Why Progressives always call it "Reform"

[Big Fitz]

Response to first point.

Response to second point.

Response to third point.

Summary: You don't understand the constitution from an original view, and I have neither the time nor inclination to teach you. Nor do you understand the difference between a right and a privilege. I suggest you select a course on this when you enter your senior year of high school. Your reading comprehension is kludgy at best because you have not understood the leftist rainbow at all, still. And you cannot discern between what I post and Frank posted. So yeah. This is all you get. Nothing beyond this worth addressing at this time.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The reason I'm your worst fucking nightmare is because I'm not a paid poster, not a politician, not a staffer, not here to spew RNC talking points, not a policy wonk, not on anybody's campaign or think tank.

I'm an American citizen and you made the big mistake of pissing me off enough to take an interest in what you were up to.

And it's still not "Reform"

You're a hack Frank. You accuse Greenbeard of being a paid shill with no evidence, but don't mind that Sinatra does it. Stop embarrassing yourself.

The only one I ever accuse of being paid was Jake Starkey because no one in his right mind would keep up the charade as long as Jake without getting paid for it.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What would you expect them to call it? "We're gonna fuck everything up as far as the eye can see"?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Response to first point.

Response to second point.

Response to third point.

Summary: You don't understand the constitution from an original view, and I have neither the time nor inclination to teach you. Nor do you understand the difference between a right and a privilege. I suggest you select a course on this when you enter your senior year of high school. Your reading comprehension is kludgy at best because you have not understood the leftist rainbow at all, still. And you cannot discern between what I post and Frank posted. So yeah. This is all you get. Nothing beyond this worth addressing at this time.

He challenged me to be civil and I was.

He's still playing dumb and frankly, nobody is that good of an actor, I'm done responding to him as well.

 

[Big Fitz]

What would you expect them to call it? "We're gonna fuck everything up as far as the eye can see"?

Ever hear of the Dudley Moore movie "Crazy People"? I think that's the title where an ad firm decides to just tell the truth and starts a sensation. I'll look it up some other time, bigger fish to fry now.

 

[Big Fitz]

Response to first point.

Response to second point.

Response to third point.

Summary: You don't understand the constitution from an original view, and I have neither the time nor inclination to teach you. Nor do you understand the difference between a right and a privilege. I suggest you select a course on this when you enter your senior year of high school. Your reading comprehension is kludgy at best because you have not understood the leftist rainbow at all, still. And you cannot discern between what I post and Frank posted. So yeah. This is all you get. Nothing beyond this worth addressing at this time.

He challenged me to be civil and I was.

He's still playing dumb and frankly, nobody is that good of an actor, I'm done responding to him as well.

I've spent about 5 threads dealing with his social studies teacher feeding him info and attempting to be intellectual. He's curried the favor of Dante and JBullshit it seems, so that gives you an idea of the direction this is going.

But lastly, he has earned his nickname here: Good Will Nothing because he does not understand how the world works and not the theory as understood in school books, bearing little resemblance to what's really out there in the arenas of politics, sociology and anthropology or psychology. Nor does he desire to defer to wisdom of those who have lived longer and have experienced the dismal let down that the reality is not as good as the theory. Lastly he lives up to Churchill's quote:

If you are 20 and aren't a liberal, you have no heart. If you are 30 and aren't conservative, you have no brain.

He's young so he gets the naive break from me.

 

[Woyzeck]

Response to first point.

Response to second point.

Response to third point.

Summary: You don't understand the constitution from an original view, and I have neither the time nor inclination to teach you. Nor do you understand the difference between a right and a privilege. I suggest you select a course on this when you enter your senior year of high school. Your reading comprehension is kludgy at best because you have not understood the leftist rainbow at all, still. And you cannot discern between what I post and Frank posted. So yeah. This is all you get. Nothing beyond this worth addressing at this time.

Summary: "I can't argue against this or defend my points (again! for the nth time!) so I'm going to insult and run away!"

You're full of shit Fitz, make with less preteen insults and more discussion. This tango's becoming old real quick, and while fun, you're a horrible dance partner.

Response to first point.

Response to second point.

Response to third point.

Summary: You don't understand the constitution from an original view, and I have neither the time nor inclination to teach you. Nor do you understand the difference between a right and a privilege. I suggest you select a course on this when you enter your senior year of high school. Your reading comprehension is kludgy at best because you have not understood the leftist rainbow at all, still. And you cannot discern between what I post and Frank posted. So yeah. This is all you get. Nothing beyond this worth addressing at this time.

He challenged me to be civil and I was.

He's still playing dumb and frankly, nobody is that good of an actor, I'm done responding to him as well.

And you have been, kudos to you. But, you haven't explained how your OP relates to Machiavelli. Your chose here not to respond indicates you probably weren't planning on having a discussion over it in the first place, or at least one without much opposition.

Response to first point.

Response to second point.

Response to third point.

Summary: You don't understand the constitution from an original view, and I have neither the time nor inclination to teach you. Nor do you understand the difference between a right and a privilege. I suggest you select a course on this when you enter your senior year of high school. Your reading comprehension is kludgy at best because you have not understood the leftist rainbow at all, still. And you cannot discern between what I post and Frank posted. So yeah. This is all you get. Nothing beyond this worth addressing at this time.

He challenged me to be civil and I was.

He's still playing dumb and frankly, nobody is that good of an actor, I'm done responding to him as well.

I've spent about 5 threads dealing with his social studies teacher feeding him info and attempting to be intellectual. He's curried the favor of Dante and JBullshit it seems, so that gives you an idea of the direction this is going.

But lastly, he has earned his nickname here: Good Will Nothing because he does not understand how the world works and not the theory as understood in school books, bearing little resemblance to what's really out there in the arenas of politics, sociology and anthropology or psychology. Nor does he desire to defer to wisdom of those who have lived longer and have experienced the dismal let down that the reality is not as good as the theory. Lastly he lives up to Churchill's quote:

If you are 20 and aren't a liberal, you have no heart. If you are 30 and aren't conservative, you have no brain.

He's young so he gets the naive break from me.

Well, looks like someone here has a high and mighty opinion of himself. Must suck when you're bubble bursts multiple times. I think we can both safety say that's when you leave the thread in a big huff.

Also, that quote coming from Churchill is a bit funny, seeing as he defected to the Liberal Party when he was thirty-four.

 

[JBeukema]

Please cite where Churchill said that

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Response to first point.

Response to second point.

Response to third point.

Summary: You don't understand the constitution from an original view, and I have neither the time nor inclination to teach you. Nor do you understand the difference between a right and a privilege. I suggest you select a course on this when you enter your senior year of high school. Your reading comprehension is kludgy at best because you have not understood the leftist rainbow at all, still. And you cannot discern between what I post and Frank posted. So yeah. This is all you get. Nothing beyond this worth addressing at this time.

Summary: "I can't argue against this or defend my points (again! for the nth time!) so I'm going to insult and run away!"

You're full of shit Fitz, make with less preteen insults and more discussion. This tango's becoming old real quick, and while fun, you're a horrible dance partner.

He challenged me to be civil and I was.

He's still playing dumb and frankly, nobody is that good of an actor, I'm done responding to him as well.

And you have been, kudos to you. But, you haven't explained how your OP relates to Machiavelli. Your chose here not to respond indicates you probably weren't planning on having a discussion over it in the first place, or at least one without much opposition.

He challenged me to be civil and I was.

He's still playing dumb and frankly, nobody is that good of an actor, I'm done responding to him as well.

I've spent about 5 threads dealing with his social studies teacher feeding him info and attempting to be intellectual. He's curried the favor of Dante and JBullshit it seems, so that gives you an idea of the direction this is going.

But lastly, he has earned his nickname here: Good Will Nothing because he does not understand how the world works and not the theory as understood in school books, bearing little resemblance to what's really out there in the arenas of politics, sociology and anthropology or psychology. Nor does he desire to defer to wisdom of those who have lived longer and have experienced the dismal let down that the reality is not as good as the theory. Lastly he lives up to Churchill's quote:

If you are 20 and aren't a liberal, you have no heart. If you are 30 and aren't conservative, you have no brain.

He's young so he gets the naive break from me.

Well, looks like someone here has a high and mighty opinion of himself. Must suck when you're bubble bursts multiple times. I think we can both safety say that's when you leave the thread in a big huff.

Also, that quote coming from Churchill is a bit funny, seeing as he defected to the Liberal Party when he was thirty-four.

I didn't leave. I find it pointless to repeat the same thought to someone who cannot understand it. I feel sorry for the electrons I wasted in the first 2 attempts.

Going from a constitutionally limited government with enumerated powers to one that is going to track how much you weigh may be called many things, but "Reform" isn't one of them

 

[Greenbeard]

...to one that is going to track how much you weigh ...

Stop embarrassing yourself. It's really just getting sad.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

...to one that is going to track how much you weigh ...

Stop embarrassing yourself. It's really just getting sad.

But you said tracking weight and body mass is just like building a Federal Road? Can you pick a story and stick with it?

 

[Greenbeard]

You're either very dishonest or very stupid. I imagine it's a bit of both.

As I said, developing health information exchanges at the state level (which is what every state is doing right now) is infrastructure development. Think of it as broadband expansion, since in fact extending broadband to unconnected areas is part of building HIE. Most are being governed by public-private partnerships, though in none is the state government's role negligible. Every state is building across five domains right now; HIE development is significantly more than just transitioning away from paper.

Does the government track how much you weigh? No. Do they track your height or blood pressure or smoking status simply because it's in your heath record? No. Not only are the vital signs in EHRs completely unrelated to the clinical quality measures that will be reported (to state Medicaid agencies for Medicaid providers or CMS for Medicare providers), the CQMs that do get passed on are reported in a de-identified way. Population health measures don't allow you to track an individual, they allow you to track the health of the--wait for it--population. And, then, of course there's the obvious point that this has nothing to do with health reform, it's from the HITECH Act which passed 17 months ago.

But you've found yourself a shiny new false talking point and I imagine you'll keep parroting it until you're blue in the face. Save your "I don't always get it right, but I here to talk it through and trade ideas with people all over this once great country" bullshit this time. It's becoming clear that your ignorance about the issues you like to spout off on isn't an accident, it's willful. I'm not sure why else you would completely distort what I explained to you in the other thread. Oh right, the stupid/dishonest mix.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You're either very dishonest or very stupid. I imagine it's a bit of both.

As I said, developing health information exchanges at the state level (which is what every state is doing right now) is infrastructure development. Think of it as broadband expansion, since in fact extending broadband to unconnected areas is part of building HIE. Most are being governed by public-private partnerships, though in none is the state government's role negligible. Every state is building across five domains right now; HIE development is significantly more than just transitioning away from paper.

Does the government track how much you weigh? No. Do they track your height or blood pressure or smoking status simply because it's in your heath record? No. Not only are the vital signs in EHRs completely unrelated to the clinical quality measures that will be reported (to state Medicaid agencies for Medicaid providers or CMS for Medicare providers), the CQMs that do get passed on are reported in a de-identified way. Population health measures don't allow you to track an individual, they allow you to track the health of the--wait for it--population. And, then, of course there's the obvious point that this has nothing to do with health reform, it's from the HITECH Act which passed 17 months ago.

But you've found yourself a shiny new false talking point and I imagine you'll keep parroting it until you're blue in the face. Save your "I don't always get it right, but I here to talk it through and trade ideas with people all over this once great country" bullshit this time. It's becoming clear that your ignorance about the issues you like to spout off on isn't an accident, it's willful. I'm not sure why else you would completely distort what I explained to you in the other thread. Oh right, the stupid/dishonest mix.

I'm going to say it one last time: I see no basis in the US Constitution for the Federal Government to track any of this information.

It's not about states

It's not about insurance companies

It's not about me and my useless doctor.

It is not the business of the Federal Government to issue a directive tracking how much people weigh or their BMI.

You've gone at it a number of ways: that, gee, it's just like building a federal road or that the information is not that relevant or useful and I repeat.

It is not the business of the Federal Government to issue a directive tracking how much people weigh.

It is unConstitutional and when SCOTUS strikes down ObamaCare next year they should issue a directive reinvigorating my 4th Amendment right and tell the Federal Government to mind it's own fucking business.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

 

[Greenbeard]

It is unConstitutional and SCOTUS when SCOTUS strikes down ObamaCare next year they should issue a directive reinvigorating my 4th Amendment right and tell the Federal Government to mind it's own fucking business.

1) Do you have an EHR?
2) Is your doctor eligible for EHR incentive payments (i.e. is one of his primary payers the federal government?)
3) Is he going to pursue those incentive payments?

If the answer to any of the above is no, this has jack shit to do with you.

Let's go over this again: HIEs are being built by state governments. With the exception of doctors incentivized through Medicare, quality reporting (which, again, doesn't cover BMI) is done to the state government. This is why HIE development in every single state is unique to that state. Florida is beefing up FHIN, Delaware is enhancing DHIN, Indiana is taking IHIE statewide, Colorado is shopping the project out to CORHIO, and so on. The federal role has been to provide grant money and guidance to insurance alignment (just as federally-spurred state collaboration on HISPC will be informing state revisions of privacy laws to eventually make interstate exchange possible).

Your medical records, electronic or otherwise, are subject to your state's privacy laws and the feds don't have access to your personal health information. The Fourth Amendment is in in full effect. Try again.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It is unConstitutional and SCOTUS when SCOTUS strikes down ObamaCare next year they should issue a directive reinvigorating my 4th Amendment right and tell the Federal Government to mind it's own fucking business.

1) Do you have an EHR?
2) Is your doctor eligible for EHR incentive payments (i.e. is one of his primary payers the federal government?)
3) Is he going to pursue those incentive payments?

If the answer to any of the above is no, this has jack shit to do with you.

Let's go over this again: HIEs are being built by state governments. With the exception of doctors incentivized through Medicare, quality reporting (which, again, doesn't cover BMI) is done to the state government. This is why HIE development in every single state is unique to that state. Florida is beefing up FHIN, Delaware is enhancing DHIN, Indiana is taking IHIE statewide, Colorado is shopping the project out to CORHIO, and so on. The federal role has been to provide grant money and guidance to insurance alignment (just as federally-spurred state collaboration on HISPC will be informing state revisions of privacy laws to eventually make interstate exchange possible).

Your medical records, electronic or otherwise, are subject to your state's privacy laws and the feds don't have access to your personal health information. The Fourth Amendment is in in full effect. Try again.

Thanks again for demonstrating so clearly the central thesis of thesis thread, that Progressives hide massive changes under the guise of "Reform" and lie about it non-stop.

This is a FEDERAL DIRECTIVE, a FEDERAL DIRECTIVE, a FEDERAL DIRECTIVE, that applies to ALL AMERICANS, so your lies are once again laid bare for all to see

"(CNSNews.com) – New federal regulations issued this week stipulate that the electronic health records--that all Americans are supposed to have by 2014 under the terms of the stimulus law that President Barack Obama signed last year--must record not only the traditional measures of height and weight, but also the Body Mass Index: a measure of obesity."

CNSNews.com - Obesity Rating for Every American Must Be Included in Stimulus-Mandated Electronic Health Records, Says HHS

HIT Standards 170.302

I want to go back to paying my doctor in cash after he makes a house call.

Medicare and Medicaid has totally changed the relationship between doctor and patient by eliminating the individual as the paying customer.

That's wrong and that's going to change.

 

[MIPS]

It is unConstitutional and SCOTUS when SCOTUS strikes down ObamaCare next year they should issue a directive reinvigorating my 4th Amendment right and tell the Federal Government to mind it's own fucking business.

1) Do you have an EHR?
2) Is your doctor eligible for EHR incentive payments (i.e. is one of his primary payers the federal government?)
3) Is he going to pursue those incentive payments?

If the answer to any of the above is no, this has jack shit to do with you.

Let's go over this again: HIEs are being built by state governments. With the exception of doctors incentivized through Medicare, quality reporting (which, again, doesn't cover BMI) is done to the state government. This is why HIE development in every single state is unique to that state. Florida is beefing up FHIN, Delaware is enhancing DHIN, Indiana is taking IHIE statewide, Colorado is shopping the project out to CORHIO, and so on. The federal role has been to provide grant money and guidance to insurance alignment (just as federally-spurred state collaboration on HISPC will be informing state revisions of privacy laws to eventually make interstate exchange possible).

Your medical records, electronic or otherwise, are subject to your state's privacy laws and the feds don't have access to your personal health information. The Fourth Amendment is in in full effect. Try again.

Thanks again for demonstrating so clearly the central thesis of thesis thread, that Progressives hide massive changes under the guise of "Reform" and lie about it non-stop.

This is a FEDERAL DIRECTIVE, a FEDERAL DIRECTIVE, a FEDERAL DIRECTIVE, that applies to ALL AMERICANS, so your lies are once again laid bare for all to see

"(CNSNews.com) – New federal regulations issued this week stipulate that the electronic health records--that all Americans are supposed to have by 2014 under the terms of the stimulus law that President Barack Obama signed last year--must record not only the traditional measures of height and weight, but also the Body Mass Index: a measure of obesity."

CNSNews.com - Obesity Rating for Every American Must Be Included in Stimulus-Mandated Electronic Health Records, Says HHS

HIT Standards 170.302

I want to go back to paying my doctor in cash after he makes a house call.

Medicare and Medicaid has totally changed the relationship between doctor and patient by eliminating the individual as the paying customer.

That's wrong and that's going to change.

Nice Frank, you're arguing with someone against imprisoning them-self to government that actively wants to imprison them-self to government.. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT personally I think you'd get a more sensible answer from a microbe, but I admire your courage.

Keep fighting the good fight.......RESTORING HONOR 8/28

 

[Greenbeard]

This is a FEDERAL DIRECTIVE, a FEDERAL DIRECTIVE, a FEDERAL DIRECTIVE, that applies to ALL AMERICANS, so your lies are once again laid bare for all to see

Shocking that someone relying on CNS news wouldn't have any idea what's going on.

Meaningful use is a benchmark for the feds--as a payer--to make bonus payments to those providers who see their patients and become meaningful users of EHRs. Medicare/Medicaid providers aren't required to become meaningful users, though Medicare providers who don't start using EHRs in the next decade face a 1% reduction in the physician fee schedule.

The HIE development work states are doing in parallel to that incentives program is designed to allow for everyone to eventually have an EHR (no one can have a car if the state government hasn't built any roads--get the analogy now?). That doesn't mean everyone is required to have one, nor is every provider required to be a meaningful user. But the intention is that growing adoption of EHRs (with assistance from 60 Regional Extension Centers around the country that are helping providers to select, install, and start using EHRs) will happen and it will happen in accordance with the new meaningful use rules so that they all have similar capabilities.

Meaningful use is intended to be the gold standard of EHR functionality in the United States. But adherence is only required of select eligible providers who want to get bonus payments for meeting those standards.

But, yes, the hope is that in a decade most of the population has an electronic health record (whose contents are readily available to them at any time, i.e. making it a personal health record over which you have some degree of control), protected under new state privacy and security laws, that at least meets basic meaningful use functionality. Why? Cost containment and quality improvement. Two things most reasonable people desire in our health care system.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is a FEDERAL DIRECTIVE, a FEDERAL DIRECTIVE, a FEDERAL DIRECTIVE, that applies to ALL AMERICANS, so your lies are once again laid bare for all to see

Shocking that someone relying on CNS news wouldn't have any idea what's going on.

Meaningful use is a benchmark for the feds--as a payer--to make bonus payments to those providers who see their patients and become meaningful users of EHRs. Medicare/Medicaid providers aren't required to become meaningful users, though Medicare providers who don't start using EHRs in the next decade face a 1% reduction in the physician fee schedule.

The HIE development work states are doing in parallel to that incentives program is designed to allow for everyone to eventually have an EHR (no one can have a car if the state government hasn't built any roads--get the analogy now?). That doesn't mean everyone is required to have one, nor is every provider required to be a meaningful user. But the intention is that growing adoption of EHRs (with assistance from 60 Regional Extension Centers around the country that are helping providers to select, install, and start using EHRs) will happen and it will happen in accordance with the new meaningful use rules so that they all have similar capabilities.

Meaningful use is intended to be the gold standard of EHR functionality in the United States. But adherence is only required of select eligible providers who want to get bonus payments for meeting those standards.

But, yes, the hope is that in a decade most of the population has an electronic health record (whose contents are readily available to them at any time, i.e. making it a personal health record over which you have some degree of control), protected under new state privacy and security laws, that at least meets basic meaningful use functionality. Why? Cost containment and quality improvement. Two things most reasonable people desire in our health care system.

Yes, I get it. You've been boiling the frog one degree at a time and now we're out of the pan.

You've described the Progressives Utopia where the government gets to track the activities of every citizen (Subjects or conquered also works)

You're calling it "reform" because that's how the Interstate Highway system works and you need car insurance because it's all good under the "Good and Welfare" clause. Yeah, makes sense. Sure.

 

[Greenbeard]

You've described the Progressives Utopia where the government gets to track the activities of every citizen (Subjects or conquered also works)

You're embarrassing yourself again. But I'll take your vacuous responses as a tacit admission that you're in over you head in this area and have no idea how to discuss HIE issues.

You're calling it "reform"...

No. I'm explicitly not calling it reform. "Health care reform" refers to something else. Are you even reading my posts?

 

[Big Fitz]

Good luck to you Frank. I'm leaving these two crackpots to crow their 'victory' on the hill of bullshit they spewed. I have better ways to spend my time than listen to a pair of Special Ed's repeat "I'VE GOT MAIL!!!" for 30 posts and thinking they won something.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8dAz6hTXuU]YouTube - Special ed - I got mail[/ame]

Go ahead guys. Have the last word alll to yourself. I'm not keeping you company anymore on this.