Pre-Existing Conditions for children not covered until 2014 under new Health Plan

[WillowTree]

fucking hilarious this is,, just like the dimwit signed that tarp legislation and didn't realize he was giving bonus money to who was it AIG? and he had to load up his acorn busses to go intimidate..

Bush signed the TARP, dear.

which one did the messiah sign?? that's the one gave bonus to his enemies!

 

[Maple]

fucking hilarious this is,, just like the dimwit signed that tarp legislation and didn't realize he was giving bonus money to who was it AIG? and he had to load up his acorn busses to go intimidate..

Bush signed the TARP, dear.

which one did the messiah sign?? that's the one gave bonus to his enemies!

The 787 billion dollar no stimulus stimulus bill. And here it is..............................

No corruption here.

Earlier this month, Mr. Dodd defended the amendment to an economic stimulus bill that exempted bonuses to which companies receiving federal bailout funds previously agreed. He initially denied having any role in crafting the language, but he later said Treasury Department officials pressured him to make the change to protect the government from lawsuits.



Washington Times - EXCLUSIVE: AIG chiefs pressed to donate to Dodd

 

[JimH52]

fucking hilarious this is,, just like the dimwit signed that tarp legislation and didn't realize he was giving bonus money to who was it AIG? and he had to load up his acorn busses to go intimidate..

Bush signed the TARP, dear.

which one did the messiah sign?? that's the one gave bonus to his enemies!

You mean after Bush signed the FIRST give away to his Wall Street cronies?

 

[WillowTree]

Bush signed the TARP, dear.

which one did the messiah sign?? that's the one gave bonus to his enemies!

You mean after Bush signed the FIRST give away to his Wall Street cronies?

no I mean which one did the messiah sign giving bonus money to his sworn enemies without kinowing he did it???

 

[critter]

blah you republicans are funny... and pathetic sad.

1. republicans wanted to start the whole thing over what did they have for health care? nothing

2. children will be cover no matter what.

3. its a better place now and for people saying it be better the way republicans do it than why do so many other countries have health care?

How many lifes wil be saved now? more than it was before.

true facts not republican facts.

"i am going to fight the federal law in the court system blah i am going to loose but i need to look good for my state."

 

[code1211]

Of course if the Party of No had its way, there would be no HC reform, No Social Security, no Medicaid, and no Medicare.

And all those little blue hair women in the tea bagger movement would be out working until they are 80 years old...or die. THAT IS THE REPUBLICAN WAY!

Why do you say things like that when the facts are so easy to find?

84% of Republicans voted in favor of Social Security.
Republicans and Democrats cast an identical 15 votes against Social security.

Social Security Online - HISTORY: Vote tallies on 1935 law

Just about half of Republicans voted for Medicare. Medicaid was a part of this bill, Title XIX.

Republicans didn't oppose historical legislatio - Letters to the Editor - The News Herald

 

[blu]

Of course if the Party of No had its way, there would be no HC reform, No Social Security, no Medicaid, and no Medicare.

And all those little blue hair women in the tea bagger movement would be out working until they are 80 years old...or die. THAT IS THE REPUBLICAN WAY!

Yes, and we would all be better off for it. Personal responsibility would have taken over and people would have actually saved for retirement, health care insurance etc. and we would not be facing the crushing debt that we are under now and bankrupting future generations.

the military industrial complex has spent more in the last 8 years than decades of entitlement programs

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Yes, and we would all be better off for it. Personal responsibility would have taken over and people would have actually saved for retirement, health care insurance etc.

The cost of living outstrips most people's savings within a couple of decades. My grandmother had a pension of $108 dollars a month after 40+ years of employment (there were no 401K's), and was an avid saver, but her savings didn't even cover her funeral. And she developed the debilitating disease ALS in her 70's. My mom took care of her until she was physically unable, and had it not been for medicare.... I can't imagine what would have happened... Oh, and her social security? About $600 a month. Give me a break.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

the military industrial complex has spent more in the last 8 years than decades of entitlement programs

And for nothing... scratch that... Halliburton made a killing! So did Blackwater. I can post the list if you neocons want...

 

[Annie]

Obama said that all pre-existing conditions would be covered immediately under the new health care bill that was signed today. That was one of his main sales pitches for this bill.

Surprise, surprise, this is not true, especially for the citizens that need it the most, CHILDREN. Children with pre-existing conditions will not automatically be accepted by insurance companies, and this bill doesn't change that UNTIL 2014.

Kids with Pre-Existing Conditions NOT Covered By Obamacare - Greg Pollowitz

Rick

Hi Rick.

My understanding is that the pre-existing condition section goes into effect immediately.

Please indicate which section you're referring to so I can check. Because I don't believe your article is characterizing it correctly.

Here's the link:

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

Thanks.

-- J

Jillian, I'm not wading through the bill, but here is the AP report that generated his/her post:

The Associated Press: Gap in health care law's protection for children

Gap in health care law's protection for children
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR (AP) – 15 hours ago
WASHINGTON — Hours after President Barack Obama signed historic health care legislation, a potential problem emerged. Administration officials are now scrambling to fix a gap in highly touted benefits for children.

Obama made better coverage for children a centerpiece of his health care remake, but it turns out the letter of the law provided a less-than-complete guarantee that kids with health problems would not be shut out of coverage.

Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday.

However, if a child is accepted for coverage, or is already covered, the insurer cannot exclude payment for treating a particular illness, as sometimes happens now. For example, if a child has asthma, the insurance company cannot write a policy that excludes that condition from coverage. The new safeguard will be in place later this year.

Full protection for children would not come until 2014, said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, another panel that authored the legislation. That's the same year when insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to any person on account of health problems.

Obama's public statements have conveyed the impression that the new protections for kids were more sweeping and straightforward....

 

[hboats]

blah you republicans are funny... and pathetic sad.

1. republicans wanted to start the whole thing over what did they have for health care? nothing

Really? You are ignorant or a sheep being led by the media if you believe that. I've posted links to the Republican health care reform plans. Just because Democrats SAY the Republicans didn't have a plan doesn't make it so. The Democrats just choose to ignore the FACT that the Republicans proposed not just one plan that would have focused on cutting health care cost.

2. children will be cover no matter what.

Once again, you're not listening, it is all over the news. The current plan has a HUGE hole that leaves pre-existing conditions for children out of health care.

3. its a better place now and for people saying it be better the way republicans do it than why do so many other countries have health care?

Yes, and why do so many other countries citizens come to America for their health care?

How many lifes wil be saved now? more than it was before.

true facts not republican facts.

Maybe if you'd look for real facts you'd know what you're talking about, but it's obvious from this post that you don't.

"i am going to fight the federal law in the court system blah i am going to loose but i need to look good for my state."

You got a reference for that quote? Didn't think so. Get some facts before you jump into the deep end of the pool. Thanks.

Rick

 

[hboats]

Of course if the Party of No had its way, there would be no HC reform, No Social Security, no Medicaid, and no Medicare.

And all those little blue hair women in the tea bagger movement would be out working until they are 80 years old...or die. THAT IS THE REPUBLICAN WAY!

Yes, and we would all be better off for it. Personal responsibility would have taken over and people would have actually saved for retirement, health care insurance etc. and we would not be facing the crushing debt that we are under now and bankrupting future generations.

the military industrial complex has spent more in the last 8 years than decades of entitlement programs

I doubt you can back that statement up with proof, but I'll ask anyway.

Rick

 

[Mr. Peepers]

I doubt you can back that statement up with proof, but I'll ask anyway.

Rick

US Military Budget Vs. Other US Priorities
The peace lobby, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, calculates for Fiscal Year 2009 that the majority of US tax payer’s money goes towards war:

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#USmilitarybudgetvsotherUSpriorities

Furthermore, “national defense” category of federal spending is typically just over half of the United States discretionary budget (the money the President/Administration and Congress have direct control over, and must decide and act to spend each year. This is different to mandatory spending, the money that is spent in compliance with existing laws, such as social security benefits, medicare, paying the interest on the national debt and so on). For recent years here is how military, education and health budgets (the top 3) have fared:

Discretionary budgets in $ (billions) and percentages

Year Total ($) Defense ($) Defense (%) Education ($) Education (%) Health ($) Health (%)

Sources And Notes
The link for each year takes you to that year’s source
The defense budget is only the Pentagon request each Fiscal Year. It does not include nuclear weapons programs from the Department of Energy, or funding for wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
2009 997 541 54 61.9 6.2 52.7 5.3
2008 930 481.4 51.8 58.6 6.3 52.3 5.6
2007 873 460 52.7 56.8 6.5 53.1 6.1
2006 840.5 438.8 52 58.4 6.9 51 6.1
2005 820 421 51 60 7 51 6.2
2004 782 399 51 55 7 49 6.3
2003 767 396 51.6 52 6.8 49 6.4

For those hoping the world can decrease its military spending, SIPRI warns that “while the invasion [of Iraq] may have served as warning to other states with weapons of mass destruction, it could have the reverse effect in that some states may see an increase in arsenals as the only way to prevent a forced regime change.”

In this new era, traditional military threats to the USA are fairly remote. All of their enemies, former enemies and even allies do not pose a military threat to the United States. For a while now, critics of large military spending have pointed out that most likely forms of threat to the United States would be through terrorist actions, rather than conventional warfare, and that the spending is still geared towards Cold War-type scenarios and other such conventional confrontations.

[T]he lion’s share of this money is not spent by the Pentagon on protecting American citizens. It goes to supporting U.S. military activities, including interventions, throughout the world. Were this budget and the organization it finances called the “Military Department,” then attitudes might be quite different. Americans are willing to pay for defense, but they would probably be much less willing to spend billions of dollars if the money were labeled “Foreign Military Operations.”

— The Billions For “Defense” Jeopardize Our Safety, Center For Defense Information, March 9, 2000

 

[Annie]

I doubt you can back that statement up with proof, but I'll ask anyway.

Rick

US Military Budget Vs. Other US Priorities
The peace lobby, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, calculates for Fiscal Year 2009 that the majority of US tax payer’s money goes towards war:

World Military Spending ? Global Issues

Furthermore, “national defense” category of federal spending is typically just over half of the United States discretionary budget (the money the President/Administration and Congress have direct control over, and must decide and act to spend each year. This is different to mandatory spending, the money that is spent in compliance with existing laws, such as social security benefits, medicare, paying the interest on the national debt and so on). For recent years here is how military, education and health budgets (the top 3) have fared:

Discretionary budgets in $ (billions) and percentages

Year Total ($) Defense ($) Defense (%) Education ($) Education (%) Health ($) Health (%)

Sources And Notes
The link for each year takes you to that year’s source
The defense budget is only the Pentagon request each Fiscal Year. It does not include nuclear weapons programs from the Department of Energy, or funding for wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
2009 997 541 54 61.9 6.2 52.7 5.3
2008 930 481.4 51.8 58.6 6.3 52.3 5.6
2007 873 460 52.7 56.8 6.5 53.1 6.1
2006 840.5 438.8 52 58.4 6.9 51 6.1
2005 820 421 51 60 7 51 6.2
2004 782 399 51 55 7 49 6.3
2003 767 396 51.6 52 6.8 49 6.4

For those hoping the world can decrease its military spending, SIPRI warns that “while the invasion [of Iraq] may have served as warning to other states with weapons of mass destruction, it could have the reverse effect in that some states may see an increase in arsenals as the only way to prevent a forced regime change.”

In this new era, traditional military threats to the USA are fairly remote. All of their enemies, former enemies and even allies do not pose a military threat to the United States. For a while now, critics of large military spending have pointed out that most likely forms of threat to the United States would be through terrorist actions, rather than conventional warfare, and that the spending is still geared towards Cold War-type scenarios and other such conventional confrontations.

[T]he lion’s share of this money is not spent by the Pentagon on protecting American citizens. It goes to supporting U.S. military activities, including interventions, throughout the world. Were this budget and the organization it finances called the “Military Department,” then attitudes might be quite different. Americans are willing to pay for defense, but they would probably be much less willing to spend billions of dollars if the money were labeled “Foreign Military Operations.”

— The Billions For “Defense” Jeopardize Our Safety, Center For Defense Information, March 9, 2000

"Discretionary Spending", that which aren't interest and entitlements? Is that your definition of discretionary?

Why would you differentiate? Perhaps because the interest and SSI and other entitlements are obviously breaking the budget already and the newest entitlement is looking to dwarf SSI and other entitlements?

 

[hboats]

I doubt you can back that statement up with proof, but I'll ask anyway.

Rick

US Military Budget Vs. Other US Priorities
The peace lobby, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, calculates for Fiscal Year 2009 that the majority of US tax payer’s money goes towards war:

World Military Spending ? Global Issues

Furthermore, “national defense” category of federal spending is typically just over half of the United States discretionary budget (the money the President/Administration and Congress have direct control over, and must decide and act to spend each year. This is different to mandatory spending, the money that is spent in compliance with existing laws, such as social security benefits, medicare, paying the interest on the national debt and so on). For recent years here is how military, education and health budgets (the top 3) have fared:

Discretionary budgets in $ (billions) and percentages

Year Total ($) Defense ($) Defense (%) Education ($) Education (%) Health ($) Health (%)

Sources And Notes
The link for each year takes you to that year’s source
The defense budget is only the Pentagon request each Fiscal Year. It does not include nuclear weapons programs from the Department of Energy, or funding for wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
2009 997 541 54 61.9 6.2 52.7 5.3
2008 930 481.4 51.8 58.6 6.3 52.3 5.6
2007 873 460 52.7 56.8 6.5 53.1 6.1
2006 840.5 438.8 52 58.4 6.9 51 6.1
2005 820 421 51 60 7 51 6.2
2004 782 399 51 55 7 49 6.3
2003 767 396 51.6 52 6.8 49 6.4

For those hoping the world can decrease its military spending, SIPRI warns that “while the invasion [of Iraq] may have served as warning to other states with weapons of mass destruction, it could have the reverse effect in that some states may see an increase in arsenals as the only way to prevent a forced regime change.”

In this new era, traditional military threats to the USA are fairly remote. All of their enemies, former enemies and even allies do not pose a military threat to the United States. For a while now, critics of large military spending have pointed out that most likely forms of threat to the United States would be through terrorist actions, rather than conventional warfare, and that the spending is still geared towards Cold War-type scenarios and other such conventional confrontations.

[T]he lion’s share of this money is not spent by the Pentagon on protecting American citizens. It goes to supporting U.S. military activities, including interventions, throughout the world. Were this budget and the organization it finances called the “Military Department,” then attitudes might be quite different. Americans are willing to pay for defense, but they would probably be much less willing to spend billions of dollars if the money were labeled “Foreign Military Operations.”

— The Billions For “Defense” Jeopardize Our Safety, Center For Defense Information, March 9, 2000

That wasn't the question. This statement that was made was:

the military industrial complex has spent more in the last 8 years than decades of entitlement programs

Please, if you're going to try to prove something, prove what I asked for proof of. Not something totally arbitrary.

Rick

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Look at the pie chart.

 

[Annie]

Look at the pie chart.

You're picking and choosing what to look at. "The defense budget is the largest expenditure of US government, if you ignore the rest of the stuff they spend money on."

 

[jillian]

I hate to burst your Obama bubble here, but it's all over the news, kids with pre-existing conditions will not be covered TODAY, they will be in 2014. Just wait until the value added tax he will present next April, that should reallllllllllllllllllllly tickle your fancy when you pay $11.00 per gallon of gasoline to finance your new entitlement program.

It's called a VALUE ADDED TAX and all his socialistic buddies in Europe have to do it to finance their healthcare.

cool.. krauthammer makes up something and you repeat it like gospel.

and i don't have an obama bubble. although unlike you i wasn't sitting in front of a tv today. i was actually working.

like i said. my understanding was different and i'll get my information from the actual bill.

but feel free to provide a credible link for your assertion.

 

[hboats]

Look at the pie chart.

Yes, look at the pie chart. Do you see what it says in the legend for the Military Spending? Here, let me quote it. "Current Military Spending and Cost of Past Wars" I'm sorry, but does that really equate to

the military industrial complex has spent more in the last 8 years than decades of entitlement programs

And where exactly are you even comparing that to "decades of entitlement programs?"

Try giving me what I asked for proof of. Thanks.

Rick

 

[JimH52]

I hope the Republicans are telling the truth this time, when they say they are going to campaign against the HC reform bill this fall. I want them to tell the millions of people who are going to benefit from the law that they want to be voted into office so they can take it away. That will be a big vote getter! GO FOR IT!