Inexpensive Common sense solutions are needed

[Angel!]

Ok, found something - www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/08/rush-limbaugh/health-care-bill-transfers-limbaugh/

It pretty much says that the portion of the bill referred to in the bank account stuff is actually talking about allowing electronic communication between your doctor & your health insurance & doesn't have anything to do with an individual's actual bank account. For example, this statement "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;" is actually talking about determining if insurance will cover a specific procedure & what the individual's payment for that procedure would be - copay & whatnot.

So I was completely wrong thinking it might have been referring to liens & levies.

[Deleted]

I've known a couple of people that went to their bank accounts and found them empty and have been garnished by the gov't right out of their accounts with no notice-- yes, child support, back taxes, unpaid student loans, etc. This is just another law they can take our money from us, except that--- it is not like paying taxes or child support or student loans in that many of us did not agree to do this!!! That would make it seizure of private funds-- against the will of the person. Yep-- just like a criminal or a deadbeat Dad. It is just WRONG. SO many things are wrong with this bill. We need to start over, take our time, and do it in the full view of the public.

[Angel!]

Jan 20, 2011 14:24:39 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

I've known a couple of people that went to their bank accounts and found them empty and have been garnished by the gov't right out of their accounts with no notice-- yes, child support, back taxes, unpaid student loans, etc. This is just another law they can take our money from us, except that--- it is not like paying taxes or child support or student loans in that many of us did not agree to do this!!! That would make it seizure of private funds-- against the will of the person. Yep-- just like a criminal or a deadbeat Dad. It is just WRONG. SO many things are wrong with this bill. We need to start over, take our time, and do it in the full view of the public.

I had the pleasure of dealing with a bank levy with my ex & trust me - you have tons of notice that you owe money. They don't tell you they are going to lock down your account before they do it (what would be the point, you would take out the money), but when they do lock it down, it isn't like you had no idea you owed money. He had been having his tax refund taken for over 3 yrs before they ever went into his bank account, so he knew he owed the money.

As far as the bill - here is the full text referred to in your quotes -
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3200ih/pdf/BILLS-111hr3200ih.pdf
If you actually go to page 57 & read through it - the section quoted is actually titled "STANDARDIZE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS." & talks about goals in simplifying all the administrative paperwork between doctors & health insurance companies. It has nothing to do with an individuals bank account or levies or anything else.

[deziloooooo]

There possible might be a time where certain procedures, not all end of life procedures either , where coverage will not be covered by Medicare.

Hip replacement , some one say 87 years old, as a example.

Those type of procedures to be paid by the patient for example.
Bill Gates , a while back when the health intuitive was being discussed , brought it up as a way to contain costs , especially the high costs that accrue as one ages.

The fact is , medical costs do rise as one ages even if basically healthy.
So many are semi healthy , but blood pressure, cholesterol, sugar, crop up thus instead of a once a year visit and a visit or two if one cuts one self badly, bad cold that warrants a doctors visit.

Just normal visits , for blood work to monitor the symptoms, which are under control by medication, definitely rise and that is a cost that wasn't there before.

I have two doctors, see each four times a year , for check ups, tests.
I take medication, problems under control, but where I went once a year, no meds at all, many years never ever see Doctor or seek treatment, , now there are 8 visits a year just for check ups and monitoring and most of my neighbors , live 55 and over community, are the same.

If your here , younger and are as I was , never go to doctor, or ladies once a year for the gyno.., see what you have to look forward to, and you will get there no matter how invincible you feel.

Sorry, you will not live forever and you will age, sag, more wrinkles, a bit of a pot, thinning of the hair and to jump out of a perfectly good aircraft with a chute will all of a sudden be the dumbest thing you can think of where as back in the day......

[Deleted]

Sorry, angel, I do not have hours and hours to load something. My comp would actually explode.
Your article admits to a left point of view, and does admit, also, that it is not clear and could lead to speculation. Many of us want to be VERY clear what is in the bill, and that is not going to happen, so it needs to be trashed and redone.
If you should come across the entire text of the section, out of PDF form please post it. From what I read of it it is WAY too vague, and the interpretation by people that support the bill and target Limbaugh doesn't really reassure me. There have been too many lies for to many years.

[Angel!]

Sorry, angel, I do not have hours and hours to load something. My comp would actually explode.

It is just a PDF - less than 2 MB, took all of 15 seconds to open on my computer.

‘‘SEC. 1173A. STANDARDIZE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS.
‘‘(a) STANDARDS FOR FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall adopt and regularly update standards consistent with the
16 goals described in paragraph (2).
‘‘(2) GOALS FOR FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS.—The goals for standards under paragraph (1) are that such standards shall—
‘‘(A) be unique with no conflicting or redundant standards;
‘‘(B) be authoritative, permitting no additions or constraints for electronic transactions, including companion guides;
‘‘(C) be comprehensive, efficient and robust, requiring minimal augmentation by paper transactions or clarification by further communications;
‘‘(D) enable the real-time (or near realtime) 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;
‘‘(E) enable, where feasible, near real-time adjudication of claims;
‘‘(F) provide for timely acknowledgment, response, and status reporting applicable to any electronic transaction deemed appropriate by the Secretary;
‘‘(G) describe all data elements (such as reason and remark codes) in unambiguous terms, not permit optional fields, require that data elements be either required or conditioned upon set values in other fields, and prohibit additional conditions; and
‘‘(H) harmonize all common data elements across administrative and clinical transaction standards.
‘‘(3) TIME FOR ADOPTION.—Not later than 2 years after the date of implementation of the Version 5010 transaction standards implemented under this part, the Secretary shall adopt standards under this section.
‘‘(4) REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC STANDARDS.—The standards under this section shall be developed, adopted and enforced so as to—
‘‘(A) clarify, refine, complete, and expand, as needed, the standards required under section 1173;
‘‘(B) require paper versions of standardized transactions to comply with the same standards as to data content such that a fully compliant, equivalent electronic transaction can be populated from the data from a paper version;
‘‘(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice;
‘‘(D) require timely and transparent claim and denial management processes, including tracking, adjudication, and appeal processing;
‘‘(E) require the use of a standard electronic transaction with which health care providers may quickly and efficiently enroll with a health plan to conduct the other electronic transactions provided for in this part; and
‘‘(F) provide for other requirements relating to administrative simplification as identified by the Secretary, in consultation with stakeholders.

It goes on from there - but the part that has been quoted as allowing bank accounts access is under goals. This was the stuff that obama has been talking about as far as making the administrative process simpler.

[Deleted]

THX, angel, my comp would not load it, gave me a frozen "progress" bar. Sorry, Even reading the whole thing I do not like it. I can certainly see the problem people are concerned about. The difference between you and me is that you trust this bill, and I do not. I tried to read it with your POV and I still saw gray areas. Maybe you are right, maybe I am. Seems it could go however they want it to go. That's the problem.

[burnsattornincan]

be comprehensive, efficient and robust

When the group who actually wrote the bill are the exact opposite of the above, how in Sam Hill is anything going forward to be anything of the sort? Government do absolutely nothing right and everything they do is for self preservation.

[floridayankee]

Jan 20, 2011 12:47:02 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

Yank!!! Sounds like you need re-education on how to live in a modern, global society!!

Sounds great!

I don't have to get up though, do I?

[Angel!]

Jan 20, 2011 15:30:53 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

THX, angel, my comp would not load it, gave me a frozen "progress" bar. Sorry, Even reading the whole thing I do not like it. I can certainly see the problem people are concerned about. The difference between you and me is that you trust this bill, and I do not. I tried to read it with your POV and I still saw gray areas. Maybe you are right, maybe I am. Seems it could go however they want it to go. That's the problem.

I wouldn't say I trust or distrust the bill. I read it for what is there & try not to assume stuff that isn't actually written.

The people that keep reading stuff like death panels into the bill are over-analyzing & doing a bunch of what-if scenarios & trying to figure out what else this bill could lead to. They take stuff too far & make wild assumptions - like say if they were considering lowering the drinking age to 18, I could say that will just lead to lowering the drinking age to 12, therefore we shouldn't do it.

I know this is type of a logical fallacy, although the name escapes me. Much of the argument against this bill is from people not knowing what is in there combined with scare tactics by the right.

I don't agree with everything in the bill, but I have read through much of it, although I skimmed a lot of the parts dealing with paperwork & medicare & really just focused on the insurance requirements, costs, subsidization for low income, the health insurance exchange, & stuff that would more directly affect me. From everything I have read through, I have learned many people talking about the bill don't have a clue what is actually in it at all.

[floridayankee]

The people that keep reading stuff like death panels into the bill are over-analyzing & doing a bunch of what-if scenarios & trying to figure out what else this bill could lead to.

I agree about the "death panels".....but....IMHO, the government needs to start running proposed legislation through a lot MORE what-if scenarios. Too many times they pass legislation that bites us in the ass. Look at the Gramm Leach Bliley Act for a prime example.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

I agree about the "death panels".....but....IMHO, the government needs to start running proposed legislation through a lot MORE what-if scenarios. Too many times they pass legislation that bites us in the ass. Look at the Gramm Leach Bliley Act for a prime example.

Or the AMT passed in 1969.

[deziloooooo]

Jan 20, 2011 15:07:07 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

Sorry, angel, I do not have hours and hours to load something. My comp would actually explode.
Your article admits to a left point of view, and does admit, also, that it is not clear and could lead to speculation. Many of us want to be VERY clear what is in the bill, and that is not going to happen, so it needs to be trashed and redone.
If you should come across the entire text of the section, out of PDF form please post it. From what I read of it it is WAY too vague, and the interpretation by people that support the bill and target Limbaugh doesn't really reassure me. There have been too many lies for to many years.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Krickett I found a pretty easy read on the bill.

I was looking for one I found earlier, different time , on the specific time lines as to when things are going into effect.
We all know by 2014, under the current bill's time lines, if no changes all parts of the bill are implemented.
Some where I notice something about your concern about "abortion".

From this post that wouldn't be done, covered, nor illegals which i know is a concer of yours so mentioned here, but possible through another agency or the interpretation, but this one a pretty good easy one to follow as to what the bill is about.

As far as you wanting to see every word of, while I am sure it's posted a some where, when do we read any Bill in it's entirety, most have so much legalese and wording that only a attorney can figure it out, if then. Being realistic on this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 21, 2010 6:31 PM
Health Care Reform Bill Summary: A Look At What's in the Bill


..

Updated March 23, 5 p.m. ET


By CBS News Capitol Hill Producers Jill Jackson and John Nolen


Cost:

$940 billion over ten years.

Deficit:

Would reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first ten years. That is an updated CBO estimate. Their first preliminary estimate said it would reduce the deficit by $130 billion over ten years. Would reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion dollars in the second ten years.

Read more on the CBO Report
Coverage:

Would expand coverage to 32 million Americans who are currently uninsured.
Health Insurance Exchanges:

The uninsured and self-employed would be able to purchase insurance through state-based exchanges with subsidies available to individuals and families with income between the 133 percent and 400 percent of poverty level.
Separate exchanges would be created for small businesses to purchase coverage -- effective 2014.
Funding available to states to establish exchanges within one year of enactment and until January 1, 2015.
Subsidies:

Individuals and families who make between 100 percent - 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and want to purchase their own health insurance on an exchange are eligible for subsidies. They cannot be eligible for Medicare, Medicaid and cannot be covered by an employer. Eligible buyers receive premium credits and there is a cap for how much they have to contribute to their premiums on a sliding scale.
Federal Poverty Level for family of four is $22,050



Paying for the Plan:

Medicare Payroll tax on investment income -- Starting in 2012, the Medicare Payroll Tax will be expanded to include unearned income. That will be a 3.8 percent tax on investment income for families making more than $250,000 per year ($200,000 for individuals).
Excise Tax -- Beginning in 2018, insurance companies will pay a 40 percent excise tax on so-called "Cadillac" high-end insurance plans worth over $27,500 for families ($10,200 for individuals). Dental and vision plans are exempt and will not be counted in the total cost of a family's plan.
Tanning Tax -- 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services.
Medicare:

Closes the Medicare prescription drug "donut hole" by 2020. Seniors who hit the donut hole by 2010 will receive a $250 rebate.

Beginning in 2011, seniors in the gap will receive a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs. The bill also includes $500 billion in Medicare cuts over the next decade.
Medicaid:

Expands Medicaid to include 133 percent of federal poverty level which is $29,327 for a family of four.

Requires states to expand Medicaid to include childless adults starting in 2014.

Federal Government pays 100 percent of costs for covering newly eligible individuals through 2016.

Illegal immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid.
Insurance Reforms:

Six months after enactment, insurance companies could no longer denying children coverage based on a preexisting condition.

Starting in 2014, insurance companies cannot deny coverage to anyone with preexisting conditions.

Insurance companies must allow children to stay on their parent's insurance plans until age 26th.
Abortion:

The bill segregates private insurance premium funds from taxpayer funds. Individuals would have to pay for abortion coverage by making two separate payments, private funds would have to be kept in a separate account from federal and taxpayer funds.
No health care plan would be required to offer abortion coverage. States could pass legislation choosing to opt out of offering abortion coverage through the exchange.
**Separately, anti-abortion Democrats worked out language with the White House on an executive order that would state that no federal funds can be used to pay for abortions except in the case of rape, incest or health of the mother. (Read more here)



Individual Mandate:

In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual fine. There are some exceptions for low-income people.
Employer Mandate:

Technically, there is no employer mandate. Employers with more than 50 employees must provide health insurance or pay a fine of $2000 per worker each year if any worker receives federal subsidies to purchase health insurance. Fines applied to entire number of employees minus some allowances.
Immigration:

Illegal immigrants will not be allowed to buy health insurance in the exchanges -- even if they pay completely with their own money
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Krickett, and any else, if you got this far, who read through it, skimmed it, hope it helped to get the gist of it. Now you can at least make a decision, it's ok, great, nit so good, sucks , I am joining Traelin0 and getting out of Dodge, what ever.

[Angel!]

Jan 20, 2011 16:24:22 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

I agree about the "death panels".....but....IMHO, the government needs to start running proposed legislation through a lot MORE what-if scenarios. Too many times they pass legislation that bites us in the ass. Look at the Gramm Leach Bliley Act for a prime example.

I don't disagree that they need to fully analyze what could happen as a direct impact of the bill & it's language. I was more referring to the people that make claims that aren't based on anything in the bill, but rather what they fear might happen - I thought of what this is called - the slippery slope fallacy.

The way I see it, you can't argue against the bill by saying this is just the first step to socialized medicine, or the first step to rationing health care, or the first step towards euthanizing the elderly. You need to argue the bill based on the bill alone, not other potential bills that may push the idea further. Just like you can't argue against lowering the drinking age to 18 because you think that the people writing the bill ultimately want it lowered to 12. Tell me why the drinking age shouldn't be 18, don't try to scare me by telling me they are eventually going to make the drinking age 12 if this passes.

Yes, this bill could be the first step towards socialized medicine, but it could also result in a pushback that sends the entire country further in the opposite direction.

[deziloooooo]

Jan 20, 2011 17:14:56 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Jan 20, 2011 16:24:22 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

I agree about the "death panels".....but....IMHO, the government needs to start running proposed legislation through a lot MORE what-if scenarios. Too many times they pass legislation that bites us in the ass. Look at the Gramm Leach Bliley Act for a prime example.

I don't disagree that they need to fully analyze what could happen as a direct impact of the bill & it's language. I was more referring to the people that make claims that aren't based on anything in the bill, but rather what they fear might happen - I thought of what this is called - the slippery slope fallacy.

The way I see it, you can't argue against the bill by saying this is just the first step to socialized medicine, or the first step to rationing health care, or the first step towards euthanizing the elderly. You need to argue the bill based on the bill alone, not other potential bills that may push the idea further. Just like you can't argue against lowering the drinking age to 18 because you think that the people writing the bill ultimately want it lowered to 12. Tell me why the drinking age shouldn't be 18, don't try to scare me by telling me they are eventually going to make the drinking age 12 if this passes.

Yes, this bill could be the first step towards socialized medicine, but it could also result in a pushback that sends the entire country further in the opposite direction.

Regarding the drinking age to 18, when 18 became the legal age of adult hood, I remember Connecticut lowered it, had been that way in NY for years, we use to shoot to a German drinking place over the line in White Plains, called I think Max ells , something like that. Sing German drinking songs , got plastered.
Remember once, cousin, fixed him up with a friend, he drove, My fiance and i, she was going to be sick, to much to drink, so we pulled over as we were leaving town, I was walking her and a cop drove up, checked so cousin was sober, said to him , beside all your troubles, saw fiance was being sick in bushes , your on a one way street driving the wrong way. ;D{directed us out of town}
However the experiment of the lowering of drinking age , didn't last long, to many bad accidents...

[ugonow]

I'm still trying to figure out how the OP solves anything

It means the "uninsured problem" is made up outrage. Everyone in the country has healthcare.If you count the number of people that do not recieve healthcare instead of the people who don't have insurance,the problem is solved.Obama making people buy insurance when they already recieve free healthcare is unconstitutional.

[fairlycrazy23]

"The next president of the United States should sign an executive order requiring the Census Bureau to cease and desist from describing any American – even illegal aliens – as uninsured. Instead, the bureau should categorize people according to the likely source of payment should they need care. So, there you have it. Voila! Problem solved."

Ok, I guess I see that, but there is an issue where some small group of people who WANT insurance don't have it, they should have expanded medicare to cover them , then work on a efforts to reduce the cost of health care, how do you reduce the care of health care? Open it up to real market forces by eliminating third party payer.

[Angel!]

Everyone in the country has healthcare.

Sure if you consider an ER visit healthcare. Anything other than a visit to the ER requires that you have the ability to pay - including any prescriptions they may write as a result of the ER visit. All the ER does is stabalize enough to send you on your way, it treats the immediate problem/symptoms, not the underlying causes.

Not sure how you can say everyone has healthcare when you consider the costs involved with maintaining some illnesses like diabetes, MS, cancer, asthma, allergies, and so on. Very few without insurance could possibly afford to cover the costs associated with these type illnesses. Or are you ok with the idea that the poor can only get treated when they are really sick & have to make multiple ER visits/year, even if it could have been avoided with preventative medication?

[deziloooooo]

Jan 21, 2011 12:49:31 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Everyone in the country has health care.

Sure if you consider an ER visit health care. Anything other than a visit to the ER requires that you have the ability to pay - including any prescriptions they may write as a result of the ER visit. All the ER does is stabilize enough to send you on your way, it treats the immediate problem/symptoms, not the underlying causes.

Not sure how you can say everyone has health care when you consider the costs involved with maintaining some illnesses like diabetes, MS, cancer, asthma, allergies, and so on. Very few without insurance could possibly afford to cover the costs associated with these type illnesses. Or are you OK with the idea that the poor can only get treated when they are really sick & have to make multiple ER visits/year, even if it could have been avoided with preventative medication?

I am thinking that a lot of the arguments done on these boards are from many people here who never really have had to use medical services in a large way.

Possible because of the age of participants, healthy over all , and if they have , a incident or two, have had insurance and really didn't have to pay much out of pocket and if did pay a bit, since it was a once a time occurrence, it is put on the back burner of a thing that happened back in the day and semi forgotten.

I can only suggest that if a chronic condition arises or just the natural happenings of agings, certain things seem to happen to so many.

Sugar, {Diabetes}, blood pressure, cataracts, cholesterol, and such that necessitates , even if not failing, to keep under control with monitoring by the medical, testing and drugs to control the condition.

Foregetting that a condition might worsen and more treatment is needed, the normal monitoring , drugs and testing are very expensive and if done out of pocket very costly. Most people, families could not really handle it by themselves, Insurance is so important.

By having more people covered, and paying into the system, those who aren't needing the services right now are subsidizing those who do need it, yet still are covered if a problem does arrive, see that father and his daughter and the kidney problem, it happens.

When they get to the point by age to also need care, monitoring , testing , then those younger then they will be doing the same that they are doing now, subsidizing them and also being covered for the unexpected.

[Angel!]

I am thinking that a lot of the arguments done on these boards are from many people here who never really have had to use medical services in a large way.

You are probably right. It is probably easy to say that everyone has access to healthcare if you don't have a chronic condition & have never had problems purchasing private insurance.

17 years ago I had a surgery (1 of 3) that prevented me from becoming extremely deformed & having severe health problems for life. No private insurance company would have covered it due to a pre-existing condition & it wasn't life threatening, so at the most an ER would take care of any symptoms arising from the condition. Only because I was lucky that my parents had good insurance through their employer was I able to get a surgery that prevented me from having problems for my entire life. Not everyone is as lucky as me & have to suffer with chronic conditions & treat with ER visits because they are unable to get purchase insurance & can't afford the treatments without it.

[deziloooooo]

Jan 21, 2011 13:47:01 GMT -5 Angel! said:

I am thinking that a lot of the arguments done on these boards are from many people here who never really have had to use medical services in a large way.

You are probably right. It is probably easy to say that everyone has access to health care if you don't have a chronic condition & have never had problems purchasing private insurance.

17 years ago I had a surgery (1 of 3) that prevented me from becoming extremely deformed & having severe health problems for life. No private insurance company would have covered it due to a pre-existing condition & it wasn't life threatening, so at the most an ER would take care of any symptoms arising from the condition. Only because I was lucky that my parents had good insurance through their employer was I able to get a surgery that prevented me from having problems for my entire life. Not everyone is as lucky as me & have to suffer with chronic conditions & treat with ER visits because they are unable to get purchase insurance & can't afford the treatments without it.

The argument about the health initiative, actually the bill that was passed should not be is it necessary?
Of course it is, but the argument should be , IMO, about is this the best bill[law } we can do under the circumstances.
Lets look at it , as it is now the law of the land.
Are there parts of it that the particulars that are now covered, may just be to expensive to do so ? Is there to much bureaucracy , thus unnecessary cost there, and other ideas that could tweak the bill and make it better.

This is not being done by the Republicans.
They are interested in keeping the topic front and center for only one reason and thus not visiting the legislation in a Bi Partisan way for looking to improve, tweak.

That is the removal of the current President and his party from leadership.
The Majority leader of the House and one of the major leaders of the Republican party has said so, numerous and recently times.
That is their one and only objective and that is what we will get for the next two years.

If enough Americans buy into it , their objective, then there will be a change, and the tremendous problems the nation faces will then be on their plate, they haven't changed, problems will still be there.

Actually because of the time expended with little being done, mostly exacerbated, and they might/will find the same kind of opposition facing them .

Possible the American public will realize what they, Republicans, are doing, see through the sham, get so P off at the wasted time, the whole thing will back fire on them, then they can go back as they have in the past and do the blame game on themselves

Aint Democracy Great?

[floridayankee]

Technically, there is no employer mandate. Employers with more than 50 employees must provide health insurance or pay a fine of $2000 per worker each year if any worker receives federal subsidies to purchase health insurance. Fines applied to entire number of employees minus some allowances.

My company currently pays nearly $3k per employee that's on our PPO plan. That works out to about a quarter million savings for our branch alone.

Good thing DW's employer isn't dropping coverage

......yet.