463 replies to this topic

[DieChecker]

Socio, on 22 June 2012 - 01:44 AM, said:

Some speculate the Left is leaning on one of them to change their mind and vote in favor of Obamacare thus the delay due to one "undecided" Judge..

Hopefully it is Kennedy who in the past has sided with the concervatives on similar issues.

[RavenHawk]

Good point:  At forty, this legislation, being very short has changed the world forever…

“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance,”

All laws should be structured like this.  If it doesn’t meet the test of simplicity, it shouldn’t even be considered to be signed into law.

[Mr. Smith]

RavenHawk, on 23 June 2012 - 12:18 AM, said:

Good point:  At forty, this legislation, being very short has changed the world forever…

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance,"

All laws should be structured like this.  If it doesn't meet the test of simplicity, it shouldn't even be considered to be signed into law.

Be so much simpler if everything was like that. Be nice if there was a law that said "All bills and laws must be written in 500 words or less to be voted on." And no earmarks. Zero. Zip. Zilch.  That we should all be able to agree on.

[Startraveler]

RavenHawk, on 21 June 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

Obamacare is a surrogate over the insurers.  The private insurers are no longer independent.

Insurers have never been “independent” of the law. The ACA simply cracks down on some of the more unsavory practices that the incentives of the current dysfunctional individual market promote. Being subject to laws doesn’t make folks in the insurance business government employees. That’s an absurd statement.

Quote

It does not simply put some restrictions.  It is total government take over.  Total control over insurer, employer, and individual.

I think I’ve mentioned this already but I’m not impressed by meaningless rhetoric. I’ll assume you’re aiming this at someone more impressionable.

Quote

To expand coverage and to protect consumers does not require a 2700 page document filled with expensive, government expanding legislation.

As you noticed (and yet, inexplicably, rejected), the actual final legislation is about 900 pages long. But it isn’t 900 pages of consumer protections. It’s comprehensive health reform, covering the waterfront.

There are nine major sections of the legislation:

• Private insurance market reforms, consumer protections, etc. Pretty much everything you’ve focused on thus far.
  
• Medicaid reform.
  
• Medicare reform.
  
• Promoting prevention of chronic diseases and bolstering the nation’s public health infrastructure.
  
• Bolstering the health care workforce
  
• New program integrity (i.e. anti-fraud) provisions relating to Medicare and Medicaid.
  
• Reforms aimed at certain FDA approval processes.
  
• Voluntary long-term care insurance (Ted Kennedy’s ill-fated pet project)
  
• The pay-fors for the legislation.

The first section is not the entirety of the 900 pages of legislation, even if it gets 95% of the attention.

Quote

In essence, that is exactly what is happening.  Obamacare *IS* the public option.  Doctors drop Medicare/Medicaid because either doctors don't get reimbursed within a reasonable time and/or doctors only get paid what the program thinks they should get paid, not the amount requested because averages are followed.  With Obamacare, you'll see the same thing but with insurers.  You'll see many insurers get out of the business.

Insurers still decide what they’re going to reimburse health care providers under the ACA. Or rather, health care providers still decide what insurers are going to reimburse them. That’s actually an area where something should be changed but isn’t by the ACA.

Quote

Sorry, I don't trust you.  This may be a draft of the window dressing but it is not all of the legislation.  Like the portion where the individual pays the piper.

That’s the entirety of the ACA. You’ve simply been reading the wrong legislation the entire time. I can only help you to help yourself; if you're not interested in doing that, there's nothing I can do about it.

Quote

OMG!  What a convoluted crime against the American people.  I was wondering if the underlings were busy?  And they were.  The propaganda masters are at work.  The HillaryCare fiasco comes rushing back to mind.  Do you really think that the average American is going to spend the time to understand all of this?  . . . Why even have a website?  One could die from a pre-existing condition before reading everything, let alone understand it.  

If the average American wants a quick overview of the pieces directly relevant to them, that's available to them: healthreform.gov: Key Features of the Law

They certainly don't need to "read everything, let alone understand it" to get insurance coverage. That's the beauty of the exchange--it'll have a very streamlined, user friendly interface that makes it very easy to understand what's available to you.

Quote

I keep seeing this phrase "Amendment to the Interim Final Regulations" throughout this site.  This confirms not everything is written, especially on governance.  You can't have this kind of crap without someone who is responsible, like a commissioner.  

Again, there is no commissioner. The concept you're referring stems from version of the legislation in which a single national health insurance exchange was being proposed. That, of course, is not what became law. In the ACA, the exchanges are designed, built, and managed at the state level, meaning responsibility for governance of your exchange rests with your state and not the feds (unless the state doesn't want the responsibility). Similarly, as I've already pointed out, responsibiity for determining essential health benefits is also left to the states.

The federal government is providing only high-level guidance via a division of the existing Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. But you're correct that not all of the guidance is written.

Quote

Yes, there is a Commissioner.  It is called for in sections 141-144 of the Reconciliation Bill.

Look, I don't know what you're reading and I don't particularly care at this point. But you should know that there is no Section 141 of the reconciliation bill (P.L. 148-151) or any section below "1001", nor does the word "commissioner" appear anywhere in that piece of legislation. Not once. Whatever it is you're reading, you're reading the wrong thing.

Quote

The bill was passed with the terms "basic", "enhanced", "premium", and "premium-plus".

No, it wasn't. You're referring to language in defunct House legislation that never became law. The "basic/enhanced/premium/premium-plus" language from H.R. 3200/3962 legislation is not law and it's not equivalent to what's in the ACA. You're reading and reacting to the wrong legislation. How many times does this need to be told to you before it sinks in?

Quote

It doesn't matter what they are called.  If the EHBs are identical, then why the tier approach?  Everyone should just have the same basic coverage and if you need something extra, then go from there.

That’s exactly how it works here. The tier essentially refers to the ratio of premiums to cost-sharing/out-of-pocket expenses you’re willing to pay for. The basic slate of benefits is equivalent across plan types (although you can buy additional benefits in any tier) and available to anyone who wants to buy a plan, what varies is how expenses are distributed.

[RavenHawk]

Startraveler, on 23 June 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:

Again, there is no commissioner. The concept you're referring stems from version of the legislation in which a single national health insurance exchange was being proposed. That, of course, is not what became law.

Look, I don't know what you're reading and I don't particularly care at this point. But you should know that there is no Section 141 of the reconciliation bill (P.L. 148-151) or any section below "1001", nor does the word "commissioner" appear anywhere in that piece of legislation. Not once. Whatever it is you're reading, you're reading the wrong thing.

No, it wasn't. You're referring to language in defunct House legislation that never became law. The "basic/enhanced/premium/premium-plus" language from H.R. 3200/3962 legislation is not law and it's not equivalent to what's in the ACA. You're reading and reacting to the wrong legislation. How many times does this need to be told to you before it sinks in?

In anticipation of the ruling tomorrow morning, I’m just going to respond to this portion for now.  I’ve already stated what I was quoting and you’ve gone into denial mode.  The *LAW* to which I quote (again) is the Reconciliation bill HR4872.  It provisions for a Commissioner and Advisory boards.  It calls the QHBPs as Basic, Enhanced, Premium, and Premium-Plus.  What you’re quoting is part of the regulations that have been derived from the law, i.e. implementation.  You’ve simply have been sold up the river thinking all the fuzzy things come at no cost.

[Startraveler]

RavenHawk, on 25 June 2012 - 05:05 AM, said:

In anticipation of the ruling tomorrow morning, I'm just going to respond to this portion for now.  I've already stated what I was quoting and you've gone into denial mode.  The *LAW* to which I quote (again) is the Reconciliation bill HR4872.  It provisions for a Commissioner and Advisory boards.  It calls the QHBPs as Basic, Enhanced, Premium, and Premium-Plus.  What you're quoting is part of the regulations that have been derived from the law, i.e. implementation.  You've simply have been sold up the river thinking all the fuzzy things come at no cost.

I just linked you to the reconciliation package (now a public law on the books): P.L. 148-151. None of the language you think is in it appears.

I know where the language and concepts you're referring to come from: H.R. 3200/3962, which are not laws. The ACA and the HCERA are laws, so you'd do well to read those instead. I don't know what the confusion is here, the actual legislation isn't hard to find.

Edited by Startraveler, 25 June 2012 - 12:41 PM.

[RavenHawk]

Some of your responses just weren’t making sense, so I started to dig and I came up with the following hit, which I admit surprises me.  Because you didn’t bring this up, you didn’t know where I was coming from.  But this brings up even more serious aspects:

Bill Text Versions
111th Congress (2009-2010)
H.R.4872

There are 5 versions of Bill Number H.R.4872 for the 111th Congress. Usually, the last item is the most recent.
1 . Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Reported in House - RH)[H.R.4872.RH][PDF]
2 . Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Engrossed in House [Passed House] - EH)[H.R.4872.EH][PDF]
3 . Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Placed on Calendar Senate - PCS)[H.R.4872.PCS][PDF]
4 . Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 4872) entitled `An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to Title II of the concurrent resolution on the budget... (Engrossed Amendment Senate - EAS)[H.R.4872.EAS][PDF]
5 . Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)[H.R.4872.ENR][PDF]


In short, we are both right and both wrong.  The bill I’ve been quoting from is HR4872RH and the one you’re quoting is HR4872ENR.  ENR is indeed the one that was passed as Public Law 111-152.  However both are referred to as the “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act” and they are almost completely different.  That there throws up many red flags.  The working copy of this bill from the beginning has been the “RH” version.  Yes, HR3200 was the initial version.  This is the one that has gotten all the attention.

Then when it gets to the Senate, it is practically thrown out and replaced with the Senate version without anything to signify such a change and sent back to the House.  Why wasn’t this one labeled S??? if it was so different than the House version?  This is a disconcerting view of how Congress disrespects the people.  And they pass it under pressure without even a WTF?!  How can you go from supporting one version to passing a completely different version without at least several weeks of debate on the floor?  Because that’s the why they do it is not an answer.  This is too large and too important of a bill to do that with.  WTF were they thinking?  That’s not compromise.  That’s not reconciliation.  This is a gang of thugs shoving crap down our throats.  This is a violation of the public trust.  This is not what we elected them to do.  There is something very seriously wrong.

What of HR4872RH?  Can that text be considered unimplemented provisions that could later be added?  And the question from before, who administers 111-152?  Surely, this can’t administer itself?  This is government bureaucracy, it needs bureaucrats.  This is so huge that I can see it being a cabinet position.  So who’s going to be in charge?  Also, please tell me if 111-152 allocates additional IRS agents?  What is the reasoning behind hiring 4000 more?

The bottom line still remains with “ENR”.  That is there will still be death panels and rationing.  This is the nature of such legislation.  *ALL* government programs run deficits.  This is the largest deficit producing law ever seen on the face of the planet.

But the issue tomorrow will be if the Supreme Court will shoot down the individual mandate or the whole thing?  If it’s just the mandate, that could be the worse case scenario as we’ll see premiums really go up and everyone will be screaming about that, then Obama will just make an Executive Order for everyone to get Medicare/Medicaid.  Obama is so smug; he thinks that he has every angle on this.

[Render]

RavenHawk, on 27 June 2012 - 04:43 AM, said:

Some of your responses just weren’t making sense

this...must be the epitome of the pot calling the kettle black

[Startraveler]

RavenHawk, on 27 June 2012 - 04:43 AM, said:

In short, we are both right and both wrong.  The bill I’ve been quoting from is HR4872RH and the one you’re quoting is HR4872ENR.  ENR is indeed the one that was passed as Public Law 111-152.  However both are referred to as the “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act” and they are almost completely different.  That there throws up many red flags.  The working copy of this bill from the beginning has been the “RH” version.  Yes, HR3200 was the initial version.  This is the one that has gotten all the attention.

You'll notice that they're actually not both referred to as the "Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010." What you're looking at is simply called "Reconciliation Act of 2010" and is the only one with that designation. And in fact the text of what you're looking is simply the text of H.R. 3200 as introduced in the House in 2009. As I've said many times now, you've been reading defunct legislation--the very much dead "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009."

I've already linked you to the actual law passed, and with the edits made by the much smaller reconciliation bill incorporated. But I'll do it again: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Health-related Portions of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. That's the reform law.

Quote

What of HR4872RH?

It's the text of H.R. 3200 as introduced in the House, the original base health reform legislation the House worked from. That legislation went to the three relevant House committees--Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and Labor--to be marked up in mid-2009. The concurrent budget resolution that year directed that the recommendations of those three committees be compiled into a reconciliation bill released by the Budget Committee.

Of course, by the time this actually happened in March 2010 the goal was to convert that reconciliation bill into a vehicle for revising the Senate's legislation, known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was very soon to be P.L. 111-148.

So while the Budget Committee tossed it out there as the "Reconciliation Act of 2010," a reiteration of the House's health reform proposal (i.e. H.R. 3200), that old defunct text was almost immediately replaced by completely different text aimed at making quantitative changes to the ACA (and thus the bill became the "Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010"). In other words, that first step of simply reiterating the text of 3200 was merely a procedural move. The version of the reconciliation bill passed by the House a few days later--number 2 on your list, the "EH" version--is structurally much closer to what ultimately became law.

This is why I've been trying to help you. It's been obvious all along that you're reading the wrong things, yet you've dismissed links directly to the right things.

Quote

  Can that text be considered unimplemented provisions that could later be added?

No.

Quote

And the question from before, who administers 111-152?

First of all, this odd fixation on the short reconciliation bill misses the point--111-148, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is probably where you want to direct your energy. The reconcilation simply made a few edits to that legislation (which are helpfully consolidated into one document in that link I re-posted above).

Anyway, obviously the Health and Human Services Department has primary dibs on most of the federal responsibilities established by the ACA. In particular, most of the work is coming out of a particular division of the existing Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services within HHS.

Edited by Startraveler, 27 June 2012 - 11:02 PM.

[F3SS]

Today is a BIG DAY!
Will it be    or   ?????????????

[RavenHawk]

Startraveler, on 27 June 2012 - 11:00 PM, said:

This is why I've been trying to help you. It's been obvious all along that you're reading the wrong things, yet you've dismissed links directly to the right things.

Your “help” was minimal at best because it doesn’t change the bottom line.  As I pointed out EHBs in both are the same, just the label is changed.  You never did pick up on that.  I had to help you out as much as you helped me.  The ENR version is completely different but only in that it is more of a consolidation.  The RH version did have a lot of duplication.  The main issue of the Individual Mandate will be revealed here within the hour.  So now, what about governance?

Quote

Anyway, obviously the Health and Human Services Department has primary dibs on most of the federal responsibilities established by the ACA. In particular, most of the work is coming out of a particular division of the existing Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services within HHS.

Ah, so there is human oversight?  So the HHS Secretary is the “Commissioner”, just as I figured.  And the Medicare/Medicaid division acts like the various advisory boards…  Now that this has been established, I need your help again.  

I just need some numbers to crunch.  So that you don’t accuse me of “fixing” them, just give me a couple of numbers that you feel comfortable with.  The first number is how much do you think the CBO has stated that it will cost to run Obamacare per year?  The next number is of that cost, some will go to maintenance of schools and hospitals, but also for student loans for doctors and nurses, and also for IRS agents.  How much would you estimate goes toward that?  You don’t need to do a lot of research, just a ball park figure will do.

[RavenHawk]

Wow!  The Supreme Court just punted.

So it's now in the hands of the voters come November...

Edited by RavenHawk, 28 June 2012 - 02:21 PM.

[Bama13]

RavenHawk, on 28 June 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

Wow!  The Supreme Court just punted.

So it's now in the hands of the voters come November...

Punted hell, they turned the ball over.

[RavenHawk]

Bama13, on 28 June 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

Punted hell, they turned the ball over.

Yup!

To summarize:

Chief Justice Roberts stated that that Obamacare is merely a tax and Congress has the right to levy taxes...  He added the wisdom of Obamacare is not the Court’s concern but that of the people.

Edited by RavenHawk, 28 June 2012 - 02:36 PM.

[Order66]

No they haven't, they've just found a way to circumvent the law like all slimy lawyers do. America is finished. They've found a way to breach a fundamental constitutional right that we will never get back. Healthcare is just the start, they will do the same thing with whatever else they want you to buy whether you like it or not. No we're not forcing you to buy something, we're just forcing you to own it and pay for it. How about forcing you to buy solar panels or electric cars from Obama's cronies to protect from global warming. The court's already ruled that the EPA's right to determine what is global warming threat (isn't that convenient).

You: "I don't want to buy this Chevy Volt, it's a piece of crap!"
Salesman: "Don't think of it as a purchase, just think of it as a tax."

Like when the mafia extorts money but calls it "protection money". Protection from getting your ass kicked by the mafia maybe or having your business trashed like the Nazi Night of Broken Glass, this is the contempt Obama and the Supreme Court have for the Constitution and the private sector.

How about forcing you to buy drugs from cronies in the FDA because of the latest health epidemic that the leftist media proclaims "a new study shows" to be true. How about forcing you to buy a house in a place you don't want to live and forcing you to buy homeowners insurance to pay for it because we don't want to overpopulate one area ( or insert any other stupid justification, who cares, you'll have to do it no matter what ). They don't give a **** about your welfare, all they want is power to run our lives and we've handed it to them. ******* *******s

Then again what do I know, I'm just one of the ignorant masses. How can I possibly know what's in my own best interest. Anything I consider to be important I can expect to be trampled on because as far as Obama is concerned I'm everything that's wrong with America.

Edited by Vein Capital, 28 June 2012 - 03:21 PM.