A list of facts about the benefits in the health care bill

#51
#51
VolInMn said:
It would have been a lot easier and faster just to have said "No, I have no citation to support my claim."
Click to expand...

but then, four other people would not have had the opportunity to jump in and tell how much of a dumb ass you are
 
#55
#55
hohenfelsvol said:
Seriously, though. How many times are these "side deals" put down on paper? Check page 42 of your professor's text book. It's almost zero, if ever.
Click to expand...

how do you think the Barackstar was able to get all the votes he needed, hes stole Uncle Sam's wallet and was basically buying off people in congress
 
#56
#56
T-TownVol said:
but then, four other people would not have had the opportunity to jump in and tell how much of a dumb ass you are
Click to expand...

neo-con-tears.jpg
 
#57
#57
no tears here.....just anger that there are people of such ignorance in power in this country, and on this board
 
#59
#59
volinbham said:
Notice what's not stated?

Virtually nothing addressing the costs of healthcare. (Adding 31 million absolutely has to increase utilization of HC - costs will rise)

Virtually nothing about the 16 million people that will be added to Medicaid and how the states will pay for this new growth. (Another unfunded mandate from the Fed to the states)

Nothing addressing tort reform (see #1 above; lowering costs)

Mandated minimum levels of insurance that will raise utilization and take options away.

No mention of the reduction in HSA programs. This along with reductions/elimination of Medicare advantage represent benefit reductions.

In short, some of the insurance reform is needed as is expansion of coverage but the method has a serious slew of unintended consequences.
Click to expand...

+1

:hi:
 
#61
#61
volinbham said:
Actually:

There is a Medicare panel that will be appointed and approved by the Senate whose roll it is to determine what changes to Medicare (coverage) are appropriate/needed. Their recommendations are then immune from Congressional tampering.

The idea is to have a panel make the "tough choices" since lawmakers cannot make those choices.

1. So while "death panel" isn't the right term, we will have a panel that decides what care will be covered.

On the abortion issue, I believe that it is still possible that abortion coverage be part of the mandated coverage in the exchanges. Of course what that means (if it is part) is that people will be required to pay for it in their own plan and all tax payers would be subsidzing it. 2. The issue will be if the Hyde amendment prevents such use of federal funds and if abortion costs can be unbundled from other HC costs in a given insurance package with mandated benefits.

IIRC the abortion ban is not in the bill (current or reconciliation). Obama signed an executive order on the issue to buy Stupak's vote but there is considerable debate about the power of that executive order and how it will fit into the law.
Click to expand...

1. Not sure how that is different from an insurance company doing the same thing. Just like now, nobody is denying treatment, just what is covered. "Tough choices" are are being made now by those with a bottom line in mind. Now we just have a government panel doing it. Not saying I agree with this HC business, but it doesn't change the fact that "death panel" labels are disengenous at best considering we already have corporate panels doing the same thing.

2. I am admittedly ingorant on this area of UHC, but from what I understand abortion will be treated pretty much like it is now, completely out of pocket and not picked up by any insurance. I would assume that any coverage purchased that provides abortion coverage would not be included in any exchanges and be completely paid for by the individual consumer. I could be naive on this though.
 
#62
#62
rjd970 said:
1. Not sure how that is different from an insurance company doing the same thing. Just like now, nobody is denying treatment, just what is covered. "Tough choices" are are being made now by those with a bottom line in mind. Now we just have a government panel doing it. Not saying I agree with this HC business, but it doesn't change the fact that "death panel" labels are disengenous at best considering we already have corporate panels doing the same thing.

A key distinction is that a corporate panel making these decisions has limited scope of impact. Federalizing this makes the effects widespread. I don't see profit as a bigger problem than whatever motivates this panel.

2. I am admittedly ingorant on this area of UHC, but from what I understand abortion will be treated pretty much like it is now, completely out of pocket and not picked up by any insurance. I would assume that any coverage purchased that provides abortion coverage would not be included in any exchanges and be completely paid for by the individual consumer. I could be naive on this though.
Click to expand...

I've heard both approaches on this. What the Stupak amendment did was insure that no federal dollars would be used - basically preventing plans in the exchange from offering such coverage. That protection is now gone. If it is included as a mandate, then all buyers in the exchange must pay for it and all taxpayers will be subsidizing it. The door is open for this to happen.
 
#63
#63
volinbham said:
A key distinction is that a corporate panel making these decisions has limited scope of impact. Federalizing this makes the effects widespread. I don't see profit as a bigger problem than whatever motivates this panel

I agree it may be more widespread, but my original point about there being a "death panel" created like we don't already have them is still bogus. Coverage is still denied everyday with private insurers. I'm not sure which is worse, paying for somebody else's healthcare or paying for my own only to not be covered when I need it.

I've heard both approaches on this. What the Stupak amendment did was insure that no federal dollars would be used - basically preventing plans in the exchange from offering such coverage. That protection is now gone. If it is included as a mandate, then all buyers in the exchange must pay for it and all taxpayers will be subsidizing it. The door is open for this to happen.
Click to expand...

That is certainly a valid concern. But again, nothing is stopping insurers from covering it now but they don't. When all the dust settles I really believe abortion will still be completely out of pocket for anybody that gets it. It is too much of a hot political topic to tamper with.
 
#64
#64
rjd970 said:
That is certainly a valid concern. But again, nothing is stopping insurers from covering it now but they don't. When all the dust settles I really believe abortion will still be completely out of pocket for anybody that gets it. It is too much of a hot political topic to tamper with.
Click to expand...

maybe but the same was said about HC
 
#65
#65
utvolpj said:
maybe but the same was said about HC
Click to expand...

True, but also keep in mind as of now there has been no supreme court ruling on healthcare. I also think it is a much more divisive issue, largely independent of socio-economic status. With healthcare once the idiots and free loaders reach critical mass it was bound to pass.
 
#66
#66
droski said:
i 100% guarantee you that in california they will just ignore any requirement for ID. why do i know this? because the police here already can't ask for ID from illegals or ask if they are citizens. nor can the schools or hospitals.
Click to expand...

They just set up DUI checkpoints instead.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#67
#67
droski said:
they've issued "pink slips," but generally only a 1/3 of those are actually fired at the end of the school year. it makes good headlines though which is precisely why the school district is doing it.
Click to expand...

The problem is most or all that get laid off are the young teachers that are still motivated.

The problem w tenure
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#69
#69
I think they said Tennessee would end up paying the government $1.1 billion dollars...Where do we have this money to pay the federal government? Can somebody answer that for me?

I saw that now 12 states are going to sue the government when the bill is signed...Come on Tennessee!
 
#70
#70
Those that are for the bill, should be allowed to send in more taxes, and give those who do not care to participate........

Nevermind, that wouldn't work, wouldn't be enough to cover a bottle of Tums.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top