Health care

[e30s52]

Well I figured I would post this before Lee would so what do you guys think?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/health/policy/08health.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

[mrsleeve]

total BS that is getting rammed down our throats. There is no way in hell that this can be paid for with cuts to the medicare system that is getting more and more expensive every year by 2-300%, and a bigger tax on all those evil rich people.

We are all in for a huge ass rapeing on taxes and Insurance premiums in the next few years to try and pay for this folly.

At its core, the measure would create a federally regulated marketplace

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^6
thats a very very scary thought when it comes to mine or your families heath and well being. Its a shame so many of you fail to see that.


It still has to get past the senate and it will be a much harder fight lets hope its killed there.



Congrats, to the Hope and change crowd, you have sealed all of our fate.

[Restoman]

I'll say it right now. I did not vote for the assholes voting for this health care bill.

[mrsleeve]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^66

your a koon ass of course you didnt ;)

[KenC]

:claps:

[kishg]

i'm in two minds about it.. on the one hand, i do believe that as the most advanced democracy in the world, everyone should have access to affordable healthcare and that the health care insurance industry needs to be regulated to ensure that as they won't do that out of their own accord. On the other, i am against increasing taxes and penalties to pay for it.

My feeling is that the timing is off on this. If the economy were stronger and we were out of the two ridiculous wars we're fighting, this could be done without higher taxes. those supposed cuts to medicare will never happen. we know that. as for higher taxes on high earners, I think the entire convoluted tax code needs to be revamped and made simpler, the current system doesn't work.

i'm not endorsing the republican view of lets just sit on our asses and do nothing but yell at the other side either.

[xLibelle]

i'm starting a list of names of those of you who are excessively vocally against this stuff.

[Massive Lee]

Well I figured I would post this before Lee would so what do you guys think?

:up:

[mrsleeve]

I cant believe it but I actually agree with nearly all of what you said. Yes something needs to be done to rein in the costs, BUT WHAT HAS JUST BEEN PASSED IS NOT IT.


I say let the FREE MARKET fix the issue. End the anti trust law exemption, and allow full and free competition across all markets, rather than the current system of letting a 1 or 2 companies have control over entire states and charge what the will. That and you have to remember that the govt, is more responsible for the current skyrocketing cost of care than anything else. That to get govt grants and funds the medical facility has to take Medicare/Medicaid and both of those programs in many instances, payment for services is less than the cost to provide it. So those net losses need to made up else where, thus they charge the Insurance companies and Retail customers more so they can keep the lights on, attract better talent and invest in the best, latest and great technology to better serve the us. With the boomers getting older and getting to the point where they are going to be in the system thats gonna drive up the
cost of heath care for all of us that have traditional insurance and retail.

i'm in two minds about it.. on the one hand, i do believe that as the most advanced democracy in the world, everyone should have access to affordable healthcare and that the health care insurance industry needs to be regulated to ensure that as they won't do that out of their own accord. On the other, i am against increasing taxes and penalties to pay for it.

My feeling is that the timing is off on this. If the economy were stronger and we were out of the two ridiculous wars we're fighting, this could be done without higher taxes. those supposed cuts to medicare will never happen. we know that. as for higher taxes on high earners, I think the entire convoluted tax code needs to be revamped and made simpler, the current system doesn't work.

i'm not endorsing the republican view of lets just sit on our asses and do nothing but yell at the other side either.

[Vedubin01]

What the Pelosi Health-Care Bill Really Says

Here are some important passages in the 2,000 page legislation.

By BETSY MCCAUGHEY

The health bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing to a vote (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages. Here are some of the details you need to know.

What the government will require you to do:

• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.

• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.


On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.

• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.

• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.

• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.

Eviscerating Medicare:

In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500 billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.

• Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what's called a "medical home."

The medical home is this decade's version of HMO-restrictions on care. A primary-care provider manages access to costly specialists and diagnostic tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that patients may have to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a physician as the primary-care provider. Medical homes begin with demonstration projects, but the HHS secretary is authorized to "disseminate this approach rapidly on a national basis."

A December 2008 Congressional Budget Office report noted that "medical homes" were likely to resemble the unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago if cost control was a priority.

• Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients.

• Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida.

• Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans (used by 20% of seniors). Advantage plans have warned this will result in reductions in optional benefits such as vision and dental care.

• Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services."

Questionable Priorities:

While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability.

• Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community "entities" with no required qualifications except having "documented community activity and experience with community health care workers" to "educate, guide, and provide experiential learning opportunities" aimed at drug abuse, poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. "Each community health worker program receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the cultural context most appropriate for the individual served by the program."

These programs will "enhance the capacity of individuals to utilize health services and health related social services under Federal, State and local programs by assisting individuals in establishing eligibility . . . and in receiving services and other benefits" including transportation and translation services.

• Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. This program will train health-care workers to inform Medicare beneficiaries of their "right" to have an interpreter at all times and with no co-pays for language services.

• Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing schools should "give preference to programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population." And secondary-school grants should go to schools "graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities."

• Sec. 305 (p. 189) Provides for automatic Medicaid enrollment of newborns who do not otherwise have insurance.

For the text of the bill with page numbers, see www.defendyourhealthcare.us.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574519671055918380.html#printMode

[mrsleeve]

VDUB thats very telling. I have not read anything on this because I just dont think I can take it.

GOD I HOPE THIS CAN BE STOPPED IN THE SENATE. All the letters and calls against to my senators will do no good, One of the them is guy behind all this, good OL Bacuas

[Restoman]

Affordable and healthcare do not go in the same sentence. Sorry, it just doesn't go well. How can you ask for the best and brightest when your arm gets chopped off and then want to pay "Shade Tree Mechanic" rates? You have to pay to play this game of life. If you can't afford healthcare then you can't afford to live. As you can see I'm no bleeding heart.

[gwb72tii]

i'm starting a list of names of those of you who are excessively vocally against this stuff.

you can put me down as #1

fuck pelosi
fuck reid
fuck obama

[Erik]

Affordable and healthcare do not go in the same sentence. Sorry, it just doesn't go well. How can you ask for the best and brightest when your arm gets chopped off and then want to pay "Shade Tree Mechanic" rates? You have to pay to play this game of life. If you can't afford healthcare then you can't afford to live. As you can see I'm no bleeding heart.

Wow, you have no soul.

[rwh11385]

http://www.indystar.com/article/20091108/NEWS05/911080401/House%20makes%20history%20on%20health%20care

A triumphant Speaker Nancy Pelosi likened the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later.

That should send up warning bells... but no, idiots think that's a positive thing. How messed up are both of those programs?