msydnor

iTrader: (3)

That's easy to say from behind a keyboard.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

Of course it is, you press down on some keys... of course communicating that verbally would be easier but unless you guys meet or call each other on the phone, that is the easiest it gets... It's even so easy a cave man could do it.

magnamx-5

iTrader: (7)

NA6 is correct, even this cave man can see it

brgracer

iTrader: (14)

Chiming in with my .

First off, that statistic that the US has only average healthcare when compared to the rest of the world is total BS as it's based on a formula that heavily weighs access to care. I'm not saying that access is not important, but like it or not, bottom line, in any country whether the US, Canada, UK etc.... If you have money, you get better care. Not saying that it's right, wrong, or should make you vote in any particular direction. The number one predictor of your general health regardless of where you live is....socioeconomic status time and time again REGARDLESS of socialized medicine or not. And to all the people who praise Canada or the UK, they have an expert panel (NOT a death panel), that decides on whether new treatments are cost effective based on a formula. So if it's not covered and you can't pay for it, you don't get it. Ten years ago if you were older than 55 in the UK and needed dialysis and couldn't pay for it, guess what, you were SOL (aka dead) whereas in the US Medicaid picks up the tab (aka ultimately you and me).

Now before everyone jumps on me for being a republican anti-abortionist/anti-gay...I'm not saying the US has the best system either. There are tradeoffs. One of the founding members of the original Medicare system wrote a great book called The Iron Triangle of Healthcare. Short version, there is cost of care, quality of care, and access to care and there are all trade-offs. For example, US has high cost and high quality, but poor access (which is why they score poorly in comparison to other countries) whereas the UK has high access, high cost, but poor "quality" i.e not fun waiting 5 years for a knee replacement/rationed care.

So I call BS on Obama's plan because there is NO WAY you can increase access and maintain quality AND keep costs down. Regardless, healthcare is already rationed even in the current system. If we want universal access, then we either have to accept lower quality care or much higher costs. Call a spade a spade, if you want to pass socialized medicine with access for all then be honest that it's either going to cost us up the butt like other countries (ever see the tax rates in countries with socialized medicine) or the "quality" in terms of coverage will not be there. As much as we'd all love it to be, we can't have it all ways. To use a car analogy, it'd be like saying I'm going to make a 300hp miata that is reliable and it's going to be cheap. You got to pick your tradeoffs...some people want access and some people want quality.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

I like the fact that people from all over the world come HERE to the US to some of our medical centers because they don't have to wait 6 months for a critical surgery and because we have some of the most advanced medical centers in all the world. But NOOO, our medical system sucks because some treatments and surgeries cost more... that is how it is supposed to work, you get what you pay for. The better and more complex things will cost more like with anything else. Its not fair that some people can't afford to have life saving treatments, so lets level the field and just give everybody mediocre care, because that is their right... (not) When and if (god lets hope they don't get their hands on it) the government takes control of yet another aspect of our nation, it will go down hill even faster.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I'm still waiting for that economy to be fixed...

Stein

iTrader: (46)

Good post brgracer.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

also, who wrote these bills?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

In H.R. 3200

‘‘(4) REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC STANDARDS.—The standards under this section shall be
11 developed, adopted and enforced so as to—

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


I always love when the Govt has access to my bank account.

gospeed81

iTrader: (51)

Wait...whu?

That means you can't even manage your own budget and decide when you can mail in the check?

Won't work for ****. Took us two months to come up with what my daughter's little (6mile) ambulance ride cost back in August.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION.

‘‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subpara graph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items—

'‘(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;
‘‘(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;
‘‘(iii) the use of antibiotics; and
‘‘(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.’’.


I always love when the Govt gets to decide what treatment I can get at the end of my life...


sorry this is hard to copy and paste from. It's also incredibly hard to read & comprehend.

y8s

iTrader: (8)

they dont decide treatment, they decide payment. you think your current insurance fine print reads any differently?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
19 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual
who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—

‘‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income
for the taxable year, over
‘‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in
section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

‘‘SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.

‘‘(4) NOT TREATED AS TAX IMPOSED BY THIS
CHAPTER FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.—The tax posed
under this section shall not be treated as tax
imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining
the amount of any credit under this chapter or for
purposes of section 55.’’.


The tax posed under this section shall not be treated as tax...

msydnor

iTrader: (3)

If you have privare insurance they are not deciding anything, you insurance company is.

kotomile

iTrader: (24)

Stayed out of this thread until now, just wanted to come in and say that the 2010 military pay chart has come out, and the house's 3.4% raise won out over Obama's 2.9% proposal!

[/happydance]

msydnor

iTrader: (3)

This just means you can do an electronic tranfer, not that you have too, or that the government will just take it from your account.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

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

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

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

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

SEC. 223. PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES.

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish
payment rates for the public health insurance option
for services and health care providers consistent with
this section and may change such payment rates in
accordance with section 224.


(c) ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS FOR SETTING
RATES.—Chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code shall
apply to the process for the initial establishment of payment
rates under this section but not to the specific methodology
for establishing such rates or the calculation of
such rates.

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall
be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority to correct
for payments that are excessive or deficient, taking
into account the provisions of section 221(a) and the
amounts paid for similar health care providers and services
under other Exchange-participating health benefits
plans.

(f) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative
or judicial review of a payment rate or methodology
established under this section or under section
224.


I love it when the the government can price-fix, then remove the ability for "judicial review" against it. This is designed to ruin private insurers, thus universal gov't run health care.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

I'm sure that is their aim. Make it as hard to understand as possible so they can interpret it how they want and bend it to their liking.

Let's just hope if it does pass that the state governments stand up and tell the federal government to shove their healthcare plan up their ***. That's all it would take to fix a lot of things, having state governments with a spine.