# Healthcare Bill Hit Parade!!



## Navy1960 (Jul 17, 2009)

(b) REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALIFIED HEALTH BENE2
FITS PLANS.*On or after the first day of Y1, a health
3 benefits plan shall not be a qualified health benefits plan
4 under this division unless the plan meets the applicable
5 requirements of the following subtitles for the type of plan
6 and plan year involved:*
7 (1) Subtitle B (relating to affordable coverage).
8 (2) Subtitle C (relating to essential benefits).
9 (3) Subtitle D (relating to consumer protec10
tion).

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

It is my intention to comb through this entire bill and point out the  holes in it. Starting with this one, qualified plans, if a plan does not meet the qualifications then you will be cancelled, so much for the  *If you like your  insurance you can keep it*


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 17, 2009)

1 (1) IN GENERAL.&#8212;Individual health insurance
2 coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance
3 coverage under subsection (*a) may only be offered
4 on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-par5
ticipating health benefits plan.*



In this section you see where your individual health insurance if you are happy with it will no longer be valid after Year 1 and you will be brought into the Exchange and  told what insurance you will get.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 17, 2009)

&#8216;&#8216;SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
19 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
20 &#8216;&#8216;(*a) TAX IMPOSED.&#8212;In the case of any individual
21 who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
22 any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
23 a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of&#8212;*
VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:51 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\AAHCA0~1.XML HOLCPC
July 14, 2009 (12:51 p.m.)
F:\P11\NHI\TRICOMM\AAHCA09_001.XML
f:\VHLC\071409\071409.140.xml (444390|2)
168
1 &#8216;&#8216;(1) the taxpayer&#8217;s modified adjusted gross in2
come for the taxable year, over
3 &#8216;&#8216;(2) the amount of gross income specified in
4 section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

Okay so if you don't comply you get TAXED!!


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 17, 2009)

&#8216;&#8216;(c) STATEMENTS TO BE FURNISHED TO INDIVID10
UALS WITH RESPECT TO WHOM INFORMATION IS RE11
QUIRED.&#8212;*Every person required to make a return under
12 subsection (a) shall furnish to each primary insured whose
13 name is required to be set forth in such return a written
14 statement showing&#8212;*
15 &#8216;&#8216;(1) the name and address of the person re16
quired to make such return and the phone number
17 of the information contact for such person, and
18 &#8216;&#8216;(2) the information required to be shown on
19 the return with respect to such individual.
20 The written statement required under the preceding sen21
tence shall be furnished on or before January 31 of the
22 year following the calendar year for which the return
23 under subsection (a) is required to be made.

I don't know how people would not find this  section of the bill disturbing, as it  requires you to prove each person on your return has healthcare coverage and  who that is ,what it is and all the related information.  So basically your right to privacy means  zero. here


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 17, 2009)

&#8216;&#8216;(4) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING IN POSSESSIONS
12 OF THE UNITED STATES.&#8212;Any individual who is a
13 bona fide resident of any possession of the United
14 States (as determined under section 937(a)) for any
15 taxable year (and any qualifying child residing with
16 such individual) shall be treated for purposes of this
17 section as covered by acceptable coverage during
18 such taxable year.


In case you were wondering if Illegal Aliens were covered under this, the answer is yes.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> (4) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING IN POSSESSIONS
> 12 OF THE UNITED STATES.Any individual who is a
> 13 bona fide resident of any possession of the United
> 14 States (as determined under section 937(a)) for any
> ...



Isn't it comforting to know that the 10 million or so non-Americans, who are uninsured, will have their health care coverage provided for by US tax dollars?


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 18, 2009)

I was beginning to wonder if anyone was ever going to notice this thread jr, as this thread from the actual bill.  All the  talk aside, about " you like your healthcare you can keep it" there is is in black and white for all to see.  When a Govt. starts to mandate things and punish those who choose not to enroll it and clearly this bill intends to take away coverage on those people in plans it does not like. The intent is clear , and it's obvious that the  sheer cost of doing this will bankrupt this nation.  As for the Illegal Alein healthcare issue, what do you suppose the message will be to others wishing to enter the country illegally now?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> I was beginning to wonder if anyone was ever going to notice this thread jr, as this thread from the actual bill.  All the  talk aside, about " you like your healthcare you can keep it" there is is in black and white for all to see.  When a Govt. starts to mandate things and punish those who choose not to enroll it and clearly this bill intends to take away coverage on those people in plans it does not like. The intent is clear , and it's obvious that the  sheer cost of doing this will bankrupt this nation.  As for the Illegal Alein healthcare issue, what do you suppose the message will be to others wishing to enter the country illegally now?



The UHC crowd doesn't want to debate about facts. If they debate about facts they know that their utopia would be destroyed.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 18, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> (4) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING IN *POSSESSIONS
> 12 OF THE UNITED STATES*.Any individual who is a
> 13 bona fide resident of any possession of the United
> 14 States (as determined under section 937(a)) for any
> ...



what is a possession of the united states described in 937a?  are you really sure this relates to illegal aliens in the continental usa?


----------



## chanel (Jul 18, 2009)

Thanks for sharing. Our suspicions have been correct all along. I think the AARP should issue a statement to its members letting them know why they've been sold out for illegals and their bastard children,


----------



## Valerie (Jul 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > &#8216;&#8216;(4) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING IN *POSSESSIONS
> ...




U.S. Territorial Possessions


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > (4) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING IN *POSSESSIONS
> ...



I tend to agree with Care on this Navy, it does state bona fide resident. A bona fide resident, would lead one to believe a legal resident.
bona fide definition | Dictionary.com
bo&#8901;na fide
1. 	made, done, presented, etc., in good faith; *without deception or fraud*: a bona fide statement of intent to sell. 


Although legal non-Americans that are currently uninsured, their health care would be covered by the US tax dollar.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 18, 2009)

Frankly I'm happy to see people taking an interest in this thread, it's pretty important, now Valerie let me address your post, while that section deals with US territories is also has  zero exclusions which basically means that  without exclusions any person residing there will be treated as such. Further one paragraph up from that is the illegal alien clause...

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments
6 for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are
7 not lawfully present in the United States.

*&#8216;&#8216;(2) NONRESIDENT ALIENS.&#8212;Subsection (a)
2 shall not apply to any individual who is a non3
resident alien.*

So I don't know how to make it more understandable than that.  So basically if your a non-resident ALIEN the term  NON RESIDENT ALIEN SHALL NOT APPLY!!!  thus rendering  the previous paragraph mute.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 18, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Frankly I'm happy to see people taking an interest in this thread, it's pretty important, now Valerie let me address your post, while that section deals with US territories is also has  zero exclusions which basically means that  without exclusions any person residing there will be treated as such. Further one paragraph up from that is the illegal alien clause...
> 
> Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments
> 6 for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are
> ...



I don't think so and  calm down young man!  

A nonresident alien could be those here on a visa going to school or on a temporary job here...?



> Definition of Non-resident Alien
> 
> If a person does not meet either the Green Card or Substantial Presence Test, then that person is classified as a non-resident alien.
> 
> ...



let's save the excitement for the real problems in this bill!  

Care


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Frankly I'm happy to see people taking an interest in this thread, it's pretty important, now Valerie let me address your post, while that section deals with US territories is also has  zero exclusions which basically means that  without exclusions any person residing there will be treated as such. Further one paragraph up from that is the illegal alien clause...
> ...



Should US taxpayers have to provide free health care to non citizens?


----------



## Care4all (Jul 18, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



If they are here legally and are paying taxes on all that they are earning while here jr, then I do not see a problem with them being able to be a part of this program.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



So all the workers that travel over the Mexican border to work in the US shouldn't be covered under UHC, correct? Since, they don't pay US income taxes....


----------



## Terry (Jul 18, 2009)

Has anyone watched this video?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw]YouTube - ObamaCare Yay Or Nay? The Truth About Canada![/ame]

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Crowder&#8217;s magnum opus on CanadaCare


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 18, 2009)

tsk tsk Care young lady, you did of course read the language yes?  The key word is SHALL NOT APPLY and in the absence of  languange in the bill containing any specific  provisions barring coverage  or  proof reguired to attain such coverage  guess what? 

*The Commissioner shall establish standards for the
23 coordination and subrogation of benefits and reimburse24
ment of payments in cases involving individuals and mul25
tiple plan coverage.*

So it is up to the commissioner to decide...

further,

&#8216;&#8216;(A) NON-TRADITIONAL INDIVIDUALS.&#8212;
6 Pursuant to such memorandum the State shall
7 accept without further determination the enroll8
ment under this title of an individual deter9
mined by the Commissioner to be a non-tradi10
tional Medicaid eligible individual. The State
11 shall not do any redeterminations of eligibility
12 for such individuals unless the periodicity of
13 such redeterminations is consistent with the pe14
riodicity for redeterminations by the Commis15
sioner of eligibility for affordability credits
16 under subtitle C of title II of division A of the
17 America&#8217;s Affordable Health Choices Act of
18 2009, as specified under such memorandum.

It just so happens Care like the cap and trade scheme I actually as  boring as it may seem read these bills and see what a gigantic mess it will create.  The Alien issue is not the biggest issue with the bill, in fact that to me was a given that Illegal Aliens would be covered because under the "public option" there is no way for the Federal Govt. to verify status on this  and at the same time  shut off funding for  programs that provide for such verification.  What is important in this legislation though is  that it's quite clear that the people who are going to pay for it is pretty much everyone that has a job or gets an income.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 18, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



that would be my understanding jr....

at least not in this segment of the law, i believe?

i am not ruling out they would not be covered somewhere else in this massive bill though!


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Non resident aliens only pay taxes while living in the US.

Definition of Non-Resident and Resident Alien for Tax Purposes
*Non-resident aliens are taxed on earnings received while living in the U.S. Non-resident aliens (Visa type F-1 and J-1) are exempt from FICA (Social Security tax). If the Visa type is F-1 or J-1, the non-resident alien may be exempt from federal taxes only if the country the alien previously lived in before arriving in the U.S. has negotiated an income tax treaty with the U.S. government.*


----------



## Care4all (Jul 18, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> tsk tsk Care young lady, you did of course read the language yes?  The key word is SHALL NOT APPLY and in the absence of  languange in the bill containing any specific  provisions barring coverage  or  proof reguired to attain such coverage  guess what?
> 
> *The Commissioner shall establish standards for the
> 23 coordination and subrogation of benefits and reimburse24
> ...



if you only read the words in the act, without reading or looking up the definition of the words, your time will be fruitless navy!

HINT!
in this one, look up what non-traditional medicaid means...

Care


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 18, 2009)

*C) NON-TRADITIONAL MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.--The term ''non-traditional Medicaid eligible individual'' means a Medicaid eligible individual who is not a traditional Medicaid eligible individual.*

thats in the bill too Care in case you were wondering... 

So is this..

3) AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT OF MEDICAID EL-IGIBLE INDIVIDUALS INTO MEDICAID.--The Commissioner shall provide for a process under which an individual who is described in section 202(d)(3) and has not elected to enroll in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is automatically enrolled under Medicaid.


So to answer  your question yes I am aware of the terms, generally when they write thse  bills they do me the  favor of actually adding the definitions in them which saves some time.  I had a little practice at reading some of this  garbage they produce when legislation comes up before congress on Aviation matters.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

I found this provision rather interesting on pg. 21

(3) BY FAMILY ENROLLMENT.By family en16
rollment (such as variations within categories and
17 compositions of families) so long as the ratio of the
18 premium for family enrollment (or enrollments) to
19 the premium for individual enrollment is uniform, as
20 specified under State law and consistent with rules
21 of the *Commissioner.*

In other words employee premiums must be based on the individual. No longer can employers structure their health plans to save benefit expenses. The part in bold is "big brother"....LOL


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 18, 2009)

I see your starting to get the picture jr, it's pretty interesting when you actually read the bill and  start to understand the difference between the marketing talk and the  real thing.  Whats  even more interesting is after doing so , when you hear people saying such nonsense as  only the rich will pay for it over and over do so in the hopes just like congress does on a regular basis  that they don't read the bill.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 18, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> *C) NON-TRADITIONAL MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.--The term ''non-traditional Medicaid eligible individual'' means a Medicaid eligible individual who is not a traditional Medicaid eligible individual.*
> 
> thats in the bill too Care in case you were wondering...
> 
> ...



a "non traditional" medicaid person is a person that does not have the traditional medicaid coverage, but a basic minimal insurance plan covering them, a nontraditional plan.....that's my understanding.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 18, 2009)

*(B) suspension of enrollment of individuals
17 under such plan after the date the Commis18
sioner notifies the entity of a determination
19 under paragraph (1) and until the Commis20
sioner is satisfied that the basis for such deter21
mination has been corrected and is not likely to
22 recur;*

There was a huge debate on this  in the committe  the other day and  Mr. Waxman when asked about this issue just say there and said " I don't think it means that"  This is page 44 and  and is a serious bone of contention with a lot of blue dogs, and republicans  in the committee.  We all remember the phrase "IF YOU LIKE YOUR  INSURANCE YOU CAN KEEP IT" right?


----------



## Care4all (Jul 18, 2009)

jreeves said:


> I found this provision rather interesting on pg. 21
> 
> (3) BY FAMILY ENROLLMENT.By family en16
> rollment (such as variations within categories and
> ...



I believe this says, that whatever discounted group rate, your employer has negotiated for YOU, the insurance company CAN NOT charge you a higher rate for your family than they did for you, just because they do not work for the same company as you, if you decide to cover them with your insurance....

This is a GOOD measure, if I am correct on this....which I believe I am, from the wording of it.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > *C) NON-TRADITIONAL MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.--The term ''non-traditional Medicaid eligible individual'' means a Medicaid eligible individual who is not a traditional Medicaid eligible individual.*
> ...



While I understand your reasoning  Care thats not what the language of the bill says though. In the bill  a  non-tradional person in the absence of a  clearly defined  set of paramenters is whatever the commissioners says it is. So let's say for example the Commissioner happens to be appointed by a  Republican, comes into office and says, "all person(s) making  less than 50,000 a year are no longer non-traditional and therefor  are not automatically enrolled. Or perhaps  we can say this a Democrat appointee will say the reverse EVERYONE making  less than 10,000 a year is  now non-traditional. See what I mean?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> I see your starting to get the picture jr, it's pretty interesting when you actually read the bill and  start to understand the difference between the marketing talk and the  real thing.  Whats  even more interesting is after doing so , when you hear people saying such nonsense as  only the rich will pay for it over and over do so in the hopes just like congress does on a regular basis  that they don't read the bill.



Over a thousand pages is a little taxing though....

I guess that's why this bill is so wordy and repetitive. The authors are hoping that people won't read this.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 18, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



If you are still implying that this is coverage for illegal immigrants, I believe you are off base.

Nontraditional medicaid is medicaid delivered in a non traditional manner....to those who are ALREADY ELIGIBLE for medicaid...

Here is one of the programs that is considered nontraditional that some of the states are using:



> Cash and Counseling, *a Non-Traditional Medicaid Program*, Is Adopted by More States
> June 3rd, 2008 · No Comments
> 
> Many states are now giving Medicaid-eligible seniors a monthly stipend they can use to hire family, friends and/or professionals to care for them at home. The program, called Cash and Counseling, already exists in 15 states and is expected to be implemented soon in 18 more.
> ...





> TOP STORY
> 
> Tuesday, February 22, 2005
> States try offering more choice in long-term care
> ...


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > I found this provision rather interesting on pg. 21
> ...



so long as* the ratio of the
18 premium* for family enrollment (or enrollments) to
19 the premium for individual enrollment is uniform


That verbiage means insurance premiums for employers are to be charged by the individual.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



It would be interesting to get congress members on record concerning this provision though. If employers aren't able to deflect family coverage costs, then this will have a terrible effect on business in the US.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 18, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



this means that insurance companies CAN NOT charge employers a higher rate, for the family members of the individual, that's all...so even if the wife has a preexisting condition like diabetes, the insurance company CAN NOT charge the employer a higher risk rate for the family member than the discounted rate the employer negotiated for his own employees...

that's all it means.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Can you kindly post where this section refers to pre-existing conditions?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

Under this plan, Substance abuse disorder benefits are to be equivalent with mental health benefits....wow
pg.23 line 19 and 20
*PARITY IN MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE
20 ABUSE DISORDER BENEFITS*

So now Alcohol abuse treatment will be covered by this UHC....
AA meetings and court ordered driving improvement courses could technically be covered under this provision, since they are a result of a substance abuse disorder.
I wonder if this provision will save health care dollars?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

More BS...
pg.24 lines 18-24
A qualified health benefits plan
19 shall *meet a medical loss ratio as defined by the Commis20
sioner.* For any plan year in which the qualified health
21 benefits plan does not meet such medical loss ratio, *QHBP
22 offering entity shall provide in a manner specified by the
23 Commissioner for rebates to enrollees of payment suffi24
cient to meet such loss ratio.*

The Commissioner....commissioner...aka big brother determines these rebates.

Oh yeah, if rebates are being paid to enrollees then where does the money come from to cover members needing treatment.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 18, 2009)

11 SEC. 242. AFFORDABLE CREDIT ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.
12 (a) DEFINITION.&#8212;
13 (1) IN GENERAL.&#8212;For purposes of this divi14
sion, the term &#8216;&#8216;affordable credit eligible individual&#8217;&#8217;
15 means, subject to subsection (b), an individual who
16 is lawfully present in a State in the United States
17 (other than as a nonimmigrant described in a sub18
paragraph (*excluding subparagraphs (K), (T), (U),
19 and (V)) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration
20 and Nationality Act)&#8212;*


SECTIONS 101 DEFINITIONS

K) an alien who is the fiancee or fiancé of a citizen of the United States and who seeks to enter the United States solely to conclude a valid marriage with the petitioner within ninety days after admission, and the minor children of such fiancee or fiancé accompanying him or following to join him; 

K) an immigrant who has served honorably on active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States after October 15, 1978, and after original lawful enlistment outside the United States (under a treaty or agreement in effect on the date of the enactment of this subparagraph) for a period or periods aggregating- 

(T) an offense relating to a failure to appear before a court pursuant to a court order to answer to or dispose of a charge of a felony for which a sentence of 2 years' imprisonment or more may be imposed; and 

(U) an attempt or conspiracy to commit an offense described in this paragraph. 

The term applies to an offense described in this paragraph whether in violation of Federal or State law and applies to such offense in violation of the law of a foreign country for which the term of imprisonment was completed within the previous 15 years. Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any effective date), the term applies regardless of whether the conviction was entered before, on, or after the date of enactment of this paragraph.

*15) The term "immigrant" means every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes of nonimmigrant aliens *

(A)(i) an ambassador, public minister, or career diplomatic or consular officer who has been accredited by a foreign government recognized de jure by the United States and who is accepted by the President or by the Secretary of State, and the members of the alien's immediate family; 

(ii) upon a basis of reciprocity, other officials and employees who have been accredited by a foreign government recognized de jure by the United States, who are accepted by the Secretary of State, and the members of their immediate families; and 

(iii) upon a basis of reciprocity, attendants, servants, personal employees, and members of their immediate families, of the officials and employees who have a nonimmigrant status under (i) and (ii) above; 

(B) an alien (other than one coming for the purpose of study or of performing skilled or unskilled labor or as a representative of foreign press, radio, film, or other foreign information media coming to engage in such vocation) having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning and who is visiting the United States temporarily for business or temporarily for pleasure; 

(C) an alien in immediate and continuous transit through the United States, or an alien who qualifies as a person entitled to pass in transit to and from the United Nations Headquarters District and foreign countries, under the provisions of paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) of section 11 of the Headquarters Agreement with the United Nations (61 Stat. 758); 

(D)(i) an alien crewman serving in good faith as such in a capacity required for normal operation and service on board a vessel, as defined in section 258(a) (other than a fishing vessel having its home port or an operating base in the United States), or aircraft, who intends to land temporarily and solely in pursuit of his calling as a crewman and to depart from the United States with the vessel or aircraft on which he arrived or some other vessel or aircraft; 

(ii) an alien crewman serving in good faith as such in any capacity required for normal operations and service aboard a fishing vessel having its home port or an operating base in the United States who intends to land temporarily in Guam and solely in pursuit of his calling as a crewman and to depart from Guam with the vessel on which he arrived; 


Sorry Care  but the wording of the bill says otherwise, in fact it seems to indicate that while some are not covered  in the sense that criminal Illegal Immigrants are not, it does seem to suggest that a vast majority are, through several back door rules, the most noteable of which is the commissioner(s) ability to set the status of a group as he or she see's fit and with the exceptions clause.  I do apprectiate you making me work a little on this though.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 18, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> 11 SEC. 242. AFFORDABLE CREDIT ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.
> 12 (a) DEFINITION.
> 13 (1) IN GENERAL.For purposes of this divi14
> sion, the term affordable credit eligible individual
> ...



illegal aliens ARE NOT aliens navy?  do you think aliens are ILLEGAL aliens?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > 11 SEC. 242. AFFORDABLE CREDIT ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.
> ...



Aren't aliens little green creatures with little bodies and big heads...LOL


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jul 18, 2009)

Navy, Care and JReeves -- thanks to all of you for explaining 'government-ese and insurance-ese' to those of us, ah, less proficient in it.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 18, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



By family en16
rollment (*such as variations within categories and
17 compositions of families*)


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Where is that defined as pre-existing conditions?

Compositions of families would lead me to believe it means the make up of a family.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 18, 2009)

illegal aliens ARE NOT aliens navy? do you think aliens are ILLEGAL aliens? 

If a person does not meet either the Green Card or *Substantial Presence Test*, then that person is classified as a non-resident *alien*.
Definition:Resident Alien vs Nonresident Alien

*When the United States incarcerates criminal aliens--noncitizens 
convicted of crimes while in this country legally or illegally--in 
federal and state prisons and local jails, the federal government bears 
much of the costs.*

Short answer Care, yes I do think the term can mean illegal Alien as defined by the Federal Govt.  When the bill is ambigious at best as to meaning and it exludes sections of the act that define status as well as leave that up to the commissioner, then yes I do.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 18, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Family enrollment, such as variations within the categories and compositions of families, leads me to believe that no matter the variations of family members insurance needs, they can not be charged more than the individual with the group policy discount can be charged...


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 18, 2009)

ILLEGAL ALIEN:  An "illegal alien" is a foreigner who (1) does not owe allegiance to our country; and (2) who has violated our laws and customs in establishing residence in our country.  He or she is therefore a criminal under applicable U.S. laws.

          The term "illegal alien" is used by U.S. citizens who believe that non-citizens entering our country must comply with our immigration laws. 

          The term "illegal alien" is predicated upon U.S. immigration law which requires foreigners entering the U.S. to comply with our country's rules and laws regarding entry into, and residence within, our country.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


Here maybe this will help, I will define a few words to give meaning....
substitute the parenthesis meaning for the word...

so long as the ratio(the proportional relation) of the
18 premium(price paid for coverage) for family enrollment (or enrollments) to
19 the premium(price paid for coverage) for individual enrollment is uniform(the same),


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



In addition, pre-existing conditions are clearly covered by Sec.111 here it is...

18 SEC. 111. PROHIBITING PRE-EXISTING CONDITION EXCLU19
SIONS.
20 A qualified health benefits plan may not impose any
21 pre-existing condition exclusion (as defined in section
22 2701(b)(1)(A) of the Public Health Service Act) or other23
wise impose any limit or condition on the coverage under
24 the plan with respect to an individual or dependent based
25 on any health status-related factors (as defined in section
VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:51 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\AAHCA0~1.XML HOLCPC
July 14, 2009 (12:51 p.m.)
F:\P11\NHI\TRICOMM\AAHCA09_001.XML
f:\VHLC\071409\071409.140.xml (444390|2)
20
1 2791(d)(9) of the Public Health Service Act) in relation
2 to the individual or dependent.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 18, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> illegal aliens ARE NOT aliens navy? do you think aliens are ILLEGAL aliens?
> 
> If a person does not meet either the Green Card or *Substantial Presence Test*, then that person is classified as a non-resident *alien*.
> Definition:Resident Alien vs Nonresident Alien
> ...



but the part you quoted specifically said LEGAL ALIENS navy?

11 SEC. 242. AFFORDABLE CREDIT ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.
12 (a) DEFINITION.
13 (1) IN GENERAL.For purposes of this divi14
sion, the term affordable credit eligible individual
15 means, subject to subsection (b), *an individual who
16 is lawfully present in a State in the United States*


----------



## Care4all (Jul 18, 2009)

jreeves said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



ok.

this says they have to cover you....with preexisting conditions.

but the other is saying, you can't charge relatives a HIGHER rate than the negotiated discounted group rate of the individual spouse, no matter their category (high risk category, medium high risk category?) which could legitimately call for a higher premium...

the family is locked in to the individual's discount rate, no matter what, is how i read it, STILL Jr!  

this was speaking about price


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...


Why use this verbiage?
(*such as variations within categories* and
17 compositions of families)
Why not say pre-existing conditions then?

If this was in relation to pre-existing conditions, why not list it under Sec.111?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

More governmental control of health care....
Sec.115
(a) IN GENERAL.&#8212;*A qualified health benefits plan
6 that uses a provider network for items and services shall
7 meet such standards respecting provider networks as the
8 Commissioner may establish to assure the adequacy of
9 such networks* in ensuring enrollee access to such items
10 and services and transparency in the cost-sharing differen11
tials between in-network coverage and out-of-network cov12
erage.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 18, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



i don't know jr?

other than maybe, because not all people with preexisting conditions would be trying to get a policy on a spouse's, discounted employee plan?

and preexisting conditions of an illness is not always the only high risk categories....age is one, profession can be another....so a high risk category may not even be a preexisting condition?  i dunno???

they purposefully put this crappola in obscure language, with references to alphabetical letters of clauses, in parenthesis, etc etc to boggle the average human's mind, so that they will just give up, i am convinced!


----------



## Care4all (Jul 18, 2009)

jreeves said:


> More governmental control of health care....
> Sec.115
> (a) IN GENERAL.*A qualified health benefits plan
> 6 that uses a provider network for items and services shall
> ...



is the commissioner a federal czar or each state's Insurance Commissioner, do ya know?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > More governmental control of health care....
> ...



a federal czar

Sec.201 (b)

outlines the commissioner's duties and responsibilities


----------



## jreeves (Jul 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



I don't see it referring to pre-existing conditions, otherwise, it would state it explicitly. The phrase is not in Sec.111 nor does Sec.111 refer to this Sec.113 (3). I believe in fact its stating that each member of the family(composition) must have the same premiums of an individual. Although, if you have Committee minutes or any other such information referring to Sec.113(3) stating to the contrary, I could be persuaded.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 19, 2009)

ok...i concede that preexisting conditions probably would have been singled out, though as i explained, variations in categories of the family could be variations of risk categories....?

crap

it'd be nice to be able to read a law or reg and actually understand it without these acrobatic exercises!

what do you think 'variations in categories' means JR?


----------



## Care4all (Jul 19, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> ILLEGAL ALIEN:  An "illegal alien" is a foreigner who (1) does not owe allegiance to our country; and (2) who has violated our laws and customs in establishing residence in our country.  He or she is therefore a criminal under applicable U.S. laws.
> 
> The term "illegal alien" is used by U.S. citizens who believe that non-citizens entering our country must comply with our immigration laws.
> 
> The term "illegal alien" is predicated upon U.S. immigration law which requires foreigners entering the U.S. to comply with our country's rules and laws regarding entry into, and residence within, our country.



FYI

YOU should know, that if you or reeves took the position I am holding on these regs that we have been arguing about, I would have taken the OPPOSITE position.

Not only do I enjoy playing devil's advocate, I find taking the position much more useful in helping me find out more information regarding the topic being argued, so that I can eventually make a decision based off of my own researched arguments or the arguments of those I chose to oppose... for the sake of opposing :, because their arguments or positions ended up better!  

So please don't take any of this debating or arguing as some may see it, personally!!!



care


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 19, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > ILLEGAL ALIEN:  An "illegal alien" is a foreigner who (1) does not owe allegiance to our country; and (2) who has violated our laws and customs in establishing residence in our country.  He or she is therefore a criminal under applicable U.S. laws.
> ...



If taking a position on universal health care mattered I may be more intersted in taking one but I've learned a long time ago. The party in power does what they want and has little concern about what we want. They are of the opinion that they know what is best for me.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 19, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



I don't disagree Duckydil!

I still enjoy informing myself, the Lord only knows why, since it is as you say, congress will do what THEY think is best, regardless of what the people want and know is best...

Good morning, as well!  

Care


----------



## jreeves (Jul 19, 2009)

Care4all said:


> ok...i concede that preexisting conditions probably would have been singled out, though as i explained, variations in categories of the family could be variations of risk categories....?
> 
> crap
> 
> ...



I believe it is referring to familial status...variations in familial categories.

But it is as clear as mud...


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 19, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> (b) REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALIFIED HEALTH BENE2
> FITS PLANS.*On or after the first day of Y1, a health
> 3 benefits plan shall not be a qualified health benefits plan
> 4 under this division unless the plan meets the applicable
> ...



Are you planning to comb through all 16 health care proposals now before Congress?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 19, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > (b) REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALIFIED HEALTH BENE2
> ...


Maybe could you post all of them?


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 19, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> I was beginning to wonder if anyone was ever going to notice this thread jr, as this thread from the actual bill.  All the  talk aside, about " you like your healthcare you can keep it" there is is in black and white for all to see.  When a Govt. starts to mandate things and punish those who choose not to enroll it and clearly this bill intends to take away coverage on those people in plans it does not like. The intent is clear , and it's obvious that the  sheer cost of doing this will bankrupt this nation.  As for the Illegal Alein healthcare issue, what do you suppose the message will be to others wishing to enter the country illegally now?



Navy, you are quoting ONLY from the House version. The Senate has yet to pass anything, even out of committee, after which the agreed-upon FINAL DRAFT will go to conference committee (between the House and the Senate) for a final version. Go here to see where it's at, right now. 

Please stop SCARING people into believing this is a DONE DEAL.  IT IS NOT!!!!

Health Care for America NOW - Steps To Win


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 19, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > (4) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING IN *POSSESSIONS
> ...



Operative words. Illegal aliens will NOT be automatically covered.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 19, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



First off, quit referring to ANYTHING CURRENTLY BEING DEBATED IN WASHINGTON as "UHC" (Universal Health Care). This continues to be distorted in the hopes that you'll get the masses of the clueless to believe it.

Second, determining whether or not a resident of Mexico with a LEGAL work visa will probably be considered on an individual basis, with consideration giving to whether that person actually did pay into our tax system, which is frankly highly doubtful. Those are points that ultimately will need to be worked out, and *not* points that are major enough in context to determine the character of the broader bill.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 19, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > I was beginning to wonder if anyone was ever going to notice this thread jr, as this thread from the actual bill.  All the  talk aside, about " you like your healthcare you can keep it" there is is in black and white for all to see.  When a Govt. starts to mandate things and punish those who choose not to enroll it and clearly this bill intends to take away coverage on those people in plans it does not like. The intent is clear , and it's obvious that the  sheer cost of doing this will bankrupt this nation.  As for the Illegal Alein healthcare issue, what do you suppose the message will be to others wishing to enter the country illegally now?
> ...



Navy is actually posting words from the original House bill, yet you post this trash, how becoming of you....

A little about Health Care for America Now(then you wonder why people question your credibility)...
Profile: Health Care for America Now : NPR

Health Care for America Now is* a coalition of prominent labor unions and liberal advocacy groups pushing for affordable health care and stricter regulation of the health insurance industry.*


Funders: The coalition's steering committee members commit at least $500,000 to the effort. *Members include: ACORN, AFSCME, Americans United for Change, Campaign for America's Future, Center for American Progress Action Fund, MoveOn.org, National Council of La Raza, National Education Association, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Service Employees International Union, United Food and Commercial Workers, and USAction.*


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 19, 2009)

Terry said:


> Has anyone watched this video?
> 
> YouTube - ObamaCare Yay Or Nay? The Truth About Canada!
> 
> Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Crowders magnum opus on CanadaCare



Yeah, I always go to YouTube or Twitter for my facts. I'd much rather my information come from more reliable, less partisan, sources.

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org


----------



## jreeves (Jul 19, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Considering advocates of UHC include the nearly 10 million non-Americans as among the 47 million Americans who are uninsured, yes I think they will be covered by this or any other version of UHC. So 10 million people's health care is not major enough?


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 19, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > (b) REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALIFIED HEALTH BENE2
> ...



short answer would be yes! Maggie this one happens to be the working version that Waxman's committee is working on.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 19, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Terry said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone watched this video?
> ...



LMAO...

Sara Robinson | OurFuture.org

Sara has blogged on authoritarian and extremist movements at Orcinus since 2006; and is a founding member of Group News Blog, the successors to Steve Gilliard's original News Blog, where she still posts occasional lighter and more personal pieces. *Her recent work has also appeared online at Firedoglake, DailyKos, OpenLeft, and Alternet; and in print at The Progressive Christian and Survival: The Journal of the International Institute of Strategic Studies. She is a consulting partner with the Cognitive Policy Works in Seattle, and a Fellow at the Campaign for America's Future.*


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 19, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > I was beginning to wonder if anyone was ever going to notice this thread jr, as this thread from the actual bill.  All the  talk aside, about " you like your healthcare you can keep it" there is is in black and white for all to see.  When a Govt. starts to mandate things and punish those who choose not to enroll it and clearly this bill intends to take away coverage on those people in plans it does not like. The intent is clear , and it's obvious that the  sheer cost of doing this will bankrupt this nation.  As for the Illegal Alein healthcare issue, what do you suppose the message will be to others wishing to enter the country illegally now?
> ...




You mean like how cap and trade changed during the conference right?  you mean I should wait and not inform people and let people  listen to the propaganda  comming from the President on this issue rather than the actual bill that is before the house?  No thank you I would rather work from the actual legislation they are talking about rather than listen to the person that has made claims such as  "unplolyment will not rise above  8.5% with the passage of this bill". If you find this scarry then good Maggie , you should find it scarry because it is. If you have not noticed our nation is deep in dept  and with the advent of proposals like this , in an effort to socially norm everyone, some would take this nation down the same path that states like Ca. have already traveled.  Perhaps you may one day like to receive  a IOU from social security after you spent years paying into it, but personally  I don't.  So I will continue to post  the REAL legislation and NOT the  marketing version that the President would have people  believe.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 19, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



Maggie, I think I have pointed out where in the legislation that Illegal Immigrants  will be covered under this  bill.  In fact in the bill EVERYONE is considered automatically covered if they do not opt for a plan and there is NO proof of residence required in it. See ( Medicare/Medicade Section) As I have pointed out to you and others on here many times when there is a LACK of legislation to the contrary it is up to the commissioner to make the decision on who is covered. Further, when there is no legislation to the contrary it is assumed in the affirmitive.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 19, 2009)

jreeves said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



I don't care, since they get red-lined and redrafted every passing minute. I *won't* care until something is finalized. We basically know what the issues are, the prime one being how to pay for any of it. Even the latest Republican plan will cost a trillion or so due to loss of revenue (tax cuts/credits) and offering primarily the same type of "reform" currently offered in the various other proposals at the same time.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 19, 2009)

jreeves said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



Yo, genius, the House of Representatives _does not ENACT LAW_. What Navy is quoting from is _THEIR VERSION _of what will be torn apart by the Senate, as it already is even as we speak, then returned to conferences between the two chambers. Try learning some basic lessons in civics for a change instead of bellowing your obvious lack of knowledge. The link was not posted for partisan purposes, but to *TEACH YOU *the process, asshole.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 19, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



That's the reason you post blogs by people who write for the DailyKOS and link websites that are funded by ACORN and labor unions....oh ok


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 19, 2009)

jreeves said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



No. ACCESS TO health care at reasonable costs through insurance is all that will be considered.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 19, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



Oh, thanks for admitting it's still being "worked on." To read all the shit here would lead dummies to believe it's gonna pass _as is _next week.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 19, 2009)

Far be it from me not to be fair Maggie so you asked , and you will have *smiles*  Here is a the Seante Version...

3 SEC. 141. ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING MEDICAID.
4 (a) ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING POLICY.&#8212;The Com5
mittee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the
6 Senate assumes that the provisions of the Affordable
7 Health Choices Act will be considered by the Senate as
8 part of legislation that amends title XIX of the Social Se9
curity Act to implement the following policies:
10 (1) All individuals currently eligible for Med11
icaid will remain eligible for Medicaid.
*12 (2) All individuals will be eligible for Medicaid
13 at income levels up to 150 percent of poverty.*

http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A84_xml.pdf


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 19, 2009)

jreeves said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Terry said:
> ...



So? Shall we all just in lockstep move over to reading your choice of partisan sites and publications? Don't be such a fucking hypocrite by continuing to believe there is only ONE solution to this mess--yours--and that millions of people should be scoffed at for blogging and otherwise writing about the OTHER side.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 19, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



Um, cap and trade isn't a done deal yet either, Navy. 

You'll notice I'm not disputing any of your points concerning your aversion to the House bill. I am simply reiterating as I have done a gazillion times before that any health care reform WILL NOT look like the House version that you've spent so many hours dissecting. Not even close.

That said, you constantly go off-topic and ramble on about differences in ideologies, which we all know exist. I get sick of the constant analogy to California; the constant yammering about how Democrats are the ones who will "take us down the road to...[fill in the blank], when it remains that the overall opinion found in poll after poll finds that two-thirds of Americans want SOME KIND of health care reform in order to control the costs. YOu can read that in ALL the polls here, going all the way back to the 90s.

Health Policy


----------



## jreeves (Jul 19, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



umm...I think I was citing Sec. directly from the bill being proposed in the House. Maybe you could show everyone how I have posted partisan sites and publications in this thread?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 19, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



The Access would include the 10 million cited by advocates of UHC.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 19, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



You have not "proven" anything. I read the exchange with Care, and it is a matter of interpretation, and you are wrong. Go to the 14-page analysis by CBO, below, specifically the last paragraph of Page 4. Throughout the analysis, it refers to LEGAL residents.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/House_Tri-Committee.pdf


----------



## jreeves (Jul 19, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Huffington post...chuckle....


----------



## jreeves (Jul 19, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



BTW aren't you the one who said this?
Yeah, I always go to YouTube or Twitter for my facts. I'd much rather my information come from more reliable, less partisan, sources.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 19, 2009)

jreeves said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Ah yes, it's always a big red flag that someone's got his eyeballs firmly planted in front of FOXNEWS and his ears to LIMBAUGH whenever any topic, _any at all_, is attempted to be rebutted by injecting the evil ACORN.

You don't even seem to know that DailyKos is an ultra-liberal website. There are very few ultra-liberal Democrats, genius. You're beyong cuckoo. Just dumb.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 19, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...


Again I have been citing the bill being considered in the House. You are the one who is citing, partisan websites.....that is truly


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 19, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Far be it from me not to be fair Maggie so you asked , and you will have *smiles*  Here is a the Seante Version...
> 
> 3 SEC. 141. ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING MEDICAID.
> 4 (a) ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING POLICY.The Com5
> ...



What is WRONG with you??!! That was ONE Senate committee's version. The next step, the crucial one, will be to take up ALL the proposals by Baucuses SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE next week.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 19, 2009)

jreeves said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



You screeched about the link I posted regarding Canadian health care as being leftist. I wasn't saying whether or not you've posted form right-wing blogs, but I was pointing out the hypocrisy of your accusatory point, period. You're a little slow on comprehension, too.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 19, 2009)

jreeves said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



Hey, stupid, the link is to the PDF version of the CBO letter. Try sprinkling the top of your head; maybe half of the gray matter will start to move around inside.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 19, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Excuse me, I didn't even click on the link, due to your past displays of


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 19, 2009)

jreeves said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Your point? I get my information from a huge variety of sources, not the least of which is Congressional Daily, which is straight reporting. I watch/listen on average 15 hours per week of C-Span and also read THEIR links to sources. You will ever win an argument with me by just parroting _opinions_ of others, so don't even try. On the other hand, if you're ever 'right' about something, I'll let you know.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 19, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Maggie, I'm not going off topic I'm simply addressing your points and as for Ca. if the bill(s) are  perpetuated by the leader of the house who happens to be from Ca. and Mr. Waxman who also happens to be from Ca. and language contained in other bills i.e. cap and trade that point blank refers to Ca. then yes I will keep making reference to it.  As for  keeping costs down in healthcare , I don't think anyone here  who has seen me discuss this issue can dispute that I have always held the position that healthcare costs need to be brought under control. However, I am also not  under the mistaken impression that our Govt.  is empowered to mandate healthcare for everyone.  If you do not like discussing the actual legislation then thats fine with me Maggie, I can I suppose find some propaganda sites and begin to post opinions based as fact.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 19, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Maggie I'm sorry that the contents of the bill disturb you, they should be disturbing to any free thinking American. I have pointed out in the BILL itself  both the senate and the house versions on here where it maks reference to coverage. If you choose to to read an analysis from the huffington post and not the bill and have them make up your mind for you then of course your entitled to do that. As for me, I tend look at the text of the language unlike most of the members of congress who don't bother to even read the bills and take it as written. In my last posting from the Senate Version it makes it quite clear who the Senate considers is covered and makes NO REFERENCE to residence requirements  or  legal status.  IF that doesn't make sense to you then of course you can choose to take it as you wish.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 19, 2009)

One more  thing worthy of note here Maggie, this  thread was started by me  as a discussion thread on the merits of the bills themselves,  and if I happen to take issue with various sections of the bills then that is within keeping of of this thread topic.  Again, you have my apologies if the contents of the bill(s) fly in the face of what your being told by the sources you get your information from. However, I have always contented that perhaps that is why our Govt. spends money needlessly because they hope people will take on face value what they tell them and not bother to read what laws they hope to make us abide by, 

 "Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect
 liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men
 born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their
 liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty
 lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning
 but without understanding."
 -- Justice Louis Brandeis


----------



## jreeves (Jul 19, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



In what way did you not parrot the blogger that has blogged for DailyKOS as well as other liberal websites?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 19, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...


BTW she doesn't just write and blog for the other side...

She is a consultant for Cognitive Policy Works, here is a little about CPW.
Cognitive Policy Works
Cognitive Policy Works is an educational center and consulting service that provides strategic guidance to the *progressive world.*


----------



## jreeves (Jul 19, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > ILLEGAL ALIEN:  An "illegal alien" is a foreigner who (1) does not owe allegiance to our country; and (2) who has violated our laws and customs in establishing residence in our country.  He or she is therefore a criminal under applicable U.S. laws.
> ...


I enjoy debating you, at least your intellectually honest.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 19, 2009)

SEC. 2706. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INDI22
VIDUAL PARTICIPANTS AND BENEFICIARIES
23 BASED ON HEALTH STATUS.
24 &#8216;&#8216;A group health plan and a health insurance issuer
25 offering group or individual health insurance coverage,
13
O:\BAI\BAI09A84.xml [file 1 of 6] S.L.C.
1 may not establish rules for eligibility (including continued
2 eligibility) of any individual to enroll under the terms of
3 the plan or coverage based on any of the following health
4 status-related factors in relation to the individual or a de5
pendent of the individual:
6 &#8216;&#8216;(1) Health status.
7 &#8216;&#8216;(2) Medical condition (including both physical
8 and mental illnesses).
9 &#8216;&#8216;(3) Claims experience.
10 &#8216;&#8216;(4) Receipt of health care.
11 &#8216;&#8216;(5) Medical history.
12 &#8216;&#8216;(6) Genetic information.
13 &#8216;&#8216;(7) Evidence of insurability (including condi14
tions arising out of acts of domestic violence).
15 &#8216;&#8216;(8) Disability.
*16 &#8216;&#8216;(9) Any other health status-related factor de17
termined appropriate by the Secretary.*

As I have stated  in the house version the language is clear for those of you who wish to deny it, it's completly up to the Sec. or commissioner as to who they will force the insurance companies to cover or have converage. This one happens to be from the Senate version


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 19, 2009)

2) includes a mechanism, such as a regional
11* medical direction or transport communications sys12
tem, that operates throughout the region to ensure
13 that the patient is taken to the medically appro14
priate facility *(whether an initial facility or a higher15
level facility) in a timely fashion;

Would someone please tell what business the Federal Govt. has  or empowered by the constitution to dictate where a patient is taken and  treated?


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 19, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...


There's no reviving any traces of grey matter there.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 19, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



This coming from a 'junky' who wants to turn their health care over to a government that has nothing but near bankrupt programs to show as a track record.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 20, 2009)

I find it somewhat troubling that a thread  that's intent is to cite the  issues related to the ACTUAL legislation before congress would cause people to become upset over it. In fact  if the actualy legislation is not matching the talk comming from those that you support no matter what side of the debate that is, then you should be upset about that. However, this thread is a thread to discuss the actual legislation and not  the marketing talk associated with it.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 20, 2009)

jreeves said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



I've never visited DailyKOS in my life. The only thing I've EVER read which was posted by them was that Patreaus-Betrayus stuff in 2007. I also don't read Huffington Post on a regular basis, but they are an excellent site for hyperlinking items in PDF form if one doesn't know the exact wording. You can take a guess and often Google will direct me to the HP, which then has a redirect. [Hope Navy sees this as well.]

My opinions are my own, based on analyzing a variety of publications, etc. As for health care, yes, I believe government intervention IS needed, but no, I don't believe that cost containment has been fully explored. So I'm right in the middle, just like two-thirds of the rest of Americans on this. Mine isn't a left or right position based on any one leftist website or talking head.

I have a real problem, however, with the continued yammering from the ideological point of view: *SOCIALISM!!! EGADS!!!  *Done correctly, any government-sponsored health care program does NOT mean the beginning of an era of Stalin-esque Socialism/Communism, or even a carbon copy of the British system. 

I was amused listening to C-Span's Washington Journal this morning, once again dealing with the health care issue, only this time the moderator asked a specific question of the callers: How do you currently pay for your health care? The _hommina hommina hommina _comments from some of the Republican callers preceded the fact that, _um, I get mine through Medicare/Medicaid._ Surprise surprise. Yet they're against coverage for those who don't qualify for either because it will lead to Socialism? Interesting.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 20, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> I find it somewhat troubling that a thread  that's intent is to cite the  issues related to the ACTUAL legislation before congress would cause people to become upset over it. In fact  if the actualy legislation is not matching the talk comming from those that you support no matter what side of the debate that is, then you should be upset about that. However, this thread is a thread to discuss the actual legislation and not  the marketing talk associated with it.



We have no control over what has already been written. _Everything out there, on the table today, continues to be marked up anyway._ So what you cite may have already been changed or removed. That's MY problem with your attempt at dissecting every paragraph of the House bill. The real meat of anything won't happen until both chambers merge their final drafts and it then goes to conference. And trust me, no matter how hard Obama is pushing to get this done in two weeks, the legislators, even Democrats, WANT the month of August to hold town meetings, read their e-mails from their constituents, and get a genuine feel for how the public is reacting.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 20, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> 2) includes a mechanism, such as a regional
> 11* medical direction or transport communications sys12
> tem, that operates throughout the region to ensure
> 13 that the patient is taken to the medically appro14
> ...



Now you're just being silly. If I've been badly burned, I would prefer to be flown to a burn center, not some community clinic nearby. If I've sustained a broken arm in a car crash, a community clinic nearby could render the same care as the Mayor Clinic.

You're treating some of these subparagraphs as though a person needing medical care would first need to ring up someone at the White House for approval before the choice is made. Please...


----------



## Maple (Jul 20, 2009)

bill, it will signal an end to private insurance carriers. Everyone will end up on the national plan.

Thank you for reading this, I will when I have time. Too bad, that our elected officials won't read it before they sign on, just like they did the Stimulus bill that is not working.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 20, 2009)

Maple said:


> bill, it will signal an end to private insurance carriers. Everyone will end up on the national plan.
> 
> Thank you for reading this, I will when I have time. Too bad, that our elected officials won't read it before they sign on, just like they did the Stimulus bill that is not working.



The difference is that hundreds of hours and thousands of pages of markups have been done on the health care issue, whereas the Stimulus Bill was passed as "emergency" legislation.

You can project all you want about what "might be," but that's all it is: Guesswork. With this much antagonism over just an attempt to get everyone INSURED, I wouldn't lose any sleep over the U.S. devising national health CARE before you meet your maker and it won't matter anyway.

I also don't worry too much about private insurers going out of business. They have been part of the profitmaking landscape for way too many years not to know how to game the system. These guys are pros.


----------



## Care4all (Jul 20, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> 2) includes a mechanism, such as a regional
> 11* medical direction or transport communications sys12
> tem, that operates throughout the region to ensure
> 13 that the patient is taken to the medically appro14
> ...


good morning Navy!
sounds like a patient bill of rights issue...

sometimes your insurance determines which hospital you can use and be covered by them...perhaps this?

Also, in larger populated areas, there are separate hospitals that handle different types of emergencies....trauma center for extensive trauma....hospitals with larger labor and delivery centers, hospitals which specialize in newborn intensive care etc....

ambulances were taking patients to the hospital they were associated with, verses who had the best care for the emergency....

sounds to me like the EMT'S will call in symptoms and doctors on call or a protocol, will send the patient in the right direction depending on the circumstance....


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 20, 2009)

Good Morning to you too Care

I suppose it boils down to the issue of your Govt. dictating to you the type of care and where you should get that care. If you have no problems with that then it does not suprise me that the next step from that would be to advocate Govt. mandated healthcare. I personally do not believe the Govt. has the power to dictate  what type of care you should receive. This should be a local matter and a matter based on the assesment of the  care providers on scene. Maggie, again I'm sorry if the contents of the bill upset you as opposed to what you have been told, but I believe you are beginning to see why a lot of democrats on the hill are balking at this now. I will restate what I have said many times on here, these ARE the bills that are being debated in the house and senate and  I AM going to keep pointing out what the  issues are within the bills that effect everyone. The one thing about this healthcare debate that seperates people the most is this,  most believe that healthcare costs  should be brought down, however a lot of people do not want a Govt. to FORCE everyone into a healthcare program that they have not chosen for themselves. While this may not be a big deal with some, it a very big deal for me as my Govt. is not empowered under the law take that choice from me.  

&#8220;No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.&#8221; &#8211;Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816. ME 15:24

What I find as truley disturbing here is the willingness of  so many to strip their fellow citizens of their rights  for their own. So while you wish to have cheap healthcare  I submit respectfully that anyone who supports this sort of effort contained in both these bills does so because they have a short sighted vision on healthcare and  support those who really do not wish to solve the real issues that effect costs.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 20, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Good Morning to you too Care
> 
> I suppose it boils down to the issue of your Govt. dictating to you the type of care and where you should get that care. If you have no problems with that then it does not suprise me that the next step from that would be to advocate Govt. mandated healthcare. I personally do not believe the Govt. has the power to dictate  what type of care you should receive. This should be a local matter and a matter based on the assesment of the  care providers on scene. Maggie, again I'm sorry if the contents of the bill upset you as opposed to what you have been told, but I believe you are beginning to see why a lot of democrats on the hill are balking at this now. I will restate what I have said many times on here, these ARE the bills that are being debated in the house and senate and  I AM going to keep pointing out what the  issues are within the bills that effect everyone. The one thing about this healthcare debate that seperates people the most is this,  most believe that healthcare costs  should be brought down, however a lot of people do not want a Govt. to FORCE everyone into a healthcare program that they have not chosen for themselves. While this may not be a big deal with some, it a very big deal for me as my Govt. is not empowered under the law take that choice from me.



You know Canada started their system province by province, not nationwide all at once.  

It has nothing to do with stripping rights.  Its about giving people the right to healthcare, and not allowing the corporations to rip off the public.  Certain things we need Navy.  We need gas, so our government doesn't allow the oil companies to gouge us.  We need electricities, so the government regulates that industry.  Actually, Cheney let them regulate themselves but we see where that got us.  

Well we need healthcare, and the insurance companies are ripping us off too.  Oh we know you want to let the free markets decide, but we can't afford that anymore.  And they are all in collusion with each other.  Time to break  up the monopoly.  They have too much power/control.  Jefferson also warned about corporations and rich people becoming too powerful but you ignore those warnings.  

We tried your way.  It didn't work.  And I know you don't think we didn't try hard or long enough, but we won the election.  We have 60 filabuster senate seats.

All you have is the corporate media, the lobbyists, the GOP and about 15 sellout Democrats on your side.  So relax, you'll win.  

And stop trying to spin why those Democrats are balking on this bill.  Do you think we are stupid?  Look at how much each of them has taken from the healthcare lobby.  Either you think we are stupid or you aren't the brightest tool in the shed.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 20, 2009)

Maple said:


> bill, it will signal an end to private insurance carriers. Everyone will end up on the national plan.
> 
> Thank you for reading this, I will when I have time. Too bad, that our elected officials won't read it before they sign on, just like they did the Stimulus bill that is not working.



Your most likely right on the health insurance issue, it does seem to point in the direction of taking people down the path towards  Govt. healthcare. I do feel however that what it will lead to will be a  healthcare system that is supports low quality healthcare for a vast majority of Americans  and  for those that can really afford it, they will be able to purchase high quality care seperate from the system.  The end will result will be right back where we started except with a massive deficit.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 20, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Good Morning to you too Care
> 
> I suppose it boils down to the issue of your Govt. dictating to you the type of care and where you should get that care. If you have no problems with that then it does not suprise me that the next step from that would be to advocate Govt. mandated healthcare. I personally do not believe the Govt. has the power to dictate  what type of care you should receive. This should be a local matter and a matter based on the assesment of the  care providers on scene. Maggie, again I'm sorry if the contents of the bill upset you as opposed to what you have been told, but I believe you are beginning to see why a lot of democrats on the hill are balking at this now. I will restate what I have said many times on here, these ARE the bills that are being debated in the house and senate and  I AM going to keep pointing out what the  issues are within the bills that effect everyone. The one thing about this healthcare debate that seperates people the most is this,  most believe that healthcare costs  should be brought down, however a lot of people do not want a Govt. to FORCE everyone into a healthcare program that they have not chosen for themselves. While this may not be a big deal with some, it a very big deal for me as my Govt. is not empowered under the law take that choice from me.
> 
> ...



You are simply NOT paying attention, sir. Here is Chuck Grassley with an update as of about 1:30pm today discussing the COMPROMISE Senate Finance bill, which is the ONLY *policy* bill that will be considered. He discusses the *demise of the House bill *that you painstakingly read and posted for review, as well as the Kennedy bill of several weeks ago. The Senate Finance Committee went into closed session just a few moments ago and will work on the balance of cost containment through the evening. Grassley says on this tape that they still need to close the gap on about $200 billion, and then they will have a deal.

msnbc.com Video Player


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 20, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Good Morning to you too Care
> ...



actually sealy I have a lot of admiration for anyone who wish to really want to address the real issues that effect the costs of healthcare and bring them down and make it more accessable for those that want it. Those that do have my full support, however those operate under the mistaken impression that healthcare is a  "right" that somehow they are entitled to under the law and then wish to legislate that right I will oppose. Why you ask, because it's really simple, because it does not address the costs, and our government is not empowered under the constitution to provide healthcare for all it's citizens.  I have said it many times and will continue to say it, if you wish this to be a right then I suggest  you and others  advocate a constitutional Amendment that would support your position. If it becomes ratified by 2/3rds of the states which I suspect it wouldn't then you would have no issues with me other than perhaps the fact it would never addresss the real issues that effect the costs of healthcare.  What I find interesting in all these debates is that no one ever wishes to discuss these things, but rather they wish to talk about what the evil insurance companies  have done to them.  When democrats are willing to discuss what causes  healthcare costs to rise and actually do something to fix it rather than violate the law by mandating coverage for all then I'm willing to support that.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 20, 2009)

Navy1960 said:
			
		

> What I find as truley disturbing here is the willingness of so many to strip their fellow citizens of their rights for their own. So while you wish to have cheap healthcare I submit respectfully that anyone who supports this sort of effort contained in both these bills does so because they have a short sighted vision on healthcare and support those who really do not wish to solve the real issues that effect costs.



You are the one who is in the minority as far as your thinking. Although practically no one wants health care reform to reach trillions in cost, I have yet to see a poll anywhere which points to a _majority_ of people _not_ wanting and expecting to share some of the burden of health care costs for those who cannot afford more steady increases in costs offered by the free market. 

While you may cherry pick obscure quotations, your own extreme ideological projections of "stripping people of their rights" is a mentality of 50-year old _uber_ capitalistic Ayn Randism, hardly based on Jeffersonian people-first ideology.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 20, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Good Morning to you too Care
> ...



Maggie, what you don't seem to grasp, is I'm not posting from the Kennedy bill, I'm posting from the working copy that Grassley's committee is working from. Further, i'm also posting from the house version that Waxman's committee  is working from and the same one that Pelosi is supporting  as the house version Again, I will restate my position, if the contents of these bills scare you then good, they should scare you. The only way this bill has a chance is if the public option is eliminated but that's an observation based on the hearings and from the comments made from both sides.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 20, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



Wonderful. Where were people like you for the past 40 years? 

Frankly, I'm beginning to get frustrated discussing public health care with you, since being an ex-Navy guy, you no doubt have had government supplied and government funded health care yourself for many years. So I wonder how it's possible for you to even grasp what it is like for someone in dire need to have nowhere to go for treatment for a serious illness except a free clinic where the staff are either way underpaid or volunteers.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 20, 2009)

MSNBC has a recording of crickets that they play when a person has no answer within 30 seconds. They just played the cricket sound for a republican strategist, after he was asked what the republican plan for healthcare was ... loved it. He never did come up with anything even after that embarrassment.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 20, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



While the Finance Committee (Grassley, Baucus) may have the House Bill in front of them, they are hardly "working from it," designing their own policy around it. The Committee has been working on its own policy from ALL of the 16 proposals before them, not JUST the House bill (which btw was only produced last week). Now you're just inventing stuff that _sounds_ plausible--but only to you. Grassley has been the most outspoken Senator AGAINST the House Bill. Why on earth would he have changed his mind over the weekend? *THINK!! *


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 20, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



frankly I don't consider Jefferson to be an obscure person to cherry pick from Maggie, you might but I don't.  Your assertion that my thinking it in the minority I would  only say this, prove it , and do me the favor of not citing a poll that was  taken of  600 Obama voters  out of 850 and then tell me 72% of the people want Govt. healthcare.  First of all I have made it very clear that healthcare costs are  very high and need to be brought under control and even have started threads proposing solutions  from co-ops to state sponsored healthcare. So don't assume I am not for healthcare simply because unlike many on the other side , I'm not wiling to toss  my right to choose into the grabage all in favor of a socially norming experiment that is blatently unconstitutional.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 20, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



Prove it? Here ya go. I've posted this link many times. It contains *ALL THE POLLS *which pollingreport.com amasses in one place, going back to the first of the year, and you can click on a link at the end to retrieve even older polls. Health Policy

Now, as to Jefferson, my history recollection is that he favored what was best for the people of the country as events may affect them, as his priority over the mandates of the 'health' of private enterprise. In other words, if private ventures potentially harmed the people, Jefferson would side with the people. In a speech to the Republican citizens of Washington County, MD, March 31, 1809, Jefferson said *"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."*


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 20, 2009)

*laughs* Maggie don't get frustrated we are debating an issue that is important to both you and I. I don't think we are far apart in wanting people  to have access to good quality ,low cost healthcare.  Speaking from a vast amount of experience with Govt. healthcare some of it is very good, and some of it is  amazingly bad and a disgrace to those  military men and women that gave their all for this nation. So allow that I do have a little experience in that area.  As for healthcare in other nations I've seen a lot in my time Maggie and what it all boils down to me is this, a nameless , faceless entity is never  as good at providing for the needs of people in a village than the people in that village. I just happen to feel that whats best for Maine let's say is not best for Arizona or Mi. or Tx. whatever. In fact,  I feel that the Federal Govt. should act as the prime motivator to the states in order so that they may provide the proper environment for a good and available healhcare system locally.  Further, if you or others even went about your desires for national healthcare within our form of Govt.you would have no bigger supporter than me. So no I don't think we are all that far apart in what we think as far as healhcare, it's just that I don't think that our Govt. is the best mechanism for that. One more thing to consider here too, as a result of my service to my nation I have the benefits I receive, they were not just randomly given to me they were earned.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 20, 2009)

Maggie those polls don't exactly put you in the vast majority of  Americans as a matter of fact on some of those questions I could  answer in the affirmative.  Overall you have  a 50 50 split, so I will happily count myself in 48% as of the last poll which according to your data is not exactly an overwhelming majority and I did not even take the time to look at the polling matrix to see exactly who they polled. 

As for Jeffferson he was an anti-Federalist unlike Madison and Hamilton who were sound proponents of a strong Federal Government..

Arguably, the greatest proponent of freedom, Thomas Jefferson himself was an anti-federalist. Jefferson believed in the absolute minimum when it came to government. In fact, he stated that the best form of government was represented in the Native American tribes. However, he also saw this as impractical for a nation which was rapidly growing to the size and scope of America.

Those assembled at the Philadelphia Congress were originally given the responsibility of simply amending the Articles of Confederation which were not much more than agreements between the separate colonies. However, once convened, the congress closed the doors and began hashing out today's Constitution. No doubt if Hamilton had succeeded in his plan, the Constitution would have been more of an authoritarian document. However, the soft spoken Madison saw the dangers both of authoritarianism, and of a true democracy and established the different branches of government which act to balance one another out.

Many anti-federalists were not happy with a constitution that spelled out the responsibilities of the government, but did not mention the rights and protections of the people. Among these were Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and James Madison. Although some were opposed to spelling out the rights on paper and thus defining them (or limiting them), it was argued that the rights needed to be spelled out in order to ensure their protection. The Bill of Rights does not presume to provide these rights, rather it recognizes their inherent nature and protects their sanctity


So yes,  I tend to believe in a smaller  Federal Govt. with only those power(s) alloted to them and the rest alloted to the states.  So I would proudly consider myself  among those  that would believe that Federal Govts. powers are limited in scope and those that are not  worded in the constitution should be left to the individual states to decide.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 20, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> *laughs* Maggie don't get frustrated we are debating an issue that is important to both you and I. I don't think we are far apart in wanting people  to have access to good quality ,low cost healthcare.  Speaking from a vast amount of experience with Govt. healthcare some of it is very good, and some of it is  amazingly bad and a disgrace to those  military men and women that gave their all for this nation. So allow that I do have a little experience in that area.  As for healthcare in other nations I've seen a lot in my time Maggie and what it all boils down to me is this, a nameless , faceless entity is never  as good at providing for the needs of people in a village than the people in that village. I just happen to feel that whats best for Maine let's say is not best for Arizona or Mi. or Tx. whatever. In fact,  I feel that the Federal Govt. should act as the prime motivator to the states in order so that they may provide the proper environment for a good and available healhcare system locally.  Further, if you or others even went about your desires for national healthcare within our form of Govt.you would have no bigger supporter than me. So no I don't think we are all that far apart in what we think as far as healhcare, it's just that I don't think that our Govt. is the best mechanism for that. One more thing to consider here too, as a result of my service to my nation I have the benefits I receive, they were not just randomly given to me they were earned.



I never meant to imply your benefits were not earned, just that it would be difficult for someone who has always had the benefit of no-cost health care to really get inside the head of someone who must weigh the benefit of survival or not because of the prohibitive costs of their care. When you consider that two-thirds of all personal bankruptcies continue to be caused by astronomical medical bills, then there is something seriously wrong with the free market system (an oxymoron as it applies to health care, when you think about it).


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 20, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Maggie those polls don't exactly put you in the vast majority of  Americans as a matter of fact on some of those questions I could  answer in the affirmative.  Overall you have  a 50 50 split, so I will happily count myself in 48% as of the last poll which according to your data is not exactly an overwhelming majority and I did not even take the time to look at the polling matrix to see exactly who they polled.
> 
> As for Jeffferson he was an anti-Federalist unlike Madison and Hamilton who were sound proponents of a strong Federal Government..
> 
> ...



A point I consistently make whenever someone suggests that we need to return to the 'original' tenets of the Constitution. The framers obviously realized that time would not stand still and that the *basic* rules of law set forth would need to be transitioned along with the growth of the nation. I don't have the slightest doubt that Jefferson would have seen the need for government intervention in health care for the people _IF_ the private sector failed to deliver to _ALL_ in need.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 20, 2009)

Navy1960 said:
			
		

> Maggie those polls don't exactly put you in the vast majority of Americans as a matter of fact on some of those questions I could answer in the affirmative. Overall you have a 50 50 split, so I will happily count myself in 48% as of the last poll which according to your data is not exactly an overwhelming majority and I did not even take the time to look at the polling matrix to see exactly who they polled.



The recent drop in popularity is because of the 24/7 news cycle trying to wrap its head around the myriad options that are on again/off again, which has created mass confusion. I talk to people who, even a week ago, could have told me one way or the other how they feel about the current status of the health care issue being debated in Washington, and over the weekend these same people are now just shrugging or throwing their arms in the air in exasperation. Look beyond the top four or five in that link, and you'll see a greater majority in favor of Obama's basic policy proposals. Since then, however, Congress has stepped in and created a monster.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 20, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



If your opinions are your own, then that's fine, discuss the bill or bills based upon their merits. You may not have a problem with a commissioner determining what health care you receive but I would rather be able to shop in a free market what coverage I get. You may not have a problem paying taxes to cover non-Americans health care, I do.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 21, 2009)

jreeves said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



I don't think the final bill will allow for a government official to make any decisions on your health care, but those will be left up to the doctors and/or administrators of whatever pool of insurance coverage is chosen. It's that way now.

I don't blame you for not wanting to keep what you've got if you like it and can afford it. I'm sure you'll still be able to. Existing private insurers aren't going to go under (as the naysayers continue to project) because there are plenty of folks like you who won't change over to a government option. And that IS all it will be--an option.

Truce...


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 21, 2009)

I do think Maggie we all want healthcare costs to come down for everyone, afterall who doesn't want prices to go down. What I think the debate is over is how do we get there. You will see that a more than just a few people , me among them see this as an even bigger issue and that is "what is our Govt. empowered to do" . Further, I believe that  many of the issues that effect the costs of healthcare can be solved with reforms  targeted at those areas and not this one size fits all solution.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 21, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> I do think Maggie we all want healthcare costs to come down for everyone, afterall who doesn't want prices to go down. What I think the debate is over is how do we get there. You will see that a more than just a few people , me among them see this as an even bigger issue and that is "what is our Govt. empowered to do" . Further, I believe that  many of the issues that effect the costs of healthcare can be solved with reforms  targeted at those areas and not this one size fits all solution.



The cost is the ONLY thing that concerns everyone, me included, but it isn't just the potential cost of government intervention, it's the existing cost for which there _also_ is no end in sight.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 21, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Under this particular bill, a government official would essentially be making your health care decisions. When the "commissioner" can tell private insurance "competitors" what they can and can't cover, then they are deciding how everyone's health care. I haven't seen, maybe there is, a bill that includes a public option that doesn't include some type of commissioner or government official dictating coverage. Maybe you have, if you have please post it, I would be interested in seeing it.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 22, 2009)

jreeves said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Once again, the House bill is dead. There _*IS*_ no "bill" yet and won't be for some time. The best that will come out of the current session before the August break is a consensus bill between the House and the Senate, and that one is what will be carved up during conference meetings between the two which won't happen until September. That particular provision will be heavily scrutinized as one that pops out as being too controversial _not_ to look more closely at.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 22, 2009)

Once again Maggie as long as  Nancy Pelosi keeps trotting out in front of the camera's  and talks about this EXACT bill and democrat members of the house go to the floor and  talk about this same bill then I will continue to point out it's terrible sections that apply to all Americans.  As long as Pelosi continues to use SICK people to prop up her agenda she and others that support her unamerican agenda will find in me an opponent that is unrelenting.  I will not  give up on this issue because I wii NOT leave my daughter a 3rd world nation and will defend it against those that want too.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 22, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Once again Maggie as long as  Nancy Pelosi keeps trotting out in front of the camera's  and talks about this EXACT bill and democrat members of the house go to the floor and  talk about this same bill then I will continue to point out it's terrible sections that apply to all Americans.  As long as Pelosi continues to use SICK people to prop up her agenda she and others that support her unamerican agenda will find in me an opponent that is unrelenting.  I will not  give up on this issue because I wii NOT leave my daughter a 3rd world nation and will defend it against those that want too.



Go for it. But the House of Representatives DOES NOT make law. Pelosi will soon be irrelevant.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 22, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Once again Maggie as long as  Nancy Pelosi keeps trotting out in front of the camera's  and talks about this EXACT bill and democrat members of the house go to the floor and  talk about this same bill then I will continue to point out it's terrible sections that apply to all Americans.  As long as Pelosi continues to use SICK people to prop up her agenda she and others that support her unamerican agenda will find in me an opponent that is unrelenting.  I will not  give up on this issue because I wii NOT leave my daughter a 3rd world nation and will defend it against those that want too.
> ...



*Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States. Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to any other agency*. In this vein, the Supreme Court held in the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York that Congress could not delegate a "line-item veto" to the President, by which he was empowered to selectively nullify certain provisions of a bill before signing it. The Constitution Article I, Section 8; says to give all the power to Congress. Congress has the exclusive power to legislate, to make laws and in addition to the enumerated powers it has all other powers vested in the government by the Constitution.

The President has the responsibility to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the Laws of the United States in much the same way as a vassal takes an oath of allegiance to his liege lord. He is delegated authority by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, but the Congress can never give its power away.

Where Congress does not make so great and sweeping a delegation of its authority, the Supreme Court has been less stringent. One of the earliest cases involving the exact limits of non-delegation was Wayman v. Southard (1825). Congress had delegated to the courts the power to prescribe judicial procedure; it was contended that Congress had thereby unconstitutionally clothed the judiciary with legislative powers. While Chief Justice John Marshall conceded that the determination of rules of procedure was a legislative function, he distinguished between "important" subjects and mere details. Marshall wrote that "a general provision may be made, and power given to those who are to act under such general provisions, to fill up the details."

Marshall's words and future court decisions gave Congress much latitude in delegating powers. It was not until the 1930s that the Supreme Court held a delegation of authority unconstitutional. In a case involving the creation of the National Recovery Administration called A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), Congress could not authorize the President to formulate codes of "fair competition." It was held that Congress must set some standards governing the actions of executive officers. The Court, however, has deemed that phrases such as "just and reasonable," "public interest" and "public convenience" suffice.
Separation of powers under the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'd be interested in knowing who you think makes the laws then? The President by signing legislation presented to him or her by congress? or perhaps the courts that look at laws and rule upon them?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 22, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> I do think Maggie we all want healthcare costs to come down for everyone, afterall who doesn't want prices to go down. What I think the debate is over is how do we get there. You will see that a more than just a few people , me among them see this as an even bigger issue and that is "what is our Govt. empowered to do" . Further, I believe that  many of the issues that effect the costs of healthcare can be solved with reforms  targeted at those areas and not this one size fits all solution.



What idea(s) do you have to bring costs down?


----------



## johnrocks (Jul 22, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > I do think Maggie we all want healthcare costs to come down for everyone, afterall who doesn't want prices to go down. What I think the debate is over is how do we get there. You will see that a more than just a few people , me among them see this as an even bigger issue and that is "what is our Govt. empowered to do" . Further, I believe that  many of the issues that effect the costs of healthcare can be solved with reforms  targeted at those areas and not this one size fits all solution.
> ...



Not the guy you asked but....

1. Repeal the HMO Act of 1973 which requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses, but not individuals, to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the insane coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.

2. Repeal the ERISA Act of 1974 which is a federal law that sets minimum standards for retirement and health benefit plans in private industry. This attracted special interests to insert things from wet nurses to maternity in group plans,these minimal standards have raised costs and took away our freedom to choose the coverage we want as individuals.

3. Introduce legislation that gives tax credits for individuals to buy their own insurance,be it comprehensive or high deductible catastrophic or Medical Savings Accounts.

4. Introduce legislation that gives tax credits for "negative outcomes" insurance that people can purchase prior to an operation that would remove costly litigation yet preserve trial by jury we hold so dear in this country,it could drive down liability costs and the consumer would be able to set the value they want on their property which is their body.

5. Introduce Tax Credits for people who take a large amount of prescription medicine,this could help those in need without creating bureaucracy such as Medicare Part "D". We could also do this for people who take care of their parents or children to relieve burdens.

6. Remove any limitations on Medical Savings type accounts. This would expand access,it's the fastest growing market there is and could grow faster without the constraints govt. places on them.

7. Allow insurance companies to sell nationally and allow all insurance companies to participate, Mutual Companies,non profits,Property and Casualty,you name it,open up the competition.

8. Give huge tax credits to companies wanting to open Doc in a Box type clinics in towns,in the Wal Marts,Wal Greens and Targets nation wide. This would releive pressure on ER rooms, a lot of times a child may get sick late at night and the only place to go is ER,this could alleviate that since these type places are open at night and on weekends.

How you like?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 22, 2009)

johnrocks said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



Good ideas, I would like to piggyback and add one thing. I believe a lot of costs we are incurring as a nation are due to obesity rates in America. I don't believe its a coincidence that obesity rates have been exploding here in America and medical costs have been following suit. A fatter America means a sicker America. Obesity leads to disease, its an established medical fact. In order to help promote healthier living we should expand Physical Education programs in schools. As well we should provide tax breaks for weight loss programs.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 23, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



I guess the answer is no, you haven't seen any bills or proposals that includes a public option that doesn't let a government official to dictate coverage?


----------



## oreo (Jul 23, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Frankly I'm happy to see people taking an interest in this thread, it's pretty important, now Valerie let me address your post, while that section deals with US territories is also has  zero exclusions which basically means that  without exclusions any person residing there will be treated as such. Further one paragraph up from that is the illegal alien clause...
> 
> Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments
> 6 for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are
> ...



For clarity:  It states "NON resident Alien"--I think we're talking about "resident aliens" being covered--aka illegal aliens that do in fact reside in the United States.


----------



## oreo (Jul 23, 2009)

jreeves said:


> johnrocks said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




My daughter is a nurse practitionerwho taught  nutrition classes to overweight kids in a wellness center located in a high school.  It's just like smoking--there are people addicted to overeating.  They don't know when to stop.

Sure--use education & increase physical activity in schools.  But in the end game--"you can lead a horse to water--but you can't make them drink."

_I don't believe we need to give tax incentives to take care of yourself._

To add--just the health savings plan kind of gives you incentive to do just that in the first place.  The less you end up at the doctor's office--the more money stays in your account.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 23, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



Not talking about other outside agencies, Navy. This is from the US History Encyclopeia.

To enact legislation, both the House and Senate must pass a bill *in the same language*. If they produce different versions of the bill, they appoint a conference committee to reach a compromise. Each house must then pass the conference report "up or down," with no further amendments. If the president vetoes the bill, Congress may override that veto by a two-thirds vote *in each house*....A bill will often require many years to make its way successfully to enactment. As cumbersome and frustrating as the process has seemed to activist presidents and reformers of all ideological hues, it reflects the original division of powers that the framers of the Constitution devised. Voters have regularly reinforced those divisions by electing presidents and congressional majorities from different parties, increasing the likeliness of legislative gridlock.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 23, 2009)

oreo said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Frankly I'm happy to see people taking an interest in this thread, it's pretty important, now Valerie let me address your post, while that section deals with US territories is also has  zero exclusions which basically means that  without exclusions any person residing there will be treated as such. Further one paragraph up from that is the illegal alien clause...
> ...



oreo, this bill and the one in the Senate both of which I have read, have many passages that make references to qualifications  but  have no residency requirements. There are however mant references  as to what constitutes  coverage. The portion you are talking about is self defeating, if the term shall not apply then it is rendered mute, understand?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 23, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



You read all 1200 pages?  If you did you are a fool because its not even ready yet.  

PS.  If we add the illegals to healthcare, it'll save us money, because we are going to treat them anyways.

Also, if you go to switzerland and break your arm, they'll fix you up.  Why you such a cheapass?  

I'm beginning to doubt America is the greatest country on earth.  Sure it is if you are rich, but middle class?  Its getting harder and harder to convince us that we are the best when other countries middle class have so much more.

Better healthcare, job security, benefits, etc.  What exactly are we the best at?  Oh yea, "freedom".


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 23, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



What part of  my seperation of powers posting led you to believe I was talking about an outside agency Maggie, you made the blanket statement along the lines of congress does not make laws.  So I thought it necessary to show you exactly what the seperation of powers is,  what you posted just offer further proof that, that's exactly what congress does.   While I understand the nature of your point, in that  you believe that up until there is a bill that both houses  on, there is no point on debating on seperate versions that each house is discusssing,  Well I  could not disagree with that more, especially considering the fact that , as pointed out earlier, the House as well as the Senate make reference to BOTH of these bills on a daily basis on the floor, and  in committee, and  when giving press  conferences. So until such time as the house and senate stop debating the bills that they are working from , then I will keep posting from the very same bills. When they exit from committee  with a bill that both houses have voted on, I will discuss that one too.  I do respect your opinion though Maggie


----------



## PixieStix (Jul 23, 2009)

Terry said:


> Has anyone watched this video?
> 
> YouTube - ObamaCare Yay Or Nay? The Truth About Canada!
> 
> Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Crowders magnum opus on CanadaCare


 
Please KILL me now Obama. Don't wait.

Thanks for posting the video Terri


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 23, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > oreo said:
> ...



I did actually sealy, and  I thought it very important to know where  congress is starting from because  if  they intend to take my tax dollars to pay for others healthcare I would like to know what they intend to do with it. It's called being informed.  As for Switzerland, I don't intend to travel there anytime soon so I don't see that as a possibility, I have done most of the world travel in my lifetime sealy I ever intend to do.  You know sealy, I honestly believe that if people in this nation spent a whole lot less time complaining and  expecting things, and going out making their own ways in life then all of us would be much better off.  Yes, your going to fail , thats the price of getting to the top, you learn from those failures.  You know sealy, when I retired from the  Navy, I had no idea what I was going to do with myself because the military is all I had ever known.  At first I thought, I might try the commercial airline thing for a bit, but decided that was not for me.  I looked and looked and looked and became very discouraged at times, however I kept trying until eventually ended up with my own business and am quite happy. The moral of this story is sealy is that , anyone in this nation can do for themselves if they want if bad enough. It's only when you give up and start to depend on others for your needs do you start to expect things from them. It's easy to point a finger at someone and say " look at them they have this and that and I don't" however it's a whole lot harder to go out and get those things for yourself. You know though in the end, your life will be much richer and more  fulfilled when you do.  Thats what this nation is really built on sealy, people who don't look to their neighbors  and say I want you to give me what you have, but rather, say  I'm going to go out and earn more than what you have for myself and my family.  It's our Govts. role to provide you with the environment for you to do exactly that, and not to turn you into a slave of expectations.  While I respect everyone's opinions , sometimes I think that gets lost these day's on people and it's time we all stopped looking to the Govt. for all our needs in life and earning what we have.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jul 23, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 23, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



Everything you are saying is just right wing spin.  

Our healthcare problem isn't that too many people are "complaining and expecting things".  Other than we expect to get what we pay for, and we expect not to be taken advantage of.  We're paying more and getting less than other nations.  What don't you get about that?  

That's nothing but a right wing argument and I thought you were above that sort of thing.  

See, you are a business owner and we are workers.  I don't ever expect you to see things from the Democratic point of view.  I'm not buying anything you have to sell. 

And I have insurance.  I'm not afraid my costs are going to go up a little to pay for people who aren't covered.  I also know that many of the problems with our health insurance might actually happen to me someday.  What I hear happening to millions of Americans is unacceptable to me.  

You think America not getting good ROI on our healthcare is what makes us great and free?  You seem to suggest that America is great because companies are free to take advantage of consumers.  This is a monopoly and you know it.  And you are worried that the alternative won't be as good and will cost more?  Obama said, "you just want the devil you know because you are afraid of the devil you don't know.  That's your position, bottom line.   

And you said again, "anyone in this nation can do for themselves if they want if bad enough".  What's that got to do with the price of tea in china?  

Ok, well I want my healthcare costs to go down and I want MORE from them.  Basically, I want what every other citizen in every other country gets.  

So either I:

a. Vote in the politicians that will get me what I want
b. Become a CEO or Senator and get the company/government to give it to me
c. Move to Switerland

I'll go with option 1.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Jul 23, 2009)

> Healthcare Bill Hit Parade!!



I don't like the words to the song.  I don't like the music.  It's impossible to dance to.  I would never buy this record!


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 23, 2009)

*Our healthcare problem isn't that too many people are "complaining and expecting things". Other than we expect to get what we pay for, and we expect not to be taken advantage of. We're paying more and getting less than other nations. What don't you get about that? *

 Then why do you look to the Federal Govt. to solve that problem for you, when your better able to solve that problem yourself and closer to home?  Your not getting less than other nations, you may think you are  based on what you have been told, but the reality of the situation is very different.  You know on the on the business owner, thing, I submit to you this. Not everyone  that owns a business is an elitist and has it in for the poor working guy.  In fact, I have several people that work for me  and value each of them like family.  When my business is profitable they are profitable and so am I, and visa-versa when it comes to the bad times.  I submit to you sealy it's you who are closed minded because often times  small business owners are people that started out in the factory floor and got tired of working  for someone else and  decided to be their own boss and in doing so, have not only provided a life for themselves and their families but for others as well.  The bottom line is when I see others look to the Govt. and complain that they don't have this and they don;t have that and then blame others because they don't and expect it. It tells me that they have no desire to make a difference and go get the things in life  that will make it better for themselves.  Of course you don't want to be taken advantage of, no one does, but you sealy  thats up to you! not some nameless faceless entity to do that for you.   I suppose thats the real difference between our thinking here,  in that I have never looked upon the Govt. as   place that is  to punish people for not  providing me with what I needed, but rather an entity that should create an environment  thats abundant enough for me to seek out what it is in life  I want.  Don't take that as my lack of not respecting your opinion as I repect everyone's opinion and their right to voice it, even if I may not agree with it.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 23, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Yes providing for your family and yourself is just right wing spin.


----------

