Marcus, who were tapped by Democratic President Bill Clinton, echoed his concerns later in the hearing.

Acting U.S. Solicitor Neal Katyal sought to ease their concerns by saying the legislative branch can only exercise its powers to regulate commerce if it will have a substantial effect on the economy and solve a national, not local, problem. Health care coverage, he said, is unique because of the billions of dollars shifted in the economy when Americans without coverage seek medical care.

US judges raise pointed questions about health law - Nation Wires - MiamiHerald.com

Katyal has also argued that the government can force a person to buy broccoli or a membership in a health club. That does not make health care all that unique, does it?

agreed, thats a stupid argument, do you have a link to that?

The Volokh Conspiracy » No Limits? No Mandates.

 

[AllieBaba]

Overactive thyroid?

What sort of treatment, exactly, was this person seeking? Because generally the treatment is fairly simple, or at least, easy. I've never heard of an insurance company that refused to pay for thyroid treatment at all. That's weird.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

there is no board that will be making medical decision, that is a fallacy. all medical decisions will be left to doctors and patients.

so other than that your more upset with the cost that anything actually in the bill such as...

covering children until age 26
no more pre existing condition exclusions
health care exchanges
making sure 80% of premium dollars goes towards patient care
not being able to raise rates on individuals, you have to raise the rates on the entire group


hmmmm interesting...

The White House disagrees with you, are they lying?

proof? link? the new bill does not say the commissioner gets to decide who gets what treatment.

I thought I added it, my apologies.

The Facts About the Independent Payment Advisory Board | The White House

 

[Quantum Windbag]

i have a friend who was diagnosed with a pre-existing condition due to an over active thyroid and because of this the following things happen.

she can not get health insurance on her own, no one will insure her because of her condition. she was eventually lucky enough to get on an employer plan, but many of her treatments and medications are not covered and she can not afford them as they cost thousands of dollars. so since she can not pay, so she goes without. good enough? (oh she in in Orange County, CA)

Sounds to me like she had a problem getting insurance. Did she ever get turned away from the hospital when she went in for treatment?

yes she has been turned away because her condition is not considered life threatening.

I guarantee she can get treatment, even without insurance, in San Diego.

 

[Skynet]

The White House disagrees with you, are they lying?

proof? link? the new bill does not say the commissioner gets to decide who gets what treatment.

I thought I added it, my apologies.

The Facts About the Independent Payment Advisory Board | The White House

i still fail to see proof of your point. where does it state the commissioner get to decide who does and doesnt get treatment?

i see this

"IPAB would recommend policies to Congress to help Medicare provide better care at lower costs. This could include ideas on coordinating care, getting rid of waste in the system, incentivizing best practices, and prioritizing primary care."

"IPAB is specifically prohibited by law from recommending any policies that ration care, raise taxes, increase premiums or cost-sharing, restrict benefits or modify who is eligible for Medicare."

"A coalition of economists including three Nobel laureates said “the Affordable Care Act contains essentially every cost-containment provision policy analysts have considered effective in reducing the rate of medical spending” including an Independent Payment Advisory Board."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

proof? link? the new bill does not say the commissioner gets to decide who gets what treatment.

I thought I added it, my apologies.

The Facts About the Independent Payment Advisory Board | The White House

i still fail to see proof of your point. where does it state the commissioner get to decide who does and doesnt get treatment?

i see this

"IPAB would recommend policies to Congress to help Medicare provide better care at lower costs. This could include ideas on coordinating care, getting rid of waste in the system, incentivizing best practices, and prioritizing primary care."

"IPAB is specifically prohibited by law from recommending any policies that ration care, raise taxes, increase premiums or cost-sharing, restrict benefits or modify who is eligible for Medicare."

"A coalition of economists including three Nobel laureates said “the Affordable Care Act contains essentially every cost-containment provision policy analysts have considered effective in reducing the rate of medical spending” including an Independent Payment Advisory Board."

The IPAB, if implemented, will actually decide what treatments are cost effective. Twist that any way you want, that will ration care.

 

[Skynet]

Katyal has also argued that the government can force a person to buy broccoli or a membership in a health club. That does not make health care all that unique, does it?

agreed, thats a stupid argument, do you have a link to that?

The Volokh Conspiracy » No Limits? No Mandates.

from this argument Katyal doesnt make the statement its was made by Charles Fried.

As Charles Fried affirmed in his Senate Judiciary Committee Testimony defending the mandate, Congress does have the power to make you buy gym memberships, or broccoli. What it cannot do, he claimed, is make you eat the broccoli or work out. But his source for this limit, was not any limits on the enumerated powers of Congress themselves. It was the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

 

[Skynet]

I thought I added it, my apologies.

The Facts About the Independent Payment Advisory Board | The White House

i still fail to see proof of your point. where does it state the commissioner get to decide who does and doesnt get treatment?

i see this

"IPAB would recommend policies to Congress to help Medicare provide better care at lower costs. This could include ideas on coordinating care, getting rid of waste in the system, incentivizing best practices, and prioritizing primary care."

"IPAB is specifically prohibited by law from recommending any policies that ration care, raise taxes, increase premiums or cost-sharing, restrict benefits or modify who is eligible for Medicare."

"A coalition of economists including three Nobel laureates said “the Affordable Care Act contains essentially every cost-containment provision policy analysts have considered effective in reducing the rate of medical spending” including an Independent Payment Advisory Board."

The IPAB, if implemented, will actually decide what treatments are cost effective. Twist that any way you want, that will ration care.

if thats your interpretation so be it, as of right now, that power rests with the insurance companies or providers, they are the ones who get to deny you treatment. i would rather have a board of appointed and confirmed doctors doing that than a backroom deal between health care executives.

 

[AllieBaba]

I would rather have my own doctor doing it.

And insurance companies don't DENY YOU treatment. They just refuse to pay it. You can get the treatment if you can pay for it or find someone who will do it for low or no cost, or find a charity that will fund it.

Nobody has a RIGHT to any treatment they desire.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

i still fail to see proof of your point. where does it state the commissioner get to decide who does and doesnt get treatment?

i see this

"IPAB would recommend policies to Congress to help Medicare provide better care at lower costs. This could include ideas on coordinating care, getting rid of waste in the system, incentivizing best practices, and prioritizing primary care."

"IPAB is specifically prohibited by law from recommending any policies that ration care, raise taxes, increase premiums or cost-sharing, restrict benefits or modify who is eligible for Medicare."

"A coalition of economists including three Nobel laureates said “the Affordable Care Act contains essentially every cost-containment provision policy analysts have considered effective in reducing the rate of medical spending” including an Independent Payment Advisory Board."

The IPAB, if implemented, will actually decide what treatments are cost effective. Twist that any way you want, that will ration care.

if thats your interpretation so be it, as of right now, that power rests with the insurance companies or providers, they are the ones who get to deny you treatment. i would rather have a board of appointed and confirmed doctors doing that than a backroom deal between health care executives.

The thing is that if the government says something is denied, and the government pays for everything, I cannot get it even if both my doctor and I think I need it. If my insurance company says no I can still get it because it is still available through other sources.

Just because you are stupid does not mean everyone else is.

 

[Skynet]

The IPAB, if implemented, will actually decide what treatments are cost effective. Twist that any way you want, that will ration care.

if thats your interpretation so be it, as of right now, that power rests with the insurance companies or providers, they are the ones who get to deny you treatment. i would rather have a board of appointed and confirmed doctors doing that than a backroom deal between health care executives.

The thing is that if the government says something is denied, and the government pays for everything, I cannot get it even if both my doctor and I think I need it. If my insurance company says no I can still get it because it is still available through other sources.

please name all these other prevalent sources you can go get medical treatment at if your doctor says no? how much will they cost you? lets say you need a kidney transplant. do you have $200,000 just lying around? pretty sure not. what about bypass surgey? theres another $200,000. what about cancer treatments?

nowhere in the new health care bill does it state we are going to a single payer plan. that would give government full control of the system. the government is mandating that all americans get coverage (some with assistance). you have to buy health insurance. so you are paying into the system, that you will eventually use. wow, are you really that dumb?

 

[boedicca]

please name all these other prevalent sources you can go get medical treatment at if your doctor says no? how much will they cost you? lets say you need a kidney transplant. do you have $200,000 just lying around? pretty sure not. what about bypass surgey? theres another $200,000. what about cancer treatments?

nowhere in the new health care bill does it state we are going to a single payer plan. that would give government full control of the system. the government is mandating that all americans get coverage (some with assistance). you have to buy health insurance. so you are paying into the system, that you will eventually use. wow, are you really that dumb?

If I don't have the $200,000, why should people, who are healthy and don't want expensive health insurance, have to pay for something they don't use?

 

[LilOlLady]

Mandates are not unconstitutional. We mandate children to get vacination before starting school. We mandate driver license if we drive. We mandated slaves to carry passes when they left the plantations. We mandate auto insurance if you own a car. We mandate children to go to school until they are 16. We are mandated to drive on the right side of the road, stop at red lights, etc. Our are surrounded by mandates. Mandate in our schools are too many to list.

What is the Individual Mandate?
The individual mandate is a requirement that all Massachusetts residents over the age of 18, for whom available health insurance is affordable, obtain and maintain health insurance that meets minimum coverage requirements beginning July 1, 2007.

Individuals who cannot show proof of health insurance coverage by Dec. 31, 2007, will lose their personal income tax exemption when filing their 2007 income taxes. The 2006 personal exemption is $3,850 for an individual, which translates into a tax savings of approximately $204 for an individual (5.3 percent of $3,850).

Failure to meet the requirement in 2008 will result in a fine for each month the individual does not have coverage. The fine will equal 50 percent of the least costly, available insurance premium that meets the standard for creditable coverage.


Mandatory Health Insurance

Yet, Romney is promising to repeal Obamacare?

 

[Skynet]

please name all these other prevalent sources you can go get medical treatment at if your doctor says no? how much will they cost you? lets say you need a kidney transplant. do you have $200,000 just lying around? pretty sure not. what about bypass surgey? theres another $200,000. what about cancer treatments?

nowhere in the new health care bill does it state we are going to a single payer plan. that would give government full control of the system. the government is mandating that all americans get coverage (some with assistance). you have to buy health insurance. so you are paying into the system, that you will eventually use. wow, are you really that dumb?

If I don't have the $200,000, why should people, who are healthy and don't want expensive health insurance, have to pay for something they don't use?

thats the way the current insurance market already works. those who pay into the system subsidize the costs for all. or are you unaware of how the insurance market works? its the same thing for car insurance, life insurance, home owners insurance and so on.

who said they are making you buy one and only one specific plan? they are just mandating minimum coverage, just as car insurance has a minimum coverage.

 

[Trajan]

Before Obamacare, before Medicare, before Medicaid, I worked the credit desk for a small town hospital for awhile. My job was to work out plans for people to pay their emergency room or hospital bill or the large deductible most people carried on their insurance at that time.

Nobody was turned away because they couldn't pay.

And nobody was made a 'charity' case devoid of dignity and personal pride.

Usually I would work out a contract for the poorest folks to pay $10/month or more if they could afford it. Some paid off their bills. Some didn't. But none expected anybody to give them hospitalization or anything else free.

The really large crushing bills the community kicked in to help. Voluntarily. Nobody made them. And in those days, most healthcare was affordable for just about everybody even if you did have to pay off the big bills.

From Day 1 that Medicare went into effect all that began to change. And by the time Medicaid was added, healthcare was already spiraling out of reach of many people.

Anything the federal government is going to be involved in is going to cost much more than if the service is provided by the private sector. The bureacracy will swallow up a huge chunk of every tax dollar taken in to pay for it. And also every dollar borrowed to pay for it.

The federal government should not be mandating that private citizens have to use or buy any product and should be out of the healthcare 100% other than for monitoring and regulation to keep the food and drug supply coming into the country and crossing state lines as safe as possible.

the gov. of course, was wrong. Dreadfully wrong....

In 1967 long-run forecasts estimated that Medicare would cost about $12 billion by 1990. In reality, it cost more than $98 billion that year. Today it costs $500 billion.

The Facts about the Government

I mean you can be wrong, I am sure ryans plan underestimates too but, well, to be off by several orders of magnitude and then, after the decades of mismanagement to expect them to just get it right? Well, no, don't think so. The trajectory is in the toilet.

 

[Trajan]

Mandates are not unconstitutional. We mandate children to get vacination before starting school. We mandate driver license if we drive. We mandated slaves to carry passes when they left the plantations. We mandate auto insurance if you own a car. We mandate children to go to school until they are 16. We are mandated to drive on the right side of the road, stop at red lights, etc. Our are surrounded by mandates. Mandate in our schools are too many to list.

What is the Individual Mandate?
The individual mandate is a requirement that all Massachusetts residents over the age of 18, for whom available health insurance is affordable, obtain and maintain health insurance that meets minimum coverage requirements beginning July 1, 2007.

Individuals who cannot show proof of health insurance coverage by Dec. 31, 2007, will lose their personal income tax exemption when filing their 2007 income taxes. The 2006 personal exemption is $3,850 for an individual, which translates into a tax savings of approximately $204 for an individual (5.3 percent of $3,850).

Failure to meet the requirement in 2008 will result in a fine for each month the individual does not have coverage. The fine will equal 50 percent of the least costly, available insurance premium that meets the standard for creditable coverage.


Mandatory Health Insurance

Yet, Romney is promising to repeal Obamacare?

the car insurance anology ( along with the bothers you created) is so completely ridiculous , if the president posed such an anology, well, it would create a new low in ignorance and misunderstanding and intellectual vacuousness.

hey...........wait a minute!!!