Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Films, TV, Music, Books, Etc.' started by MikeyVassallo, Mar 22, 2010.
Real quick- thought you guys would like this. http://bit.ly/97vylT
My burgers, my precious burgers.
Quick question: Have you read the entire bill?
Who here has? I guess Iâ€™ll be on hiatus until I read this thing, which will be never. Sorry, but KISS works for me because this legislation is simply a response to problems previous legislation helped create. And in the future, there will be new legislation to "fix" the problems this legislation creates.
I'd say if we'd KISS'd in the first place we wouldn't need to deal with gargantuan bills, but when it's your job to acquire, retain, and enforce power (as a legislator or special interest), that rarely seems to be the concern.
On a somewhat related note...
Does anyone else find Rush Limbaugh (and others of his ilk) wildly comically contradictory? I mean, here's a man who has no problem with the vast warfare apparatus (for national defense, don't ya know?) and all its special interests, money laundering, torture-using sundries (and it's all necessary, ya know?) and thinks nothing could be a more important prerogative of the federal government...
...yet somehow the government can't manage health care when it can do all that (that is, it can keep us safe but not healthy).
Now, I rarely listen to the guy (only at lunch when I'm skimming the radio between commercials), but sometimes I can't help but listen to him just to get a good laugh
On another note: Here's a fabulous column by a writer I think consistently makes good points. I know this bill is "historic," but come on, let's just not pretend it's hunky-dory and that its only failing is that it didn't include a public option or that jazz. In my state's largest paper the last two days' Opinion section has been headlined with this typical unfailing support of the bill and that it stood up against Big Money. How naive.
Doctors and Hospitals aren't special interests... they are the direct care providers. I take issue with that plank of his argument. Sure, there are hospitals that run at profit, but there are also hospitals who are NPOs and providing care, research and paying their employees are all they do.
Other than that I don't have a problem with the article. I don't see it as standing up to special interests as much as I see it sweeping legislation that is making more changes for the better than changes for the worse. As a matter of fact Obama had to cut a lot of those deals to try to get the GOP on board... look at how that tactic worked.
And for my double post, I'll tell Ted that I wub him very much.
A quick overview of the heal care ramp up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u9o8G2E ... re=related
I dont know everything said so I need to read back, but I think that at best, this is a step in the right direction, and at worst, it is a farce.
But chances are this is a better scenario than what was before, because some major changes were made and that is at least something done correctly, like dropping people with pre-existing conditions (my ass) and things of that nature.
Problem is we need a public option for it to survive, because a regulatory competitor that goes against private companies is the only way we can curtail the spending and high rates of insurance.
A best this is the Ark of the Covenant at worst it is cold oatmeal.
And in the end it's neither.....
Short answer: Yes. That's why I'm so into it.
I told earlier you that I was part of several campaigns to see that this law was enacted. It was my responsibility to know the substance of the legislation inside and out, backwards and forwards. All versions.
http://bit.ly/12OBn4 - H.R. 3962 - The House bill which was dropped for the below
http://bit.ly/15Vwet - H.R. 3590 -This is what the House just passed and Obama signed
http://bit.ly/a01ALI - H.R. 4872 - This is what will be passed this weekend. (EDIT) Passed tonight! 3/25/10, Sometimes it's fun to be WRONG!
It's not light reading but that shouldn't deter you from diving in. Have fun. And not sure if you knew this, good sir, but the House of Representatives actually passed the Senate version of healthcare reform.
Very perceptive. The reconciliation measure they pass this weekend will further strengthen the law and make it similar to the more effective House of Representatives version. You kind of already know this?
I don't recall anyone substantively involved in the making of this law ever saying they wouldn't use reconciliation, by the way. That tip you got might have been somewhere in the annals of salon.com, the same place you went for yet another dismissive editorial. It's truly chic to be unimpressed with anything. This is legislation that prompted Rep. Lewis to remark "We cannot wait a moment longer." This was the same man who marched in the Civil Rights movement and compared healthcare reform to being right up there with that very activism. That's making a statement to anyone that continues to scoff at this.
If you really thought this was historic then you wouldn't have the put the word in quotations. I'm not taking offense to it but merely saying that your unfamiliarity with this law and how things were before it is what is causing you to be so obstinate. It's a great start because it admits a problem and sets us on the way crafting something that really will be a corporation-killer.
I think, ted wolff, we probably agree on more than you might think since I don't mindlessly believe that this law is the end-all of all laws. It's got flaws, to be sure. But you're not acknowledging some of more creative, genius elements of it that come with better research on it.
And yes, Limbaugh, a man who repeatedly refers to Obama as a "man-child" is a grade-A prick in the range of Glenn Beck and Alex Jones. They are rather mighty though.... http://bit.ly/Anqlc.
In any case I'm not sure if you'll actually believe anything I've posted just now but it's what I honestly believe. Thanks for taking the time to respond to me.
Agreed, LinksOcarina. That'd be choice. There are all kinds of routes to go now. http://bit.ly/aiPWxB, Governator or not. I'm curious to see what happens after the reconciliation measure is passed this weekend.
And, yeah, I'm capable of making posts that are not leagues in length, haha.
Good times, Lebowski, good times.
Great chance to observe GOP chicanery on the Senate floor Reconciliation Session right this minute. http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN2.aspx
"There is no attempt to approve this bill, this is an attempt to destroy this bill." Sen. Harry Reid 20 minutes ago
Any of the unusually thoughtful amendments by the Republicans right now are being made in the name of obstruction and not good will. They are choosing be so "valiant" at this moment because any amendment that is voted into the reconciliation measure will cause it to GO BACK to the House of Representatives for more debate. This is a bald-faced stall and dupe tactic.
CSPAN at night, baby. Sleep is for the weak.
So, just curious, when are you going to question the integrity of those here who have supported the bill yet haven't read it?
I mean, if I say, "I disagree with this bill because of the mandate, and silly things like a 10% tax on tanning salons and forcing businesses to provide calorie counts, and it will probably hurt the people it tries to help," then you'll shoot back with a section of the bill that says, "No, this is how it will help them, and there's no way this bill could be wrong; and, here's why those other things are necessary..."
But if someone says, "This is a great first step but we need a public option!" you don't seem likely to come back and say, "Well what in the bill makes this so great, and why do we need a public option?"
Just sayin'. It reflects, to me, poorly upon you because you seem concerned with only supporting unyielding adulation for this bill and dismissing any concerns outside of no public option or heavier force on corporations.
If you think I'm too critical or skeptical in the opposite direction, fine. But at least someone here needs to be because time and time again we see, despite the best intentions, things don't go as planned. And a few hundred people (many with different interests and intentions) just essentially planned a significant part of the economy for hundreds of millions of people (with far more different interests and values). I think it's pretty fair to be skeptical and critical that everything in the bill will line up with the stars, rather than cheer, "Rah! Rah!"
Edit: To underscore one of my points, I have to ask: Why does a health care bill include measures regarding student loans? You see, it's underhanded stuff like this that should make us skeptical and critical. If you want to modify student loans, fine. Craft and pass a separate bill. Just don't shove it in an unrelated bill. If you're not going to talk straight, I have my doubts you're going to walk straight.
Second edit: So, golly, I couldn't contain my interest and peeked at the bill the House signed and read this:
and I'm wondering, since you said you read the entire bill, I'm curious if you went back and read every previous law this bill amends to get the full understanding. Again, just curious, since you put so much weight on reading what you're discussing.
But who really believes you must read everything to legitimately comment on it? Heck, people don't even read EULAs, and those are by far shorter and less cumbersome than this bill. People don't even read the fine print! So to expect them to read thousands of pages of legalese... sorry but you're asking a bit much, however fair your point might be.
^^^^ I chant "Rah! Rah!" because that must be an alternative spelling of the deity that saw fit to pass those UV-soaked tanning bed taxes! And also because there's something to cheer about when the fast food industry (ones with over 20 restaurant locations) is being forced to display how huge they're making people. It'll have a limited effectiveness to be sure, but the fact you believe it to be silly is further indicative of how dismissive you are of creative measures in the law.
I've said multiple times there's flaws in the law and that it could be far better. And if I can explain how a section of the law is effective then of course I'm going to because it has worked for refuting any of the points you, inquisitive one, have brought up so far. You simply have not been able to raise any points of concern I haven't been able to defuse, thus far, dude. How? Because, once again, I've read the law. And you refuse to. Actually reading it enables you to do more than merely doubt it.
Here is how that portion of the economy came to be so significant: because of laws like this: http://bit.ly/xXDvC . The government helped create the situation with the insurance industries we are in now and, at long last, when we are choosing to address that same problem the government helped to create, another reason I worked for and am defending this law's effects so much. If you think they're making it worse by choosing to regulate the industry and fund the reform through taxes like luxuries such as tanning beds then I'd say your skepticism is misplaced. And I'll question anyone, either opposed to or in support of the law that I feel is misinformed. Right now, you're the most obvious choice for people in need of more info.
Keep 'em coming. I'm having fun.
Ah yes, sorry for having doubts that a bunch of politicians know better than millions of people with what they want. And for doubting that a bill does what it says when so many have been misconstrued in the past and exploited.
Yes, a bunch of noble politicians wrote a bunch of words into law. That must make it right, right?
Oh, and why did states come to regulate insurance? Oh yeah, because businesses offered insurance to get around the stupid wage controls the federal government imposed in the first place. Again, legislation created a problem to which further legislation is proposed. Forgive me if I doubt that new legislation will fix a problem legislation created in the first place.
And why are calorie counts so huge? Perhaps because the food is so cheap because of legislation that created the subsidies for such exploitation. Gee, more legislation that created a problem that new legislation proposes to fix. Again, forgive me if I doubt this legislation will solve more problems than it creates.
And, really, a) calorie counts haven't been shown to be entirely effective (but hey, force people to do something anyway!), and b) obesity is a far more complex problem than simply counting calories.
It's easy to see. The issue at hand here is not any problem with the legislation, but your morbid distrust and cynicism that conflates any federal government activity with tyranny. There are plenty of reasons to despise the U.S. federal government. The creation of this law is not one of those reasons.
The insurance issues within our states came to be so bad because of the passage of the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. Reading the information from my above link would have informed you of that. Don't be so rash, chum. The data is there. You just aren't even trying to understand it.
This is more or less how you sound. http://bit.ly/drrQJc
So try to take it easy. I'm not saying that because you disagree with me but because your arguments are increasingly irrelevant and distant from having any connection to what the legislation says, much like Boehner's. Nevertheless, I'm looking forward to your next quip about how the proper method to fix problems in the U.S. is to do nothing.
If you want to shriek against two Senators that derailed this law from being more effective look into Senators Joe Lieberman and Max Baucus. You'll notice one is a democrat so I don't quite approve of everything they do. We're picking up speed here, my friend. Try to keep up. This is great.
Right, I didn't read it. Hey, I know I admitted to not reading the health care bill, so maybe you're safe to assume here, too (just as you assume my solution will be to "do nothing," when I've never made such a hint, like some senator you seem to have it out for. That sure seems relevant to me). But don't be so rash, chum, because I did, only to see that it reinforced my point.
The point I made: previous legislation helped create the problem we have today, which in turned spurred new legislation. Because of this, I think it's safe to assume that this new legislation will create new problems, as has happened many times before. You don't seem to have explained why this legislation will be any different. We just happened to get the right people and the right words on the page this time, huh? That, in the entire span of varying political interests and legislation, seems so unlikely.
But hey, guess what? I did some reading! So here's some of the bill and my thoughts. I didn't post it all. I figured you'd get the point after so long. But hey, I'm credible now!
I feel so much more credible saying that this bill is a joke. I know there are health care problems in this country, but most of what I slogged through in this bill is just tacked on regulation that says, "Do this; don't do that; provide for these people; these people must pay; you can't voluntarily contract with other people; blahblahlegalese."
Have fun reading!
Requires reductions in the maximum limits for out-of-pocket expenses for individuals enrolled in qualified health plans whose incomes are between 100% and 400% of the poverty line.
If the health plan is forced to reduce out-of-pocket expenses, and this places a financial burden on the health plan, they will likely have to charge others more. I dislike this. Yes, itâ€™s terrible if the poor have to pay a lot out-of-pocket, but that doesnâ€™t justify charging others even more. What if someone chooses to live between 100% and 400% of the poverty line? Crazy thought, I know, but for this choice they now get charged less and someone else gets charged more. I know some of you like to think these insurance companies make record profits and can deal with less profits. That isn't always the case. You simply just can't make broad new penalties and say, "Hey, evil company, be nice!" and expect everything to economically and morally work out. Just doesn't happen like that.
- Requires the Secretary to establish a program for verifying the eligibility of applicants for participation in a qualified health plan offered through an Exchange or for a tax credit for premium assistance based upon their income or their citizenship or immigration status.
Ah but what if said program is exploited and used to dole out benefits to the well-connected? Hmmâ€¦ Don't pretend that doesn't happen. It does. It just happened in my state regarding other tax credits, and a lot of people made off with good money. Then again, my cynicism is apparently unwarranted because this bill is different! The stars have aligned to make everything right!
Disregards the premium assistance tax credit and cost-sharing reductions in determining eligibility for federal and federally-assisted programs. (Sec. 1416, as added by section 10105) Directs the HHS Secretary to study and report to Congress by January 1, 2013, on the feasibility and implication of adjusting the application of the federal poverty level under this subtitle for different geographic areas in the United States, including its territories. Part II: Small Business Tax Credit - (Sec. 1421, as modified by section 10105) Allows qualified small employers to elect, beginning in 2010, a tax credit for 50% of their employee health care coverage expenses. Defines "qualified small employer" as an employer who has no more than 25 employees with average annual compensation levels not exceeding $50,000. Requires a phase-out of such credit based on employer size and employee compensation.Subtitle F: Shared Responsibility for Health Care - Part I: Individual Responsibility - (Sec. 1501, as modified by section 10106) Requires individuals to maintain minimal essential health care coverage beginning in 2014. Imposes a penalty for failure to maintain such coverage beginning in 2014, except for certain low-income individuals who cannot afford coverage, members of Indian tribes, and individuals who suffer hardship. Exempts from the coverage requirement individuals who object to health care coverage on religious grounds, individuals not lawfully present in the United States, and individuals who are incarcerated.
(Side note: Really, if people want bills like this to be read and understood they need to be written a lot better than this junked-together paragraph.)
First, what economic logic dictates an employer with no more than 25 employees is less capable of providing insurance than one with 26 employees?
Second, all individuals must purchase health care coverage beginning in 2014. What if I donâ€™t want it? I shouldnâ€™t be forced to. Canâ€™t I be free to live dangerously?
Third, why the exemption for religious grounds, those not present in the US, or those incarcerated? Canâ€™t I be exempted for simply not wanting to take part, deity or no?
Requires each state to assess a charge on health plans and health insurance issuers if the actuarial risk of the enrollees of such plans or coverage for a year is less than the average actuarial risk of all enrollees in all plans or coverage in the state for the year. Requires each state to provide a payment to health plans and health insurance issuers if the actuarial risk of the enrollees of such plan or coverage for a year is greater than the average actuarial risk of all enrollees in all plans and coverage in the state for the year. Excludes self-insured group health plans from this section.Subtitle E: Affordable Coverage Choices for All Americans - Part I: Premium Tax Credits and Cost-sharing Reductions - Subpart A: Premium Tax Credits and Cost-sharing Reductions - (Sec. 1401, as modified by section 10105) Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow individual taxpayers whose household income equals or exceeds 100%, but does not exceed 400%, of the federal poverty line (as determined in the Social Security Act [SSA]) a refundable tax credit for a percentage of the cost of premiums for coverage under a qualified health plan. Sets forth formulae and rules for the calculation of credit amounts based upon taxpayer household income as a percentage of the poverty line. Directs the Comptroller General, not later than five years after enactment of this Act, to conduct a study and report to specified congressional committees on the affordability of health insurance coverage.
Why do only those between 100% and 400% get a tax credit? Why not up to 500%?
Also, what if I am at 401% and am struggling to get buy? Why should I help provide, through a tax credit, for someone at 399%? Again, the poorest above the cutoff line will be hurt more than the richer. But hey, after five years the Comp. Gen. will study the plight of the poorest above the cutoff line and everything will be hunky-dory! After five years.
Revises state authority to offer a premium assistance subsidy for qualified employer-sponsored coverage to children under age 19 to extend such a subsidy to all individuals, regardless of age. Prohibits a state from requiring, as a condition of Medicaid eligibility, that an individual (or the individualâ€™s parent) apply for enrollment in qualified employer-sponsored coverage. (Sec. 2004, as modified by Sec. 10201) Extends Medicaid coverage to former foster care children who are under 26 years of age.
Thereâ€™s a little saying that if you want more of something you should subsidize it. So this regulation seems to encourage dependence on having others provide for them. And if Medicaid coverage is extended, it must be paid for somehow, through new taxes, tax increases, borrowing, or somewhere else. This doesnâ€™t seem to explain where that funding is coming from. All I know is, other people shouldnâ€™t be forced to extend such benefits. Could be rich or poor people. Itâ€™s not as if either demographic is without its share of monetary problems.
Amends SSA title XIX (Medicaid) to:
(1) increase the minimum rebate percentage for single source drugs and innovator multiple source drugs;
(2) increase the rebate for other drugs;
(3) require contracts with Medicaid managed care organizations to extend prescription drug rebates (discounts) to their enrollees;
(4) provide an additional rebate for new formulations of existing drugs; and
(5) set a maximum rebate amount.
Where is the money to increase the rebate percentage coming from? It can only come by taking more money from other people (i.e., taxes, borrowing). Again, seems like some are being forced to provide for others. Canâ€™t get behind this. I donâ€™t know the stories of whoâ€™s suffering for a bigger rebate, but I also donâ€™t know the story of whoâ€™s being forced to provide for the bigger rebate. They could be equally tragic. Then what?
Eliminates the exclusion from Medicaid coverage of, thereby extending coverage to, certain drugs used to promote smoking cessation, as well as barbiturates and benzodiazepines.
So Medicaid covers more, which means itâ€™ll cost more money. Again, whoâ€™s paying? I donâ€™t want to. A personâ€™s cessation of smoking is up to him, not me. I guess not, because health insurance plans are mandated by state/federal governments to cover medical care related to smoking, or will be because of pre-existing conditions. I guess it is my problem now, and a smoker does affect other people's health insurance! (But only because it was regulated to be so.)
Requires the Secretary, acting through the Director of CDC, to carry out oral health activities, including:
(1) establishing a national public education campaign that is focused on oral health care prevention and education;
(2) awarding demonstration grants for research-based dental caries disease management activities;
(3) awarding grants for the development of school-based dental sealant programs
Why do we need a national public education campaign about oral health? Schools already do that. Dentists do that. Toothpaste companies do that. Toothbrush companies do that. Canâ€™t even state governments do this? Why force the entire nation to support this?
Further, Iâ€™ve worked with state university research programs funded with grants. Theyâ€™re not entirely thrifty with their funds and how they operate. What checks & balances are there?
Amends the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to require the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board to promulgate standards setting forth the minimum technical criteria for medical diagnostic equipment used in medical settings to ensure that such equipment is accessible to, and usable by, individuals with accessibility needs.
What if the medical setting has difficulty complying with this regulation? Again, a smaller business is more likely to bear the brunt than a large business. And any new cost is likely to be passed onto consumers.
Authorizes the Secretary to negotiate and enter into contracts with vaccine manufacturers for the purchase and delivery of vaccines for adults. Allows a state to purchase additional quantities of adult vaccines from manufacturers at the applicable price negotiated by the Secretary.
Well the Secretary could negotiate any price he wants. This is totally divorced from any supply and demand. How will costs be controlled? Doesnâ€™t sound like thereâ€™s any effective control in place than the Secretaryâ€™s whim.
Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require the labeling of a food item offered for sale in a retail food establishment that is part of a chain with 20 or more locations under the same name to disclose on the menu and menu board:
(1) the number of calories contained in the standard menu item;
(2) the suggested daily caloric intake; and
(3) the availability on the premises and upon request of specified additional nutrient information. Requires self-service facilities to place adjacent to each food offered a sign that lists calories per displayed food item or per serving. Requires vending machine operators who operate 20 or more vending machines to provide a sign disclosing the number of calories contained in each article of food.
Dislike. A food establishment shouldnâ€™t be forced to disclose how many calories its products contain. This is between the customers and the business. If the customers desire such labels they should take it up with the restaurant, not use other peopleâ€™s money/time (through public policy) to force restaurants to do something they donâ€™t want.
Also, what if the chain has only 20 locations? It will likely cost it more to comply with this regulation than a chain that has 200 or 2,000. Thus, the smaller businesses are punished greater than larger companies. And then this cost will be passed onto consumers.
Further, a) calorie counts arenâ€™t always accurate and b) daily caloric intakes fluctuate depending on the person.
Oh, and why the number 20? Why not 15? Or 25?
Amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to require employers to provide a reasonable break time and a suitable place, other than a bathroom, for an employee to express breast milk for her nursing child. Excludes an employer with less than 50 employees if such requirements would impose an undue hardship.
Dislike. First, this could encourage companies who have a harder time complying with this regulation to not hire pregnant women or women who recently had children. Second, what if the company has 50 employees? It punishes it to a greater extent than a company that has 500 or 5,000 employees that can better absorb the cost. Third, shouldnâ€™t this be between the employee and the employer? Fourth, Whatâ€™s â€œreasonableâ€
god damn ted, thanks for the novel. wowzers.
Hey, no problem! I did it while eating a fabulous and healthy salad, to boot! Double health care score!
What is this really about people ? A Bill ? There are dozens of other things we need to be doing right now. The bill passed, it's in law, repubs are mad and trying anything, even enticing violence, it's obvious.
You guys are acting like every bill ever passed has been what we all wanted lol. NO BILL was, is or will ever be perfect. The majority of America wants HC, deal with it because it's happening. All the violence and fighting and threats are getting old. Republicans are becoming powerless across the US and when it comes time to vote, we should have alot of popcorn ready.
President Obama is doing a fine job trying to tackle all his promises he made, some will be broken and most will not, im sorry for being a realist. In 1 and a half years he's doing better than Bush. Give him some credit for bringing change to Washington.
And these polls all the news channels keep showing are ridiculous. All polls are biased because not everybody votes on everything. I never voted on cnn, hln, msnbc, fox or anything and I know alot more who havent, so who's really voting ?
Hey Ted, why don't you stop arguing. Geez.
It is truly a dead arugment. lol