Quoting AGM100 (Reply 449): Wrap there care into the VA system. If the democrats believe it is so good then all we need to do is set a income level requirement then go ahead and throw the doors open at the local VA. What a great idea ..... what do you all think ?

It probably wouldn't work to put everyone into the same system because of the unique needs of the veterans, but having a similar, parallel system for those caught in the gap would be a reasonable option. It would be a "government" option, though, which will make it a hard sell for many of the same people who hate the current proposal.

Quoting DXing (Reply 444): don't understand why there is such opposition to inserting an amendment stipulating that these consultation will be strictly voluntary.

I don't oppose putting in a line to say it is voluntary. However, I do oppose people blatantly lying saying that it is mandatory when there is no such language in the bill.

It's pretty hard to work with Republicans when they are using scare tactics like "Death Panels". Back off on the scare tactics and I think the Democrats/Obama would be more willing to work.

Quoting DXing (Reply 444): You're not stupid so if you can explain where you think you are hung up please do because you're making this much more difficult than it really needs to be.

You keep saying that the amendment is there so that the SSA will mirror or reflect the AAHCA. "Mirror," at least as I understand it, implies that there is some portion of the AAHCA whose language then has to be duplicated or imitated in some fashion in the SSA such that the two laws agree. But that's not the case - if this bill passes, the language about the Advance Care Planning Consultation is only going to show up in one place in the US Code, namely 42 U.S.C. ch. 7, with the rest of the Social Security Act as amended. And because it will only show up in that one place, the only valid context for its interpretation is the context provided by that location. The section where it is added is a list of services provided by Medicare. Those services (59 separate ones so far) are available but not mandatory. Ergo, the 60th service listed will also be available but not mandatory, unless it specifies otherwise, which it doesn't.

Quoting DXing (Reply 444): It is written that way so as to give the Health Commissioner the leeway needed to do it. If it does not specifically say that something is voluntary, then you can assume it will be mandatory from the beginning, or will be made so at a later date.

In that case, why are none of the other 59 items listed in Section 1861 of the Social Security Act also mandatory? They're all written the same way; none of them specifically say whether they are optional or mandatory, and they are all therefore considered optional. I challenge you to find any examples from law where something is considered mandatory without an explicit statement in the law to that effect.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 439): In ordinary speach, you are correct. However, in writtten laws, words have different, or additional meanings. That is why written laws are so confusing to lay people. They get hung up on traditional defianitions, not one the new defined meanings of words as applied by the law.

Getting a bit postmodernist, aren't we? "We can never know what laws actually mean because the words can mean whatever you want them to"? BS. Laws are confusing because of their stilted grammar and long words, but they are still perfectly good English, and mean exactly what they say.

Quoting DXing (Reply 444): I don't understand why there is such opposition to inserting an amendment stipulating that these consultation will be strictly voluntary. Instead of compromise all that has been done in the past 4 posts above this one is diversion and the tossing of insulting remarks. It begins to explain why the GOP has tired of even trying to get the simplest of things done with the democratic party. The amended line would not hurt anyone yet even the one comment that said ok was couched with insulting language all around it. The GOP is interested in fixing health insurance, which is where the real problem lies, unfortunately it's pretty obvious that the left doesn't want ideas or even to really fix the problem, just subservience.

If they really want to insert an amendment that makes it more clear I would be fine with that, but there's no need to because it appears under Title II "TITLE II—MEDICARE BENEFICIARY IMPROVEMENTS" so it's just an improvement to Medicare. Everything in Medicare is voluntary, you don't have to do any of it, it just provides for coverage for certain procedures if you choose to have them done.
If we start adding amendments like that we'll end up with hundreds of them and this bill would look small compared to what we would end up with.

Quoting Dvk (Reply 450): It probably wouldn't work to put everyone into the same system because of the unique needs of the veterans

Hey health-care is health-care .... I mean whats so special about veterans ? I mean they are just citizens like us ? Do we have to have different levels of Government Care within the government system ? One size should fit all I would say .

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 454): I mean whats so special about veterans ?

The VA system is already struggling mightily to deal with the large number of veterans of Iraq/Afghanistan with devastating traumatic brain injuries and other catastrophic injuries that would have been fatal in previous wars. I'm sure you've seen the reports about the subpar rehab some of the soldiers have received. It's a serious issue that is unique to the VA. A similar option to what you have proposed would be to modify and expand Medicaid with premiums based on income for those who can't afford insurance. That would probably work better.

Quoting Dvk (Reply 455): The VA system is already struggling mightily to deal with the large number of veterans of Iraq/Afghanistan with devastating traumatic brain injuries and other catastrophic injuries that would have been fatal in previous wars. I'm sure you've seen the reports about the subpar rehab some of the soldiers have received

Why I wonder .... Why would a system of government ran health care be struggling ? What is the cause of that disgrace .

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 456): What is the cause of that disgrace .

Because many in Congress like to start wars, but are unwilling to pay the price for the aftermath.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 457): Because many in Congress like to start wars, but are unwilling to pay the price for the aftermath.

So a federally operated health-care system ... one that would naturally have to plan for large numbers of casualties in war time is failing ? Seems to not be a very well operated entity ... one that is not well suited for cycling increases and budget strains. Interesting.

In another words a federally controlled health-care system is wholly dependent on Congressional budget appropriations in order to improve care ?

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 456): Why I wonder .... Why would a system of government ran health care be struggling ? What is the cause of that disgrace .

The easy and tragic answer is that they had no idea how many casualties with usually fatal injuries would survive because of major advances in combat/trauma medicine in recent years, and they had no idea that what Rumsfeld said would last six months to maybe a year at most would still be going 6 1/2 years later. That lack of foresight left the VA system completely unprepared for the large influx of non-fatal catastrophic injuries, and they simply don't have the necessary rehab sources to provide adequate care for all the soldiers.

Quoting Dvk (Reply 459): That lack of foresight left the VA system completely unprepared for the large influx of non-fatal catastrophic injuries, and they simply don't have the necessary rehab sources to provide adequate care for all the soldiers.

So far in Iraq there has been something like 30K + casualties of all types ..from hangnails to hard combat wounds over a 8 year period. We are faced with a VA system that receives billions of dollars a year and they cant treat 30k over a 8 year period ?

Man , that's a national disgrace .

My point here is that how in the world are we going to trust the same goofballs in Washington to manage health-care for 200 million Americans ... god this sounds like a disaster of epic proportions.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 457): Because many in Congress like to start wars, but are unwilling to pay the price for the aftermath.

Possibly...or could it be that THE GOVERNMENT IN ITSELF IS A HIGHLY INEFFICIENT ORGANIZATION, and has no business running health care at all?? For government run health care, the most important thing is the bottom line-literally the bottom line, or least costly solution. On top of that, add in the fact that Obama wants to throw 45,000,000 more people to the system while not also providing or increasing the numbers of health care professionals to suddenly deal with that massive addition. For those who believe in Obama's State Run Health Care, you're better off believing that we never went to the moon and that the Apollo Program was all a farce. The numbers just don't add of for Obama.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 460): My point here is that how in the world are we going to trust the same goofballs in Washington to manage health-care for 200 million Americans ... god this sounds like a disaster of epic proportions.

The failure of the VA to adequately handle the Iraq/Afghanistan casualties can be blamed more on the Department of Defense than anything or anyone else. The VA problems have not adversely affected Medicare or Medicaid. It's really a completely different situation. In fact, the VA is still quite good at providing regular medical care to veterans. Many VA hospitals have close alliances with academic medical centers, which helps even more to keep the level of primary and subspecialty care provided state of the art.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 461): For government run health care, the most important thing is the bottom line-literally the bottom line, or least costly solution.

This is even more true of commercial insurance. If you think otherwise, you are seriously mistaken. It's true, more providers are needed, but that's true whether or not health care reform is approved. There is a serious and growing shortage of primary care physicians which has to be addressed, but that would be a lame excuse for scrapping health care reform. Measures to make primary care more appealing to medical school graduates are much needed and under much study already. Increased use of nurse practitioners and physician assistants to provide basic primary care services is another area that will help. There are a lot of these "physician extenders" who aren't being used optimally because of restrictive laws in a high percentage of states.

Of course, there will be some major growing pains with the kind of sweeping reform that is needed, but it is needed nonetheless, and there really is no other entity besides the federal government that has a prayer of getting it done.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 460): We are faced with a VA system that receives billions of dollars a year and they cant treat 30k over a 8 year period ?

You're forgetting the millions of veterans in the US who also get their health care from the VA. And it's also a bad idea to lump in seriously injured veterans with the rest, as they require much more intensive care.

http://www.sbecouncil.org/uploads/SB...%20SBSI-Health%5B1%5D%202-3-09.pdf

According to the study above, the top 10 most expensive health insurance states are:

10. New York
9 New Jersey
8. Colorado
7. Maryland
6. California
5. Vermont
4. Connecticut
3. Maine
2. Washington
1. Massachusetts

Time to deregulate health care.

Quoting DXing (Reply 444): It is written that way so as to give the Health Commissioner the leeway needed to do it.

And the passage in the law that proves you wrong, from Title XVIII, Section 1801, Social Security Act (the title where the language on page 424 line 20 and onwards is being placed):

Quote: Sec. 1801. [42 U.S.C. 1395] Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize any Federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine or the manner in which medical services are provided, or over the selection, tenure, or compensation of any officer or employee of any institution, agency, or person providing health services; or to exercise any supervision or control over the administration or operation of any such institution, agency, or person.

I win.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 460): So far in Iraq there has been something like 30K + casualties of all types ..from hangnails to hard combat wounds over a 8 year period. We are faced with a VA system that receives billions of dollars a year and they cant treat 30k over a 8 year period ? Man , that's a national disgrace .

You do realize the VA treats veterans all the way back to those who fought in World War II?

I guess you would rather Veterans not get treated at all since you know that private insurance won't cover them.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 461): For government run health care, the most important thing is the bottom line-literally the bottom line, or least costly solution.

The same is true for every private insurer as well....even more so since they have shareholders to answer to.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 466): The same is true for every private insurer as well....even more so since they have shareholders to answer to.

They also have customers to satisfy. Without this, they can forget satisfying shareholders. That includes their own jobs too, unlike many government run services which virtually guarantee employment (I'll grant you that Obama seems to be trying to change this culture).

[Edited 2009-08-14 17:27:14]

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 467): They also have customers to satisfy. Without this, they can forget satisfying shareholders.

You accidentally got the order reversed: it's the shareholders first, then the customers, if any.

Quoting Dvk (Reply 462): sweeping reform that is needed

Not needed ... some fixes are needed .. but not a sweeping total take over . This administration is like hiring a inexperienced CEO for to run your company. They don't no how to do anything so they try to recreate the company in hopes they will understand it.

I am thankful for our health system ... me and my family have never been let down by it. But I am a evil middle class-er who can take care of myself... ya know the bad guys in America now. Populist fervor never ends well.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 466): You do realize the VA treats veterans all the way back to those who fought in World War II?

Of course , and they evidently are not doing a good job and need reform ? I volunteered over there for several months ... seemed fine to me . That's Why I think we should just send the poor and the illegal Aliens over there ...

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 469): but not a sweeping total take over

Don't twist my words into something I didn't say. I said sweeping REFORM, not takeover. There is a huge difference. It seems now that your initial, apparently honest suggestion about the VA was nothing more than a ruse, since you're now referring to that idea in sarcastic terms.

Guess what? I'm also an evil middle class person who can take care of myself, and have done so quite well. I just happen to be acutely aware of many people in the lower middle class who work just as damn hard as you or I, but don't have the benefit of employer-provided insurance or a high enough income to pay $700+ per month for individual or $1000+ per month for family insurance coverage that would provide comparable benefits to what those of us with employer provided coverage have. As I said earlier, it is CRIMINAL that a healthy single person in this country without employer-provided insurance (e.g., someone who is self-employed) has to pay an average $400+ monthly premium for individual coverage that only covers them if they are so sick or badly injured they have to be admitted to the hospital. Do you really believe these people, and there are a lot of them, shouldn't have a better, affordable, and more comprehensive alternative? Under the current system in this country, they don't! And left to the private sector, they never will. That won't be fixed without a major change in the system. By that I don't mean a government takeover, but I also know that only the government even approaches the capability of performing the task.

It's becoming apparent that the supporters of this bill are showing the height of hypocracy.

They have been accusing the GOP of busing in "mobs" at the town hall meetings (as if the GOP is capable of organizing my sock drawer right now). Up to now I have not seen a single instance of that happening, but ACORN and associates are doing it constantly.

When Senator Specter showed up for a Town Hall meeting in rural western Pennsylvania on Thursday, he brought along some friends from the big city. He brought in three busloads of ACORN/Union rent a mobsters to make him feel at home.

The buses were organized and paid for by HCAN, a front group for big money liberals like George Soros. They proudly advertise their involvement on their web site.

http://healthcareforamericanow.org/page/event/detail/wcv

So many people showed up that there was no room for all the locals, hundreds of whom gathered in the parking lot to voice their opinion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZc-i_rEGWA&feature=player_embedded



I love the ACORN plant carrying the sign “Yelling is counter productive” while she screams “health care now!”

Silly me, I thought the purpose of the town hall meetings was to listen to the local constituents, not some rent-a-mob bussed in from elsewhere.

Can anyone provide pictures of the GOP buses?

why fix it if it ain't broke? Norhings wrong with the current system

Quoting Dvk (Reply 447): Absolutely not true. You can drag up every obscure line of the proposal you want and twist and turn it as you will, but it doesn't say anywhere that people will lose control of their own health care. You are engaging in gross distortion of what is written.

Start with sec 102 page 17
EMPLOYMENT
9 BASED HEALTH PLANS.%u2014
10 (1) GRACE PERIOD.%u2014
11 (A) IN GENERAL.%u2014The Commissioner
12 shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan
13 years beginning after the end of the 5-year pe
14 riod beginning with Y1, an employment-based
15 health plan in operation as of the day before
16 the first day of Y1 must meet the same require
17 ments as apply to a qualified health benefits
18 plan under section 101, including the essential
19 benefit package requirement under section 121.

As of 5 years after implementation all plans must conform to whatever the government says. You will have essentially lost control of your health care since the qualified health benefits plan and the essential benefit packages will be whatever the Secretary of Health and Human Services says they are and he/she can change those standards without a change in the law. See Subtitle C sections 121, 122, 124. Also see Subtitle E Governance section 142. Today you can go out and buy a plan without mental health care or substance abuse care. After 5 years you will not have those options, they are part of the essential benefits package

Quoting Dvk (Reply 447): Make me laugh a little more.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 451): However, I do oppose people blatantly lying saying that it is mandatory when there is no such language in the bill

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 451): It's pretty hard to work with Republicans when they are using scare tactics like "Death Panels". Back off on the scare tactics and I think the Democrats/Obama would be more willing to work.

Like I said.   

However, what do you call it when the President says "If you like your health care plan you will get to keep it." when the one bill that he can point to as being the prime example of what we will end up with clearly says starting on page 16 that five years out, you won't? What do you call it when the President says that AARP has endorsed the bill, when they clearly haven't? Again, if it is not clearly labeled as voluntary, it can be made mandatory without new law being written. See Subtitle C section 124 which grants the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to set standards as defined by the Health Benefits Advisory Committee. The Secretary can also decide not to implement their recommendations if he/she so chooses. If not clearly labeled "voluntary" in the law, what is to stop the Secretary or the Health Advisory Committe from labeling something "mandatory"? Certainly nothing in the proposed legislation. Look at the EPA and the mission "creep" they have exerted over the years. I could go into the scare tactics "mobsters" "insurance companies" and the like but pretty it's pointless as the polls show a majority of Americans are no longer buying those scare tactics.

Quoting Dvk (Reply 447): You have used plenty yourself, with your recurring accusations that liberals lack personal responsibility, only look at issues superficially, etc

Explain how an individual is excersizing personal responsibility by expecting the government to notify a hospital that he has a serious allergy to a particular medication in an emergency situation?

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 452): You keep saying

Pointless to continue as for some strange reason you can't differentiate between the SS act and the new law which will be, for lack of anything else HR 3200. There are addendums to the SS act, the IRS, the U.S. Code and an entirely new agencey is created with its head "The Health Commissioner" being appointed by the President with advice and consent of the Senate all contained within HR 3200.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 452): In that case, why are none of the other 59 items listed in Section 1861 of the Social Security Act also mandatory?

That they are not mandatory today does not mean they cannot be made mandatory tomorrow unless there is a provision in the law that says they can't. Parkers suggestion inserts that provision.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 452): I challenge you to find any examples from law where something is considered mandatory without an explicit statement in the law to that effect.

As stated, if it is not explicitley labeled "vouluntary" it can be made mandatory without a change in the law. See Subsection C section 124 on page 35. Specifically, pages 36 and 37 which grant the Secretary the ability to set standards as well as update those standards.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 453): Everything in Medicare is voluntary, you don't have to do any of it, it just provides for coverage for certain procedures if you choose to have them done.

Correct, but everything in this bill will be mandatory. Your insurance plan, whether public or private will have to conform to the level that the government sets by 5 years out and you will have to have an insurance plan or be fined in a form of a surcharge tax. Same with business, they either offer a plan or pay an 8% payroll tax on their employees.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 453): If we start adding amendments like that we'll end up with hundreds of them and this bill would look small compared to what we would end up with.

?? One amendment only is neccessary. "If not labeled as mandatory within the bill it shall be considered voluntary. Any subsequent changes to the act will be voluntary unless the act is amended by Congress to require the change as mandatory". Problem solved. Then, if the bills sponsors really feel it is worth while they can label it as mandatory and get it up for debate. Any further changes must also go up for debate in Congress instead of some faceless bureaucrat deciding that it ought to be.



And as I said earlier, still no mention of tort reform, or any type of Part D program.

Quoting DXing (Reply 473): Explain how an individual is excersizing personal responsibility by expecting the government to notify a hospital that he has a serious allergy to a particular medication in an emergency situation?

You completely failed to understand what the poster meant, and immediately fell back to your kneejerk and insulting accusation that he lacked personal responsibility. He was referring to the goal of having electronic medical records that can be accessed by providers wherever a patient goes for care. This is not something invented for this bill. George W Bush himself spoke of the need for a standardized electronic medical record to improve medical care AND decrease costs on multiple occasions. The VA system already has one that I haven't experienced, but MD's I know who work there say it has helped a lot in providing care to patients.

The fact is that many people have complex medical histories, and everything that may need to be known in an emergency situation may not be able to be put on a damn medic alert bracelet. Even in non-emergency situations, a standardized electronic medical record can help a provider a lot in avoiding repetitive tests and procedures. I work in a unique situation where we've had an electronic record for nearly a decade, and it does make a big difference. We also have a state system with a secure electronic record for Medicaid patients, and it is very helpful in providing care.

Everyone's memory fails them at times, even about elements of their medical history that could be potentially important. It doesn't automatically mean that they lack personal responsibility. Having a standardized electronic medical record does not mean that anyone expects "the government" to do what they should do themselves. It is a means to make medical records that are more complex than ever these days available wherever a person goes for care, so they can receive the best care possible.

Quoting DXing (Reply 473): Same with business, they either offer a plan or pay an 8% payroll tax on their employees.

TRUTH: The payroll penalty applies to employers with payroll over $500,000 who do not provide insurance to their employees. The percentage for employers with payroll from $500,000 - $750,000 is 6%. Employers do not have to offer the public option to avoid this penalty, they can offer private insurance if they wish.

http://healthcareforamericanow.org/site/content/fight_the_smears

Quoting Dvk (Reply 470): VA was nothing more than a ruse, since you're now referring to that idea in sarcastic terms.

It was indeed. Because in the end that is exactly what is going to happen. A health system ,(VA) along with medicare and Medicaid already exists . But all we ever hear is how broken it is and how it needs more money . Now we are entertaining the idea of instead of fixing those ..just starting over with a even larger program that encompasses even more people. Its a failure and you and I will eventually be forced to use it.

Quoting Dvk (Reply 470): As I said earlier, it is CRIMINAL that a healthy single person in this country without employer-provided insurance (e.g., someone who is self-employed) has to pay an average $400+ monthly premium for individual coverage that only covers them if they are so sick or badly injured they have to be admitted to the hospital. Do you really believe these people

Simple insurance reforms would take care of that . Create more competition in insurance coverages ... level the playing ,field offer incentives to companies who cover high risks and poor . Offer tax incentives to providers who accept lower income patients ... all of this can be done without making government the health care company...or the insurance company.

I pay all of my employees health insurance ... but instead of giving me a tax break for it .. they are now talking about increasing the tax on it. That one fact alone should make every American look twice at these gangsters... think about that . If they cared about it why would they punish employers who want to pay there employees health care ... ???? !!

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 449): Wrap there care into the VA system. If the democrats believe it is so good then all we need to do is set a income level requirement then go ahead and throw the doors open at the local VA. What a great idea ..... what do you all think ?

Since we continually hear or read that a large percentage of the homeless are vets maybe we can just start there.

And as funding increases on the VA Health side we can keep adding more.

What say we start with a 2% income/profit tax for funding increases to the VA? That way Vets can receive better care and others can join in.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 454): Hey health-care is health-care .... I mean whats so special about veterans ? I mean they are just citizens like us ? Do we have to have different levels of Government Care within the government system ? One size should fit all I would say .

Nothing special - most vets are average Americans. However, VA Health tends to have different in-house specialities, like prosthetics, that are not normally found in health centers.

But, AGM, you might not want to sit next to some of the good folk that are already there. It's not the country club crowd.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 456): Why would a system of government ran health care be struggling ? What is the cause of that disgrace .

Money. Politicians of both sides of the aisle only care about vets when it comes to elections.

So the first order of business is to significantly increase the funding to the VA.

As soon as we have the funding increases and bring in the additional resources we can start adding patients.

We can start with the homeless who have served.

Then we can go to the low income who have served.

Then we can add the uninsured who have served.

Then we can go through the list again, but accept those who have not served.

But understand that we're talking about people who are close to a VA facility. They're scattered and a lot are in smaller towns.

But, no problem, it's basically a matter of additional taxpayer's money so we just need to increase their taxes to increase the VA Health program.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 460): We are faced with a VA system that receives billions of dollars a year and they cant treat 30k over a 8 year period ?

They can, but politicians (of both sides) prefer to make it difficult to get initial qualifying and evaluations done. Save money that can be spent in their districts.

Bush & McCain were the worst, however, when they wanted our vets to have served 12 years before qualifying for the GI Bill.

So lets add in some laws to require faster processing (more funds for staff & training) and things can improve.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 466): You do realize the VA treats veterans all the way back to those who fought in World War II?

I think that there is 1 or 2 left over from WW I. At a minimum it should be understood that a war/military action will create a need for caring for vets that will last 50 - 60 years.

And that means that we need to provide the funding to provide that care and support.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 451): However, I do oppose people blatantly lying saying that it is mandatory when there is no such language in the bill. It's pretty hard to work with Republicans when they are using scare tactics like "Death Panels". Back off on the scare tactics and I think the Democrats/Obama would be more willing to work.

So, when the Dems used scare tactics, a few years ago against the SS sytem improvements and assured funding through 2055, that was alright? There is no Repub lying about what is in the bills. Only the BS coming from the Dems and Obama. BHO held a town hall meeting in Portsmouth, NH the other day. He stacked the room only with supporters of his health care plan (which he just said 3 weeks ago he doesn't know what is in the bills.....that is a lie). He would not admit two people carrying copies of the House bills, so they could quote directly from it if they were given the oppertunity to as a question. In Portsmouth, NH, he talked about how effienct UPS and FedEx is vs. the US Postal Service. That high lights hpw a government agencies cannot compete with private industry. I guess his telepromter wasn't working correctly.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 452): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 439): In ordinary speach, you are correct. However, in writtten laws, words have different, or additional meanings. That is why written laws are so confusing to lay people. They get hung up on traditional defianitions, not one the new defined meanings of words as applied by the law. Getting a bit postmodernist, aren't we? "We can never know what laws actually mean because the words can mean whatever you want them to"? BS. Laws are confusing because of their stilted grammar and long words, but they are still perfectly good English, and mean exactly what they say.

If that is true, why do you think every law written has a section that defines some words in it in respect to that law, and that law only.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 454): Quoting Dvk (Reply 450): It probably wouldn't work to put everyone into the same system because of the unique needs of the veterans Hey health-care is health-care .... I mean whats so special about veterans ? I mean they are just citizens like us ? Do we have to have different levels of Government Care within the government system ?

Yes, the government does now have differing levels of health care. Do you think the health care plan enjoyed by members of Congress, the WH, or the SCOTUS is the same plan they want us peasents to have? I hope you never have to fight for years with the VA just to get benefits you have already earned, my friend.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 458): Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 457): Because many in Congress like to start wars, but are unwilling to pay the price for the aftermath. So a federally operated health-care system ... one that would naturally have to plan for large numbers of casualties in war time is failing ? Seems to not be a very well operated entity ... one that is not well suited for cycling increases and budget strains. Interesting. In another words a federally controlled health-care system is wholly dependent on Congressional budget appropriations in order to improve care ?

Yes, Congress controls the purse strings, and in any given year can add or reduce the money needed to support those programs. Almost everyday we hear stories how current veterans of the current wars have been given substandard care for their injuries and wounds. We only have about 30,000 vets from the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now extrapulate that program across the entire 306M population of the US and what do you have?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 477): But, AGM, you might not want to sit next to some of the good folk that are already there. It's not the country club crowd.

I have been there with them . I have sat with them , talked with them , smoked with them , and bitched with them. I saw government ran health-care at the bloody floor level Ken .... It is the number 1 reason I hate it so much. We can not even take care of our most important citizens ..ones who lost so much for us ... fucking barracudas in wingtips ... this is why I oppose this "plan" or whatever it is,

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 478): I hope you never have to fight for years with the VA just to get benefits you have already earned, my friend.

KC , Using the VA as a example of what we are facing with Dr. President Obama and his Chicago gangsters .... that's all. I am very aware of some of the problems at the VA .

If it was not for the dedicated staff at the VA .... It would be even worse. Thank god there are a few patriots left working there other wise the bureaucrats would have them bivouacked out in the desert while spending billions on paying off special interests and buying votes.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 478): when the Dems used scare tactics, a few years ago against the SS sytem improvements

As I recall, Bush/Cheney wanted a "private option" that would allow workers to invest some of their Social Security dollars in the stock market.

That was when the market was around 14000 - well before it dived to the 6000 range.

14000 to 6000 is scary and really hurt a lot of people - especially those with self managed private plans, like a lot of IRAs.

For them, their SS investment over their working lifetime is going to be the only "secure" investment they have.

Quoting Dvk (Reply 474): You completely failed to understand what the poster meant, and immediately fell back to your kneejerk and insulting accusation that he lacked personal responsibility.

Hmmm....what part did I fail to understand?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 386): If I am incapacitated to the point where I can not tell docotors I am alergic to ibuprofin, I want that known. I think that is pretty important. Especially if I am alone in an unfamiliar town.

If he is allergic to ibuprofin seems to me that would fit on a med tag. Perhaps there's a new business for you to start. Your medical information on an electronic chip in a med braclet that is protected against water, fire, and emp damage. There, I've just made you a millionaire and you can pay your surcharge for medical care and none of us need to give our private medical information to the government.

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 475): Quoting DXing (Reply 473): Same with business, they either offer a plan or pay an 8% payroll tax on their employees. TRUTH: The payroll penalty applies to employers with payroll over $500,000 who do not provide insurance to their employees. The percentage for employers with payroll from $500,000 - $750,000 is 6%. Employers do not have to offer the public option to avoid this penalty, they can offer private insurance if they wish.

Let's take a look a the actual bill shall we?

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf

Section 313 page 150

8 (b) SPECIAL RULES FOR SMALL EMPLOYERS.—
9 (1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any employer
10 who is a small employer for any calendar year, sub
11 section (a) shall be applied by substituting the appli
12 cable percentage determined in accordance with the
13 following table for ‘‘8 percent’’:
If the annual payroll of such employer for
the preceding calendar year:
The applicable percentage is:
Does not exceed $250,000 ..................................... 0 percent
Exceeds $250,000, but does not exceed $300,000 2 percent
Exceeds $300,000, but does not exceed $350,000 4 percent
Exceeds $350,000, but does not exceed $400,000 6 percent
14 (2) SMALL EMPLOYER.—For purposes of this
15 subsection, the term ‘‘small employer’’ means any
16 employer for any calendar year if the annual payroll
17 of such employer for the preceding calendar year
18 does not exceed $400,000.

So your link is wrong. Additionally, do the math, make sure you include all taxes the employer has to kick in on top of what he pays in salary to him or herself. How many employees do you think it takes, to include the owner, to hit that 400K mark?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 480): For them, their SS investment over their working lifetime is going to be the only "secure" investment they have.

And exactly how far will that be going in a few years when there are more drawing than paying in?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 478): If that is true, why do you think every law written has a section that defines some words in it in respect to that law, and that law only.

You'll find that those sections give certain words more specific meanings, not new meanings. Take this example from HR 3200:

Quote: COST-SHARING.—The term ‘‘cost-sharing’’ includes deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, and similar charges but does not include premiums or any network payment differential for covered services or spending for non-covered services.

The term "cost-sharing" by itself is a little vague--who's sharing the costs? Which costs? So, the law specifies what the term precisely includes, so they can use "cost sharing" rather than "deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, and similar charges but not premiums or any network payment differential for covered services or spending for non-covered services" later on in the bill. But "cost-sharing" still refers to splitting the costs between two or more parties, the original meaning of the term.

Compare that to DX's "means = mandatory" claim. The word "means," in none of its various definitions and uses, has anything to do with a requirement to do something. That doesn't change just because the word is in a law.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 478): He stacked the room only with supporters of his health care plan (which he just said 3 weeks ago he doesn't know what is in the bills.....that is a lie). He would not admit two people carrying copies of the House bills, so they could quote directly from it if they were given the oppertunity to as a question.

Yet, Cindy Sheehan and those at Camp Casey at Crawford, TX and all those protesting the war in Iraq that Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, et al. wanted so badly are loons and kooks? Just go ahead and ignore the fact that at every single rally Bush ever had, he stacked the audience. Go ahead and ignore the fact that at press conferences, soft-ball questions were lobbed at Bush by people like Jeff Gannon. It happened.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 482): The term "cost-sharing" by itself is a little vague

Because the Secretary of HHS as described elsewhere will tell you what it is when they finalize the details after the bill is passed. Which leads too:

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 482): Compare that to DX's "means = mandatory" claim. The word "means," in none of its various definitions and uses, has anything to do with a requirement to do something. That doesn't change just because the word is in a law.

If it is not labeled as "voluntary" it can be considered "mandatory". I would much rather limit the power and scope of the Secretary and the Health Commissioner before the law is passed than try to after. So for all intents and purposes Means=Mandatory. You can attempt to chip around it all you want but the sad fact is if you don't limit the government in the bill, there will be very few opportunites to go back and do it afterward.

Quoting DXing (Reply 484): If it is not labeled as "voluntary" it can be considered "mandatory".

I'd still like you to give me an example of where this has occurred regarding another law.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 485): I'd still like you to give me an example of where this has occurred regarding another law.

As I said earlier, look at the mission creep the EPA has had over the years. How many times has the law that gave birth to it been changed?

Quoting DXing (Reply 481): How many employees do you think it takes, to include the owner, to hit that 400K mark?

Does it really matter?

There was a Republican politician (Senator IIRC) who was talking about a very good friend who owned an auto dealership. The friend told him that, if the tax came in, he would D-R-O-P the private insurance and go with the 8% as it would S-A-V-E him money.

That's not the government screwing him - it's the insurance companies screwing him.

Quoting DXing (Reply 481): And exactly how far will that be going in a few years when there are more drawing than paying in?

Might be a good reason to significantly increase immigration.

That means you need to decide if you want to increase taxes or increase immigration where the folks you bring in might not be conservatives.

As the Aussies would say, "I'm right, Jack" so it will be up to you to figure out which of the two you want.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 242): Why didn't she have insurance ? Did you ask ? .... $66K is plenty to have yourself a decent policy. Not being harsh .... but you gotta have some kind of plan

She does have insurance - Blue Shield HMO of California via COBRA - the California Extended version of it because her Federal COBRA provisions expired a few months ago - it costs here nearly $400 per month - and since it's HMO and she has no other options available to her at this point - she also has to pay co-payments each time she sees a doctor, specialist, had lab work done, or has a script refilled. Each month is approximately $700 per month and she only gets $1900 on SSDI - and at 34 yrs old, who the heck thinks they're going to get a rare form of terminal cancer and will have foresight to purchase private (and quite expensive) long term care insurance, even if you can get it because eligibility requirements are VERY strict on LTC insurance - with many policies put "in-force" with a lot of loopholes that leaves huge gaps in the policy's so-called "coverage".

Remember one extremely important thing, private healthcare insurers are in business to make a profit for their executives and shareholders, not to benefit the health/needs of their millions of insured subscribers and their dependents.

Oh, and to end my rant - we already have death panels in America. It's called "utilization reviews" by our friendly HMOs. Any procedure her doctors want to do to her have to be reviewed and APPROVED by her HMO and utilization review can take WEEKS sometimes to decide if they're going to approve a specific procedure! How do you turn down care to people who desperately need the medical help the most. This brings into focus yet again another example of the GOP making a demon ("death panels") out of something that ALREADY exists in the real insurance world outside the DC beltway.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 487): That's not the government screwing him - it's the insurance companies screwing him.

More like the other way around, the government screwing the insurance companies and we will all end up getting less and paying more in the end.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 487): Might be a good reason to significantly increase immigration.

I hate to sound mean but that has got to be the most ridiculous reason I have ever heard to increase immigration. Yep, let's bring in hordes of uneducated, non english speaking people to swamp the schools and other local government functions. That really makes sense.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 487): That means you need to decide if you want to increase taxes or increase immigration where the folks you bring in might not be conservatives.

Maybe what it really means is that a bright boy is planning on using his SS check as beer money and is taking care of their retirement themselves. But there I go again expecting personal responsibility out of ordinary people.   

Quoting DXing (Reply 486): How many times has the law that gave birth to it been changed?

Ah, but that's a change in the law, and was subject to public debate followed by a vote--not what you are saying would happen with HR3200, where you claim an unelected commissioner could arbitrarily make portions of the law mandatory. I want a case where the law does not specify whether it is voluntary or mandatory, and then an official chooses to make it mandatory without changing the law.

And you still have not answered how such an action would be made to comply with the text at the beginning of Title XVIII of the Social Security Act:

Quote: Sec. 1801. [42 U.S.C. 1395] Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize any Federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine or the manner in which medical services are provided, or over the selection, tenure, or compensation of any officer or employee of any institution, agency, or person providing health services; or to exercise any supervision or control over the administration or operation of any such institution, agency, or person.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 490): Ah, but that's a change in the law,

It is? That was my question, how many times has the law been changed? I don't really know.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 490): --not what you are saying would happen with HR3200, where you claim an unelected commissioner could arbitrarily make portions of the law mandatory.

Not what I am saying, but it is what HR 3200 says.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 490): And you still have not answered how such an action would be made to comply with the text at the beginning of Title XVIII of the Social Security Act:

What part of "HR 3200 is not part of the SS act" don't you understand. Pretty simple. HR 3200, if that were to be the final version of the bill, would be a stand alone piece of legislation that creates a new department within the Executive Branch of the government. It will not be run by the SS Administration. It will be lorded over by the HHS Secretary and have as it's day to day leader a person to be named later titled "Health Commisioner". Why is that so hard to understand?

Quoting DXing (Reply 491): What part of "HR 3200 is not part of the SS act" don't you understand.

Last time on this. The United States Code is not merely a compilation of all the bills ever passed by Congress. Think of the USC as the Big Encyclopedia of Federal Law; its 50 titles contain the entire federal law of the United States. When a new law is passed, it is not simply appended to the existing USC. Instead, the bill spells out where and how the USC is to be modified. These modifications may result in the insertion of entirely new subchapters worth of text, or they may simply modify existing portions of the Code. One bill can contain many different modifications to the Code, across many different titles and subchapters.

Using the encyclopedia metaphor, you can think of a bill as an update to the encyclopedia. The same update might, say, introduce a new entry on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner while simultaneously editing the entry on carbon fibre construction techniques to mention the 787 as a new application. It would be wrong to say that the update to the encyclopedia was part of the carbon fibre article, but it would also be wrong to say that it was a wholly new entry independent from the carbon fibre article. The update contains elements of both.

This is the case with HR3200. Yes, much of HR3200 would go into the United States Code as new, independent sections of law. Some of HR3200, on the other hand, gets sorted into existing portions of the United States Code. This is the case with the language about Advance Care Planning Consultations. That portion of the law will be inserted into Title 42, Chapter 7, Subchapter XVIII, Part E, Section 1395x of the U.S. Code, at the end of a list of many other treatments and services covered by Medicare. It will appear nowhere else in the U.S. Code. As part of Subchapter XVIII, that language is then governed by Subchapter XVIII Section 1395, whose text I cited above.

Quoting DXing (Reply 491): It is? That was my question, how many times has the law been changed? I don't really know.

It's a bad example then, isn't it?

Quoting Dvk (Reply 447): Quoting DXing (Reply 444): Of course if you haven't had XYZ test in several years you can decline now, because you are in charge of your health care. That goes away with government run health care. Absolutely not true. You can drag up every obscure line of the proposal you want and twist and turn it as you will, but it doesn't say anywhere that people will lose control of their own health care. You are engaging in gross distortion of what is written.

No, DXing is absolutly correct. Under the government single payer system, beaurocrats will determine the estimated costs and types of health care given, then tell your doctor what treatments are approved. You will have little to no say in the treatment choices, and no rights of appeal.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 449): Wrap there care into the VA system. If the democrats believe it is so good then all we need to do is set a income level requirement then go ahead and throw the doors open at the local VA. What a great idea ..... what do you all think ?

Bad idea. First, no one in the US is or can be tuurned away for healthcare treatments (I did not say health insurance), regardless of their ability to pay for those services. That has been the law of the land since about 1968. All county owned hospitals treat people everyday, and don't get paid for the services. Any other hospital, or doctor, in the US is required by law to render emergency life saving care, then they can be transferred to a county facility.

The VA system is limited by the federal budget and Congress as to who they can treat. While someone who never served can arrive at a VA Hospital (or even a US Military Hospital) and receive emergency care (and that has happened), they will later be transferred to a civilian facility once their emergency condition is stabilized.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 464): According to the study above, the top 10 most expensive health insurance states are: 10. New York 9 New Jersey 8. Colorado 7. Maryland 6. California 5. Vermont 4. Connecticut 3. Maine 2. Washington 1. Massachusetts

Hmmm, I wonder what all these states have in common with one another? I know, I know, they are all "blue states" controlled by Democrats, and most often vote Democrat.

Now, I see the reason for the made up crisis. Dems cannot control health care reform within their own states, and want the red states to pick up their bills.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 480): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 478): when the Dems used scare tactics, a few years ago against the SS sytem improvements As I recall, Bush/Cheney wanted a "private option" that would allow workers to invest some of their Social Security dollars in the stock market. That was when the market was around 14000 - well before it dived to the 6000 range. 14000 to 6000 is scary and really hurt a lot of people - especially those with self managed private plans, like a lot of IRAs. For them, their SS investment over their working lifetime is going to be the only "secure" investment they have.

While that is true, the private option was mainly offered to those younger than 35. People older than that had additional options to stay with the current SS program, or transistion to the new proposal.

Have you ever heard of Galvsevton, TX? In the 1960s that town opted out of the SS program for its town employees. Today, retireees of the town make some 3X in monthly retirement pensions as a result of the stock market, than people of the same age (and earned about the same as the town employees throughout their careers) who collect SS retirement.

Quoting StasisLAX (Reply 488): since it's HMO and she has no other options available to her at this point - she also has to pay co-payments each time she sees a doctor, specialist, had lab work done, or has a script refilled. Each month is approximately $700 per month and she only gets $1900 on SSDI - and at 34 yrs old, who the heck thinks they're going to get a rare form of terminal cancer and will have foresight to purchase private (and quite expensive) long term care insurance,

So? What current plans do not require co-payments? This is a personal budget problem and it sounds like she is living within her means. I congradulate her for doing that. Almost everyone pays preimums and copayments, except members of Congress.

As far as cancer is concerned, anyone of any age can get some form of cancer, someone 34 years old is not exempt from it. Little children get cancer, and some die from it. It is a devestating disease to all who get it, whether they survive, or not. My own opinion now is, because I am a current cancer survivor,is that everyone should be prepared for cancer at some unknown point in their lives. Millions of Americans have some type of cancer at any given time, I doubt the US Government is prepared to take on all of those costs for the care of people with cancer. It is very expensive, and someone is going to be denied.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 492): The United States Code is not merely a compilation of all the bills ever passed by Congress. Think of the USC as the Big Encyclopedia of Federal Law; its 50 titles contain the entire federal law of the United States. When a new law is passed, it is not simply appended to the existing USC. Instead, the bill spells out where and how the USC is to be modified. These modifications may result in the insertion of entirely new subchapters worth of text, or they may simply modify existing portions of the Code. One bill can contain many different modifications to the Code, across many different titles and subchapters.

Correct, but each bill also contains definations that are unique only to that bill. Have you read them in HR-3200?

Have you read in HR-3200, section 2541, "limitations on federal funds"?

That is the provision that can force all state and local government employees within that state onto the federal government health plan.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...111:1:./temp/~c111wMmVi0:e1208098:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 493): What current plans do not require co-payments? This is a personal budget problem and it sounds like she is living within her means. I congradulate her for doing that.

Have you tried living in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York City, or Boston on $1200 a month? My SO is going through this exact thing right now with SSD and private insurance: minimal care for the cost. If he starts working an "honest" job, he will have to find different health insurance. Because of pre-existing conditions, he will be paying through the roof. So, he continues to collect SSD and work "under the table." He does not want to, but, to survive, he has to. Many MANY Americans do this. It is sad, really. Do you know what the tax base would be like with a level playing field i.e. drop the income requirements for government assisted health care?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 493): Any other hospital, or doctor, in the US is required by law to render emergency life saving care, then they can be transferred to a county facility.

But, there is still a bill from the private hospital for care. Trust me. Out of the three "chains" in PDX, only one was able to offer any kind of financial assistance when I had to visit the ER. I went to Providence. I did call Tuality and Legacy and they both would have charged me, then transfered me to Providence. I could never have afforded that.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 493): Have you read in HR-3200, section 2541, "limitations on federal funds"? That is the provision that can force all state and local government employees within that state onto the federal government health plan.

This is my first attempt at dissecting a bill.. so lets do this slowly..

Section 2541 states: "(1) agrees to be subject in its capacity as an employer to each obligation under division A of this Act and the amendments made by such division applicable to persons in their capacity as an employer"

Division A, Section 100 (a) (3) (B) states: " creates a new Health Insurance Exchange, with a public health insurance option alongside private plans "

Ergo, You get public fund if you create a new Health Insurance Exchange with a public health insurance option alongside private plans.

How does that translate into forcing states to take the public option? It says that you have to have both.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 494): Have you tried living in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York City, or Boston on $1200 a month? My SO is going through this exact thing right now with SSD and private insurance: minimal care for the cost. If he starts working an "honest" job, he will have to find different health insurance. Because of pre-existing conditions, he will be paying through the roof. So, he continues to collect SSD and work "under the table."

You may not know about this, but he should have no problem getting commerical health insurance through a potential empolyeer. Her is a link to the HIPAA law. Title I of that law applies to situations that MAY be like your son has.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIPAA


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIPAA#T...2C_Portability.2C_and_Renewability

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 494): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 493): Any other hospital, or doctor, in the US is required by law to render emergency life saving care, then they can be transferred to a county facility. But, there is still a bill from the private hospital for care. Trust me.

Yes, you are correct, they will send you a bill for services rendered. They are required to send a bill, you are not required to pay it if that is beyond your means. Non payment of medical bills cannot be reported to credit reporting agancies.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 496): They are required to send a bill, you are not required to pay it if that is beyond your means. Non payment of medical bills cannot be reported to credit reporting agancies.

Are you advocating skipping out on medical bills?

Quoting DXing (Reply 489): More like the other way around, the government screwing the insurance companies and we will all end up getting less and paying more in the end.

Insurance companies are in the driver's seat right now and are sucking in the profits big time.

As the owner of a one man company I paid out the ass for a poor policy. Every time I turned around there was a $1,000 deduction and a $1,000 limit.

I think it is folly to believe employers will continue to cover employee at the current generous levels. Every time there is an increase in premiums there will be additional pressures on employers. Some will drop the benefit - just like some who already have.

A note on the Sunday morning shows - 12,000 Americans loose their health insurance each day.

What would you suggest when that rate doubles, or triples?

Or what would you suggest when premiums double (yet again) or triple?

Quoting DXing (Reply 489): Yep, let's bring in hordes of uneducated, non english speaking people to swamp the schools and other local government functions. That really makes sense.

What about bringing mostly those with a university education? Would that be OK?

That way there would be new residents that make very good money and pay high taxes.

We can keep the "illiterate masses" limited to just enough to work in our yards for a low wage.

Quoting DXing (Reply 489): is taking care of their retirement themselves.

You're assuming that everyone has the same intelligence, education, experience and opportunities that you have.

The reason why 100 is the "average IQ" is because half of the people are below that level.

Lots of fodder for hard selling financial companies - or even the soft selling companies. Madoff is a good example. As are brokers that churn accounts to keep up the lease payments on their BMWs.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 493): Under the government single payer system, beaurocrats will determine the estimated costs and types of health care given, then tell your doctor what treatments are approved. You will have little to no say in the treatment choices, and no rights of appeal.

And how is that different from insurance companies today who can change your premiums at the snap of a finger? Or tell you that your doctor is no longer in network so you'll be paying more to see him or her? Or put financial limits on the treatments you receive, effectively sending you into bankruptcy or passing up treatments.

Remember that the CEOs of health insurance companies have the highest median compensation of ANY business sector in this country. They are not at the top of the money mountain without cutting out payments that we would believe they would make.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 493): they are all "blue states" controlled by Democrats, and most often vote Democrat.

Colorado was a red state until Obama turned it blue last year - I would bet that Republicans will try to bring it back to red ASAP.

I would also consider Maine & Vermont to be "switchable".

And even California has a Republican governor.  

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 493): While that is true, the private option was mainly offered to those younger than 35.

Younger than 35 may well have more need for the Disability part of SS than others as they would be the ones with young families.

That would mean that any private policy would also need to provide all coverage that is provided under SS. As soon as you do that you find that the funds left for actual retirement funds is smaller than expected.

And if disability payments significantly exceeded the insurance company guesses it would mean the companies would either jack the monthly premiums, or simply take more money out of the individuals retirement fund.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 492): That portion of the law will be inserted into Title 42, Chapter 7, Subchapter XVIII, Part E, Section 1395x of the U.S. Code, at the end of a list of many other treatments and services covered by Medicare. It will appear nowhere else in the U.S. Code. As part of Subchapter XVIII, that language is then governed by Subchapter XVIII Section 1395, whose text I cited above.

And which you have ass backwards. Why would it behoove the Congress to write any new laws if the old law would just supercede it?

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 492): It's a bad example then, isn't it?

Not at all. I have not had the time to adequately research it, maybe I will this week since I am off, but the fact remains that the EPA has had mission creep for decades. If you wish to disagree with that then you are definitely turning a blind eye. One of the great things about our Constitution is the very fact that it spells out what the government cannot do. That is the way that any law dealing with the public ought to be written. In such a fashion as to spell out what the government cannot do, such as make end of life consultations mandatory by inserting a line at the very beginning of the legislation that simply states, anything not explicitly proclaimed as mandatory is to be considered voluntary. Until then, the only safe way to approach the legislation, especially with lines like those that give the HSS Secretary power is to assume that all is mandatory.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 498): Insurance companies are in the driver's seat right now and are sucking in the profits big time.

So you would rather see the goverment in the drivers seat and sucking up more and more tax dollars.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 498): A note on the Sunday morning shows - 12,000 Americans loose their health insurance each day.

How much of that has to do with the recession we are in? I wonder if you will list the amount of people that start receiving health insurance when the recession ends job losses become job gains?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 498): What would you suggest when that rate doubles, or triples?

What would you suggest when the government comes back and requires ever more tax dollars, and now you have no where else to go by law?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 498): What about bringing mostly those with a university education? Would that be OK?

You aren't going to get those kind of numbers in those kinds of folks immigrating to make a difference.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 498): You're assuming that everyone has the same intelligence, education, experience and opportunities that you have.

On some level everyone has the same opportunities, on another level at a different point in their lives everyone has the opportunity to make those opportunities happen unless they are mentally or physically impaired. I am an average at best, my wife is above average in my eyes, and yet we have managed to save and scrimp together a fairly decent retirement portfolio that does not include dependance on any monthly social security payments. That will be extra eating out money if we get any at all. If we can do it, anyone, save those mentioned, can.