Section 1233, HR 3200 "End of Life Council/Euthenasia talk origins"

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I'm glad to see you guys are reading the language of the bill and debating over that instead of running wild with all the democrat and republican talking points.


The more I read the more overbearing this bill is on our individual freedoms.

There is another thread I made with page numbers and sections too if you're all interested.

The one I hate the most is where the govt will have the right to electronically remove funds from your bank account to cover the required co-pays under the proposed public option.

 

[Emma]

I'm glad to see you guys are reading the language of the bill and debating over that instead of running wild with all the democrat and republican talking points.


The more I read the more overbearing this bill is on our individual freedoms.

There is another thread I made with page numbers and sections too if you're all interested.

The one I hate the most is where the govt will have the right to electronically remove funds from your bank account to cover the required co-pays under the proposed public option.

Can you link to that please? I don't recall seeing anything about that, only electronic transfer of funds to and from providers.

 

[Zoom-boing]

All "life sustaining treatment" requires a physician order.

Do you have a link to the section you quoted? So I can read it all in context. Thanks.

However, there's never been a "panel" picked by the president to approve what procedures are paid for. Nor has there ever been a requirement that if older ppl want any of their medical care paid for, they have to sit through end of life counseling every 5 years.

And there's no requirement for that in this bill, either.

Are you arguing just to argue, being intentionally obtuse?

Yes there is:

‘(A) IN GENERAL- For purposes of reporting data on quality measures for covered professional services furnished during 2011 and any subsequent year, to the extent that measures are available, the Secretary shall include quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization, if appropriate. Such measures shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

Who makes up this 'consensus-based organization'?

that's answered in section 122

“Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.” This will be chaired by the Surgeon General and will have “9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the President”, “9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the Comptroller General”, and an “even number of members (not to exceed 8 ) who are Federal employees and officers, as the President may appoint.” A committe with up to 27 members, 18 of whom are picked by the President. The bill says these people will “reflect providers, consumer representatives, employers, labor, health insurance issuers, experts in health care financing and delivery, experts in racial and ethnic disparities, experts in care for those with disabilities, representatives of relevant governmental agencies, and at least one practicing physician or other health professional and an expert on children’s health”. But with no checks and balances on the selection of this group, you can only hope that absolute power does not corrupt absolutely.

 

[veritas]

‘(A) IN GENERAL- For purposes of reporting data on quality measures for covered professional services furnished during 2011 and any subsequent year, to the extent that measures are available, the Secretary shall include quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization, if appropriate. Such measures shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment.

I take that to mean, that as new advances are made and more data becomes available, they will be added to the mix and subsequently covered. This seems to be a pendente lite clause which makes the law more facile to add more features and make changes when necessary. If the bill passes and the new database is installed, then what may be an "experimental" treatment could be shown to be effective and then added as a covered procedure/drug/etc. This includes the "end of life" coverage as well. If perhaps we discover/develop better more effective palliative measures they can be added as well.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I'm glad to see you guys are reading the language of the bill and debating over that instead of running wild with all the democrat and republican talking points.


The more I read the more overbearing this bill is on our individual freedoms.

There is another thread I made with page numbers and sections too if you're all interested.

The one I hate the most is where the govt will have the right to electronically remove funds from your bank account to cover the required co-pays under the proposed public option.

Can you link to that please? I don't recall seeing anything about that, only electronic transfer of funds to and from providers.

Page 59 Text of H.R.3200 as Introduced in House: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

 

[Emma]

However, there's never been a "panel" picked by the president to approve what procedures are paid for. Nor has there ever been a requirement that if older ppl want any of their medical care paid for, they have to sit through end of life counseling every 5 years.

And there's no requirement for that in this bill, either.

Are you arguing just to argue, being intentionally obtuse?

Yes there is:

Who makes up this 'consensus-based organization'?

that's answered in section 122

“Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.” This will be chaired by the Surgeon General and will have “9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the President”, “9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the Comptroller General”, and an “even number of members (not to exceed 8 ) who are Federal employees and officers, as the President may appoint.” A committe with up to 27 members, 18 of whom are picked by the President. The bill says these people will “reflect providers, consumer representatives, employers, labor, health insurance issuers, experts in health care financing and delivery, experts in racial and ethnic disparities, experts in care for those with disabilities, representatives of relevant governmental agencies, and at least one practicing physician or other health professional and an expert on children’s health”. But with no checks and balances on the selection of this group, you can only hope that absolute power does not corrupt absolutely.

Section 122 where?

That appears to be referring to something else, not the "consensus-based organization" in the above quote.

 

[veritas]

I'm glad to see you guys are reading the language of the bill and debating over that instead of running wild with all the democrat and republican talking points.


The more I read the more overbearing this bill is on our individual freedoms.

There is another thread I made with page numbers and sections too if you're all interested.

The one I hate the most is where the govt will have the right to electronically remove funds from your bank account to cover the required co-pays under the proposed public option.

Can you link to that please? I don't recall seeing anything about that, only electronic transfer of funds to and from providers.

Page 59 Text of H.R.3200 as Introduced in House: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

How do I get to page 59? I don't see it arranged by page in that format in your link.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Can you link to that please? I don't recall seeing anything about that, only electronic transfer of funds to and from providers.

Page 59 Text of H.R.3200 as Introduced in House: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

How do I get to page 59? I don't see it arranged by page in that format in your link.

sorry i downloaded the pdf.

Here is a site that has page numers...i'll check and see if the are the same as the pdf

HR 3200

EDIT: Use google man, damn

 

[Emma]

I'm glad to see you guys are reading the language of the bill and debating over that instead of running wild with all the democrat and republican talking points.


The more I read the more overbearing this bill is on our individual freedoms.

There is another thread I made with page numbers and sections too if you're all interested.

The one I hate the most is where the govt will have the right to electronically remove funds from your bank account to cover the required co-pays under the proposed public option.

Can you link to that please? I don't recall seeing anything about that, only electronic transfer of funds to and from providers.

Page 59 Text of H.R.3200 as Introduced in House: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

Thanks. Your link didn't have page numbers, but I found it on mine. That is related to electronic transfers (funds and data) to and from providers, not consumers.

Any standard adopted under this part shall apply, in whole or in part, to the following persons:

(1) A health plan.

(2) A health care clearinghouse.

(3) A health care provider who transmits any health information in electronic form in connection with a transaction referred to in section 1320d–2 (a)(1) of this title.

US CODE: Title 42,1320d–1. General requirements for adoption of standards

 

[veritas]

Title 42 is existing US Code.



Pilgrim, c&p me a subtitle from your pdf file, wouldja?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Title 42 is existing US Code.



Pilgrim, c&p me a subtitle from your pdf file, wouldja?

ok what one?

page 59
‘‘(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in
22 order to allow automated reconciliation with the
23 related health care payment and remittance ad24
vice;

 

[veritas]

Title 42 is existing US Code.



Pilgrim, c&p me a subtitle from your pdf file, wouldja?

ok what one?

page 59
‘‘(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in
22 order to allow automated reconciliation with the
23 related health care payment and remittance ad24
vice;

The part above the (C) which indicates the Section, subsection, title, subtitle etc......

Laws aren't usually arranged by page # because stuff is added and citations are inserted and stuff is redacted all the time.


Emma's link is from existing US Code for Social Security, not HR 3200.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Subtitle G—Early Investments

3 SEC. 163. ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION.


Hey i wasn't caps locking that it was just cut/paste

 

[veritas]

This is how you would cite the specific section you are referring to:

HR 3200
TITLE I--PROTECTIONS AND STANDARDS FOR QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS
Subtitle G; Early Investments.
Section 163; Administrative simplification.


Replaces the Social Security Code Emma posted with:

‘SEC. 1173A. STANDARDIZE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS.

‘(a) Standards for Financial and Administrative Transactions-

‘(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall adopt and regularly update standards consistent with the goals described in paragraph (2).

‘(2) GOALS FOR FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS- The goals for standards under paragraph (1) are that such standards shall--

‘(A) be unique with no conflicting or redundant standards;

‘(B) be authoritative, permitting no additions or constraints for electronic transactions, including companion guides;

‘(C) be comprehensive, efficient and robust, requiring minimal augmentation by paper transactions or clarification by further communications;

15
‘(D) enable the real-time (or near real-time) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card;

1
‘(E) enable, where feasible, near real-time adjudication of claims;
1
‘(F) provide for timely acknowledgment, response, and status reporting applicable to any electronic transaction deemed appropriate by the Secretary;

1
‘(G) describe all data elements (such as reason and remark codes) in unambiguous terms, not permit optional fields, require that data elements be either required or conditioned upon set values in other fields, and prohibit additional conditions;
1
‘(H) harmonize all common data elements across administrative and clinical transaction standards.

The applicability section has to do with providers, not individuals.

 

[veritas]

ok since I see you are malleable with crap you find on the net.......I'll explain what is going on with the section you cited.........


A system will be set up whereby: both Social Security providers AND add ons to SS and private insurers will promulgate a move to implement a computerized system that can instantly indicate what coverage you have, [with a computer data card, like a credit card] IOW, it will know what your insurance is and what coverage you have. This will assist in billing. It will also streamline the claims process.

This section would change the indicated section in Title 42 so it would automatically apply to Medicare [Title 42 would be amended to reflect this] as well as the applicable providers in the section named in HR 3200. It proposes to eliminate ambiguity due to language constraints and strives to simplify and standardize nomenclature.

It does not set up an open conduit to your bank account.

 

[Emma]

Title 42 is existing US Code.



Pilgrim, c&p me a subtitle from your pdf file, wouldja?

ok what one?

page 59
‘‘(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in
22 order to allow automated reconciliation with the
23 related health care payment and remittance ad24
vice;

The part above the (C) which indicates the Section, subsection, title, subtitle etc......

Laws aren't usually arranged by page # because stuff is added and citations are inserted and stuff is redacted all the time.


Emma's link is from existing US Code for Social Security, not HR 3200.

I'm linking what is being amended:

(starts on page 57 of this link: http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf )

SEC. 163. ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION.
(a) STANDARDIZING ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Part C of title XI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 1173 the following new section:

‘‘SEC. 1173A. STANDARDIZE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS.

US CODE: Title 42,Part C—Administrative Simplification

 

[veritas]

Sorry for being snarky Pilgrim.

It's just that it's not hard for me to decipher this legal speak because I am used to doing it and it is easy for me because I like it.

Half the Senate are lawyers anyway. So.....they must be stupid lawyers [there are a lot of those] or liars [even more of those]. Anybody can run for the House, look at the gaggle of defectives in there.

Anyway, tracking down legal stuff is quite easy once you know how to do it. The interwebs make it even easier and cheaper too, free in most cases. Lawyers don't want you to know how easy it is because most of them don't have a handle on it because they are lazy fucks and they make money acting like you have to go to Hogwarts just to do what they do.

 

[veritas]

I'm linking what is being amended:

I got your six Emma and am trying to explain what it means and how it works to pilgrim.

 

[Emma]

I'm linking what is being amended:

I got your six Emma and am trying to explain what it means and how it works to pilgrim.

I should have made it clear in my post why I was linking to that. Sorry.

 

[veritas]

no apologies necessary.......we all learned something.

like why page #s aren't good for pointing people in the right direction for one......