Impeding changes to our Health Care system

Originally Posted by classicman

Merc, I think we pretty much all know where you stand on this issue. The fact that you are "in the system" seems to be overlooked or ignored by some. Let them have at it. I know we need reform, but the question remains is this bill the reform we need or not?

Yeah....its very impressive that a guy "in the system" can only flood the site with partisan opinion columns and doesnt even know enough to offer an original thought of his own.

And my 20+ years in public policy and the fact that I post facts that neither of you ever accept, or that I have taken the time to try to explain the bill to you as I understand it from having spoken and interacted with experts across the political spectrum as part of my job, means nothing.

But I would agree that we both know a hell of lot more about health care than you.

Originally Posted by jinx

Fail.

I stand corrected.

I should have said objective and knowledgeable.

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

It's not about disagreeing, it's about your dancing about when you have absolutely NO argument. You're maddening as hell in that respect, and you keep at it until someone calls you out for being an ass, then you get to play like you're so flabbergasted anyone could think that.

Quoted for truth.

Its not about you or me. Its about you and Merc consistently suggesting that your opinions are non-partisan and more credible than mine or anyone who might disagree with you.

Now back to your dodging and weaving.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

I stand corrected.

That about sums it up.

What no response to the FACTS? No reply to the questions posed? Nothing? You really got nothing? I was expecting all sorts of reassurances and . . . I'm shocked. I clearly laid out FACTS from the CBO and followed up with valid opinions from them. Is the CBO now a partisan cite? wtf?

All you got is a another lame personal attack? I expected much more from you.

ETA: and to then take a complete cheap shot at Jinx? That is beyond lame.

Originally Posted by classicman

I expected much more from you.

My expectations of you were much lower.

You made this personal...not me.

How many posts have I contributed to answer your questions in the past? Not with partisan columns, but with facts from the bills or my best judgment of those bills. Only to be called a partisan or a mouthpiece for Obama in response.

You made this personal...not me.

And, I'm fucking tired of it.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Not with partisan columns, but with facts from the bills or my best judgment of those bills. Only to be called a partisan or a mouthpiece for Obama in response.

Because you are a propagandist of the highest order. And your 'best judgement' as a no named non-entity of a poster on a forum does not trump subject matter experts. You are not one.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Yeah....its very impressive that a guy "in the system" can only flood the site with partisan opinion columns and doesnt even know enough to offer an original thought of his own.

I have offered plenty of them. You can look for them over the last 100+ pages. Because you didn't look does not mean they don't exist.

And my 20+ years in public policy and the fact that I post facts that neither of you ever accept, or that I have taken the time to try to explain the bill to you as I understand it from having spoken and interacted with experts across the political spectrum as part of my job, means nothing.

You post Demoncratic Propaganda. Those are not facts. But you can try to convince yourself that they are, most know better.

Its not about you or me. Its about you and Merc consistently suggesting that your opinions are non-partisan and more credible than mine or anyone who might disagree with you.

I back up my points with subject matter experts. You are not one. Much of the stuff I have posted is non-partisan. Just because they disagree with the bull shit your whores in Congress believe doesn't make them partisan.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Redux

Y

I stand corrected.

I should have said objective and knowledgeable.

I've read your posts. You're not fit to judge either. Stick to things you understand, like hissy fits.

Originally Posted by jinx

I've read your posts. You're not fit to judge either. Stick to things you understand, like hissy fits.

Well, now I am really crushed.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

Now back to your dodging and weaving.

What? I posted a thoughtful and well cited response with "my own original thoughts, opinions and concerns." Just like you asked for. Cited and quoted by the CBO - As impartial as it gets. Heck, you've used them several times yourself.
You have not replied to any of them, yet again. Just more personal attacks and the blame game.

Weak, at best.

Originally Posted by classicman

What? I posted a thoughtful and well cited response with "my own original thoughts, opinions and concerns." Just like you asked for. Cited and quoted by the CBO - As impartial as it gets. Heck, you've used them several times yourself.
You have not replied to any of them, yet again. Just more personal attacks and the blame game.

Weak, at best.

The last time I attempted to respond to your "thoughtful" comment that the bill would simply help 30+ million uninsured, you refused to acknowledge the fact that I pointed out that the bill will also help 200+ million people currently insured by providing unprecedented security in knowing that they wont have coverage being denied or go broke as a result of a health issue (among other benefits), and the fact that the bill provides funding to build capacity for the Insurance Exchange, in response to your concern regarding the delay in implementing that piece of the program.

In response to your "thoughtful" comment about Medicare cuts, I offered the response with the fact that the largest percentage of the cuts are in overpayments to MA providers that wont impact patient services. Those services (with a few exceptions like gym memberships) will be provide through other MA providers willing to offer services at a rate 5% above guidelines (as opposed to the current 15%) or will be provided through basic Medicare.

In response to your "thoughtful" comment about paying for four years before any change is enacted, I responded that the facts say otherwise and that there are numerous components of the bill that will be implemented immediately (not to mention that much of the costs are in the out-years). You want more details on that? The bill immediately prohibits insurers from rescinding coverage, imposing life-time or annual limits or denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions and young adults can stay on their parents’ policies until their 27th birthday.....and those currently uninsured will be able to purchase subsidized catastrophic coverage and small businesses that provide health coverage will also be eligible for immediate tax credits.

The above exchanges over the last day or so were what I think Shawnee was referencing with this post:

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

It's not about disagreeing, it's about your dancing about when you have absolutely NO argument. You're maddening as hell in that respect, and you keep at it until someone calls you out for being an ass, then you get to play like you're so flabbergasted anyone could think that.

And I agree with her.

In numerous previous posts over the last weeks and months, I have tried to respond honestly only to have you ignore the facts in my post and/or characterize it as partisan or call me a partisan mouthpiece.

Fool me once (or twice, or three times), shame on me.

I just got fed up with your "dancing" and related bullshit and I wont get fooled again.

And the fact that you still cant or wont admit that your "contributions" to this discussion for the most part have been as partisan as anyone's just reinforces my opinion.

If you and Merc (and Jinx) think that I am just a mouthpiece or dont know what the fuck I am talking about....fine. Its no sweat off my ass.

Dont ask me to respond anymore ....but dont be surprised if I call you out for partisan bullshit or false or misleading cherry-picked lines to suit your agenda from your snips/pastes when I see it.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

I pointed out that the bill will also help 200+ million people currently insured by providing unprecedented security in knowing that they wont have coverage being denied or go broke as a result of a health issue (among other benefits)

What increases in premiums are available to the insurance companies? How is this determined?
For those who are ill or have a pre-existing condition you state that they can get insurance - at what cost? Is it the same as a healthy person or are there increased premiums for them similar to life insurance?

I offered the response that the bulk of the cuts are in overpayments to MA providers that wont impact patient services.

Who determined that they were overpayments? How was that done, was it in comparison to other major carriers? Because my experience and research disagrees with that statement. In fact Medicare pays substantially less that standard carriers. The CBO doesn't agree either, based upon what I read and quoted.

Those services (with a few exceptions like gym memberships) will be provide through other MA providers willing to offer services at a rate 5% above guidelines (as opposed to the current 15%) or will be provided through basic Medicare.

I don't understand this last part, please clarify.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

And the fact that you still cant or wont admit that your "contributions" to this discussion for the most part have been as partisan as anyone's just reinforces my opinion.

Again, I am neither an "R" nor a "D". I have very personal & private reasons for my comments, questions and opinions about this legislation. If you really want to know, PM me.

If you and Merc (and Jinx) think that I am just a mouthpiece or dont know what the fuck I am talking about....fine. Dont ask me to respond anymore ....but dont be surprised if I call you out for partisan bullshit if I see it.

For the hundredth time - STOP lumping people together. Take each on his or her own for their own merits and/or posts. You know Merc as well or should I say as little as I do, Jinx too for that matter.
Just untwist your panties and relax.

Oh, Are there links that specifically back up your claims - most importantly those referring to the pre-existing conditions? That would be most helpful.

Originally Posted by classicman

Again, I am neither an "R" nor a "D". I have very personal & private reasons for my comments, questions and opinions about this legislation. If you really want to know, PM me.


For the hundredth time - STOP lumping people together. Take each on his or her own for their own merits and/or posts. You know Merc as well or should I say as little as I do, Jinx too for that matter.
Just untwist your panties and relax.

Oh, Are there links that specifically back up your claims - most importantly those referring to the pre-existing conditions? That would be most helpful.

Its not the letter after your name that matters, it is the nature of your responses....and when they regurgitate right wing talking points, IMO, it is partisan....and when they sound just like others, I will lump them with others.

But putting that aside.

The immediate benefits regarding pre-existing conditions is in the Senate legislation. I dont know a better source than that:

Subtitle B--Immediate Actions to Preserve and Expand Coverage

SEC. 1101. IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO INSURANCE FOR UNINSURED INDIVIDUALS WITH A PREEXISTING CONDITION.

(a) In General- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a temporary high risk health insurance pool program to provide health insurance coverage for eligible individuals during the period beginning on the date on which such program is established and ending on January 1, 2014.

(These temporary pools will be administered by the states.)
...

(In terms of costs, the insurance company has to pay at least 2/3 and there are limits on out-of-pocket expenses):

(A) provides to all eligible individuals health insurance coverage that does not impose any preexisting condition exclusion with respect to such coverage;

(B) provides health insurance coverage--

(i) in which the issuer's share of the total allowed costs of benefits provided under such coverage is not less than 65 percent of such costs; and

(ii) that has an out of pocket limit not greater than the applicable amount described in section 223(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for the year involved, except that the Secretary may modify such limit if necessary to ensure the pool meets the actuarial value limit under clause (i)...

(see the IRS code for the latest limits that apply to medical savings accounts...the same limits would apply.)


(In terms of eligible individuals, all of the below must apply):

(d) Eligible Individual- An individual shall be deemed to be an eligible individual for purposes of this section if such individual--

(1) is a citizen or national of the United States or is lawfully present in the United States (as determined in accordance with section 1411);

(2) has not been covered under creditable coverage (as defined in section 2701(c)(1) of the Public Health Service Act as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act) during the 6-month period prior to the date on which such individual is applying for coverage through the high risk pool; and

(3) has a pre-existing condition, as determined in a manner consistent with guidance issued by the Secretary.

There are also provisions to immediately extend coverage to children on a family plan up to the age of 27 (sec 2714)

For the full bill, go to thomas.loc.gov and seach the bill number HR 3590

If this is important to you, I would suggest calling or e-mailing your Senator and requesting more information.

As I said, I dont claim to be an expert, but I do have a pretty good understanding of what are in these bills.