Newest Health Care Bill ~ This one is 1900 pages

[Meister]

I see the trial lawyers will be able to get their piece of the pie out of this bill.



Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages.
Big Government » Blog Archive » Pelosi Health Care Bill Blows a Kiss to Trial Lawyers

 

[The T]

I see the trial lawyers will be able to get their piece of the pie out of this bill.



Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages.
Big Government » Blog Archive » Pelosi Health Care Bill Blows a Kiss to Trial Lawyers

Of course. It's TIME to Stomp on the trial Lawyers' Heads too or treat them like the snakes as they are and take a sharp shovel and cut their heads off as the SNAKES that they are...Metaphorically...As we do down here in the South.

This whole thing STINKS on the Surface, In the middle, and on both sides, and is UnConstitutional.

 

[Foxfyre]

Summaries of the bill, in plain English, are readily available.

Then would you kindly point me to one or two of those? All I have seen are pronouncements by the (cough) elected leaders who are desperate to pass this--to pass ANYTHING--and the koolade drinkers and partisan hacks who believe everything they are told by those leaders.

I haven't seen anything put out yet by anybody who doesn't want this passed and never mind what is in it.

The ones who scare me the most though are those who freely admit that this is not intended to be the "whole welfare reform" plan but provides the license, guidelines, permission, and framework by which the politicians, stafers, lobbyists, and beneficiaries will work out the details later.

Whoever that concept doesn't scare shitless must be the bravest person on earth.

I marvel that so few have noticed that "small" detail coupled with the extreme urgency being placed on this legislation lest the nation collapse and we slide into permanent depression. Also remember how the stimulus bill was a red flag five alarm emergency with extreme urgency necessary to save us this year while most of it won't go into effect next year?

Why aren't more people questioning why this desperately urgent healthcare reform along with those pesky details of implementation won't go into effect until AFTER the 2012 election?

 

[Ame®icano]

Here are some details from Pelosi (H.R.3962) bill.

LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE (page 94)

Basically, section 202(c) prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government.

COVERAGE UNDER PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION (page 110)

Section 222(e)(3) allows use of federal dollars to fund abortions through the government-run health plan and, if the Hyde Amendment were ever not renewed, would require the plan to fund elective abortions.

HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (page 111)

Section 223 establishes a new board of federal bureaucrats (the “Health Benefits Advisory Committee”) to dictate the health plans that all individuals must purchase. The same bureaucrats and would also decide what coverage will be subsidized by taxpayers.

To be continued...

 

[Polk]

Talk about a sliding scale. If the CBO numbers favor your position, they're gospel. If they don't favor your position, you pretend like they don't exist.

Are you playing ignorant, or is it real? Look at your damn source polk, it states that it hasn't done a comprehensive audit of it. Sheesh, you don't even know what you posted???? Show me what I have ever said about the CBO favoring, or not favoring my position...or are you projecting? Which is it????? The more I read your posts, the more you look like a goofball to me. just sayin......

You'll have to excuse Polky. He's a 22 year old College student, who is a staunch partisan who doesn't READ much.

Tommy, as usual, doesn't really have anything of substance, so he just goes into personal attacks.

 

[Polk]

Polk...please, lets just wait for the comprehensive audit of the bill...OK?

Talk about a sliding scale. If the CBO numbers favor your position, they're gospel. If they don't favor your position, you pretend like they don't exist.

Are you playing ignorant, or is it real? Look at your damn source polk, it states that it hasn't done a comprehensive audit of it. Sheesh, you don't even know what you posted???? Show me what I have ever said about the CBO favoring, or not favoring my position...or are you projecting? Which is it????? The more I read your posts, the more you look like a goofball to me. just sayin......

You said yourself "lets just wait for the comprehensive audit of the bill". That's not because you actually care about the numbers. It's because you dislike this bill. If the final numbers come back and say the same thing (which they almost certainly will, with a small variance), you won't care about CBO numbers any more. You'll claimed they're cooked.

 

[Foxfyre]

You said yourself "lets just wait for the comprehensive audit of the bill". That's not because you actually care about the numbers. It's because you dislike this bill. If the final numbers come back and say the same thing (which they almost certainly will, with a small variance), you won't care about CBO numbers any more. You'll claimed they're cooked.

This wasn't addressed to me, but it could have been. The point is that you seem to have full faith in the Obama/Pelosi/Reid and the rest of the Democrats who are lobbying for passage of this legislation. You seem to believe that it will be a good thing and do good things for you and the American people. You seem to believe that what they say about the cost of it and the integrity of it is reliable. And you seem to believe that those of us opposing the bill are the ones who are wrong and the ones who would lie.

I asked earlier this afternoon to be directed to one of those several summaries of the legislation that you say exist. Could you do that please?

And could you please give me the basis you use that makes you trust what the President and the Democrats are telling you about this legislation, and why you think those of us who are critics are so unreliable?

 

[Polk]

You said yourself "lets just wait for the comprehensive audit of the bill". That's not because you actually care about the numbers. It's because you dislike this bill. If the final numbers come back and say the same thing (which they almost certainly will, with a small variance), you won't care about CBO numbers any more. You'll claimed they're cooked.

This wasn't addressed to me, but it could have been. The point is that you seem to have full faith in the Obama/Pelosi/Reid and the rest of the Democrats who are lobbying for passage of this legislation. You seem to believe that it will be a good thing and do good things for you and the American people. You seem to believe that what they say about the cost of it and the integrity of it is reliable. And you seem to believe that those of us opposing the bill are the ones who are wrong and the ones who would lie.

It has nothing to do with faith in politicians. The people working at CBO are career professionals. They're not going to ruin their careers by playing games with the numbers. I do support the legislation in question, but that is on the merits of the proposal. I have no incentive to produce or support the production of misleading numbers, if they were released.

If I am skeptical of the opponents of the legislation, it's because they've given me ample reason to believe they are not negotiating in good faith, ranging from incorrect statements about effects on the deficit (while the bill will increase the size of the budget, as currently written it will not increase the deficit over the ten year window), to false claims about provisions ("death panels" and that the bill would ban private insurance, for starters).

I asked earlier this afternoon to be directed to one of those several summaries of the legislation that you say exist. Could you do that please?

And could you please give me the basis you use that makes you trust what the President and the Democrats are telling you about this legislation, and why you think those of us who are critics are so unreliable?

America’s Affordable Health Choices Act | EdLabor Journal | Committee on Education and Labor

 

[Meister]

Talk about a sliding scale. If the CBO numbers favor your position, they're gospel. If they don't favor your position, you pretend like they don't exist.

Are you playing ignorant, or is it real? Look at your damn source polk, it states that it hasn't done a comprehensive audit of it. Sheesh, you don't even know what you posted???? Show me what I have ever said about the CBO favoring, or not favoring my position...or are you projecting? Which is it????? The more I read your posts, the more you look like a goofball to me. just sayin......

You said yourself "lets just wait for the comprehensive audit of the bill". That's not because you actually care about the numbers. It's because you dislike this bill. If the final numbers come back and say the same thing (which they almost certainly will, with a small variance), you won't care about CBO numbers any more. You'll claimed they're cooked.

Polk.....I just read what your source said...try and understand that. But, having said that....the Senate isn't going to vote on that bill, they will merge the 2 bills and that is what will be audited by the CBO, then voted on by the Senate...your way too early on getting your panties in a bunch. Right now it doesn't look like they will have the votes in the Senate, and Pelosi will be lucky to have 200 votes in the House.
Yeah I do dislike the bill, it's a government grab for power. It's 1/5--1/6 of our economy, and they haven't proven that they can run something like this without big deficits. No one has addressed the fraud and waste that will come to pass, as it has with Medicare, Social Security, and Welfare. I know that doesn't concern you, but it sure does me. Our government was never set up to do the things that the left are trying to push through. If all they wanted was healthcare for the uninsured they could do it by simply regulating the private sector to insure those people...but it's not about that, polk. If they wanted to lower some of the costs, they could start with tort reform, but they don't want to address that, ask yourself why?
Just remember after all the stimulus bills, healthcare, and then the next is, cap and trade....How in hell can we afford all of this? It's your future you should be worried about, it's your dollar that will be hurt along with our economy...look at the big picture, or try to.

 

[Polk]

Are you playing ignorant, or is it real? Look at your damn source polk, it states that it hasn't done a comprehensive audit of it. Sheesh, you don't even know what you posted???? Show me what I have ever said about the CBO favoring, or not favoring my position...or are you projecting? Which is it????? The more I read your posts, the more you look like a goofball to me. just sayin......

You said yourself "lets just wait for the comprehensive audit of the bill". That's not because you actually care about the numbers. It's because you dislike this bill. If the final numbers come back and say the same thing (which they almost certainly will, with a small variance), you won't care about CBO numbers any more. You'll claimed they're cooked.

Polk.....I just read what your source said...try and understand that. But, having said that....the Senate isn't going to vote on that bill, they will merge the 2 bills and that is what will be audited by the CBO, then voted on by the Senate...your way too early on getting your panties in a bunch. Right now it doesn't look like they will have the votes in the Senate, and Pelosi will be lucky to have 200 votes in the House.

About final cost projections, it's likely the final bill will result in lower costs overall. The House bill has more effective provisions on the spending side, while the Senate bill has more effective funding provisions. Conference will result in a bit being taken from each. As for the votes, I have no idea where your estimate comes from. I'm not sure of the exact numbers on the House side, but the numbers seem secure on the Senate side for overall passage. Probably not for a bill containing the public option, but safe for the general process.

Yeah I do dislike the bill, it's a government grab for power. It's 1/5--1/6 of our economy, and they haven't proven that they can run something like this without big deficits. No one has addressed the fraud and waste that will come to pass, as it has with Medicare, Social Security, and Welfare. I know that doesn't concern you, but it sure does me. Our government was never set up to do the things that the left are trying to push through. If all they wanted was healthcare for the uninsured they could do it by simply regulating the private sector to insure those people...but it's not about that, polk. If they wanted to lower some of the costs, they could start with tort reform, but they don't want to address that, ask yourself why?
Just remember after all the stimulus bills, healthcare, and then the next is, cap and trade....How in hell can we afford all of this? It's your future you should be worried about, it's your dollar that will be hurt along with our economy...look at the big picture, or try to.

The entire health care space is a sixth of the economy, but the bill doesn't give the government control of it. It directly effects delivery for about five percent of the population. For everyone else, it's minor tweaks in coverage. It's quite simple to administer the program without huge deficits, since very little of the bill actually provides anything. As for abuse of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, there is going to be abuse in any system. If you've ever worked in a hospital, you know there is abuse of the private health insurance system as well. Any system has potential for corruption.

I agree it's possible to achieve the goal of reducing the number of the uninsured without a public option. The reason the public option has support isn't some ominous power grab though. It's simply that there are people who think (and you're free to disagree with this), that a public option would help achieve the same goals at a lower cost. As for tort reform lowering cost, we already have case studies on this from states that have passed tort reform at the localized level. So far, they've made no impact on health care costs. Which makes sense, when you really consider it, because the total cost of malpractice is less than two percent of overall health care spending.

Frankly, the real cost for health care is the cost of nothing doing. We know that not taking action will only result in costs increasing further and further in the years to come.

 

[WillowTree]

Based on the lies issuing forth from the wh. (remember this mornings lie? the one about the visitors ayers and wright not being the same ayers and wright we saw in the news ) based on the lies from reid and pelosi and every other demoncwat who opens their mouth. Anybody who believes a word they say about this bill is a damn fool.

 

[SFC Ollie]

You said yourself "lets just wait for the comprehensive audit of the bill". That's not because you actually care about the numbers. It's because you dislike this bill. If the final numbers come back and say the same thing (which they almost certainly will, with a small variance), you won't care about CBO numbers any more. You'll claimed they're cooked.

This wasn't addressed to me, but it could have been. The point is that you seem to have full faith in the Obama/Pelosi/Reid and the rest of the Democrats who are lobbying for passage of this legislation. You seem to believe that it will be a good thing and do good things for you and the American people. You seem to believe that what they say about the cost of it and the integrity of it is reliable. And you seem to believe that those of us opposing the bill are the ones who are wrong and the ones who would lie.

It has nothing to do with faith in politicians. The people working at CBO are career professionals. They're not going to ruin their careers by playing games with the numbers. I do support the legislation in question, but that is on the merits of the proposal. I have no incentive to produce or support the production of misleading numbers, if they were released.

If I am skeptical of the opponents of the legislation, it's because they've given me ample reason to believe they are not negotiating in good faith, ranging from incorrect statements about effects on the deficit (while the bill will increase the size of the budget, as currently written it will not increase the deficit over the ten year window), to false claims about provisions ("death panels" and that the bill would ban private insurance, for starters).

I asked earlier this afternoon to be directed to one of those several summaries of the legislation that you say exist. Could you do that please?

And could you please give me the basis you use that makes you trust what the President and the Democrats are telling you about this legislation, and why you think those of us who are critics are so unreliable?

America’s Affordable Health Choices Act | EdLabor Journal | Committee on Education and Labor

The very first paragraph of the "summary" is a Micheal Moore truth. It says that the bill is deficit neutral yet it doesn't mention that to do that they had to cut Medicare payments to Doctors in this Bill and pay them back in a completely separate bill which would add $250 Billion to the deficit. So sad that so many Americans will fall for this Lie.

 

[WillowTree]

This wasn't addressed to me, but it could have been. The point is that you seem to have full faith in the Obama/Pelosi/Reid and the rest of the Democrats who are lobbying for passage of this legislation. You seem to believe that it will be a good thing and do good things for you and the American people. You seem to believe that what they say about the cost of it and the integrity of it is reliable. And you seem to believe that those of us opposing the bill are the ones who are wrong and the ones who would lie.

It has nothing to do with faith in politicians. The people working at CBO are career professionals. They're not going to ruin their careers by playing games with the numbers. I do support the legislation in question, but that is on the merits of the proposal. I have no incentive to produce or support the production of misleading numbers, if they were released.

If I am skeptical of the opponents of the legislation, it's because they've given me ample reason to believe they are not negotiating in good faith, ranging from incorrect statements about effects on the deficit (while the bill will increase the size of the budget, as currently written it will not increase the deficit over the ten year window), to false claims about provisions ("death panels" and that the bill would ban private insurance, for starters).

I asked earlier this afternoon to be directed to one of those several summaries of the legislation that you say exist. Could you do that please?

And could you please give me the basis you use that makes you trust what the President and the Democrats are telling you about this legislation, and why you think those of us who are critics are so unreliable?

America’s Affordable Health Choices Act | EdLabor Journal | Committee on Education and Labor

The very first paragraph of the "summary" is a Micheal Moore truth. It says that the bill is deficit neutral yet it doesn't mention that to do that they had to cut Medicare payments to Doctors in this Bill and pay them back in a completely separate bill which would add $250 Billion to the deficit. So sad that so many Americans will fall for this Lie.

only the fools believe it. just like they believed he sat in church 20 years and never heard a word of God damn America.!

 

[Polk]

This wasn't addressed to me, but it could have been. The point is that you seem to have full faith in the Obama/Pelosi/Reid and the rest of the Democrats who are lobbying for passage of this legislation. You seem to believe that it will be a good thing and do good things for you and the American people. You seem to believe that what they say about the cost of it and the integrity of it is reliable. And you seem to believe that those of us opposing the bill are the ones who are wrong and the ones who would lie.

It has nothing to do with faith in politicians. The people working at CBO are career professionals. They're not going to ruin their careers by playing games with the numbers. I do support the legislation in question, but that is on the merits of the proposal. I have no incentive to produce or support the production of misleading numbers, if they were released.

If I am skeptical of the opponents of the legislation, it's because they've given me ample reason to believe they are not negotiating in good faith, ranging from incorrect statements about effects on the deficit (while the bill will increase the size of the budget, as currently written it will not increase the deficit over the ten year window), to false claims about provisions ("death panels" and that the bill would ban private insurance, for starters).

I asked earlier this afternoon to be directed to one of those several summaries of the legislation that you say exist. Could you do that please?

And could you please give me the basis you use that makes you trust what the President and the Democrats are telling you about this legislation, and why you think those of us who are critics are so unreliable?

America’s Affordable Health Choices Act | EdLabor Journal | Committee on Education and Labor

The very first paragraph of the "summary" is a Micheal Moore truth. It says that the bill is deficit neutral yet it doesn't mention that to do that they had to cut Medicare payments to Doctors in this Bill and pay them back in a completely separate bill which would add $250 Billion to the deficit. So sad that so many Americans will fall for this Lie.

It's not a lie. Your statement is the lie. The bill isn't financed by cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. The cuts to which you refer were passed by the Republicans in the late 1990s. At the time, the mechanism made since (health care spending was rising at the same pace as inflation, so they just pegged the increase in doctor payments to inflation). However, that hasn't been the case this decade, as health care costs have increased far faster than inflation. Instead of acknowledging this, the Republicans felt the better route was pass annual "patches" to keep doctors from seeing payment cuts in real terms. The advantage of this system was since it was "emergency" spending, it didn't add to the deficit figures. The proposal to spend 250 billion over the next ten years on these payments reflected the reality that these annual patches were going to continue being passed as long as health care costs were growing faster than inflation, so it made more sense to face the reality than to play games with the budget.

 

[Ame®icano]

Here are some details from Pelosi (H.R.3962) bill.

LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE (page 94)

Basically, section 202(c) prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government.

COVERAGE UNDER PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION (page 110)

Section 222(e)(3) allows use of federal dollars to fund abortions through the government-run health plan and, if the Hyde Amendment were ever not renewed, would require the plan to fund elective abortions.

HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (page 111)

Section 223 establishes a new board of federal bureaucrats (the “Health Benefits Advisory Committee&#8221 to dictate the health plans that all individuals must purchase. The same bureaucrats and would also decide what coverage will be subsidized by taxpayers.

To be continued...

Continued...

ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF A PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION AS AN EXCHANGE-QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN. (page 211)

Section 321 establishes a new government-run health plan that, according to non-partisan actuaries at the Lewin Group, would cause as many as 114 million Americans to lose their existing coverage or to be forced out of it.

ENROLLMENT IN PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS (page 225)

Section 330 permits, but does not require, members of Congress to enroll in government-run health care.

INCOME DETERMINATIONS (page 255)

Section 345 includes language requiring verification of income for individuals wishing to receive federal health care subsidies under the bill, while the bill includes a requirement for applicants to verify their citizenship, it does not include a similar requirement to verify applicants’ identity, thus encouraging identity fraud for undocumented immigrants and others wishing to receive taxpayer-subsidized health benefits.

TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE (page 297)

Section 501 imposes a 2.5 percent tax on all individuals who do not purchase government approved health insurance. The tax would apply on individuals with incomes under $250,000, thus breaking a central promise of Obama’s campaign.

EMPLOYERS ELECTING NOT TO PROVIDE HEALTH BENEFITS (page 313)

Section 512 imposes an 8 percent “tax on jobs” for firms that cannot afford to purchase government approved health coverage. We all know what would that do to businesses, because such a tax would place millions at substantial risk of unemployment.

To be continued...

 

[WillowTree]

Polk, Dear, Democrats lie every time they open their mouths about this bill. They even lie about who visits the wh. We mock you.

 

[Meister]

Polk, you are naive. All you had to do is look at our governments track record on running a business, and holding costs down. They can't do it, and you refuse to see it, because you are so partisan. I'm not going to waste my time on your wasted mind, sorry.

 

[Ame®icano]

Here are some details from Pelosi (H.R.3962) bill.

LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE (page 94)

Basically, section 202(c) prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government.



Section 222(e)(3) allows use of federal dollars to fund abortions through the government-run health plan and, if the Hyde Amendment were ever not renewed, would require the plan to fund elective abortions.



Section 223 establishes a new board of federal bureaucrats (the “Health Benefits Advisory Committee”) to dictate the health plans that all individuals must purchase. The same bureaucrats and would also decide what coverage will be subsidized by taxpayers.

To be continued...

Continued...



Section 321 establishes a new government-run health plan that, according to non-partisan actuaries at the Lewin Group, would cause as many as 114 million Americans to lose their existing coverage or to be forced out of it.



Section 330 permits, but does not require, members of Congress to enroll in government-run health care.



Section 345 includes language requiring verification of income for individuals wishing to receive federal health care subsidies under the bill, while the bill includes a requirement for applicants to verify their citizenship, it does not include a similar requirement to verify applicants’ identity, thus encouraging identity fraud for undocumented immigrants and others wishing to receive taxpayer-subsidized health benefits.

TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE (page 297)

Section 501 imposes a 2.5 percent tax on all individuals who do not purchase government approved health insurance. The tax would apply on individuals with incomes under $250,000, thus breaking a central promise of Obama’s campaign.

EMPLOYERS ELECTING NOT TO PROVIDE HEALTH BENEFITS (page 313)

Section 512 imposes an 8 percent “tax on jobs” for firms that cannot afford to purchase government approved health coverage. We all know what would that do to businesses, because such a tax would place millions at substantial risk of unemployment.

To be continued...

Continued...

MEDICARE ADVANTAGE REFORMS (page 520)

"If you like your existing coverage, you can keep it." However, Section 1161 cuts more than $150 billion from Medicare Advantage plans, potentially jeopardizing millions of seniors’ existing coverage.

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH (page 733)

Section 1401 establishes a new Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research, The bill includes no provisions preventing the government-run health plan from using such research to deny access to life-saving treatments on cost grounds. This is taken from Britain’s National Health Service, which denies patient treatments costing more than $35,000. Basically, when you become too expensive, they can cut you off.

TAXES ON CERTAIN INSURANCE POLICIES (page 1174)

Pelosi promised that “We will not be taxing health benefits in any bill that passes the House,” and the President’s promise not to raise taxes on families with incomes under $250,000. However, Section 1802(b) includes provisions to tax certain insurance policies to fund comparative effectiveness research from Section 1401.

Also, check this link. It's alive! End-of-life counseling in health bill

 

[Polk]

Polk, you are naive. All you had to do is look at our governments track record on running a business, and holding costs down. They can't do it, and you refuse to see it, because you are so partisan. I'm not going to waste my time on your wasted mind, sorry.

What's odd is this belief people on the right have that the government is a business.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Polk, you are naive. All you had to do is look at our governments track record on running a business, and holding costs down. They can't do it, and you refuse to see it, because you are so partisan. I'm not going to waste my time on your wasted mind, sorry.

What's odd is this belief people on the right have that the government is a business.

The government isn't a business unless organized crime can be called a business.

Government will force supposedly free people to purchase the insurance policies they say to purchase while holding the proverbial gun to our heads.

Government will force you to comply with what they deem "good for you" even though we are supposed to be free.

Government sees us as nothing more than revenue streams and will do absolutely everything it can to maximize that revenue stream leaving us with less and less of our own money all in the name of protecting us.

What utter horse shit.