So Now On To Expanding ObamaCare Like The Exit Polls Showed The Voters Want!

[Revere]

OSHA mandates are only in place if you engage in certain businesses.

Government has no collectivist solutions for individial health problems, which is among the reasons most Americans are not taken in by Greenbeard's bullshit.

 

[mascale]

The OSHA regulations tend to expand, and especially as workplace conditions become increasingly complex.

I myself have no particular need of knowing which religions, or other organizations, are exempted in the statute. In the same manner that not all business are included in OSHA, then likely not all religions are included in The Affordable Health Care Act.

Legally, however, a business is an "individual."

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many Squaws come to Lands of Many Nations: Not Always To Dance With Ghosts!)

 

[Revere]

Greenbeard thinks you will believe government will just give you all these things. It's magic and you're entitled to it, because he says so.

If you notice, when aspect after aspect of Obamacare fails to deliver as promised, he scapegoats. All statist dupes do this.

"Politically motivated payments." "Market basket revisions." "Unprecedented data driven quality improvements."

This is not about your health care.

Do you really want to trust your life to a piece of shit like Greenbeard?

 

[mascale]

The Social Security exemption, based on conscientious objection, is applied in The Affordable Health Insurance Act. The Amish qualify under the Section 1402g exemption in Social Security, and that is referenced in the Health Insurance Act.

Certain religions are cradle to grave, and are even famous for it, and they are exempt. They pay nothing in, and they never ever draw anything out.

When the terrorists finally get the plague released, it is not altogether clear just what they will do. When the anthrax was released on Capitol Hill: Every federal legislator knew exactly, just what to do! (Get the receptionists to answer the phones(?)!)

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Great Spirit send many disasters. Jewish People even wrote them down. Mormon People even wrote them down. Many White Eyes need national pest exterminators plan, more than medical insurance(?)! Congress not yet so find.)

 

[Spoonman]

Actually, CNN had noted this all day--if nobody else did. The National Health Care Plan is actually supported, and including in the direction of having it expaned.

Six Nuggets from the 2010 Exit Polls : CJR

The Democrats are easily said to have undersold their own agenda. The Phony "Red Tide" was not entirely Conservative About It! 31% actually want it expanded, of the 48% in support of it.

Mostly, tacking on law books full of settled case law in its support, or repeal: Will mostly help to really piss the "Red Tide" off!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred.
(White Eyes Leprechaun, At End Of Rainbow, Find False readings Instead of Shiny Trinkets!)

I guess those voters hadn't seen the AARP article yet

 

[Dan40]

I will only respond to the Medicare Advantage plans "SAVINGS" since the rest of your comments have all the intelligence of over cooked oatmeal.

When an insurance company offers a Medicare Advantage plan to the public, [many with NO premiums] they have FIRST, NEGOTIATED a price with Medicare. Medicare pays the insurance company that negotiated price for each person the insurance company signs on BECAUSE Medicare is no longer responsible for ANY medical costs incurred by that person. Medicare KNOWS how much each person on Medicare costs them. So if Medicare pays the insurance company MORE than that. Medicare is foolish, NO? In the negotiation, Medicare wants to pay the insurance company as much LESS than the Medicare beneficiary costs them as possible, and the insurance company wants to be paid as much as possible.
So IF, Medicare is overpaying insurance companies $202 Billion for Med Ad plans, should those Medicare Govt employees not be prosecuted for malfeasance, dereliction of duty, terminal stupidity, or something?

And why are Medicare Advantage plans coming under fire nationwide, while they will REMAIN in place, unchanged, in Florida? Where, I'd GUESS, not claiming a fact, but a guess that MOST Medicare Advantage plans ARE in Florida.
You libs are all for the "poor." Well there are poor people over 65 on Medicare Advantage plans with NO monthly premiums for medical OR drugs! AARP Secure Horizons. And Humana has one with a $16. monthly premium.

While an ordinary Medicare Supplement policy costs an absolute minimum of $150 per month in premiums per person or $300 monthly per couple. $3600, PLUS the cost of their drugs.

That is where obamacare will get HALF its funding??? NOT A CHANCE IN HELL.

 

[Greenbeard]

So IF, Medicare is overpaying insurance companies $202 Billion for Med Ad plans, should those Medicare Govt employees not be prosecuted for malfeasance, dereliction of duty, terminal stupidity, or something?

Sure. But the "Medicare Govt employees" you speak of are Congressmen (hence "politically-motivated"). Instead of being set by competitive bidding--which was introduced in an earlier iteration of the ACA--the payments to Medicare Advantage are set through administrative pricing, i.e. through a formula set up by Congress. A process that's--obviously--susceptible to lobbying and other influences. Hence the vast amount of wasteful spending in that program.

 

[Dan40]

Using that reasoning, there is about 2 or 3 TRILLION in savings available for the picking.

 

[antagon]

the mandate is the most important part of the bill unfortunately. mandates are historically responsible for private healthcare as we know it. i'm left with the impression that irresponsible use from uninsured has brought our system to the verge or insolvency (insurance is a ponzi) and that a further mandate was the top solution.

the mandate is what your more than funded characterization relies on, too.

It's interesting because it sort of gets at a philosophical point. If you look at the health care bills Paul Ryan and Tom Coburn were pushing, on the insurance side they were structurally pretty similar to the ACA. They called for state-based exchanges to be built, subject to certain protections against pre-existing condition exclusions and offering benefit packages comparable to that of the FEHBP. Now you'd generally need a mandate if you're going to limit underwriting (though their bills were a little less stringent in doing so) and you don't want destructive amounts of free-riding to happen.

But in their bills what they have instead of a mandate is autoenrollment into their exchanges. That is, if you don't pick a plan of your choice, you're automatically enrolled into a default option but with the ability to opt-out. They relied on research into soft (or "libertarian") paternalism developed by folks like Cass Sunstein that found that, by and large, if you default people into an option they're pretty unlikely to go through the effort of opting out. Thus the state "nudges" people into a certain direction by defaulting them into it and relying on people's natural inertia to keep the vast majority in. It ostensibly leaves you freedom of choice while relying on the fact that you probably won't exercise it.

Is that a more palatable system? I couldn't say, though I imagine if the circumstances are right it's worth a shot.

not more palatable. i like the opt-out-pay-tax approach more. it's still a free country that way. for most people, the no-coverage fee will be less than the personal exemption. why bitch?

 

[Revere]

So IF, Medicare is overpaying insurance companies $202 Billion for Med Ad plans, should those Medicare Govt employees not be prosecuted for malfeasance, dereliction of duty, terminal stupidity, or something?

Sure. But the "Medicare Govt employees" you speak of are Congressmen (hence "politically-motivated"). Instead of being set by competitive bidding--which was introduced in an earlier iteration of the ACA--the payments to Medicare Advantage are set through administrative pricing, i.e. through a formula set up by Congress. A process that's--obviously--susceptible to lobbying and other influences. Hence the vast amount of wasteful spending in that program.

Versus carriers dumping it altogether?

What kind of competitive bidding is that?

 

[antagon]

the mandate is the most important part of the bill unfortunately. mandates are historically responsible for private healthcare as we know it. i'm left with the impression that irresponsible use from uninsured has brought our system to the verge or insolvency (insurance is a ponzi) and that a further mandate was the top solution.

the mandate is what your more than funded characterization relies on, too.

What do you mean "mandates are historically responsible for private healthcare as we know it"? I'm talking specifically about the mandate that says you have to get insurance or we are going to fine you.

the HMO act of 1973

Insurance is not a ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme is an investment that can only pay out if more people continue to invest.

insurance can only pay out if more people continue to enroll. ponzi.

I'm not sure what you mean by uninsured people have brought the system to the verge of insolvency. Insurance companies gradually decided that their original business model of charging people for protection when they needed it wasn't making them enough money, so they changed it.

this shit wasn't gradual, captain. see the bill referenced above. mandate. HMOs -- the all-american healthcare model which i think produces better care than hardly anywhere else -- sprung swiftly to the front of the pack when this bill was drafted. now they've come back to the well. most people will find under the ACA that they will be covered by their employers as before, but obviously it goes further.

uncovered people exploiting coverage is a massive problem. medical debt is taken in demurrer to other debts, doctors have an oath to care and we are a civilized and compassionate country. the result is that those of us with coverage pay for those without it. the insurance and medical industry shoulders a lot of that bad debt. have you ever asked why care costs more in the US than anywhere else? have you considered that this is one of the reasons?

The new model? Charge people money for protection, then when they need it do everything in your power to prevent them from getting what you promised.

the ponzi model. its not just health insurance.

The mandate doesn't fix that problem and it doesn't have anything to do with how the Affordable Care Act impacts the deficit AFAIK, but if you have some evidence of that I'd be happy to know.

the deficit figures which the CBO came up with combine the massive tax levied on the insurers (carers too?) for delivering all of these customers on a silver platter through the mandate. next the mandate is actually a comply or pay system, so non-compliers pay into the slush-fund the bill establishes too. this is where all of the revenue comes from. it is all dependent on the mandate.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Actually, CNN had noted this all day--if nobody else did. The National Health Care Plan is actually supported, and including in the direction of having it expaned.

Six Nuggets from the 2010 Exit Polls : CJR

The Democrats are easily said to have undersold their own agenda. The Phony "Red Tide" was not entirely Conservative About It! 31% actually want it expanded, of the 48% in support of it.

Mostly, tacking on law books full of settled case law in its support, or repeal: Will mostly help to really piss the "Red Tide" off!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred.
(White Eyes Leprechaun, At End Of Rainbow, Find False readings Instead of Shiny Trinkets!)

Well you have set a new standard for crazy around here.

Thorazine /Haldol to the pretty pills for fixen the shaking when you stir.

 

[Dan40]

man·date (mndt)
n.

1. To make mandatory, as by law; decree or require:

Some of you quite obviously did not know the definition of MANDATE.

Now you do.

To ALLOW the creation of a HMO is NOT a mandate. NO one must join a HMO.

Just as there is NO mandate to have Auto insurance. IF one chooses to have a drivers license or license a vehicle to drive on public owned roads, THEN one must be insured. If one wishes to keep and drive their vehicle only on their own private land, no insurance in necessary.

 

[Greenbeard]

Using that reasoning, there is about 2 or 3 TRILLION in savings available for the picking.

If you're suggesting that the values of DRGs and modifiers under FFS Medicare are susceptible to political influence, sure. That's why the IPAB was created.

 

[Revere]

Using that reasoning, there is about 2 or 3 TRILLION in savings available for the picking.

If you're suggesting that the values of DRGs and modifiers under FFS Medicare are susceptible to political influence, sure. That's why the IPAB was created.

There we go, hand it off to a board that is accountable to nobody.

See why you can't trust this sack of shit with your life?

 

[taichiliberal]

Actually, CNN had noted this all day--if nobody else did. The National Health Care Plan is actually supported, and including in the direction of having it expaned.

Six Nuggets from the 2010 Exit Polls : CJR

The Democrats are easily said to have undersold their own agenda. The Phony "Red Tide" was not entirely Conservative About It! 31% actually want it expanded, of the 48% in support of it.

Mostly, tacking on law books full of settled case law in its support, or repeal: Will mostly help to really piss the "Red Tide" off!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred.
(White Eyes Leprechaun, At End Of Rainbow, Find False readings Instead of Shiny Trinkets!)

Just another example of how the Dems and Obama's wimpiness regarding blasting the TRUTH to the public every blessed chance they got. Instead the stupid ass teabaggers, oathers, Libertarians, and neocons all gleefully swallowed the GOP Kool-Aid, and (again) voted against their interest.

Fortunately, they don't have the votes to repeal what little healthcare reform there is.

 

[Flopper]

Other polls show that voters are against "obamacare."

Personally, the only thing I see wrong with Obama's health care reform is the mandate. The bill was more than funded, so actually reduced the deficit. It got rid of preexisting conditions and set up the exchange (something McCain supported).

If you want to fix "obamacare" you really want more regulation on the insurance industry and something that will actually LOWER HEALTH CARE COSTS.

Without the mandate, I don't see how it can work.

 

[antagon]

man·date (mndt)
n.

1. To make mandatory, as by law; decree or require:

Some of you quite obviously did not know the definition of MANDATE.

Now you do.

To ALLOW the creation of a HMO is NOT a mandate. NO one must join a HMO.

Just as there is NO mandate to have Auto insurance. IF one chooses to have a drivers license or license a vehicle to drive on public owned roads, THEN one must be insured. If one wishes to keep and drive their vehicle only on their own private land, no insurance in necessary.

educate yourself, son. it is comical the extent to which people yap about american healthcare legislation while knowing little or nothing about the legislative history on the matter.

the HMO act installed the employer mandate. HMOs were around and sanctioned albeit sparsely prior to its passage. their resilience is a direct proceed of mandates evidenced by its coincidence with the passage of the act.

 

[GWV5903]

You might actually agree with the part you are talking about if you knew what it really said. The first "death panel" scare was about a part of the legislation that provided optional "advance care planning" which is a euphemism for talking with your doctor about what to do when you have a terminal illness. It's something that people already have the option to do in this country through many private insurance plans. It had nothing to do with euthanasia or killing granny.

There have been other "death panel" scares, but I promise you that if they had any substance to them, the actual text of the bill would be printed everywhere. Sarah Palin said they were in Section 1233 of HR 3200 because she was betting people would be too lazy to look it up and see that she was full of shit.

Great, now you can tell us what Palin's real intentions where......

While you are at it, can you explain what the 3.8% sellers tax is for when you sell your home? It couldn't be wealth redistribution could it??

Just to be sure we both know exactly what the topic at hand is: A 3.8 Percent “Sales Tax” on Your Home? | FactCheck.org

Yes, graduated taxes like that one are for wealth redistribution (sort of). The federal government is what pays for public schools, roads, parks and other stuff that all Americans make use of somehow. To control the value of currency, the government collects taxes.

Correction, we the people pay for these things, that is the 49% of us who actually pay in....

That 3.8% sales tax helps keep inflation down while the government spends money to do the stuff that helps us all in some way. If you check that link, it's a tax on rich people who aren't exactly hurting right now.

I would argue it does quit the opposite in regards to inflation......please point out the justification in our Constitution that if you are wealthy you should pay even more to the government in taxes, your "it's a tax on rich people who aren't exactly hurting right now" doesn't align with our FF intentions at all, more along the lines of socialism, furthermore the seller will already face capital gains in this situation, so just add another 3.8% to their bill, that's a crap and how in the hell is this part of the HC Bill?

EDIT: Oh, and how would you explain Palin citing section 1233 as evidence of death panels when there is no such panel?

I think you missed this comment from Palin:

"And Sarah Palin. She quotes Charles Lane and Eugene Robinson, and the bill, in her FB follow-up to Obama's dismissal of this issue in Portsmouth on Tuesday:

With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.

Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program." [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4]

Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” [5] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones.... If it’s all about alleviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?” [6]"

For a wild-eyed trailer-trash hillbilly breeder, she sure makes a lot of sense....

 

[Dan40]

The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-222), also known as the HMO Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. § 300e, is a law passed by the Congress of the United States that resulted from discussions Paul Ellwood had with what is today the Department of Health and Human Services. It provided grants and loans to provide, start, or expand a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO); removed certain state restrictions for federally qualified HMOs; and required employers with 25 or more employees to offer federally certified HMO options IF they offered traditional health insurance to employees. It did not require employers to offer health insurance. "HMOs" were defined simply, as plans that: specified list of benefits to all members, charged all members the same monthly premium, and were structured as a nonprofit organization.

The Act solidified the term HMO and gave HMOs greater access to the employer-based market. The dual choice provision expired in 1995.

How many disclaimers did you miss?
YES, someone really needs to educate their ideological challenged "brain," using the term in its loosest possible interpretation.