coffeefreak Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I do not support this bill, however I absolutely see a need to Reform healthcare, which would include the big business behind current availability and the lack of personal decision making that currently plagues all healthcare companies and providers. Going from one bean counter to another, imho, is not the answer. I am not impressed with the gov't ability to run anything it currently runs. I wouldn't add a new school subject to our schooling if we couldn't handle what we were already doing. I also support free enterprise. The Dems want everyone insured by the gov't. This is the end game...."one provider" I think were the words Mr. Obama used. I also have to agree that I don't find the booing helpful, although I feel their pain. It makes me mad that people are referring to law abiding, tax paying citizens mobs, when yes, some are poorly behaved, but in truth, the People have had it and are trying to have their voices heard. When was there this much public outcry in recent history. Politicians need to LISTEN UP! :iagree: Dorinda - a frustrated Democrat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dangerdad Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 That is not the fault of Medicare. IMHO, I posit that is the fault of the medical profession. Wow. How many doctors have you talked with who've dropped or don't take Medicare patients? You might find out differently. See, the reason doctors are dropping Medicare is because Medicare drastically cuts pay tables for procedures, etc. irrespective of costs (this is how it keeps costs down). Doctors are finding they can't afford to treat medicare patients, because it isn't covering their own costs. How is this a failure of the medical profession? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 My dad has had no issues with Medicare at all. But then Atlanta is a major medical hub. Neither did mine and he was living in Sticksville. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I have known places where the good doctors refused Medicare and only the crappy quackers accepted it. It varies from place to place most likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizzyBee Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Please stop referring to this as community organizing. Peruse this website that has a packet of information or screaming points for those going to the town hall meetings. It is a PAC run by Dick ARmey. Community ? Hardly. http://www.freedomworks.org/about/about-freedomworks It is fine to speak yourmind even to raise a voice but to align the general vague screamers with the well educated , erudite founders of our country is apples to oranges. All voices are not of the same intelligence, information or ability to persuade. These people are shouting into a mirror only reaching those who agree with them already. They are convincing no one. :confused: Because there's a national movement afoot, there's no community organizing? They cannot occur simultaneously? I personally know people who are involved in grassroots organizing. Most of them are even well educated, intelligent, and persuasive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.D. Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Ah, my mistake. Either way, either woman would have been able to give a statement as to where he was born. Just as one of his Kenyan relatives gave a statement that she was present at his birth in Kenya. That is a rather signficant mistake, and indicates you are not really clear on the facts of this issue. In addition, you seem to not know the whole story regarding his paternal step-grandmother allegedly saying he was born in Kenya. "Another incorrect but popularly reported claim is that his father's step-mother, Sarah Obama, told a reporter that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. The McClatchy newspapers gave an explanation of how the false story about Obama's step-grandmother began. The tape relied on by Berg and others is cut off in the middle of the conversation, before the passage in which she clarifies her meaning: "'Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America,' the translator says after talking to the woman. ... Another response later says, 'Obama in Hawaii. Hawaii. She says he was born in Hawaii.'"[45] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birther Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5kidsforME Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 That is a rather signficant mistake, and indicates you are not really clear on the facts of this issue. In addition, you seem to not know the whole story regarding his paternal step-grandmother allegedly saying he was born in Kenya. "Another incorrect but popularly reported claim is that his father's step-mother, Sarah Obama, told a reporter that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. The McClatchy newspapers gave an explanation of how the false story about Obama's step-grandmother began. The tape relied on by Berg and others is cut off in the middle of the conversation, before the passage in which she clarifies her meaning: "'Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America,' the translator says after talking to the woman. ... Another response later says, 'Obama in Hawaii. Hawaii. She says he was born in Hawaii.'"[45] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birther If all this is true why won't he just show the documents to put all the rumors to rest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dangerdad Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 It would be an acceptable government website to use per the rules of this board and in that sense would be non-partisan. Frankly, I am only trying to honor the rules of this board. You're misusing the term "partisan". The board rules limit links to federal or state gov't resources, but don't talk about links in terms of partisanship. The definition of "partisan" in those rules is: "1. The discussion must remain nonpartisan. You may discuss specific issues, policies, and politicians. Sweeping statements about Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, etc. will be deleted." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 (edited) That is a rather signficant mistake, and indicates you are not really clear on the facts of this issue. In addition, you seem to not know the whole story regarding his paternal step-grandmother allegedly saying he was born in Kenya. "Another incorrect but popularly reported claim is that his father's step-mother, Sarah Obama, told a reporter that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. The McClatchy newspapers gave an explanation of how the false story about Obama's step-grandmother began. The tape relied on by Berg and others is cut off in the middle of the conversation, before the passage in which she clarifies her meaning: "'Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America,' the translator says after talking to the woman. ... Another response later says, 'Obama in Hawaii. Hawaii. She says he was born in Hawaii.'"[45] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birther When you find a totally non biased source, let me know. I'll accept a viewing of the long form. Seriously, if he was born in Hawaii and it's on the long form, I'll accept that. No problem. There have been other Presidents that I haven't liked and I've survived. But if it's on the long form, and Obama truly wanted to clear this issue, he'd present it. Thus, it leaves many ppl wondering why he hasn't. Edited August 12, 2009 by mommaduck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dangerdad Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 If all this is true why won't he just show the documents to put all the rumors to rest? Seriously, take the birth certificate talk to a s/o thread. Also, keep in mind Obama is a community organizer. He doesn't calm controversy, he uses it to his advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrid Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Birthers? eh? Sounds like a slur against those with large families, only I believe they call us "breeders" ;) You know, when I first heard the term, I thought that's what it meant! Like the Duggars! Weird term, if you ask me.... astrid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.D. Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 If all this is true why won't he just show the documents to put all the rumors to rest? President Obama submitted what is legally required to proof his status. Considering those raising "questions" are a combination of conspiracy theorists (Alan Berg, other truthers, etc), political hacks looking for a distraction (various talk show hosts), and morons (the average birther), there is no way to provide anything that would silence them. Berg went so far as to edit the conversation with Obama's step-grandmother, while others have claimed the birth certificate provided is a forgery. If I were President Obama, I would not dignify that pathetic rabble with a response either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 You know, when I first heard the term, I thought that's what it meant! Like the Duggars! Weird term, if you ask me.... astrid LOL yeah...weird term for the issue, truly. I don't care what side a person stands on, I just don't get the using of this term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrid Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I think the birthers refer to themselves as such? I saw an interview with G. Gordon Liddy, who is one of the people whipping up this frenzy, and he used the term to refer to his fellow, um....believers. astrid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 President Obama submitted what is legally required to proof his status. Considering those raising "questions" are a combination of conspiracy theorists (Alan Berg, other truthers, etc), political hacks looking for a distraction (various talk show hosts), and morons (the average birther), there is no way to provide anything that would silence them. Berg went so far as to edit the conversation with Obama's step-grandmother, while others have claimed the birth certificate provided is a forgery. If I were President Obama, I would not dignify that pathetic rabble with a response either. Shoot, then we can have anyone come in, forge a cert, become President, and they shouldn't have to dignify questioning with a response because some ppl are overboard :confused: I saw the online cert. It was very obvious that it wasn't a real cert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I think the birthers refer to themselves as such? I saw an interview with G. Gordon Liddy, who is one of the people whipping up this frenzy, and he used the term to refer to his fellow, um....believers. astrid Still weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrid Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 LOL yeah...weird term for the issue, truly. I don't care what side a person stands on, I just don't get the using of this term. And just last night, in a fit of insomnia, I was flipping the channels and happened upon a show on Discovery Health about "Freebirthers" which was another new term for me. Apparently, it's a growing movement in which women consciously choose to have no prenatal care and deliver the baby at home, with no medical help at all.....just their s.o. or in the case of one woman, no one at all. Now I"m all for homebirthing, but it's the "no prenatal care, no one present if you pass out, bleed out, can't push the baby out" part that really makes me cringe! How's that for trotting this little thread off-topic?! ;) astrid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 If all this is true why won't he just show the documents to put all the rumors to rest? Look, I've got no dog in this race, but every time I hear about birth certificates, I roll my eyes. Especially if they are older documents, there are probably a million and one mistakes or fumbles that can happen over the years. Maybe one type of form or another simply doesn't exist anymore? Or maybe a moron govt. official along the way can't keep track properly? I have had a terrible time with my own birth certificate. They cannot locate the original forms, nor copies of the originals for me. When I emigrated I had to settle for their "declaration of true documents" and a newly minted birth certificate. Also, just to show you how very efficient and knowledgeable that particular state was, my birth certificate clearly states that I was born September 31st. Over the course of my life, my parents tried to correct this numerous times. I tried to correct it on 3 separate occasions, but every time they INSISTED that if it says I was born on Sept. 31st then by golly by gum I WAS born on Sept. 31st. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.D. Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Shoot, then we can have anyone come in, forge a cert, become President, and they shouldn't have to dignify questioning with a response because some ppl are overboard :confused: I saw the online cert. It was very obvious that it wasn't a real cert. What are you qualifications to determine the legitimacy of a birth certificate that you are viewing online? This sounds amazingly similar to the various 9/11 Truthers who suddenly became qualified to act as structural engineers after viewing video of the WTC collapse. Obama's birth certificate provided his name, date of birth, and the location of the birth. I am not sure what else you need. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 What are you qualifications to determine the legitimacy of a birth certificate that you are viewing online?This sounds amazingly similar to the various 9/11 Truthers who suddenly became qualified to act as structural engineers after viewing video of the WTC collapse. Obama's birth certificate provided his name, date of birth, and the location of the birth. I am not sure what else you need. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp There was discussion about the digital image online. I would like to see a PHOTO of a REAL, LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gretchen in NJ Posted August 12, 2009 Author Share Posted August 12, 2009 (edited) What are you qualifications to determine the legitimacy of a birth certificate that you are viewing online?This sounds amazingly similar to the various 9/11 Truthers who suddenly became qualified to act as structural engineers after viewing video of the WTC collapse. Obama's birth certificate provided his name, date of birth, and the location of the birth. I am not sure what else you need. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp This thread is supposed to be a discussion about the town hall meetings and about health care. Please be so kind as to not . Edited August 13, 2009 by Gretchen in NJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 (edited) Okay, let's deal with these... http://www.naturalnews.com/026733_health_health_care_healthcare.html • Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the government option!• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure! • Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed! • Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process) • Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None. • Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services. • Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard. • Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer. • Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (example: SEIU, UAW and ACORN) • Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange. • Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans) • Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens • Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan. • Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter. • Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed. • Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages. • Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives. • Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families. • Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll • Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll Page 16: eventually everyone will end up on government care if they lose or can't afford a certain type of insurance? No choice? Page 29: rationing healthcare?! Page 30: I already don't agree with the government on certain procedures. I prefer self educating, second opinions, and then CHOOSING which route to take for myself. Not having some bureaucrat do it for me. They don't give a cr@p about me, so why would I want my healthcare in their hands? Page 42: again, no choice, your healthcare or lack thereof will be determined for you. Page 50: right or wrong, it's already happening. Page 59: excuse me?! WHAT accounts are they referring to?! Page 65: #1 note the ACORN connection #2 great, more steal from Peter to give to Paul. Page 72: so much for PRIVATE healthcare. No, now it will be controlled by Big Brother until it's null, void, out of existence... Page 84: ditto...so much for PRIVATE healthcare...it's now just government healthcare under a private label. Much like your off brand cream cheese coming out of the same vat of name brand cream cheese...they just put a different label on it. Page 95: boy, Acorn is going to make hand over fist on this one, aren't they? Now we know why they wanted him in office so dang badly. Page 102: Now public assistance isn't an option...it will be forced on you. Page 124: already stated perfectly. No due process, no checks and balances, it's an outright monopoly...owned by the government, run by the government, the government nanny is over all (hmmm, yep, we lost the Republic in the days of Lincoln and we now lose the democracy in the days of Obama) Page 127: no more earning your pay...you are all now paid government volunteers. YAY! Another win! We can now do crappy work, because we'll be paid the same! Page 145: again, no choice. Eventually we will all be assimilated. Page 126: Yay! Let's put more small businesses out of business! Have to up unemployment and increase dependence on Uncle Lenin, uhm Sam...that's right, starting to get the two confused. I would love to hear how this is just absolutely wonderful for our country :) (and factcheck.org is not on my radar, so don't bother sending me there. Anyone that is supporting a liar, well, I just expect more lies). Edited August 12, 2009 by mommaduck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elizabeth Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 (edited) The information as posted by Mommaduck is as I said ,a predigested regurgitated spin on what some dittohead wants the bill to read. Post and discuss the real deal ,this is a classical education board is it not??? This is something that educated people would hopefully find insulting. Edited August 12, 2009 by elizabeth typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 The information as posted by Mommaduck is as I said ,a predigested regurgitated spin on what some dittohead wants the bill to read. Post and discuss the real deal ,this is a classical education board is it not??? This is something that educated people would hopefully find insulting. You want me to post all 1,017 pages? Seriously? Sorry, but this was the only bulleted edition in plain English that I've found. If you've found another please post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elizabeth Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 You want me to post all 1,017 pages? Seriously? Sorry, but this was the only bulleted edition in plain English that I've found. If you've found another please post. I know it is hard to find a source for discussion purposes. I had to cut and paste from Thomas , the government webpage, earlier and it was a huge hassle. I do not know of another source where we can post a section at a time for discussion. If I find one that fits the parameters of the board I will post it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gretchen in NJ Posted August 12, 2009 Author Share Posted August 12, 2009 The information as posted by Mommaduck is as I said ,a predigested regurgitated spin on what some dittohead wants the bill to read. Post and discuss the real deal ,this is a classical education board is it not??? This is something that educated people would hopefully find insulting. What you call a dittohead is actually an U.S. Army translator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elizabeth Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 What you call a dittohead is actually an U.S. Army translator. I will not repeat what you called me earlier and I am not suggesting anything other than the term used to describe Limbaugh's listeners . I am an attorney and well qualified to read the bill as it is written for myself . Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theresatwist Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I think the birthers refer to themselves as such? I saw an interview with G. Gordon Liddy, who is one of the people whipping up this frenzy, and he used the term to refer to his fellow, um....believers. astrid I always go to G. Gordon Liddy when I'm concerned with issues of what's lawful (ROLLS EYES). Not that I need to say much more, but he also worked for a man (Nixon) who thought we needed to keep abortion legal for the sake of being able to terminate biracial babies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 What you call a dittohead is actually an U.S. Army translator. Pretty good credentials there :) Okay, let’s start with page 29, since that is pretty big beef. (2) ANNUAL LIMITATION.— (A) ANNUAL LIMITATION. – The cost-sharing incurred under the essential benefits package with respect to an individual (or family) for a year does not exceed the applicable level specified in subparagraph (B). (B) APPLICABLE LEVEL.—The applicable level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (United States city average) applicable to such year. © USE OF COPAYMENTS.—In establishing cost sharing levels for basic, enhanced, and premium plans under this subsection, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent possible, use only copayments and not coinsurance. "dittohead's" comment was "your healthcare will be rationed". Yep...That's what it looks like. Do you disagree with "dittohead"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gretchen in NJ Posted August 12, 2009 Author Share Posted August 12, 2009 I will not repeat what you called me earlier and I am not suggesting anything other than the term used to describe Limbaugh's listeners . I am an attorney and well qualified to read the bill as it is written for myself . Thanks. I didn't call you anything. I'm not an attorney and I can read and understand it. So can those Americans who showed up to the town hall meetings. Besides, you shouldn't need to be an attorney to read a bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.D. Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Pretty good credentials there :) Okay, let’s start with page 29, since that is pretty big beef. "dittohead's" comment was "your healthcare will be rationed". Yep...That's what it looks like. Do you disagree with "dittohead"? Before I answer, could you explain what you think that section means? Do you think it says that the maximum amount of benefits an individual/family can receive in a year is $5,000/$10,000? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gretchen in NJ Posted August 12, 2009 Author Share Posted August 12, 2009 I always go to G. Gordon Liddy when I'm concerned with issues of what's lawful (ROLLS EYES). Not that I need to say much more, but he also worked for a man (Nixon) who thought we needed to keep abortion legal for the sake of being able to terminate biracial babies. I think this is a post for another thread. Here we are discussing the town hall meetings and the health care bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elizabeth Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Pretty good credentials there :)that merits scrutiny. Okay, let’s start with page 29, since that is pretty big beef. "dittohead's" comment was "your healthcare will be rationed". Yep...That's what it looks like. Do you disagree with "dittohead"? I need the section please as it is written in sections not pages at the website Thomas. There is quite a big area missing as to the subsections. Healthcare is rationed now by the insurance companies and unfortunately that is needed. Who determines and to what extent it is rationed is the real issue. What about lifestyle choices that lead to disease like smoking, obesity, drug abuse etc should all taxpayers share the burden equally for what are at first blush, self -imposed diseases?? I think it is a very important component and one that merits scrutiny. Profit has been the sole and necessary motive for the insurance company no doubt money will be the bottom line here. Rationing unfortuntately is not new that is one of the things that calls for reform . An example is dropping an insured the day after she gets a cancer diagnosis. That is rationing at its worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gretchen in NJ Posted August 12, 2009 Author Share Posted August 12, 2009 Pretty good credentials there :) Okay, let’s start with page 29, since that is pretty big beef. (2) ANNUAL LIMITATION.—(A) ANNUAL LIMITATION. – The cost-sharing incurred under the essential benefits package with respect to an individual (or family) for a year does not exceed the applicable level specified in subparagraph (B). (B) APPLICABLE LEVEL.—The applicable level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (United States city average) applicable to such year. © USE OF COPAYMENTS.—In establishing cost sharing levels for basic, enhanced, and premium plans under this subsection, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent possible, use only copayments and not coinsurance. "dittohead's" comment was "your healthcare will be rationed". Yep...That's what it looks like. Do you disagree with "dittohead"? 'Cost-sharing' and 'limits on coverage' sounds like the army translator is correct to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 (edited) I'm on page 29. http://www.examiner.com/x-12837-US-Headlines-Examiner~y2009m8d10-Health-care-bill-HR-3200-read-it-online-now I typed it as is :) I need the section please as it is written in sections not pages at the website Thomas. There is quite a big area missing as to the subsections. Healthcare is rationed now by the insurance companies and unfortunately that is needed. Who determines and to what extent it is rationed is the real issue. What about lifestyle choices that lead to disease like smoking, obesity, drug abuse etc should all taxpayers share the burden equally for what are at first blush, self -imposed diseases?? I think it is a very important component and one that merits scrutiny. Profit has been the sole and necessary motive for the insurance company no doubt money will be the bottom line here. Rationing unfortuntately is not new that is one of the things that calls for reform . An example is dropping an insured the day after she gets a cancer diagnosis. That is rationing at its worst. So you agree with Dittohead Army Man that this is rationing of healthcare? He really wasn't using a scare tactic, only stating fact? Regardless that he's not okay with it and you are, you both agree that it's here in the wording, yes? What about accidents, disease that suddenly hits a person in a family. If my child comes down with cancer, she should only be permitted to have $5000 worth of care for the year and then we should just start saving for her coffin? BTW, I agree that insurance companies are one of the main problems in the cost of healthcare. Maybe getting rid of them would be of more help than to put our healthcare in the hands of ppl that keep managing to find ways to screw everything else up. Edited August 13, 2009 by mommaduck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoPlaceLikeHome Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 I'm on page 29. http://www.examiner.com/x-12837-US-Headlines-Examiner~y2009m8d10-Health-care-bill-HR-3200-read-it-online-now I typed it as is :) So you agree with Dittohead Army Man that this is rationing of healthcare? He really wasn't using a scare tactic, only stating fact? Regardless that he's not okay with it and you are, you both agree that it's here in the wording, yes? What about accidents, disease that suddenly hits a person in a family. If my child comes down with cancer, she should only be permitted to have $5000 worth of care for the year and then we should just start saving for her coffin? BTW, I agree that insurance companies are one of the main problems in the cost of healthcare. Maybe getting rid of them would be of more help than to put our healthcare in the hands of ppl that keep managing to find ways to screw everything else up. Actually I would love to see the sections as well, since what was described sounds more like deductibles and maximum out of pocket expenses and not caps on annual health care costs. One of the reforms that is being advocated is a reform of the present annual and life-time caps on health care costs that are imposed by health care companies. The problem is that many of these companies put unreasonably low caps and people end up bankrupt due to catastrophic illness. I know the plans that I have had in the past and currently have place a 1 million or a 5 million dollar cap on health care expenses that the private insurance company is willing to pay. I know from having worked in critical care, that one catastrophic illness or even a chronic illness can eat through a million dollars quickly which is why President Obama wants to see this reformed. So you see rationing already occurs by health insurance companies capping benefits, denying treatments, limiting choices, and dropping patients when they become sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elizabeth Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR03200:@@@D&summ2=m& The summary from the Library of Congress gives a whole other picture. The gentleman referred to earlier is not correct in my estimation. Those numbers are out of pocket limitations. Meaning you will no longer be expected to give up your home in order to save your child. "Scare tactics" does not even come close to describing what I have read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elizabeth Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 The cost-sharing incurred google cost sharing and it is very clear what is meant by this phrase and it is not limits on what is covered. Actually if you google any of the legalese that the bill contains and you will get a fairly good idea of what the bill says without translation or interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kari C in SC Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Actually I would love to see the sections as well, since what was described sounds more like deductibles and maximum out of pocket expenses and not caps on annual health care costs. One of the reforms that is being advocated is a reform of the present annual and life-time caps on health care costs that are imposed by health care companies. The problem is that many of these companies put unreasonably low caps and people end up bankrupt due to catastrophic illness. I know the plans that I have had in the past and currently have place a 1 million or a 5 million dollar cap on health care expenses that the private insurance company is willing to pay. I know from having worked in critical care, that one catastrophic illness or even a chronic illness can eat through a million dollars quickly which is why President Obama wants to see this reformed. So you see rationing already occurs by health insurance companies capping benefits, denying treatments, limiting choices, and dropping patients when they become sick. This is how I read it as well. I read it as saying the MAXIMUM OUT OF POCKET - not a cap on benefits. That seemed pretty clear to me, but I am beginning to think I must be crazy because people read the same exact thing and get the exact opposite from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 IF it is the cap on deductible, then it is as bad as what I now have. $5000 deductible per person in our home a year. Which means that everything will be coming out of my pocket anyhow unless there is a major catastrophe. So how is this better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR03200:@@@D&summ2=m& The summary from the Library of Congress gives a whole other picture. The gentleman referred to earlier is not correct in my estimation. Those numbers are out of pocket limitations. Meaning you will no longer be expected to give up your home in order to save your child. "Scare tactics" does not even come close to describing what I have read. Okay, you first tell me that you don't like one man's summarisation, then when I type DIRECTLY FROM THE BILL, you say you prefer a summary from somewhere else :confused: Nope, let's talk directly from the bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 I also find it hard to believe that anyone takes the "birthers" seriously as well. Me too. As soon as I find out someone doesn't believe in the birth certificate, anything else they say goes out the door. Between the birthers and the 'grass roots' town hall heath debates, it's starting to look like the lunatic fringe out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 This is how I read it as well. I read it as saying the MAXIMUM OUT OF POCKET - not a cap on benefits. That seemed pretty clear to me, but I am beginning to think I must be crazy because people read the same exact thing and get the exact opposite from it. That IS what it said. 5k for a single 10k for a family MAXIMUM OUT OF POCKET. But that's just not evil enough, and it doesn't incite enough fear and trembling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 (edited) IF it is the cap on deductible, then it is as bad as what I now have. $5000 deductible per person in our home a year. Which means that everything will be coming out of my pocket anyhow unless there is a major catastrophe. So how is this better? Because yours is $5k PER PERSON, and the plan says it will cap off a deductible at $10k PER HOUSEHOLD. Which you would pay for just you and your husband on your current plan. So, with the Obama plan, you would potentially *SAVE* $35,000. I say potentially because I would hope that you all don't get so sick that you rack up 45k (your deductible for your family with your current healthcare). Edited August 13, 2009 by justamouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtroad Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Oh please! It was his grandmother who died shortly before the election. I have no idea what you believe his grandmother's death proves. She was 86 years old. I can't imagine rumors about a white president's birth place persisting like these. The Enquirer is not believed by most to be a worth news source. Doesnt' matter what color... it concerns the concealment & conflicting information. Who cares what color he is? Why is that relevant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.D. Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Actually I would love to see the sections as well, since what was described sounds more like deductibles and maximum out of pocket expenses and not caps on annual health care costs. One of the reforms that is being advocated is a reform of the present annual and life-time caps on health care costs that are imposed by health care companies. The problem is that many of these companies put unreasonably low caps and people end up bankrupt due to catastrophic illness. I know the plans that I have had in the past and currently have place a 1 million or a 5 million dollar cap on health care expenses that the private insurance company is willing to pay. I know from having worked in critical care, that one catastrophic illness or even a chronic illness can eat through a million dollars quickly which is why President Obama wants to see this reformed. So you see rationing already occurs by health insurance companies capping benefits, denying treatments, limiting choices, and dropping patients when they become sick. Exactly. I am somewhar amused that someone allegedly read page 29 and somehow interpreted that section as referring to rationing care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtroad Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 I find that hard to believe since it is not written any where in the bills. Also, Medicare has been around for 40 years and it has not led to euthanasia. This sort of argument is the talking point of private insurance companies and powerful vested interests who want us to be afraid. Medicare wont' cover it all. Many people carry supplemental insurance to cover the difference. With the new plan, this private option will slowly erode. Then... who is in charge? No competition. No alternatives. Just have to take what they give ya! lady in Oregon this week in the news... told by gov't the meds that would extend her life cost too much... she is ill & will die from her cancer... but ti would give her more months of life... gov't said no & suggested suicide (it made folks mad & was on the newsites). It will come. They must have clear wording of RESTRICTIONs or they will take all the liberties they can. (History is proof... even back to Bill of Rights needed adding!) Remember, they don't even honor some of the things they are supposedly restricted from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PineFarmMom Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Me too. As soon as I find out someone doesn't believe in the birth certificate, anything else they say goes out the door. Between the birthers and the 'grass roots' town hall heath debates, it's starting to look like the lunatic fringe out there. To me, it looks a lot more like people refusing to lie down during these govt. takeovers we've been dealing with within the last year...I mean, really, we're having this stuff shoved down our throats. The bailouts, the stimulus package, now this! Someone else mentioned moveon.org earlier. It's interesting how many people thought that that was okay but people standing up against a govt. takeover right now, well, they're just lunatics. I'm proud of those who are speaking truth!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtroad Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 What you call a dittohead is actually an U.S. Army translator. Glad you posted this. ;) I am sure it shocks people who refuse to hear the warnings on all this that many of these analysisi are made by people who might actually have some sense. You don't get that same type of point by point debate from those slandering anyone with an opposing argument that utilizes facts, details & discussion. Even some HUGE liberals (pro gov't healthcare options) are coming out against this stuff. One guy even talked about the euthanasia being the killer of the bill. These are pro-Obama folks... pro-gov't healthcare folks. I wish I could remember his name. Even Paglia in Salon (?) is slamming this stuff & she loves Obama. This isn't about Pres. Obama. IT is bigger than he will ever wish he could be! I often notice many (even here) resort to insulting the person who has took the time to analyze & read it all... then put it into words for common people who wont' take time to read lawyer speak (folks like John Conyers need this).... but after the insult, they never come up with any similar analysis. So much for truly thinking and debating points... .just toss the mud & hope it sticks.:001_huh: If you also notice... none of these politicians are saying what is IN THE 5 BILLS being tossed around. They only say "it isn't in this bill"... and try to pass the discussion elsewhere or take a phone call to avoid further conflict. They can't even argue the points that constituents are bringing up. Talking heads of media are justinsulting those who are doing the "digging" and trying to side track the debate with drama. If they really feel this is soooo wonderful & the oponents are liars... WHERE ARE THE ARGUEMENTS (point by point, line by line) . No generalities... but facts! Ah but they can't or don't ... can they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 Because yours is $5k PER PERSON, and the plan says it will cap off a deductible at $10k PER HOUSEHOLD. Which you would pay for just you and your husband on your current plan. So, with the Obama plan, you would potentially *SAVE* $35,000. I say potentially because I would hope that you all don't get so sick that you rack up 45k (your deductible for your family with your current healthcare). That is still $10,000 per year that is supposed to come out of :confused: This is why my kids just got on CHIP...because I certainly don't have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts