Health Care Bill Passes

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 201 - 220 of total 710 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Mar 22, 2010 - 09:11pm PT
"but healthcare?
Every time I can provide something better for a patient the fed won't let the change through because no federal worker will take responsibility for allowing a change, even if it a demonstrable improvement. That mentality now affects more of how you are cared for and what with."



And THIS is the system you want to fight to maintain?? What kind of BS is that?
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Mar 22, 2010 - 09:14pm PT
Interesting - in Canada, our Supreme Court is constitutionally required to take certain cases. The main ones are references from the federal government, where the court is asked to decide if proposed legislation is constitutional, before it is brought into force. This can lead to amendments that improve the legislation, or sometimes it being withdrawn. (The provinces often contribute to such cases.) A second is where there is a constitutional dispute between the federal and provincial governments. A third are certain disputes between provinces, e.g. regarding boundaries, although this is quite rare.

Note that the supreme courts and courts of appeal of each province are appointed by the federal government (prime minister), as are supreme court justices. There are some checks and balances, but probably not enough. Not that we need US-style confirmation hearing circuses.
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Boulder, CO
Mar 22, 2010 - 09:22pm PT
Blue wrote: Usually when I try to make a point I look for commonly-considered independent, objective sources.


It wasn't a point or an opinion it is a fact. Where I got it means nothing.

You have a problem with facts and it shows in your posts.

Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Mar 22, 2010 - 09:26pm PT
Anders,

Here, our Supereme Court is free to decide they don't want to hear a certain case if they don't think they need to.
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Boulder, CO
Mar 22, 2010 - 09:29pm PT
Chaz wrote: Anders,

Here, our Supereme Court is free to decide they don't want to hear a certain case if they don't think they need to.

They had no problem deciding that slaves were property. They make wrong decisions and they made one in 2000.

In the Dred Scott decision, the Court held that slaves were chattel (property). Slaves, as well as people who had been slaves, or who descended from slaves, were not protected by the Constitution and could never be US citizens. Without citizenship status, African-Americans were denied access to the courts, and couldn't sue for their freedom, even if they had a contractual agreement granting them free status.

The Supreme Court also ruled that Congress had no right to prohibit slavery, nullifying the Missouri Compromise.
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Mar 22, 2010 - 09:31pm PT
Fear Strikes Out
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/opinion/22krugman.html?hp
C-dog

Social climber
from under your favorite rock
Mar 22, 2010 - 09:35pm PT
Uh-Oh, Is this TRUE?!?

Coverage under Obamacare will require an implantable microchip.

There's a pretty starling thing in the bill that 95% of Americans won't like.

The Obama Health care bill under Class II (Paragraph 1, Section B) specifically includes ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable." Then on page 1004 it describes what the term "data" means in paragraph 1, section B:

Quote
14 ‘‘(B) In this paragraph, the term ‘data’ refers to in
15 formation respecting a device described in paragraph (1),
16 including claims data, patient survey data, standardized
17 analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of
18 data from disparate data environments, electronic health
19 records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the
20 Secretary"

What exactly is a class II device that is implantable? Lets see...

Approved by the FDA, a class II implantable device is a "implantable radiofrequency
transponder system for patient identification and health information." The purpose of a class II device is to collect data in medical patients such as "claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary."

This sort of device would be implanted in the majority of people who opt to become covered by the public health care option. With the reform of the private insurance companies, who charge outrageous rates, many people will switch their coverage to a more affordable insurance plan. This means the number of people who choose the public option will increase. This also means the number of people chipped will be plentiful as well. The adults who choose to have a chip implanted are the lucky (yes, lucky) ones in this case. Children who are "born in the United States who at the time of birth is not otherwise covered under acceptable coverage" will be qualified and placed into the CHIP or Children's Health Insurance Program (what a convenient name). With a name like CHIP it would seem consistent to have the chip implanted into a child. Children conceived by parents who are already covered under the public option will more than likely be implanted with a chip by the consent of the parent. Eventually everyone will be implanted with a chip. And with the price and coverage of the public option being so competitive with the private companies, the private company may not survive.

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Mar 22, 2010 - 09:36pm PT
From Bob's disingenuous link;

Health Insurers cannot deny children health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. A ban on the discrimination in adults will take effect in 2014. (With a gratuitous accompanying pic of a screaming child)

As Madbolter stated earlier, kids are already cared for.

F*#k, I hate that site!!!! Everything takes so long to load!!!!


Businesses with fewer than 50 employees will get tax credits covering up to 50% of employee premiums.

Who pays for that?

Seniors will get a rebate to fill the so-called "donut hole" in Medicare drug coverage, which severely limits prescription medication coverage expenditures over $2,700. As of next year, 50 percent of the donut hole will be filled.

Again, who pays for that?

Lifetime caps on the amount of insurance an individual can have will be banned. Annual caps will be limited, and banned in 2014.

My point...

A temporary high-risk pool will be set up to cover adults with pre-existing conditions. Health care exchanges will eliminate the program in 2014.

Yep...

New plans must cover checkups and other preventative care without co-pays. All plans will be affected by 2018

see a pattern here yet???
Binks

Social climber
Mar 22, 2010 - 09:42pm PT
Who pays the 700 Billion per year military budget? OMG
C-dog

Social climber
from under your favorite rock
Mar 22, 2010 - 09:44pm PT
Oops it is apparently lies. Sorry!
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Mar 22, 2010 - 09:46pm PT
Bluering, are you saying that insurance companies previously could not deny insurance to children with preexisting conditions?

Well this parent of an overweight child would be baffled by that statement:

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13530098
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Mar 22, 2010 - 09:50pm PT
Bob's link disproves nothing....

Monolith, did you ever look at the Repub healthcare bills? Really? Especially the Coburn bill?

EDIT:

Bluering, are you saying that insurance companies previously could not deny insurance to children with preexisting conditions?

No, but it's rare. See above....


EDIT:

Who pays the 700 Billion per year military budget? OMG

That is one of the only primary duties of Fed gov't, fool. Not healthcare. Go back and read your Constitution....
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Mar 22, 2010 - 09:56pm PT
Bob's link shows immediate changes to the health care system.

Are you denying that children can now be on their parents policy till age 26?

Or do ya just wanna play the HuffingtonPost card?
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Boulder, CO
Mar 22, 2010 - 10:02pm PT
Blue wrote: Bob's link disproves nothing....

There is really something wrong with you.

Gdavis questioned said the effects of the bill didn't take place until 2014...here was wrong and so are you.

He didn't questioned who paid for what.

Like I said..you have an issue with facts.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Mar 22, 2010 - 10:03pm PT
Are you denying that children can be on their parents policy till age 26?

No.

Or do ya just wanna play the HuffingtonPost card?

Kinda. Bob posted that as if taxpayers get immediate relief for their contributions. They don't!!! SOME people do, namely the uninsured, so that essentially you're strapping the burden initially on taxpayers and giving non-payers a free ride.

Sweet deal for them! Eat the rich, man (and middle class)!!! Woo-hoo!
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Mar 22, 2010 - 10:04pm PT
Bob, when do I, as a middle class taxpayer, see benefits as a healthy man with no pre-conditions???
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Arid-zona
Mar 22, 2010 - 10:04pm PT
Hard to believe that Congress didn't listen to these people:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pilG7PCV448&feature=player_embedded#



Also bluering your simple questions have simple answers had you actually paid any attention to the substance of the debate instead of the idiocy of the right. The simple answer to most of your questions is "people making more than $250,000 a year who over the last 10 years have seen their tax burden reduced significantly from where they were in the 1990's."
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 22, 2010 - 10:06pm PT
Fat Dad stated earlier:

John, I'm unclear: are you agreeing that 1) Obama's comment was inappropriate, 2) that the decision was right, or 3) both. For the record, I think it's worth remembering that Obama taught Constitutional Law. I think his opinion on the subject should be accorded some weight.

I agree with both statements. The decision was right, and attacking the court in the State of the Union address was inexcusable, particularly for a Constitutional Law professor. The hyperbole over this decision from non-lawyers is understandable. That from someone who knows better is despicable.

John
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Boulder, CO
Mar 22, 2010 - 10:07pm PT
Blue wrote: Bob, when do I, as a middle class taxpayer, see benefits as a healthy man with no pre-conditions???


That wasn't the question...don't try to muddle the waters. This is the sh#t you pull all the time..like on the "pope going to jail" thread...the subject was priest and you try to make it about Muslims.

You have a problem with facts...plain and simple.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Mar 22, 2010 - 10:07pm PT
Businesses with fewer than 50 employees will get tax credits covering up to 50% of employee premiums.

Don't you think this is a substantial immediate benefit Bluering?
Messages 201 - 220 of total 710 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta