Re: Democrat Leadership Scam in Progress (Pray for our Country)
John Galt
> Now, I will start by praising a Democrat. Sen. Nelson held up the
> health bill to get protection against govt funded abortions. Praise
> God. He is a man of principle to do that in spite of his own party's
> pressures.
>
> Now, there is a Democrat LEADERship scam in progress. From this
> article...
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/23/pain-gain-health-care-overhaul/
>
> ...we read that the taxes and medicare cuts to pay for the health bill
> will start right away, while the benefits from the bill won't come
> till 2013.
>
> Now, why would they do that, if the coverage was their goal. The
> answer is that it is NOT their goal. I've never known a politician
> that raised a tax and used that tax money exclusively for what it was
> raised. So, here's what is REALLY going to happen. They will raise
> these taxes and have these cuts and move the money to discretionary
> spending to be used to lower the deficit. Then, they will tell you in
> 2012 that you need to elect Obama to actually get the benefits for
> which you'd been taxed. Yet, after the election, they'll tell you
> there isn't enough money (since they stole it) and a NEW TAX will be
> required.
And the GOP will say that they'll turn right around and cut the
taxpayers a check from what was taken from them in the new health care
taxes.
I'm bettin' the taxpayers will take the check.
JG
>
> Politicians suck. As I've said before, those in power are there
> because God allowed it, and he can direct them or remove them. Pray
> for our country.
>
> Kenneth W Clifton
Sueki Tartridge
> The_Carpathia wrote:
> > Now, I will start by praising a Democrat. Sen. Nelson held up the
> > health bill to get protection against govt funded abortions. Praise
> > God. He is a man of principle to do that in spite of his own party's
> > pressures.
>
> > Now, there is a Democrat LEADERship scam in progress. From this
> > article...
>
>
> > ...we read that the taxes and medicare cuts to pay for the health bill
> > will start right away, while the benefits from the bill won't come
> > till 2013.
>
> > Now, why would they do that, if the coverage was their goal. The
> > answer is that it is NOT their goal. I've never known a politician
> > that raised a tax and used that tax money exclusively for what it was
> > raised. So, here's what is REALLY going to happen. They will raise
> > these taxes and have these cuts and move the money to discretionary
> > spending to be used to lower the deficit. Then, they will tell you in
> > 2012 that you need to elect Obama to actually get the benefits for
> > which you'd been taxed. Yet, after the election, they'll tell you
> > there isn't enough money (since they stole it) and a NEW TAX will be
> > required.
>
> And the GOP will say that they'll turn right around and cut the
> taxpayers a check from what was taken from them in the new health care
> taxes.
>
> I'm bettin' the taxpayers will take the check.
>
> JG
>
>
>
>
>
> > Politicians suck. As I've said before, those in power are there
> > because God allowed it, and he can direct them or remove them. Pray
> > for our country.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I bet you will too.
Bob LeChevalier
>Now, I will start by praising a Democrat. Sen. Nelson held up the
>health bill to get protection against govt funded abortions. Praise
>God. He is a man of principle to do that in spite of his own party's
>pressures.
Of course, what really convinced him was the extra $100 million that
went to Nebraska for Medicaid funding, since the changes related to
abortion weren't all that significant.
>Now, there is a Democrat LEADERship scam in progress.
no, just a Kennie ignorance event.
>From this article...
>
>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/23/pain-gain-health-care-overhaul/
Note the source. Relying on faux news, you get faux information.
>...we read that the taxes and medicare cuts to pay for the health bill
>will start right away, while the benefits from the bill won't come
>till 2013.
Wrong. Read the bill, or at least a decent summary of the pieces,
with the dates:
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/housesenatebill_final.pdf
Here are some of the provisions that provide benefits within the next
year.
The Senate bill extends dependent coverage to all kids up to age 26,
effective 6 months after passage. The House bill goes up to age 27,
effective on 1 January 2010.
The Senate bill requires health plans to report the proportion of
premium dollars spent on clinical services, quality, and other costs
and to provide rebates to consumers for the amount of the premium
spent on clinical services and quality that is less than 85% for plans
in the large group market and 80% for plans in the individual and
small group markets. (Requirement to report medical loss ratio
effective plan year 2010; requirement to provide
rebates effective January 1, 2011)
The Senate bill, for tax years 2010 through 2013, provides a tax
credit of up to 35% of the employer�s contribution toward the
employee�s health insurance premium if the employer contributes at
least 50% of the total premium cost or 50% of a benchmark premium. The
full credit will be available to employers with 10 or fewer employees
and average annual wages of less than $25,000. The credit phases-out
as firm size and average wage increases. Tax-exempt small businesses
meeting these requirements are eligible for tax credits of up to 25%
of the employer�s contribution toward the employee�s health insurance
premium. The House bill has a similar provision, but it doesn't start
until 2013.
Both bills: Starting 3 months after passage, there is a reinsurance
program for employers to cover workers age 55 to 65 not covered by
Medicare.
Both bills set up a high risk pool for people with problems getting
insurance. In the Senate bill, the premium amount paid by the insured
is limited to the maximum HSA amount, and it is subsidized for lower
incomes. In the House bill, the maximum premium is $5000, and there
is a $1500 deductible.
The Senate bill starts this 90 days after passage; the House bill
starts it 1 Jan 2010.
Both bills prohibit insurers from rescinding coverage, except in cases
of fraud, effective 6 months after passage.
>Now, why would they do that,
They don't, so that is a silly question.
>I've never known a politician
>that raised a tax and used that tax money exclusively for what it was
>raised.
Just shows how little you know.
>So, here's what is REALLY going to happen.
We know the answer: Kennie is going to lie again.
>They will raise
>these taxes and have these cuts and move the money to discretionary
>spending to be used to lower the deficit. Then, they will tell you in
>2012 that you need to elect Obama to actually get the benefits for
>which you'd been taxed. Yet, after the election, they'll tell you
>there isn't enough money (since they stole it) and a NEW TAX will be
>required.
Sure enough, Kennie lies again.
>Politicians suck.
Kennie sucks.
>As I've said before, those in power are there because God allowed it,
They are there because we elected them. Blaming God merely abdicates
responsibility.
>and he can direct them
Given free will, that is unlikely.
>or remove them.
Sudden politician death syndrome?
I prefer the electorate doing the removing.
>Pray for our country.
I would likely be praying for exactly the opposite of what you pray
for our country, so you probably don't really want me to do so.
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
JayPee Vee
...
> Politicians suck. As I've said before, those in power are there
> because God allowed it, and he can direct them or remove them. Pray
> for our country.
Your god has nothing to do with those in power.
Take your religious rant to a more appropriate discussion group.
Unless you "think" that god approved of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot...
In which case, your god is a nasty piece of shit.
Stile4aly
> The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Now, I will start by praising a Democrat. Sen. Nelson held up the
> >health bill to get protection against govt funded abortions. Praise
> >God. He is a man of principle to do that in spite of his own party's
> >pressures.
>
> Of course, what really convinced him was the extra $100 million that
> went to Nebraska for Medicaid funding, since the changes related to
> abortion weren't all that significant.
>
> >Now, there is a Democrat LEADERship scam in progress.
>
> no, just a Kennie ignorance event.
>
> >From this article...
>
Facts have a liberal bias.
Michael Coburn
This is actually a VERY big deal. Consumers can shop for health
insurance by looking at how much the companies are skimming off of the
premiums. The higher the "medical loss ratio" the better the insurance.
No more lying and tap dancing.
> The Senate bill, for tax years 2010 through 2013, provides a tax credit
> of up to 35% of the employer’s contribution toward the employee’s
health
> insurance premium if the employer contributes at least 50% of the total
> premium cost or 50% of a benchmark premium. The full credit will be
> available to employers with 10 or fewer employees and average annual
> wages of less than $25,000. The credit phases-out as firm size and
> average wage increases. Tax-exempt small businesses meeting these
> requirements are eligible for tax credits of up to 25% of the
employer’s
> contribution toward the employee’s health insurance premium. The House
> bill has a similar provision, but it doesn't start until 2013.
>
> Both bills: Starting 3 months after passage, there is a reinsurance
> program for employers to cover workers age 55 to 65 not covered by
> Medicare.
>
> Both bills set up a high risk pool for people with problems getting
> insurance. In the Senate bill, the premium amount paid by the insured
> is limited to the maximum HSA amount, and it is subsidized for lower
> incomes.
That appears to be incorrect. But it is almost impossible to interpret
the legalese in the bill to find out how the premiums will be determined
or what the co-payments will be. Given one interpretation the provision
is totally worthless and given other interpretations the provision has
merit. With still other interpretations this provision encourages people
to drop their current insurance for 6 months in order to qualify for the
government plan, or to simply drop all coverage and then sign up for
government insurance if and when something happens to them. This
provision needs to be presented in a human intelligible form. The
current presentation sucks and the language in the bill sucks.
> In the House bill, the maximum premium is $5000, and there is
> a $1500 deductible.
And in the Senate version is impossible to tell what the "maximum
premium" will be and it appears to be way too much for people between 55
and 65 years of age.
> The Senate bill starts this 90 days after passage; the House bill starts
> it 1 Jan 2010.
The Senate is a rich bitch loving lobby butt sucking institution. There
is no reason to expect anything out of the Senate that is _GOOD_ for
middle class Americans unless the slime balls are forced to vote on a
measure crafted by the House and not subject to change by the lying pigs
in the Senate.
> Both bills prohibit insurers from rescinding coverage, except in cases
> of fraud, effective 6 months after passage.
This is a BIG reason For passage right here. It is a major step forward
in health care in this country. It is _MORE_ important than pre-existing
conditions.
It's a long time to 2013. We take what we can get immediately and work
on the 2013 stuff after the bill passes.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Bob LeChevalier
>On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:22:49 -0500, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> Wrong. Read the bill, or at least a decent summary of the pieces, with
>> the dates:
>>
>> http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/housesenatebill_final.pdf
>> Both bills set up a high risk pool for people with problems getting
>> insurance. In the Senate bill, the premium amount paid by the insured
>> is limited to the maximum HSA amount, and it is subsidized for lower
>> incomes.
>
>That appears to be incorrect.
I abbreviated, perhaps incorrectly.
>But it is almost impossible to interpret
>the legalese in the bill to find out how the premiums will be determined
>or what the co-payments will be.
If the kff report is correct, the premium amount seems to be quite
clear:
<The premium credits will be tied to the second lowest-cost silver plan
< in the area and will be set on a sliding scale such that the premium
< contributions are limited to 2.8% of income for those at 100% FPL to
< 9.8% of income for those between 300-400% FPL, except that for those
< with incomes between 100 and 133% FPL, the premium contribution is
< limited to 2% of income.
It doesn't seem to specify co-payments. The 4 benefit plans have
different percentages of total costs covered, ranging from 60% to 90%
but with a total out of pocket limited to the HSA maximum (which is
around $6000 for individuals or $12000 for families), or some lower
percentage thereof for people with lower incomes. This applies to all
four tiers. For those under 400% of FPL, the maximum out of pocket is
reduced further to between 1/3 and 2/3 of the HSA maximum.
There is a lower limit for small group plans, of $2000 individual and
$4000 for families.
>Given one interpretation the provision
>is totally worthless and given other interpretations the provision has
>merit. With still other interpretations this provision encourages people
>to drop their current insurance for 6 months in order to qualify for the
>government plan, or to simply drop all coverage and then sign up for
>government insurance if and when something happens to them.
The Senate bill doesn't have a government plan, unless you are talking
about the temporary high risk pool that goes until the exchanges are
set up in 2014. For that pool, the maximum out of pocket is the HSA
maximum. Premiums are less clear. Eligibility requires BOTH 6 months
without insurance AND a "preexisting condition".
>This
>provision needs to be presented in a human intelligible form. The
>current presentation sucks and the language in the bill sucks.
I doubt that it will be made more clear (to non-lawyers).
>> In the House bill, the maximum premium is $5000, and there is
>> a $1500 deductible.
>
>And in the Senate version is impossible to tell what the "maximum
>premium" will be
It appears to be 9.8% of income or lower with those less than 400%
FPL. For those with higher income, it isn't clear whether there is no
limit, or the 9.8% limit. The House bill seems to be similar but with
a 12% of income limit.
>and it appears to be way too much for people between 55
>and 65 years of age.
Why would their premium need to be any different from any other age,
provided that their out of pocket and percentage of income limits are
also the same as for anyone else?
>It's a long time to 2013. We take what we can get immediately and work
>on the 2013 stuff after the bill passes.
I think that the reason for 2013 is that they have to implement a
whole bunch of reporting rules (which have earlier effective dates) in
order to have the data to enforce all those numerical limits.
My wife is a programmer for an insurance company, and implementing
those reports will be a nightmare that will take some amount of time.
As I understand it, if insurance companies only wrote a couple of
policies, it might be easy, but in the worst case it is a separate
report for each plan variant (because each has its own bells and
whistles), and then some sort of program that provides the totals and
averages that the government requires. And the accountants have to
give specs before the programmers can even get started.
The best comparison was the implementation of HIPAA,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipaa
which was passed back in 1996. Most of the provisions were supposed
to take effect in 2003-2004 and some as late as 2007 to take effect.
But the effort was sufficiently difficult that things due in 2003 were
still not fully implemented a year late (and per Wikipedia are still
not). Despite all this time, and the extensions that were granted,
her company was under constant crunch for a couple of years, and
eventually had to hire it out.
Compared to HIPAA, 2013-2014 is a rush job, and I'm not sure it will
be any easier (especially since the HIPAA rules don't go away, and
they may make implementing the new stuff more difficult).
Michael Coburn
But none of that applies to the "risk pool" immediate happening which is
the true object of my interest. In the next 3 years, lots of stuff can
change.
>>Given one interpretation the provision is totally worthless and given
>>other interpretations the provision has merit. With still other
>>interpretations this provision encourages people to drop their current
>>insurance for 6 months in order to qualify for the government plan, or
>>to simply drop all coverage and then sign up for government insurance if
>>and when something happens to them.
>
> The Senate bill doesn't have a government plan, unless you are talking
> about the temporary high risk pool that goes until the exchanges are set
> up in 2014. For that pool, the maximum out of pocket is the HSA
> maximum. Premiums are less clear. Eligibility requires BOTH 6 months
> without insurance AND a "preexisting condition".
This "high risk" pool is _THE_ part of the legislation that will go into
effect immediately and it seems to say that many of us would be fools to
pay for insurance. Between now and 2013 if we have no insurance and
something really bad happens to us then, at that point, we will be unable
to get insurance in the open market because of a "preexisting condition"
and this will qualify us for the "high risk" pool. So who is going to be
dumb enough to pay for insurance if you don't need it. And if you HAVE
insurance you disqualify yourself for the "high risk" government assisted
insurance pool????
My interpretation is that it is a ruse. The premiums are going to be so
high that no person could ever pay them and or the $9B set asside for it
will be gone very quickly.
>>This
>>provision needs to be presented in a human intelligible form. The
>>current presentation sucks and the language in the bill sucks.
>
> I doubt that it will be made more clear (to non-lawyers).
The Senators are given a "plain English" version and I think the rest of
us should get the same thing. I do not intend to try to stop the bill.
I just want to know what it does regarding the immediate "high risk"
pool.
>>> In the House bill, the maximum premium is $5000, and there is a $1500
>>> deductible.
>>
>>And in the Senate version is impossible to tell what the "maximum
>>premium" will be
>
> It appears to be 9.8% of income or lower with those less than 400% FPL.
> For those with higher income, it isn't clear whether there is no limit,
> or the 9.8% limit. The House bill seems to be similar but with a 12% of
> income limit.
That does not apply to the IMMEDIATE "risk pool" portion of the bill.
>>and it appears to be way too much for people between 55 and 65 years of
>>age.
>
> Why would their premium need to be any different from any other age,
> provided that their out of pocket and percentage of income limits are
> also the same as for anyone else?
The Senate _says_ 4 times as much and the house _says_ 2 times as much.
My only interest in this bill is what it does _NOW_. The House, as far as
I am concerned, should stamp the bill and give it to Obama for
signature. And the next step is to create a NEW bill that provides a
Pubic Option as an add on to what will have already been passed into
_LAW_ by virtue of the current Senate bill. In my opinion the Public
Option should be put on line in both legalese and plain English so that
the Republicans can't lie about it. And then every Representative should
be forced to an up or down vote on THAT as a stand alone bill that is
simply added to the current law created by the Senate bill. The Public
Option bill should be put before congress and the people in August of
2010.
There is no such thing in this republic as a permanent law by
legislation. Only the constitution and its amendments take on the
character of "permanence". All else can be changed by the sitting
legislature as they see fit. Every legislature is at all times sovereign
and can alter, repeal, or add to the current body of law with the
signature of the president. The legislature can even make law over the
objection of the president but this is not the norm.
MACK DADDY
> Now, I will start by praising a Democrat. Sen. Nelson held up the
> health bill to get protection against govt funded abortions. Praise
> God. He is a man of principle to do that in spite of his own party's
> pressures.
>
> article...
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/23/pain-gain-health-care-over...
>
> ...we read that the taxes and medicare cuts to pay for the health bill
> will start right away, while the benefits from the bill won't come
> till 2013.
>
> that raised a tax and used that tax money exclusively for what it was
> these taxes and have these cuts and move the money to discretionary
> spending to be used to lower the deficit. Then, they will tell you in
> 2012 that you need to elect Obama to actually get the benefits for
> which you'd been taxed. Yet, after the election, they'll tell you
> there isn't enough money (since they stole it) and a NEW TAX will be
> required.
>
> because God allowed it, and he can direct them or remove them. Pray
> for our country.
>
Are they really planning on making cuts to Medicare? I thought the
whole plan to help insure more people was based on the premise of
expanding Medicare. I still think the polititians are fools for not
heading in the direction of Single Payer. Canada has a pretty decent
model for it, they only spend 55% as much on health care as we do and
their quality of care is just as good if not better.
Bob LeChevalier
>>>Given one interpretation the provision is totally worthless and given
>>>other interpretations the provision has merit. With still other
>>>interpretations this provision encourages people to drop their current
>>>insurance for 6 months in order to qualify for the government plan, or
>>>to simply drop all coverage and then sign up for government insurance if
>>>and when something happens to them.
>>
>> The Senate bill doesn't have a government plan, unless you are talking
>> about the temporary high risk pool that goes until the exchanges are set
>> up in 2014. For that pool, the maximum out of pocket is the HSA
>> maximum. Premiums are less clear. Eligibility requires BOTH 6 months
>> without insurance AND a "preexisting condition".
>
>This "high risk" pool is _THE_ part of the legislation that will go into
>effect immediately and it seems to say that many of us would be fools to
>pay for insurance.
That is the kind of logic that tells someone to quit their job and go
on welfare simply because they can.
> Between now and 2013 if we have no insurance and
>something really bad happens to us then, at that point, we will be unable
>to get insurance in the open market because of a "preexisting condition"
>and this will qualify us for the "high risk" pool.
That's nice. So while you enter the bureaucratic process to enroll in
this insurance, you either aren't getting treated, or you are
self-paying. Not a wise idea if "something really bad" has happened.
Filling out forms while you are in a coma is pretty difficult.
Forcing a company to insure you against a preexisting condition does
not mean that the company pays your preexisting medical bills from
before you enrolled.
And there is no reason to believe that the high risk pool will be any
cheaper than the open market, much less free. The subsidy is just
designed to bring premiums to "normal". $9 billion over 3-4 years
wouldn't go far at all as a general subsidy for the 30 million
currently uninsured, even without people gaming the system.
>So who is going to be
>dumb enough to pay for insurance if you don't need it. And if you HAVE
>insurance you disqualify yourself for the "high risk" government assisted
>insurance pool????
Which is likely not going to be as good as your current insurance.
>My interpretation is that it is a ruse. The premiums are going to be so
>high that no person could ever pay them and or the $9B set asside for it
>will be gone very quickly.
I understand that the subsidy will only serve to bring the premiums
down to what you would pay if you did not have the preexisting
condition. That's what makes sense.
>>>This
>>>provision needs to be presented in a human intelligible form. The
>>>current presentation sucks and the language in the bill sucks.
>>
>> I doubt that it will be made more clear (to non-lawyers).
>
>The Senators are given a "plain English" version
By whom?
>>>> In the House bill, the maximum premium is $5000, and there is a $1500
>>>> deductible.
>>>
>>>And in the Senate version is impossible to tell what the "maximum
>>>premium" will be
>>
>> It appears to be 9.8% of income or lower with those less than 400% FPL.
>> For those with higher income, it isn't clear whether there is no limit,
>> or the 9.8% limit. The House bill seems to be similar but with a 12% of
>> income limit.
>
>That does not apply to the IMMEDIATE "risk pool" portion of the bill.
The stop-gap risk pool does not appear to have any low-income subsidy
specific to that plan, just the subsidy to counter the effects of
being "high risk". You'll have to pay full price, until the general
income-subsidy takes effect.
>>>and it appears to be way too much for people between 55 and 65 years of
>>>age.
>>
>> Why would their premium need to be any different from any other age,
>> provided that their out of pocket and percentage of income limits are
>> also the same as for anyone else?
>
>The Senate _says_ 4 times as much and the house _says_ 2 times as much.
as the lowest prices, which are typically for a perfectly healthy
20-something with no conditions whatsoever.
>My only interest in this bill is what it does _NOW_.
It doesn't do anything until it goes through conference and gets
signed.
>The House, as far as
>I am concerned, should stamp the bill and give it to Obama for
>signature.
They won't.
>And the next step is to create a NEW bill that provides a
>Pubic Option as an add on to what will have already been passed into
>_LAW_ by virtue of the current Senate bill. In my opinion the Public
>Option should be put on line in both legalese and plain English so that
>the Republicans can't lie about it.
They'd still lie about it.
>And then every Representative should
>be forced to an up or down vote on THAT as a stand alone bill that is
>simply added to the current law created by the Senate bill.
There is no way to "force" such a vote, and in fact no way to stop a
filibuster.
Nor will there be any interest in spending more time on health care
once the bill is signed. Obama has the rest of his agenda to work on,
and how much of it he gets done before next November may determine
what kind of Congress he'll have to work with for the second two years
of his term.
>The Public
>Option bill should be put before congress and the people in August of
>2010.
Where it will be tabled until after the election. No one would vote
on such a thing during a campaign.
>There is no such thing in this republic as a permanent law by
>legislation. Only the constitution and its amendments take on the
>character of "permanence". All else can be changed by the sitting
>legislature as they see fit. Every legislature is at all times sovereign
>and can alter, repeal, or add to the current body of law with the
>signature of the president. The legislature can even make law over the
>objection of the president but this is not the norm.
All this is true, but the legislature has to be functional, and not
tied up into filibuster knots. And Congress has a lot more on its
plate than health care reform.
John Q Public
If you think that your a fool!
Michael Coburn
> Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>Given one interpretation the provision is totally worthless and given
>>>>other interpretations the provision has merit. With still other
>>>>interpretations this provision encourages people to drop their current
>>>>insurance for 6 months in order to qualify for the government plan, or
>>>>to simply drop all coverage and then sign up for government insurance
>>>>if and when something happens to them.
>>>
>>> The Senate bill doesn't have a government plan, unless you are talking
>>> about the temporary high risk pool that goes until the exchanges are
>>> set up in 2014. For that pool, the maximum out of pocket is the HSA
>>> maximum. Premiums are less clear. Eligibility requires BOTH 6 months
>>> without insurance AND a "preexisting condition".
>>
>>This "high risk" pool is _THE_ part of the legislation that will go into
>>effect immediately and it seems to say that many of us would be fools to
>>pay for insurance.
>
> That is the kind of logic that tells someone to quit their job and go on
> welfare simply because they can.
But I am not discussing logic or righteousness here. I am trying to
understand what this "risk pool" portion of the bill actually says and
why it SEEMS to say what I have said.
>> Between now and 2013 if we have no insurance and
>>something really bad happens to us then, at that point, we will be
>>unable to get insurance in the open market because of a "preexisting
>>condition" and this will qualify us for the "high risk" pool.
>
> That's nice. So while you enter the bureaucratic process to enroll in
> this insurance, you either aren't getting treated, or you are
> self-paying. Not a wise idea if "something really bad" has happened.
> Filling out forms while you are in a coma is pretty difficult.
>
> Forcing a company to insure you against a preexisting condition does not
> mean that the company pays your preexisting medical bills from before
> you enrolled.
>
> And there is no reason to believe that the high risk pool will be any
> cheaper than the open market, much less free. The subsidy is just
> designed to bring premiums to "normal". $9 billion over 3-4 years
> wouldn't go far at all as a general subsidy for the 30 million currently
> uninsured, even without people gaming the system.
I cannot actually parse this section of the bill in any way that makes
sense to me and it is unlikely that anyone else can parse it in a way
that makes sense. But perhaps I am simply wrong or really dense. I
can't seem to find this "subsidy" or anything that says or defines
"normal" unless this "standard population" thing means the rates charged
for people without pre-existing conditions. And the crap about having
to not have insurance foe 6 months before you can enroll when combined
with the reference to 2701 of the Public Health Service Act would seem to
exclude any person from coverage.
BECAUSE
2701 says you have to have been covered by insurance in the last 61 days
or you are screwed and this rag says you can't have been covered or you
are screwed. So the net effect is that no matter what the circumstances,
you are screwed.
The reason for the "risk pool" was to provide insurance to those who
cannot pay $3k per month for insurance or $10k per month for illness. It
is in the bill because of a statement made about protecting against
bankruptcy in the speech before the joint session in November (or
whenever it was this past fall). The House version makes sense and is
intelligible. The Senate version is garbage that has a cap on government
funds too low to do any good even if someone was able to understnad waht
it says.
>>So who is going to be
>>dumb enough to pay for insurance if you don't need it. And if you HAVE
>>insurance you disqualify yourself for the "high risk" government
>>assisted insurance pool????
>
> Which is likely not going to be as good as your current insurance.
Maybe that is why they have made it impossible to figure out how much the
premiums and co-pays will be and who is actually eligible. Looks like to
me it is for rich people who don't need insurance and can afford to do
without out insurance for six months.
According to YOUR interpretation of the Senate version, they can sign up
for this plan and get very good rates on insurance. Supposing a rich guy
has a condition that is costing him $3K per month. He can sign up for
this deal and after 18 months the government picks up the tab. That's 30
months of government subsidy for the rich guy. The normal people will
have already filed bankruptcy. Before they get coverage.
>>My interpretation is that it is a ruse. The premiums are going to be so
>>high that no person could ever pay them and or the $9B set asside for it
>>will be gone very quickly.
>
> I understand that the subsidy will only serve to bring the premiums down
> to what you would pay if you did not have the preexisting condition.
> That's what makes sense.
In my case the subsidy would then be $680 a month. Because risk pool
insurance is $1140 per month while normal insurance without preexisting
conditions is $460. At that rate the $5B will be gone in 3 months if
anyone can actually qualify for the plan.
>>>>This
>>>>provision needs to be presented in a human intelligible form. The
>>>>current presentation sucks and the language in the bill sucks.
>>>
>>> I doubt that it will be made more clear (to non-lawyers).
>>
>>The Senators are given a "plain English" version
>
> By whom?
Their staffs.
>>>>> In the House bill, the maximum premium is $5000, and there is a
>>>>> $1500 deductible.
>>>>
>>>>And in the Senate version is impossible to tell what the "maximum
>>>>premium" will be
>>>
>>> It appears to be 9.8% of income or lower with those less than 400%
>>> FPL. For those with higher income, it isn't clear whether there is no
>>> limit, or the 9.8% limit. The House bill seems to be similar but with
>>> a 12% of income limit.
>>
>>That does not apply to the IMMEDIATE "risk pool" portion of the bill.
>
> The stop-gap risk pool does not appear to have any low-income subsidy
> specific to that plan, just the subsidy to counter the effects of being
> "high risk". You'll have to pay full price, until the general
> income-subsidy takes effect.
I cannot find anything about this "counter the effects of being high
risk", but I do find "standard population" so I GUESS that means the
people without preexisting conditions.
>>>>and it appears to be way too much for people between 55 and 65 years
>>>>of age.
>>>
>>> Why would their premium need to be any different from any other age,
>>> provided that their out of pocket and percentage of income limits are
>>> also the same as for anyone else?
>>
>>The Senate _says_ 4 times as much and the house _says_ 2 times as much.
>
> as the lowest prices, which are typically for a perfectly healthy
> 20-something with no conditions whatsoever.
Then this $5B will be gone in about 3 days.
>>My only interest in this bill is what it does _NOW_.
>
> It doesn't do anything until it goes through conference and gets signed.
(sigh)
>>The House, as far as
>>I am concerned, should stamp the bill and give it to Obama for
>>signature.
>
> They won't.
I can hope you are wrong and they are smarter than that.
Even though this bill as is does NOTHING for me and other people with
preexisting conditions there are reasons to sign it and move on.
>>And the next step is to create a NEW bill that provides a Pubic Option
>>as an add on to what will have already been passed into _LAW_ by virtue
>>of the current Senate bill. In my opinion the Public Option should be
>>put on line in both legalese and plain English so that the Republicans
>>can't lie about it.
>
> They'd still lie about it.
They can't get away with that but in regard to a few birthers and
baggers. Without all the other crap to muddy the water, such as "death
panels", they are dead meat.
>>And then every Representative should
>>be forced to an up or down vote on THAT as a stand alone bill that is
>>simply added to the current law created by the Senate bill.
>
> There is no way to "force" such a vote, and in fact no way to stop a
> filibuster.
There would be no filibuster. There would be INSTANT cloture.
And if you think the filibuster would work for the Republicans and
LIEberman _WITHOUT_ all the muddy water of the rest of the giant health
care bill (i.e. the comedy we just witnessed), then what possible reason
do you have for putting the option back into that same muddy water and
expecting a different result?????????? HMMMMMMMMM???? It's bonkers....
> Nor will there be any interest in spending more time on health care once
> the bill is signed. Obama has the rest of his agenda to work on, and
> how much of it he gets done before next November may determine what kind
> of Congress he'll have to work with for the second two years of his
> term.
All the more reason to accept the Senate bill as is and get it signed.
Whether the next action is more health care or jobs or tax reform or
whatever. THIS IS A VERY BIG WIN for the Democrats and they need to get
on with the show.
>>The Public
>>Option bill should be put before congress and the people in August of
>>2010.
>
> Where it will be tabled until after the election. No one would vote on
> such a thing during a campaign.
The Republicans can't table it and the Democrats would be stupid to do
so. The _FACT_ is that 60% of the people _WANT_ the public option. That
has been illustrated over and over again. And the Senate _CANNOT_
filibuster such a single issue bill unless the senators up for election
want to be in the street.
>>There is no such thing in this republic as a permanent law by
>>legislation. Only the constitution and its amendments take on the
>>character of "permanence". All else can be changed by the sitting
>>legislature as they see fit. Every legislature is at all times
>>sovereign and can alter, repeal, or add to the current body of law with
>>the signature of the president. The legislature can even make law over
>>the objection of the president but this is not the norm.
>
> All this is true, but the legislature has to be functional, and not tied
> up into filibuster knots. And Congress has a lot more on its plate than
> health care reform.
All the more reason _AGAIN_ to sign off on the Senate version and get on
down the road. Going back through the Senate is political suicide. But
I am not sure who decides this matter. The House leadership most
certainly has some pull on it.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 11:55:19 -0500, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> And there is no reason to believe that the high risk pool will be any
>> cheaper than the open market, much less free. The subsidy is just
>> designed to bring premiums to "normal". $9 billion over 3-4 years
>> wouldn't go far at all as a general subsidy for the 30 million currently
>> uninsured, even without people gaming the system.
>
>I cannot actually parse this section of the bill in any way that makes
>sense to me and it is unlikely that anyone else can parse it in a way
>that makes sense. But perhaps I am simply wrong or really dense. I
>can't seem to find this "subsidy" or anything that says or defines
>"normal" unless this "standard population" thing means the rates charged
>for people without pre-existing conditions. And the crap about having
>to not have insurance foe 6 months before you can enroll when combined
>with the reference to 2701 of the Public Health Service Act would seem to
>exclude any person from coverage.
>
>BECAUSE
>
>
>2701 says you have to have been covered by insurance in the last 61 days
>or you are screwed and this rag says you can't have been covered or you
>are screwed. So the net effect is that no matter what the circumstances,
>you are screwed.
I'd have to read the exact text and you don't give pages or paragraph
numbers
>The reason for the "risk pool" was to provide insurance to those who
>cannot pay $3k per month for insurance or $10k per month for illness.
Correct. My son is one of them
>The Senate version is garbage that has a cap on government
>funds too low to do any good even if someone was able to understnad waht
>it says.
That could be,
>>>So who is going to be
>>>dumb enough to pay for insurance if you don't need it. And if you HAVE
>>>insurance you disqualify yourself for the "high risk" government
>>>assisted insurance pool????
>>
>> Which is likely not going to be as good as your current insurance.
>
>Maybe that is why they have made it impossible to figure out how much the
>premiums and co-pays will be and who is actually eligible. Looks like to
>me it is for rich people who don't need insurance and can afford to do
>without out insurance for six months.
I doubt that there are that many of them.
>According to YOUR interpretation of the Senate version, they can sign up
>for this plan and get very good rates on insurance. Supposing a rich guy
>has a condition that is costing him $3K per month. He can sign up for
>this deal and after 18 months the government picks up the tab.
$54K out of pocket? That isn't small change.
>That's 30 months of government subsidy for the rich guy. The normal people will
>have already filed bankruptcy. Before they get coverage.
>
>>>My interpretation is that it is a ruse. The premiums are going to be so
>>>high that no person could ever pay them and or the $9B set asside for it
>>>will be gone very quickly.
>>
>> I understand that the subsidy will only serve to bring the premiums down
>> to what you would pay if you did not have the preexisting condition.
>> That's what makes sense.
>
>In my case the subsidy would then be $680 a month. Because risk pool
>insurance is $1140 per month while normal insurance without preexisting
>conditions is $460.
I have no idea where you are getting those numbers.
>At that rate the $5B will be gone in 3 months if anyone can actually qualify for the plan.
>
>>>>>This
>>>>>provision needs to be presented in a human intelligible form. The
>>>>>current presentation sucks and the language in the bill sucks.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt that it will be made more clear (to non-lawyers).
>>>
>>>The Senators are given a "plain English" version
>>
>> By whom?
>
>Their staffs.
They prepare plain English versions slanted to the bosses ideology and
political agenda.
OK. Let me assume that your $1180 and $460 numbers above are valid,
and furthermore that the perfectly healthy 20-something would pay half
of the average for the "standard population, or $230 a month Using
the 4:1 ratio, in the interim high risk pool, the highest premium
could only be 4 times $230 or $920, and thus the subsidy would be
$260, or $12,500 for 48 months. $5 billion would cover about 400,000
people with preexisting conditions that would cost them $1180 a month
under current policies, who would qualify for the pool.
If they have a condition that the treatment would cost them around
$1180 a month, covered by insurance that costs that much, then if they
drop their insurance coverage and self-pay for 6 months (costing them
$7080), they would qualify for the high risk pool, and thus be able to
get a policy that only costs $920 a month, saving them $260 a month.
That looks like 27+ months to break even, ignoring stuff like
inflation and the cost of funds, which would add a few months to that.
But even if the rich guy seems some slight advantage in the numbers, I
doubt that he would choose to game the system. Why? Because if the
rich guy has insurance now that covers his pre-existing condition,
then because he is rich, he probably has a policy that covers more
than the "basics" (probably a gold or even a platinum level equivalent
plan). But the high-risk pool policies will probably have fewer
options, and be aimed at the low-end of the market because the bulk of
people who find themselves in that situation of being without
insurance for 6 months are NOT rich.
>>>The House, as far as
>>>I am concerned, should stamp the bill and give it to Obama for
>>>signature.
>>
>> They won't.
>
>I can hope you are wrong and they are smarter than that.
>
>Even though this bill as is does NOTHING for me and other people with
>preexisting conditions there are reasons to sign it and move on.
There may be reasons, but there are 220 odd House members who will
have political reasons to do otherwise.
If this were not the case, then the vote for the House bill the first
time around would not have been nearly so close.
The differences in the abortion clause wording alone might be enough
to lose too many votes
>>>And the next step is to create a NEW bill that provides a Pubic Option
>>>as an add on to what will have already been passed into _LAW_ by virtue
>>>of the current Senate bill. In my opinion the Public Option should be
>>>put on line in both legalese and plain English so that the Republicans
>>>can't lie about it.
>>
>> They'd still lie about it.
>
>They can't get away with that but in regard to a few birthers and
>baggers.
And the 95% of the public that wouldn't bother to read it, no matter
how easy you made it.
>Without all the other crap to muddy the water, such as "death
>panels", they are dead meat.
You think that crap would disappear if there was a plain English
version of the bill on line? I don't. Most people just want someone
else to do the thinking for them, and then they choose who to trust
based on ideological affinity.
>>>And then every Representative should
>>>be forced to an up or down vote on THAT as a stand alone bill that is
>>>simply added to the current law created by the Senate bill.
>>
>> There is no way to "force" such a vote, and in fact no way to stop a
>> filibuster.
>
>There would be no filibuster. There would be INSTANT cloture.
Who has the ability to force the Senate to change the rules?
>And if you think the filibuster would work for the Republicans and
>LIEberman _WITHOUT_ all the muddy water of the rest of the giant health
>care bill (i.e. the comedy we just witnessed), then what possible reason
>do you have for putting the option back into that same muddy water and
>expecting a different result?????????? HMMMMMMMMM???? It's bonkers...
What makes you think I have a reason? I'm just predicting that there
will be some non-trivial negotiations before a final bill passes.
>> Nor will there be any interest in spending more time on health care once
>> the bill is signed. Obama has the rest of his agenda to work on, and
>> how much of it he gets done before next November may determine what kind
>> of Congress he'll have to work with for the second two years of his
>> term.
>
>All the more reason to accept the Senate bill as is and get it signed.
>Whether the next action is more health care or jobs or tax reform or
>whatever. THIS IS A VERY BIG WIN for the Democrats and they need to get
>on with the show.
Alas, I am not sure that the Dems in the red-leaning districts are
sure that it is any kind of a win at all. The Repubs have put so much
poison in the process, that such Congresscritters may be in a no-win
situation.
(That being said, I personally believe that the Dems needed to sell
these people a long time ago on the idea that a little boldness on
these big issues has a big payoff. If they had been bolder from the
start, and rammed the bill through more quickly, the Republicans would
say that it was railroaded - but they are saying that anyway. If the
sausage-making that went into reaching a final bill had been quicker
and the Dems had appeared more unified, the nation would have had a
generally better opinion of the Dems that would have offset any
propaganda about the speed of passage.)
>>>The Public
>>>Option bill should be put before congress and the people in August of
>>>2010.
>>
>> Where it will be tabled until after the election. No one would vote on
>> such a thing during a campaign.
>
>The Republicans can't table it
They can filibuster it, since Liebermann won't accept any public
option.
>and the Democrats would be stupid to do
>so. The _FACT_ is that 60% of the people _WANT_ the public option.
But probably not 60% in each Democratic Congresscritter's district.
And it's those Democrats whose districts might not even have 50%
support for the public option that voted against the House plan the
first time.
>That has been illustrated over and over again. And the Senate _CANNOT_
>filibuster such a single issue bill unless the senators up for election
>want to be in the street.
All it takes is the Republicans plus Liebermann.
>> All this is true, but the legislature has to be functional, and not tied
>> up into filibuster knots. And Congress has a lot more on its plate than
>> health care reform.
>
>All the more reason _AGAIN_ to sign off on the Senate version and get on
>down the road. Going back through the Senate is political suicide. But
>I am not sure who decides this matter. The House leadership most
>certainly has some pull on it.
Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats don't play follow the leader
very well. If they did, there would have been a bill to the White
House in August. "Some pull" isn't enough, when you need every single
vote that they got the first time around, in order to get it through
the second time.
JayPee Vee
>
> I do not know what I did to offend you, but I ask your forgiveness, as
> Jesus commanded me to do...seek peace. Will you reject Christ's
> command to forgive and seek reconciliation, as you condemn me without
> giving the cause? I will pray that God's love will touch your bitter
> heart. Until then, this will be the only reply given to all your
> replies.
Fuck off, cunt.
Take your religious bullshit elsewhere.
JayPee Vee
> On Dec 23, 1:22 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The_Carpathia <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >Now, I will start by praising a Democrat. Sen. Nelson held up the
> > >health bill to get protection against govt funded abortions. Praise
> > >God. He is a man of principle to do that in spite of his own party's
> > >pressures.
>
> > Of course, what really convinced him was the extra $100 million that
> > went to Nebraska for Medicaid funding, since the changes related to
> > abortion weren't all that significant.
>
> > >Now, there is a Democrat LEADERship scam in progress.
>
> > no, just a Kennie ignorance event.
>
> > >From this article...
>
Why don't you answer to Bob's valid points, cunt?
Because you're a hypocrite or because you're an idiot?
JayPee Vee
> > which was passed back in 1996. Most of the provisions were supposed
> > to take effect in 2003-2004 and some as late as 2007 to take effect.
> > But the effort was sufficiently difficult that things due in 2003 were
> > still not fully implemented a year late (and per Wikipedia are still
> > not). Despite all this time, and the extensions that were granted,
> > her company was under constant crunch for a couple of years, and
> > eventually had to hire it out.
>
> > Compared to HIPAA, 2013-2014 is a rush job, and I'm not sure it will
> > be any easier (especially since the HIPAA rules don't go away, and
> > they may make implementing the new stuff more difficult).
>
> > lojbab
> > ---
> > Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
Michael Coburn
> Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 11:55:19 -0500, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> And there is no reason to believe that the high risk pool will be any
>>> cheaper than the open market, much less free. The subsidy is just
>>> designed to bring premiums to "normal". $9 billion over 3-4 years
>>> wouldn't go far at all as a general subsidy for the 30 million
>>> currently uninsured, even without people gaming the system.
>>
>>I cannot actually parse this section of the bill in any way that makes
>>sense to me and it is unlikely that anyone else can parse it in a way
>>that makes sense. But perhaps I am simply wrong or really dense. I
>>can't seem to find this "subsidy" or anything that says or defines
>>"normal" unless this "standard population" thing means the rates charged
>>for people without pre-existing conditions. And the crap about having
>>to not have insurance foe 6 months before you can enroll when combined
>>with the reference to 2701 of the Public Health Service Act would seem
>>to exclude any person from coverage.
>>
>>BECAUSE
>>
>>
>>2701 says you have to have been covered by insurance in the last 61 days
>>or you are screwed and this rag says you can't have been covered or you
>>are screwed. So the net effect is that no matter what the
>>circumstances, you are screwed.
>
> I'd have to read the exact text and you don't give pages or paragraph
> numbers
In the Senate bill:
Sec. 1101. Immediate access to insurance for uninsured individuals with a
preexisting
condition.
Page 43 line 16 "ensures that with respect to the pre
17 mium rate charged for health insurance cov
18 erage offered to eligible individuals through the
19 high risk pool, such rate shall—(i) except as provided in clause (ii),
21 vary only as provided for under section
22 2701 of the Public Health Service Act (as
23 amended by this Act and notwithstanding
24 the date on which such amendments take
25 effect);
page 44 -- "Eligible Individual"
"has not been covered under creditable cov14
erage (as defined in section 2701(c)(1) of the Public
15 Health Service Act as in effect on the date of enact16
ment of this Act) during the 6-month period prior
17 to the date on which such individual is applying for
18 coverage through the high risk pool; and
19 (3) has a pre-existing condition, as determined
20 in a manner consistent with guidance issued
And here is the link to Public Health Services act as defined and amended
through Dec. 2004
http://energycommerce.house.gov/images/stories/Documents/PDF/
publications/109_health.pdf
And section 2701 is on page 1175
(a) LIMITATION ON PREEXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSION PERIOD;
CREDITING FOR PERIODS OF PREVIOUS COVERAGE.—Subject to subsection
(d), a group health plan, and a health insurance issuer offering
group health insurance coverage, may, with respect to a participant
or beneficiary, impose a preexisting condition exclusion
only if—
(1) such exclusion relates to a condition (whether physical
or mental), regardless of the cause of the condition, for which
medical advice, diagnosis, care, or treatment was recommended
or received within the 6-month period ending on the enrollment
date;
(2) such exclusion extends for a period of not more than 12
months (or 18 months in the case of a late enrollee) after the
enrollment date; and
(3) the period of any such preexisting condition exclusion
is reduced by the aggregate of the periods of creditable coverage
(if any, as defined in subsection (c)(1)) applicable to the
participant or beneficiary as of the enrollment date.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The implications are that the private companies offering insurance under
this provision can charge whatever they want for preexisting conditions
during the first 18 months of coverage and perhaps beyond that point.
>>The reason for the "risk pool" was to provide insurance to those who
>>cannot pay $3k per month for insurance or $10k per month for illness.
>
> Correct. My son is one of them
It would appear that the Senate version of the bill won't do that. So the
Senate version of the bill changes _NOTHING_ really. That does not mean
that the bill should be canned, because the bill has many desirable
things in it. This part of the bill does no good. But it also does no
harm.
>>The Senate version is garbage that has a cap on government funds too low
>>to do any good even if someone was able to understnad waht it says.
>
> That could be,
>
>>>>So who is going to be
>>>>dumb enough to pay for insurance if you don't need it. And if you
>>>>HAVE insurance you disqualify yourself for the "high risk" government
>>>>assisted insurance pool????
>>>
>>> Which is likely not going to be as good as your current insurance.
>>
>>Maybe that is why they have made it impossible to figure out how much
>>the premiums and co-pays will be and who is actually eligible. Looks
>>like to me it is for rich people who don't need insurance and can afford
>>to do without out insurance for six months.
>
> I doubt that there are that many of them.
>
>>According to YOUR interpretation of the Senate version, they can sign up
>>for this plan and get very good rates on insurance. Supposing a rich
>>guy has a condition that is costing him $3K per month. He can sign up
>>for this deal and after 18 months the government picks up the tab.
>
> $54K out of pocket? That isn't small change.
Yet is not a loss in that he would have had to pay it anyway. And the
$54k just about excludes everyone else. Most of us will have been
bankrupted long before we could ever make use of this "insurance", and
would be unable to pay the premiums on this "insurance" during the
initial 18 months. Its a Republican lobby butt sucking scam like
anything else the Senate ever does. And the only way to fix crap like
this is with single purpose reconciliation bills after this OMNIBUS bill
is signed into law. Let each provision be an act on its own that builds
on the base achieved by the current Senate bill.
>>That's 30 months of government subsidy for the rich guy. The normal
>>people will have already filed bankruptcy. Before they get coverage.
>>
>>>>My interpretation is that it is a ruse. The premiums are going to be
>>>>so high that no person could ever pay them and or the $9B set asside
>>>>for it will be gone very quickly.
>>>
>>> I understand that the subsidy will only serve to bring the premiums
>>> down to what you would pay if you did not have the preexisting
>>> condition. That's what makes sense.
>>
>>In my case the subsidy would then be $680 a month. Because risk pool
>>insurance is $1140 per month while normal insurance without preexisting
>>conditions is $460.
>
> I have no idea where you are getting those numbers.
AGE 63
No preexisting disqualifications:
http://www.regence.com/docs/WA/rates/hsaHealthplanCompRates-010110.pdf
Preexisting conditions qualifications:
https://www.wship.org/Docs/2009%20Non-Medicare%20Rates.pdf
My numbers above were from memory but they are close to these.
If in good health - 499
Preexisting conditions - 1406 or 1083
difference is $907 or maybe as little as $584
>>At that rate the $5B will be gone in 3 months if anyone can actually
>>qualify for the plan.
It appears that the $5B is for administrative costs only and that there
is no subsidy and no private insurers will be found to actually do this.
The Senate has essentially done away with this particular provision of
the House bill. And the only way to get it back is a single cause bill
that addresses this particular provision by itself. Such a bill will be
filibustered by the Republicans at their peril. It is also possible to
provide funding for an immediate subsidy by expanding changing the
current medicare tax as defined in the current bill to be progressive to
not be a wage tax, but a tax on all income regardless of source. That
would do away with the employer and employee tax on wages and simply be a
tax on AGI. That would increase revenue by 40% without being any
additional tax on any of the wage earners -- i.e. the middle class. It
would NOT be an increase in the rates of Medicare tax.
>>>>>>This
>>>>>>provision needs to be presented in a human intelligible form. The
>>>>>>current presentation sucks and the language in the bill sucks.
>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt that it will be made more clear (to non-lawyers).
>>>>
>>>>The Senators are given a "plain English" version
>>>
>>> By whom?
>>
>>Their staffs.
>
> They prepare plain English versions slanted to the bosses ideology and
> political agenda.
That is bogus. They would not keep their jobs very long if they did that
WITHOUT their boss's knowledge and consent. And most of the bosses want
to know what is actually in the bill.
In any event, it is entirely possible to get a non biased interpretation
of the legalese and a biased Republican and Democrat interpretation.
What is most interesting to me is that the White House has published many
such plain talk versions of the House Bill and the Republicans have
published _NOTHING_ of any value. And there is no publication by such as
the "Congressional Research Service" which SHOULD publish this particular
report.
And that report should be published as soon as possible.
Rich people have no need of insurance. And any rational rich person will
understand that such a scheme will cost him the overhead of its
administration if nothing else. You and I have a different definitions
of rich. In my economics rich is measured in assets as opposed to income
and even then families who have incomes of $250 to $500k are NOT rich.
When I speak of taxing the rich I am much more inclined to the House
version of the bill in which tax increases are on ALL income as opposed
to wage income and not assessed on those families with incomes below half
a million dollars. My regrets concerning the House bill and the
progressive income tax is that there are not higher rate brackets ABOVE 5
million dollars. This brackets are FAR ABOVE the entrepreneurial range
of taxable income.
>>>>The House, as far as
>>>>I am concerned, should stamp the bill and give it to Obama for
>>>>signature.
>>>
>>> They won't.
>>
>>I can hope you are wrong and they are smarter than that.
>>
>>Even though this bill as is does NOTHING for me and other people with
>>preexisting conditions there are reasons to sign it and move on.
>
> There may be reasons, but there are 220 odd House members who will have
> political reasons to do otherwise.
>
> If this were not the case, then the vote for the House bill the first
> time around would not have been nearly so close.
>
> The differences in the abortion clause wording alone might be enough to
> lose too many votes
If that is the case then all is lost. Attempting to go through the
Senate again is political suicide. If the abortion morons want a single
purpose bill to fix the abortion part then let them bring a bill to the
floor. If Pelosi must grant then that option in the House agenda to get
them to rubber stamp the Senate bill then so be it. We can ill afford to
have the Senate block progressive actions for another six months. Bills
must be made much smaller and more to the point henceforth.
>>>>And the next step is to create a NEW bill that provides a Pubic Option
>>>>as an add on to what will have already been passed into _LAW_ by
>>>>virtue of the current Senate bill. In my opinion the Public Option
>>>>should be put on line in both legalese and plain English so that the
>>>>Republicans can't lie about it.
>>>
>>> They'd still lie about it.
>>
>>They can't get away with that but in regard to a few birthers and
>>baggers.
>
> And the 95% of the public that wouldn't bother to read it, no matter how
> easy you made it.
The ones that do will "call out" the liars. At present the plain English
presentations of the House bill are pretty good bludgeons for swatting
the liars. It would be better if these were done by CRS.
>>Without all the other crap to muddy the water, such as "death panels",
>>they are dead meat.
>
> You think that crap would disappear if there was a plain English version
> of the bill on line? I don't. Most people just want someone else to do
> the thinking for them, and then they choose who to trust based on
> ideological affinity.
You are not arguing in good faith here. The House and Senate versions of
the Omibus Health Reform bill were too *!*#%&) big. A single bill to
provide for a Public Option and _NOTHING_ else is a different matter
entirely. The English version would be less than one page and very clear.
>>>>And then every Representative should
>>>>be forced to an up or down vote on THAT as a stand alone bill that is
>>>>simply added to the current law created by the Senate bill.
>>>
>>> There is no way to "force" such a vote, and in fact no way to stop a
>>> filibuster.
>>
>>There would be no filibuster. There would be INSTANT cloture.
>
> Who has the ability to force the Senate to change the rules?
No need to change the rules. If the "public option" was a clear and un-
muddled proposition, liars like LIEberman would be called out as the rest
of the good things that exist in a larger bill would not be held
hostage. Those who would filibuster or vote against the CHOICE OF A
PUBLIC OPTION on its own merits would be held accountable for their
actions. That is how representative government is designed to operate.
>>And if you think the filibuster would work for the Republicans and
>>LIEberman _WITHOUT_ all the muddy water of the rest of the giant health
>>care bill (i.e. the comedy we just witnessed), then what possible reason
>>do you have for putting the option back into that same muddy water and
>>expecting a different result?????????? HMMMMMMMMM???? It's bonkers...
>
> What makes you think I have a reason? I'm just predicting that there
> will be some non-trivial negotiations before a final bill passes.
If the bill has to go back through the Senate in its omnibus form it will
just get worse.
>>> Nor will there be any interest in spending more time on health care
>>> once the bill is signed. Obama has the rest of his agenda to work on,
>>> and how much of it he gets done before next November may determine
>>> what kind of Congress he'll have to work with for the second two years
>>> of his term.
>>
>>All the more reason to accept the Senate bill as is and get it signed.
>>Whether the next action is more health care or jobs or tax reform or
>>whatever. THIS IS A VERY BIG WIN for the Democrats and they need to get
>>on with the show.
>
> Alas, I am not sure that the Dems in the red-leaning districts are sure
> that it is any kind of a win at all. The Repubs have put so much poison
> in the process, that such Congresscritters may be in a no-win situation.
>
> (That being said, I personally believe that the Dems needed to sell
> these people a long time ago on the idea that a little boldness on these
> big issues has a big payoff. If they had been bolder from the start,
> and rammed the bill through more quickly, the Republicans would say that
> it was railroaded - but they are saying that anyway. If the
> sausage-making that went into reaching a final bill had been quicker and
> the Dems had appeared more unified, the nation would have had a
> generally better opinion of the Dems that would have offset any
> propaganda about the speed of passage.)
That is spilt milk. Looking backward and moaning will change nothing.
The Republicans, with all the money in the world can buy all the media
they need to spread lies among the lazy and the ignorant. And "town hall"
demonstrations by the screech monkeys thus created is just another form
of lying.
But in the new world of the Internet, this need not be the case. And it
will ever get down to who do you trust. If the CRS can produce a plain
English version of the "Public Option" legislation then this will have to
be the most credible interpretation available. There is nothing that
prevents rightarded morons from delivering the rightarded version, but
the media will not be able to use that version and maintain credibility
among any voters other then the brain dead. And those are NOT the
majority. Efven with the rightrded lies and the corporate media and Joe
LIEberman distorting the hell out of what the Public Option is/was, a
full 60% of the people were not fooled and were in support of the choice
of a public option. That is not a number that a politician will go
against and can't go against if the Public Option it is a single bill to
add on to the current LAW created by the Senate version of the health
care bill.
>>>>The Public
>>>>Option bill should be put before congress and the people in August of
>>>>2010.
>>>
>>> Where it will be tabled until after the election. No one would vote
>>> on such a thing during a campaign.
>>
>>The Republicans can't table it
>
> They can filibuster it, since Liebermann won't accept any public option.
Nope. The only reason that LIEberman got away with his shit is that all
the other good things in the bill were being held hostage and every
Republican was filibustering. The Republicans that are up for re-election
in 2010 will not filibuster this particular bill because the majority of
the independents and even a majority of sane Republicans support this
PARTICULAR action.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/poll-public-split-on-health-
care-heavily-in-favor-of-public-option.php
"A key number is on support for the public option. The poll found that
53% are in favor and 43% against. When those who were initially against
it or were undecided were then asked about a more limited option that
would only be available to people who currently don't have insurance --
that is, a description of the public option that was passed in the House
bill -- 40% of them then approved. This caused the total approval for a
limited public option to rise up to 72%-28%."
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/poll-public-still-doesnt-like-
health-care-bill----and-still-like-public-option-medicare-buy-in.php
The now-departed public option, however, is supported by a 56%-38%
majority, including a 54%-41% margin among independents. Also, the
Medicare buy-in for Americans ages 55-64 was supported by 64%-30%,
including 57%-36% among independents and even a 50%-44% margin among
Republicans.
-------------------------------------------------------------
So perhaps a medicare buy in is even better than a public option.....
And BTW, that is the LOWEST number of support for the PO on any CREDIBLE
poll ever conducted.
>>and the Democrats would be stupid to do so. The _FACT_ is that 60% of
>>the people _WANT_ the public option.
>
> But probably not 60% in each Democratic Congresscritter's district. And
> it's those Democrats whose districts might not even have 50% support for
> the public option that voted against the House plan the first time.
There are very few, if any, districts that are against the Public Option
as it ended up in the House bill. The Blue Cross Democrats are
Republicans and they should probably switch parties. That still leaves
the House with a Democratic majority that CANNOT vote against the Public
Option or they will be removed in a primary. I am proposing that many of
the blue dogs are actually in the same boat. They can switch parties or
they can vote for a public option. And if they actually poll their
constituents they won't switch. This isn't about abortion or taxes.
>>That has been illustrated over and over again. And the Senate _CANNOT_
>>filibuster such a single issue bill unless the senators up for election
>>want to be in the street.
>
> All it takes is the Republicans plus Liebermann.
The Republicans would be committing political suicide. And that suicide
will just move the Public Option into 2011 when there are fewer
Republicans in the Senate. And this is my real point. The Public Option
will not have happened until 2013 in the House Bill. Accepting all the
insurance company regulations made into law by the Senate bill and then
making the Public Option a campaign issue for 2010 makes perfect sense
for the Democrats. So piss on LIEberman.
>>> All this is true, but the legislature has to be functional, and not
>>> tied up into filibuster knots. And Congress has a lot more on its
>>> plate than health care reform.
>>
>>All the more reason _AGAIN_ to sign off on the Senate version and get on
>>down the road. Going back through the Senate is political suicide. But
>>I am not sure who decides this matter. The House leadership most
>>certainly has some pull on it.
>
> Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats don't play follow the leader very
> well. If they did, there would have been a bill to the White House in
> August. "Some pull" isn't enough, when you need every single vote that
> they got the first time around, in order to get it through the second
> time.
Please use your alleged mind. There is NO good that can be accomplished
by allowing the Republicans and LIEberman the opportunity to thwart all
progress on every piece of Democratic agenda and that is EXACTLY what
they will do if the Democrats are moronic enough to try and change
anything in the Senate version.
You may be operating under the illusion that the bill created by the
joint committee will have an up and down vote as a reconciliation.
Everything I can find says that is not so and any change to the Senate
version is again subject to filibuster. The current Senate bill is the
best that you can get outside of a reconciliation bill or a single issue
bill.
JayPee Vee
Fuck off, cunt.
Get a job.
JayPee Vee
JayPee Vee
> On Dec 26, 2:57 am, JayPee Vee <jaypee1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
haiku jones
> Now, I will start by praising a Democrat. Sen. Nelson held up the
> health bill to get protection against govt funded abortions. Praise
> God. He is a man of principle to do that in spite of his own party's
> pressures.
>
> article...
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/23/pain-gain-health-care-over...
>
> ...we read that the taxes and medicare cuts to pay for the health bill
> will start right away, while the benefits from the bill won't come
> till 2013.
>
> that raised a tax and used that tax money exclusively for what it was
> these taxes and have these cuts and move the money to discretionary
> spending to be used to lower the deficit. Then, they will tell you in
> 2012 that you need to elect Obama to actually get the benefits for
> which you'd been taxed. Yet, after the election, they'll tell you
> there isn't enough money (since they stole it) and a NEW TAX will be
> required.
>
> Politicians suck. As I've said before, those in power are there
> because God allowed it, and he can direct them or remove them. Pray
> for our country.
Not only allowed it, as I read Scripture, but
engineered it, a la Romans 13. Which kind of puzzles
me: how does God put a leader in place in a democracy --
is He the one tinkering with the Diebold voting
machines? Or does He somehow diddle the voters' minds?
> and he can direct them or remove them. Pray for our
> country.
That rather puzzles me to: if that were the right thing
to do, I'd think God would know it better than anything
in the universe, and would do it for that reason. And
if instituting a regime change in this country is not
the right thing to do, I wouldn't think He would do it
no matter how many pray that He do the wrong thing.
brady r
>
> Kenneth W Clifton
JayPee Vee
> On Dec 23, 3:35 pm, JayPee Vee <jaypee1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I do not know what I did to offend you, but I ask your forgiveness, as
> Jesus commanded me to do...seek peace. Will you reject Christ's
> command to forgive and seek reconciliation, as you condemn me without
> giving the cause? I will pray that God's love will touch your bitter
> heart. Until then, this will be the only reply given to all your
> replies.
>
> Kenneth W Cliftonhttp://stores.lulu.com/kenclifton
Fuck off, cunt.
If you can't come with something intelligent, to say why do you just
shut up?