Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[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.

[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.

Now back to the Merc/Classic "we care about America first and you are a partisan hack " show

And look! It appears the show now has its first groupie....I hope she is not a jinx on your patriotism.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Now back to the Merc/Classic "we care about America first

Can't quote me on that one....

and you are a partisan hack "

you are and please quote me that I have called you that.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Can't quote me on that one....

you are and please quote me that I have called you that.

Merc....on a positive note, I am bringing a program to Savannah next month that will help the residents who are w/o health insurance.....not in a manner that is as significant as what they would gain through the health reform billl, but in a small way that will make their lives a little better in the interim.

I started the program last January and had a goal of reaching 200 cities in the first year and Savannah will be the 324th city in which the program will be implemented.

Otis and the city staff are very excited.

[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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Merc....on a positive note, I am bringing a program to Savannah next month that will help the residents who are w/o health insurance.....not in a manner that is as significant as what they would gain through the health reform billl, but in a small way that will make their lives a little better in the interim.

I started the program last January and had a goal of reaching 200 cities in the first year and Savannah will be the 324th city in which the program will be implemented.

Otis and the city staff are very excited.

Good on you!

Savannah has a high number of folks who could use it.

Otis gets very excited easily. He is an elected official.

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.

More here from the bill summaries on the immediate provisions of interest as described in detail in the sections in the above post.

Access to Affordable Coverage for the Uninsured with Pre-existing Conditions
 The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will provide $5 billion in immediate federal support for a new program to provide affordable coverage to uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions. This provision is effective 90 days after enactment, and coverage under this program will continue until new Exchanges are operational in 2014.

No Pre-existing Coverage Exclusions for Children
 The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act eliminates pre-existing condition exclusions for all Americans beginning in 2014, when the Exchanges are operational. Recognizing the special vulnerability of children, the Managers’ Amendment prohibits health insurers from excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions for children, effective six months after enactment and applying to all new plans.

Extension of Dependent Coverage for Young Adults
 The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will require insurers to permit children to stay on family policies until age 26. This provision takes effect six months after enactment and applies to all new plans

There is also $10 billion for immediate support of Community Health Centers, which may be of less priority to you, but important to others:
Access to Quality Care for Vulnerable Populations
 The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act makes an immediate and substantial investment in Community Health Centers to provide the funding needed to expand access to health care in communities where it is needed most. This $10 billion investment begins in 2010 and extends for five years

http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill46.pdf

IMO...these and other provisions provide substantial immediate relief.

And on the Medicare issue, you are confusing basic Medicare with the private insurance Medicare Advantage. which has been ripping the program off for years, charging 15% more than the agreed upon rates. Most of the services will be provided either by other MA providers, based on regional average (not the most excessive) cost figures or at worst, will push those patients back to basic Medicare for the same services (with the exception of a few minor enhancements like the gym memberships, eye glasses,...)

You cant be for Medicare reform w/o acknowledging that there might be a marginal loss of a few enhanced benefits under this proposal for some, but not basic, essential services.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

You cant be for Medicare reform w/o acknowledging that there might be a marginal loss of a few enhanced benefits under this proposal for some, but not basic, essential services.

That is more smoke and mirrors. Seniors are going to lose benefits. You keep bringing up "gym memberships" and that is right out of the Demoncratic playbook of talking points. That is a very minor part of MA. Most seniors do not share your view of it being a "marginal loss". They are quite worried about what BS this Congress is about to foist on them.

You like to whine about how anyone who disagrees with your party and those whores in Congress must be Republikin. Just because people disagree with what this majority is doing to this country does not make them "partisan" or "Republican" or "Right-wing". If you believe that you are paranoid. Stop. You are starting to sound like Hiltery Clinton and her statements about a "vast right-wing conspiracy".

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

That is more smoke and mirrors. Seniors are going to lose benefits. You keep bringing up "gym memberships" and that is right out of the Demoncratic playbook of talking points. That is a very minor part of MA. Most seniors do not share your view of it being a "marginal loss". They are quite worried about what BS this Congress is about to foist on them.

Medicare Advantage will no longer pay the current (15% above the agreed upon rates) that have been ripping off the program for the last 10 years.

Instead, it will pay the average rates established for a region...it wont be the same for Mississippi as New York....but in both cases, it will no longer be the current highest rate.

Seniors will not lose unless you believe that no insurance company will come in with a proposal below the current rip-off rates. If a company offers the program at a 5% above the agreed upon rates (with fewer benefits) and the current company maintains the 15% (with many less essential enhanced benefits) ...the maxmimum rate for the region will be 10% (with benefits between the two) and then either or both can compete for patients at that rate. In any case, there is savings without loss of most patient services, with the exception, possibly of those most enhanced services (gym memberships, eye glasses) that are nice benefits but not as essential to basic health care.

[You like to whine about how anyone who disagrees with your party and those whores in Congress must be Republikin. Just because people disagree with what this majority is doing to this country does not make them "partisan" or "Republican" or "Right-wing". If you believe that you are paranoid. Stop. You are starting to sound like Hiltery Clinton and her statements about a "vast right-wing conspiracy".

Certainly, by any measure, not as much as you whine about Democrats in nearly every post.

It is not an issued of the letter after the name....it is the talking points in most of your daily opinion pieces that have an agenda....an agenda that makes them partisan.

But enough of this bullshit.....your opinion is no more valid than mine...but you wont accept that.