navigator

So because one system works it invalidates the fact that there are numerous others that can't stay within budget and continue to make cutbacks? Also, there was the fiasco, a few years ago, regarding the terrible conditions at Walter Reed Med Center. If you go back further there have been other problems, IMO its not always been as good as you make it sound. They are listening, now. Don't be disturbed, I was aware of this study. Just didn't want to assume this is what he was reffering to, had he said the US ranks 37th...I would have known he was reffering to the WHO study. It may be clear and articulate, but how objective were the parameters used to make the conclusions? Did this study not surprise anybody else when they first read it enough to motivate them to research its validity? Due to the fact the majority of Americans are happy with their health care and the tens of thousands of people that come from all over the world, including countries that ranked higher than the US, for health care? Or we can look at this analysis. Thats a very misleading statistic also Huh? I did answer a question, you proceeded to tell me it was off-topic and then listed a alternate plan yourself, although nobody asked you for an alternate view. Only stated the facts, maybe a reality check is in order. Upon your admission of guilt, you clearly stated the reasons why you had no intention of changing the title and it had nothing to do with the reasons your citing now. I also considered, I wasn't really sure, whether a title could be edited by a member. However, the moderator I have dealt with seemed reasonable enough and if he choose not to edit the title, had you requested it, I am sure he would have informed me. I only stated the facts and exposed the hypocrasy surrounding them.

Ok, that makes sense, thanks. For further clarification, Page 61 18 ‘‘(D) programs to provide incentives for, 19 and ease the burden of, health care providers 20 who volunteer to participate in the process of 21 setting standards for electronic transactions; I think thats what there unsure of the cost. Basically, there not sure how much it will cost to engineer a card you can stick up your rear, open your mouth and project on the wall... Seriously though, I understand how that would save money by improving efficiency. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe fed will usurp all state powers in state based health care exchange. Page 111 9 (a) IN GENERAL.—If— 10 (1) a State (or group of States, subject to the 11 approval of the Commissioner) applies to the Com12 missioner for approval of a State-based Health In13 surance Exchange to operate in the State (or group 14 of States); and 15 (2) the Commissioner approves such State16 based Health Insurance Exchange, 17 then, subject to subsections © and (d), the State-based 18 Health Insurance Exchange shall operate, instead of the 19 Health Insurance Exchange, with respect to such State 20 (or group of States). The Commissioner shall approve a 21 State-based Health Insurance Exchange if it meets the re22 quirements for approval under subsection (b). 10th amendment anyone? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIn the opponents for HR thread Bascule has alleged that I am spreading disinformation regarding this plan being a single payer system. Page 145 15 (4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES.—The 16 employer provides for autoenrollment of the em17 ployee in accordance with subsection ©. Page 24 sec 116 18 (a) IN GENERAL.—A qualified health benefits plan 19 shall meet a medical loss ratio as defined by the Commis20 sioner. For any plan year in which the qualified health 21 benefits plan does not meet such medical loss ratio, QHBP 22 offering entity shall provide in a manner specified by the 23 Commissioner for rebates to enrollees of payment suffi24 cient to meet such loss ratio. Page 72 8 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established within 9 the Health Choices Administration and under the direc10 tion of the Commissioner a Health Insurance Exchange 11 in order to facilitate access of individuals and employers, 12 through a transparent process, to a variety of choices of 13 affordable, quality health insurance coverage, including a 14 public health insurance option. 15 Page 265 sec1131 7 (1) IN GENERAL.—The first sentence of section 8 1833(t)(3)©(iv) of the Social Security Act (42 9 U.S.C. 1395l(t)(3)©(iv)) is amended— 10 (A) by inserting ‘‘(which is subject to the 11 productivity adjustment described in subclause 12 (II) of such section)’’ after 13 ‘‘1886(b)(3)(B)(iii)’’; and 14 (B) by inserting ‘‘(but not below 0)’’ after 15 ‘‘reduced’’. 16 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made 17 by paragraph (1) shall apply to increase factors for 18 services furnished in years beginning with 2010. page 84 sec 203 5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall specify 6 the benefits to be made available under Exchange-partici7 pating health benefits plans during each plan year, con8 sistent with subtitle C of title I and this section. 9 (b) LIMITATION ON HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS OF10 FERED BY OFFERING ENTITIES.—The Commissioner may 11 not enter into a contract with a QHBP offering entity 12 under section 204© for the offering of an Exchange-par13 ticipating health benefits plan in a service area unless the 14 following requirements are met: 15 (1) REQUIRED OFFERING OF BASIC PLAN.—The 16 entity offers only one basic plan for such service 17 area. These are some of the points of the bill that lay the ground work for single payer, IMO. I base my assertion on this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Are none of those in favor of this bill interested in interpeting this? Or am I to assume that my interpetation is correct, this is clearly a violation of the 10th amendment?

JohnB has raised an interesting point that shows the irony of this whole mess. What I find ironic is that the OP used the word "interupt" in the OP to describe the behavior of the opposers... Nowhere in the memo from the opposers does it say "interupt". Instead, it says something along the lines of "wait for an oppurtunity to stand up and shout..." followed by "sit right back down". By definition "wait for an oppurtunity to stand up.." is not an interuption. Now lets look at the memo from those in favor... Clearly they are being told to interupt. So the OP is complaing that the opponents are doing something that those in favor are clearly advocating. Thats spreading propaganda and taking it to a whole new level that I am not sure how to define. What I find, not only the most ironic, but truly appalling is we need to look no further than this thread to find evidence of this. Based on the OPs admission of guilt that the thread title was grossly lacking objectivity he made this statement... He has made no attempt to change the thread title, in an attempt to be more objective, effectively continuing to spread the propaganda. the fact that this is a science forum compounds the issue even more. Aren't scientists supposed to be held to a higher standard in this regard? Another thing I find dishearting is the other members of this board have stood by and allowed it. This whole thing is beyond absurd.

References? I ask that question against my better judgement due to the fact that time and time again Inow has singled me out for being off topic. Maybe he would give me permission to discuss this or we could move it to a thread where it will be closer to the topic? Again I would love to discuss this, but will refrain for the same reasons as above. I will only say that the wording in the bill gives plenty of room for it to evolve. Otherwise, see above. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Herculean? LOL, several posters have been off topic and you engaged in the discussion, the only one you have raised your off topic concerns with is me. Ever since the political compass of this thread changed, you haven't added anything, to the on topic posts, of substance.

I acknowledged my error in an earlier post.

I am completely for health care reform, but completely against expanding the government to do it, unless in an effort to more effectively regulate private health insurers and the drug cos. I also think the lobbyists are an issue that needs to be addressed.

Hey thanks DJBruce!!! I thought this was one of the easier ones to understand, maybe it could be used as a metric to gauge the similarities of our interpetations.. from page 61 22 ‘‘(E) an estimate of total funds needed to 23 ensure timely completion of the implementation 24 plan; and To me, it says they don't know the cost so an estimate is needed? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIn the Tenncare thread DJBruce brought up the taxes employers will incur if they choose to not offer the acceptable coverage per the government plan. Page 110 7 (B) EMPLOYMENT TAXES ON EMPLOYERS 8 NOT PROVIDING ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.—The 9 amounts received in the Treasury under section 10 3111© of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 11 (relating to employers electing to not provide 12 health benefits). 13 © EXCISE TAX ON FAILURES TO MEET 14 CERTAIN HEALTH COVERAGE REQUIRE15 MENTS.—The amounts received in the Treasury 16 under section 4980H(b) (relating to excise tax 17 with respect to failure to meet health coverage 18 participation requirements). 19 (2) APPROPRIATIONS TO COVER GOVERNMENT 20 CONTRIBUTIONS.—There are hereby appropriated, 21 out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise ap22 propriated, to the Trust Fund, an amount equivalent 23 to the amount of payments made from the Trust 24 Fund under subsection (b) plus such amounts as are 1 necessary reduced by the amounts deposited under 2 paragraph (1). 3 (d) APPLICATION OF CERTAIN RULES.—Rules simi4 lar to the rules of subchapter B of chapter 98 of the Inter5 nal Revenue Code of 1986 shall apply with respect to the 6 Trust Fund. My understanding is sub section b covers SS, so the Treasury can take funds from SS line to pay healthcare.

If we look at the memo sent out by those in favor of the bill, it is easier for me to understand the theatrics and tantrums. I think this illustrates one reason why, at Sen Carnahans town hall, the unions were allowing their members in and attempting to prevent the opposers from entering. Also why the front half of the hall was not evenly distributed, instead filled with those in favor.

I can't think of a more important government program than the Veterans Health Administration to provide sufficient funding in an effort to prevent cut back. Our military deserves it more than any other IMO. But what about medicare, medicaid and they many other state programs that struggle every year with budget shortfalls and program cutbacks? I too have had pretty good service from my local post office, but several others are closing due to lack of funding. I wonder if FedEx and UPS are also feeling the squeeze. As far as my health insurance, I have always gotten the care in a timely fashion and thought the quality was good. Last fall my allergies were much worse than previous years so I went to an allergy specialist. The felt they had the correct diagnosis, but wanted me to get an MRI to eliminate the possibility of a sinus infection. I was able to schedule the appointment within the same week and the wait was less than 20 minutes, it was a new clinic that provided the MRI.

I have already stated I am willing to discuss the issues of the bill, in fact, I believe it is imperative that each one of us try to understand each others point of view in an effort to find some unity. I am sure my posting style may not reflect that, but in my defense, this is not the easiest place to try to present an alternative view. As far as the ad hominems I will make a genuine effort to refrain from those types of remarks, so please call me on it. I admit, I haven't been posting on forums long enough to refine my posting skills and hope you will bear with me. As for the disinformation, thats based on your opinion, I haven't seen any references giving evidence that this bill does not lay the ground work for a single payer system. I can only go on my interpetation and the others I have read.

Due to my conservative nature, I would be hard pressed to find anything positive to discuss, I am afraid I would spoil the discussion before it even started. Also, somebody like yourself, who has more credibility with other members, would spark a more lively debate, IMO. Um, you can be provacative without being misleading.... I will drop it.

I have also admitted to fault when the accusation has merit in light of the evidence. However, the OP has made it very clear that I should not answer questions directed to me if they are off topic. You may not believe it, but I really would like to address your question and describe the basis for my opinion regarding HR 3200. If you would start a thread with the purpose of disecting the bill to better understand whats in it, I could illustrate the foundations of my opinion, while at the same time remain on topic. I eagerly look forward to it.

Based on the evidence, wouldn't you agree that your thread title is grossly lacking in objectivity and your OP is loaded with disinformation?

I see people upset, but nothing criminal, witch hunt or lynching. Here is a video of the Union memebers attack and arrest. As the video starts the victim is already on the ground and being kicked. A letter from the victims attorney is also listed. From Tampa... - There is also a video of one of Sen Carahans employees being arrested for assaulting somebody handing out leaflets, when I find it I will post it. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged - One woman was arrested for misdemeanor assault and destruction of property for allegedly pushing another woman who was recording the events on her cell phone, then grabbing the phone and breaking it. The first video she states she is an employee of carahan. This video shows her being arrested. http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/laworder/story/0470FEB3219207458625760B001142AC?OpenDocument Grassroots or astroturf?

My interpetation of HR 3200 PG 145 Line 15-17 An employer must auto enroll employees into public option plan. PG 24 Line 116 Government sets prices for all private health plans. PG 72 Line 8-14 Government is creating an health care exchange to bring private health care plans under government control. PG 265 Line 1131 Government mandates & controls productivity for private health care industries. PG 84 Line 203 Government mandates all benefit packages for private health care plans in the Exchange. The twitter link is to Peter Fleckensteins personal interpetation, most of which I believe to be accurate. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You are absolutely correct. My opinions are not fact and too often I state them that way.

You never watched 'Sicko'? I agree, some people may view the panels all private insures have as death panels. But again your missing the point. Governments have no interest in customer retention. Also, private insurers make vastly higher profits by paying claims vs. denying them. This would be the opposite in government health care. Show me a government health care system, fed or state, that runs within budget and does not cut back on programs. Then I will be happy to discuss whether the government is likely not to refuse life saving care. According the the way I understood it and the interpetation I read, referenced in my first post in this thread, That after midnight, 01/01/10 no new private health care policies will be written. When your current employee or private health care policy expires you will automatically be enrolled in the government system. If you switch or quit your job, you will auotomatically be enrolled in the government plan. There is another area that discusses how and what government guidelines and panels the private health care companys will fall under, if they choose to continue to operate. The funding for the health care providers will come from the government and not the patient. My point in the evasiveness, not referencing where I read the parts I have read, is in hopes that some of you more intelligent will find a source your comfortable with and read this bill, because there are many contradicting reports due to the complexity of the legelse language. I also think you may have second thoughts when you do. On other forums I have yet to find one person say they were in favor of it after reading the first 100 pages. I really hope you won't place all your faith in the government and find out for yourself whats in it, or I guess you can wait for the politicians to tell you. Anybody who reads it cannot deny the bill is in fact a single payer system. Whats the purpose of posting references to back up what I say when you don't read them? As an olive branch I will post it again. Here is a second source in case you didn't like the first one.

Because of the lost potential benefit to society. The program could have have addressed the problem, instead of just destroying the engines and wasting whatever other parts were not sold in the six months time frame. Salvage yards have cars that have been there for decades which still provide them revenue, because each of them have hundreds, maybe, thousands of different parts that can be sold. Your point comes across to me that you would have to own a salvage yard to be able to understand the value difference in a normal parts car and one you only had six months to sell, but I seriously doubt thats the case. I consider myself to be "in the market" for a 52" flat screen TV. The one I like is made by Pioneer, so I follow the specials offered by different stores so when I see a price I like I can go check it out. I consider myself in the market for a TV, but haven't found the one that I like that at a price that will comfortably fit within my budget. No different than people who were in the market to by a new car, but waiting for the right deal. Guidelines that constitue bad debt vary. This clunker program gave some people the ability to by a car that under some of those guidelines, would constitute over extending themself, allowing them to buy a car they eventually may not be able to afford. I don't know the percentage, but a small percentage of all new car sales end up being repo'ed. I used the housing market as an example of the government encouraging this. However at this point its semantics anyway, take the last word...

I guess we will never know if the benefit would be greater than the cost to everyone else. But, anytime you can give somebody with no income a leg up, by giving them something that would go to waste anyway, so they can begin to provide for themselves, the benefits to society innumerable. Apples to oranges. The land those buildings are on will always have market value, although the condition of the building on the land may actually lower its value.

When does the benefit to the poor ever come into the equation? It would be interesting to know how many people are jobless due to lack of transportation. Scrapping/salvaging something wasteful and replacing it with something efficient is a possible red herring. Depending on who ended up with the clunker, we could see an increase in income tax revenue, decrease in wealthfare, medicaid, and the list goes on, but we will never really know. Please clarify how destroying consumer goods, with any amount of market value, is good for the economy. I thought that was basic economics.

Understood. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged When a panel decides, for whatever reason, to deny you care and the result is terminal, people in that situation feel the death panel term is apt. I don't have to walk in some one elses shoes to understand their perspective. Allowing compassion and empathy to guide my conscience helps me understand their opinion whether I agree or not. I am not complaining, I have also stated that I don't think the term is completely accurate. What I am trying to do is show a perspective of life that you have been lucky enough to avoid, but some have not. Until you walk in their shoes, you cannot justify your judgement of their opinion.

You are basing your arguement on the assumption that customers taking advantage of the clunker program were never in the market to buy a new or used car, but decided to purchase a new car just because of the govenrment incentive. It would be more likely that upgrading their used car was their intention all along, but waiting for a better financial situation. We have also seen what happens, when government encourages bad debt, in the housing market. The salvage yards only have six months to sell the parts before they must dispose of them. See my referenence in earlier post. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Duly noted

Yes, because the oversight committees for the TARP money have told Obama there are major problems. It seems he would address this regarding the stimulus money, instead he wants us to be patient. Why are you so concerned with my credibility?

Which tells me you haven't read the bill and your contradicting yourself regarding facts and opinion. Do you ever answer a question, or is diversion your standard MO? That would be the same standard that has had so much difficulty acknowledging who was causing the worst of the disruptions to the extent of being criminal causing personal injury? I wonder if you walked in their shoes, would you have that same perspective. The only activities likened to a witch hunt or lynching came from the supporters of the bill. Stop with the diversionary tactics and it will be much easier for me to stay on topic and know whether you are being intellectually dishonest or really having a comprehension issue.

Pretty strong words, but you have your perspective of them and I have mine. But I can asure you, I am not the only one concerned when Obama says to be patient. And it has nothing to do with the plan, rather the longer its implementation takes, the more chances money will slip through the cracks. Washington is loaded with greedy bureaucrats with sticky fingers. You play games, I call it as I see it.

Maybe Obamas dog should have been more politicized. After all he thought it was prudent to spend six months choosing a dog, but tried to pass socialized health care in a matter of weeks...what did he care though, he made sure he was exempt from it. Where he screwed up was thinking the American people were too stupid to put two and two together. Politics have become so devisive, as illustrated above, I too am guilty. I believe it is our reponsibilty to respect others views, even if we disagree, and find a happy medium in an effort to arrive at some form of unity. Problem is there will always be greed and until the lobbyist are more strictly regulated, our elected officials motivations will always be suspect.