President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

General Intelligent Discussion & One Thread About That Buttknuckle

Moderator: Andrew

Postby separate_wayz » Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:16 am

Fact Finder wrote:Nice Presidential touch there Mr.O. Not!


President Obama, in his pitch to Democrats on the Hill today (from the New York Times):

Mr. Obama, during his private pep talk to Democrats, recognized Mr. Owens election and then posed a question to the other lawmakers. According to Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.”




So I oppose this healthcare takeover a now I'm an extremist. Respectably Mr. TOTUS, FUCK YOU!


I encourage all Democrat members of Congress to listen to their president, and vote for this legislation.

I also encourage them to seek new employment and housing in their respective congressional districts after November 2, 2010. They're likely to need it.
User avatar
separate_wayz
LP
 
Posts: 492
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:14 am
Location: USA

Postby hoagiepete » Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:26 am

Lula wrote:i get real tired of being the only one debating you all. i need my teammates!!

we vote for the politicians we believe will represent our positions, we vote for the opposition to remove someone we don't like. if i have to explain that process forget it!!

i'm done here for the evening.

8)


How do you explain how someone like Pelosi can continue to be re-elected? Not to slam your great state of California or it's people, but OMG! :shock:
hoagiepete
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1610
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:16 am

Postby separate_wayz » Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:43 am

strangegrey wrote:
Lula wrote:i get real tired of being the only one debating you all. i need my teammates!!

we vote for the politicians we believe will represent our positions, we vote for the opposition to remove someone we don't like. if i have to explain that process forget it!!

i'm done here for the evening.

8)



If you thought 2008 was a monumental electoral year, wait until 2010. Congress as a whole, incumbant dem and repub, will get thrown out on their asses.....


2008 was not a monumental election year .... not in any sense. It was merely an historical aberration, due to voter dissatisfaction with a wildly unpopular incumbent president and an uncertain economy and war.

The problem for B.H. Obama and his Democratic allies is that (first) they asserted a claim to an historical mandate, where there clearly was (and is) none whatsoever, and (second) they've started to believe their own bullshit.

If B.H. Obama and the Democrats in Congress continue to assert the first one, and govern by the second one, then there in fact will be a "monumental election year" (2010), and perhaps more than one (2012 also).

The chances of the Democrats losing the House of Representatives entirely is rising with each passing month. If the 2010 congressional election were held today, Republicans would likely pick-up a minimum of 26 seats (net), giving them 203 seats vs. 232 for the Democrats. If that were to happen, even without the Republicans winning an outright majority, Obama's (and the Democrats) left-leaning agenda would be dead-in-the-water -- nothing to the left of moderate proposals could get passed through Congress.

The nightmare scenario for Pelosi (and Obama) would be Republicans picking up 40 seats net, giving them 217 to the Democrats 218. The House of Representatives would be essentially ungovernable, and most every Democrat proposal could be stopped, while still assigning blame to the Democrats for mismanaging Congress, while denying any legislative accomplishments to Obama going into his re-election.
User avatar
separate_wayz
LP
 
Posts: 492
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:14 am
Location: USA

Postby S2M » Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:59 am

It was more important to elect a man of color, than to elect someone who could, or would, look out for the country's best interests..... :evil:

I hope all the african-americans are happy with their 'bro.... :roll:
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
User avatar
S2M
MP3
 
Posts: 11981
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
Location: In a bevy of whimsy

Postby donnaplease » Tue Nov 10, 2009 9:17 am

http://www.quislaw.com/index.cfm/fuseac ... nToYou.cfm

I feel like FF now... :twisted:

The Latest Developments In Private Health Insurance: What Do They Mean To You?
As appeared in the Los Angeles Business Journal
By Lourdes DeArmas

You are a business-savvy individual. Day in and day out you look to protect yourself from the “what ifs.” Like millions across the nation, you make the right decision to have health insurance and purchase an individual plan. You seek out a reputable insurance company, pay your premiums on time, and schedule annual check-ups. You feel that you have protected yourself and your family. But are you safe?

The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in California has reported that health insurance companies have announced a 2006 first-quarter profit increase by as much as 15-20 percent. This increase is partly because insurance companies paid less in medical claims compared to the previous year. Although the insurance companies are celebrating now, their celebration may be short lived.

Across the country, patients are filing lawsuits against insurance companies for canceling health insurance policies and refusing to pay medical bills. The lawsuits allege that insurance companies are trying to avoid paying legitimate claims by canceling policies after an insured makes a claim, pointing to a wrong or incomplete answer in the patient’s application for insurance.

The Los Angeles Times recently reported that over 2 million Californians purchased individual policies from California insurance providers. Unlike employer group health insurance plans, insurance companies can decline coverage or charge higher premiums to individuals based on “preexisting health conditions.” In addition, insurance companies can also retroactively cancel an individual health insurance policy if the insured intentionally withheld or misstated past medical conditions when applying for insurance.

Lawsuits recently filed in Los Angeles County focus primarily on the insurance companies’ practice of retroactively canceling policies of individual health plan members seeking medical treatment due to purported discrepancies in the application. California state law prohibits insurance companies from canceling coverage after a claim has been filed, unless the individual health plan member made a material misrepresentation on the medical history application.

The lawsuits accuse the insurance companies of routinely utilizing vague, ambiguous, and confusing medical history questionnaires during the application process. Allegedly, these applications have led individual applicants to make simple mistakes that the insurance company later uses to cancel the policy. According to the lawsuits, the individuals filled out the application as honestly as possible based on their understanding of the questions, received coverage and paid their premiums. Unfortunately, the individual insureds were later diagnosed with a medical condition which neither the insured nor the treating healthcare provider believed existed at the time of the application. Nevertheless, the insurance company’s response to the claim was to cancel the policy.

These retroactive cancellations have led to unpaid medical bills and severe hardship for the insured whose policy was canceled:

Michael Norris of Los Angeles was left with more than $20,000 in medical bills when his insurance company retroactively canceled his 5-year-old son's coverage following surgery to remove a mass of tissue at the back of his throat. Mr. Norris was accused of failing to disclose on the application his son's prior earaches and speech impediment.

Steve and Leslie Shaeffer of Los Angeles faced more than $60,000 in medical bills when their health insurer canceled her 4-year-old daughter’s coverage after she was diagnosed with a potentially fatal tumor in her jaw. The Shaeffers were accused of failing to disclose on the application an undiagnosed bump on their daughter’s chin.

Parvin Mottaghi of Glendale was left with more than $100,000 in medical bills when her insurance company retroactively canceled her policy following an approved open-heart surgery by claiming that her application was incomplete.


Due to the mounting number of lawsuits, state regulators, including the California Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC), have become involved. Cindy Ehnes, the director of the DMHC, said "Consumers must be confident that their health insurance will be available to them and not be afraid that they could be canceled after making a claim. Protecting access to healthcare is our main concern, and it is clear that consumers have been harmed by the practices off some insurers."

The state's largest health insurer, Blue Cross of California, is currently implementing a plan to change some of its procedures for canceling individual health plan member's insurance policies. This includes creating an ombudsman who is charged with representing the interests of the individual health plan members by investigating and addressing complaints. Other positive changes that Blue Cross is considering are revising its appeal process and working with state regulators to simplify the application questionnaire to avoid future mistakes by applicants.

It will be interesting to see if the rest of the health insurance industry follows Blue Cross’ lead and changes their current practices. In the meantime, an individual health plan member whose policy is suddenly canceled after making a claim may be left with no option other than filing a lawsuit to fight for his or her medical benefits.

Lourdes DeArmas is an associate with The Quisenberry Law Firm which specializes in insurance litigation for all types of insurance policies, including health and disability, property and directors and officers liability.


Just like any other big business, there are unscrupulous characters out there. But as of now, there is recourse for us. That would most likely change if this government health care plan goes into effect. Lula, did you never see "The Rainmaker"??? :wink:
User avatar
donnaplease
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3435
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:38 am
Location: shenandoah valley

Postby Rockindeano » Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:10 am

Lula wrote:
donnaplease wrote:One more thing... you can fight an insurance company if you disagree with something they've done. You have no recourse with the federal government. Who ya gonna argue your case to?


good luck fighting an insurance company. if you want to fight the feds you go to court and you vote.


God, aren't you tired of trying to argue a point with these close minded sonsofbitches? Jesus, you are stronger or dumber than I, you choose.

We got ourselves a Health Bill- almost.

I say fuck you Cons!
User avatar
Rockindeano
Forever Deano
 
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:52 am
Location: At Peace

Postby Rockindeano » Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:11 am

StocktontoMalone wrote:It was more important to elect a man of color, than to elect someone who could, or would, look out for the country's best interests..... :evil:

I hope all the african-americans are happy with their 'bro.... :roll:


Great post an accurate too. The brothas and sistas voted for the Bro, but me thinks Hillary would have won this election easily as well. God I wish we could rewind the clock a year.
User avatar
Rockindeano
Forever Deano
 
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:52 am
Location: At Peace

Postby RossValoryRocks » Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:15 am

Rockindeano wrote:
Lula wrote:
donnaplease wrote:One more thing... you can fight an insurance company if you disagree with something they've done. You have no recourse with the federal government. Who ya gonna argue your case to?


good luck fighting an insurance company. if you want to fight the feds you go to court and you vote.


God, aren't you tired of trying to argue a point with these close minded sonsofbitches? Jesus, you are stronger or dumber than I, you choose.

We got ourselves a Health Bill- almost.

I say fuck you Cons!


You do understand that the health care bill, either the house version, the Senate version or the combined version, is going to be unconstitutional right?

Sure the bill will pass, maybe, and then it will go to court with in 5 minutes of its passage.

All sorts of Constitutional problems with it, if you look at what they want to do.

Enjoy!
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby Ehwmatt » Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:16 am

Rockindeano wrote:
Lula wrote:
donnaplease wrote:One more thing... you can fight an insurance company if you disagree with something they've done. You have no recourse with the federal government. Who ya gonna argue your case to?


good luck fighting an insurance company. if you want to fight the feds you go to court and you vote.


God, aren't you tired of trying to argue a point with these close minded sonsofbitches? Jesus, you are stronger or dumber than I, you choose.

We got ourselves a Health Bill- almost.

I say fuck you Cons!


Why is it that people who don't share your viewpoint are "close minded?" I thought liberals were supposed to embrace differences?
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby Rockindeano » Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:20 am

Ehwmatt wrote:
Rockindeano wrote:
Lula wrote:
donnaplease wrote:One more thing... you can fight an insurance company if you disagree with something they've done. You have no recourse with the federal government. Who ya gonna argue your case to?


good luck fighting an insurance company. if you want to fight the feds you go to court and you vote.


God, aren't you tired of trying to argue a point with these close minded sonsofbitches? Jesus, you are stronger or dumber than I, you choose.

We got ourselves a Health Bill- almost.

I say fuck you Cons!


Why is it that people who don't share your viewpoint are "close minded?" I thought liberals were supposed to embrace differences?


Dude stop. The hardcores in this thread have sat by and ambushed each and everything Obama has done and pounce on every little misstep and scoff at each and every bill introduced and backed by Liberal idealogogy. I say fuck em and love it.
User avatar
Rockindeano
Forever Deano
 
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:52 am
Location: At Peace

Postby Ehwmatt » Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:22 am

Rockindeano wrote:
Ehwmatt wrote:
Rockindeano wrote:
Lula wrote:
donnaplease wrote:One more thing... you can fight an insurance company if you disagree with something they've done. You have no recourse with the federal government. Who ya gonna argue your case to?


good luck fighting an insurance company. if you want to fight the feds you go to court and you vote.


God, aren't you tired of trying to argue a point with these close minded sonsofbitches? Jesus, you are stronger or dumber than I, you choose.

We got ourselves a Health Bill- almost.

I say fuck you Cons!


Why is it that people who don't share your viewpoint are "close minded?" I thought liberals were supposed to embrace differences?


Dude stop. The hardcores in this thread have sat by and ambushed each and everything Obama has done and pounce on every little misstep and scoff at each and every bill introduced and backed by Liberal idealogogy. I say fuck em and love it.


That's politics isn't it? Every one is close minded in politics.

EDIT: And what am I or anyone else supposed to do, root for someone who stands staunchly against every single one of my core beliefs?
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby Ehwmatt » Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:34 am

Fact Finder wrote:Well the libs think you should. I say fuck em and fight on, harder and harder. My freedoms ain't going down this easy. Stand for something or you'll fall for anything.


You couldn't pay me all the money in the world to conform to any of the shit they try and foist on us
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby donnaplease » Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:45 am

RossValoryRocks wrote:
Rockindeano wrote:
Lula wrote:
donnaplease wrote:One more thing... you can fight an insurance company if you disagree with something they've done. You have no recourse with the federal government. Who ya gonna argue your case to?


good luck fighting an insurance company. if you want to fight the feds you go to court and you vote.


God, aren't you tired of trying to argue a point with these close minded sonsofbitches? Jesus, you are stronger or dumber than I, you choose.

We got ourselves a Health Bill- almost.

I say fuck you Cons!


You do understand that the health care bill, either the house version, the Senate version or the combined version, is going to be unconstitutional right?

Sure the bill will pass, maybe, and then it will go to court with in 5 minutes of its passage.

All sorts of Constitutional problems with it, if you look at what they want to do.

Enjoy!


Alright, Stu... educate us! What parts are unconstitutional and how do you determine that? And if that's the case, I hope some great legal minds are already preparing their case against the House bill. May as well nip it in the bud before things get even crazier than they are?
User avatar
donnaplease
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3435
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:38 am
Location: shenandoah valley

Postby Ehwmatt » Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:53 am

Fact Finder wrote:
Ehwmatt wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:Well the libs think you should. I say fuck em and fight on, harder and harder. My freedoms ain't going down this easy. Stand for something or you'll fall for anything.


You couldn't pay me all the money in the world to conform to any of the shit they try and foist on us


I'm with ya bro, problem is, they're gonna make you comform to this health care bill or you're going to jail. The IRS is gonna take the money they want from you right out of your bank account.

I really want to meet you someday dude, but not in Mansfield. :lol: (Ohio State Prison is in Mansfield for those that don't know)


I got cousins in Cincinnati that I would really like to come visit. You around during the holidays? I'd love to grab a beer and talk tunes and politics. Let me know if you're ever heading to Cleveland for a show too
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby RossValoryRocks » Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:56 am

donnaplease wrote:
RossValoryRocks wrote:
Rockindeano wrote:
Lula wrote:
donnaplease wrote:One more thing... you can fight an insurance company if you disagree with something they've done. You have no recourse with the federal government. Who ya gonna argue your case to?


good luck fighting an insurance company. if you want to fight the feds you go to court and you vote.


God, aren't you tired of trying to argue a point with these close minded sonsofbitches? Jesus, you are stronger or dumber than I, you choose.

We got ourselves a Health Bill- almost.

I say fuck you Cons!


You do understand that the health care bill, either the house version, the Senate version or the combined version, is going to be unconstitutional right?

Sure the bill will pass, maybe, and then it will go to court with in 5 minutes of its passage.

All sorts of Constitutional problems with it, if you look at what they want to do.

Enjoy!


Alright, Stu... educate us! What parts are unconstitutional and how do you determine that? And if that's the case, I hope some great legal minds are already preparing their case against the House bill. May as well nip it in the bud before things get even crazier than they are?


The most basic level is the fact that the Federal Government does not have the power to regulate insurance, as weird as it seems it's not commerce, especially since it is not interstate, but intrastate. Each state sets its own rules on health insurance. For the Feds to try this would be a gross violation of states rights.

Second is the fact that taxing people who refuse to buy insurance and pay the tax violates the 16th amendment. How can they force you to prove you have insurance? Because doing so would violate your 5th amendment right to not incriminate yourself (provided Pelosi's criminalization of not having insurance holds up, and refusing to pay the tax).

There are loads more, I am sure anyone can read through some of the provisions and find them, and you don't have to be a lawyer to do so. It's just common sense, and knowing what your rights are.

I think that someone should sue Pelosi for violating her oath to "uphold the constitution", he and every idiot congress member who voted for the bill.
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby Ehwmatt » Tue Nov 10, 2009 11:03 am

RossValoryRocks wrote:
donnaplease wrote:
RossValoryRocks wrote:
Rockindeano wrote:
Lula wrote:
donnaplease wrote:One more thing... you can fight an insurance company if you disagree with something they've done. You have no recourse with the federal government. Who ya gonna argue your case to?


good luck fighting an insurance company. if you want to fight the feds you go to court and you vote.


God, aren't you tired of trying to argue a point with these close minded sonsofbitches? Jesus, you are stronger or dumber than I, you choose.

We got ourselves a Health Bill- almost.

I say fuck you Cons!


You do understand that the health care bill, either the house version, the Senate version or the combined version, is going to be unconstitutional right?

Sure the bill will pass, maybe, and then it will go to court with in 5 minutes of its passage.

All sorts of Constitutional problems with it, if you look at what they want to do.

Enjoy!


Alright, Stu... educate us! What parts are unconstitutional and how do you determine that? And if that's the case, I hope some great legal minds are already preparing their case against the House bill. May as well nip it in the bud before things get even crazier than they are?


The most basic level is the fact that the Federal Government does not have the power to regulate insurance, as weird as it seems it's not commerce, especially since it is not interstate, but intrastate. Each state sets its own rules on health insurance. For the Feds to try this would be a gross violation of states rights.

Second is the fact that taxing people who refuse to buy insurance and pay the tax violates the 16th amendment. How can they force you to prove you have insurance? Because doing so would violate your 5th amendment right to not incriminate yourself (provided Pelosi's criminalization of not having insurance holds up, and refusing to pay the tax).

There are loads more, I am sure anyone can read through some of the provisions and find them, and you don't have to be a lawyer to do so. It's just common sense, and knowing what your rights are.

I think that someone should sue Pelosi for violating her oath to "uphold the constitution", he and every idiot congress member who voted for the bill.


Better get it to the Supreme Court before anyone else retires then.
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby Ehwmatt » Tue Nov 10, 2009 11:06 am

Fact Finder wrote:
Sure I'll be around, of course depending on the day/time. We work from home so I'm usually always around here. We do a family gig in Dayton with wifeys Grandfamily the week before Christmas and the usual immediate family suff on Christmas Eve and Day.

IF I could ask, what part of town would that be? I'm Eastside Beechmont, Coney Island/Riverbend. area.



They live in Maineville. I'm hopin to make it down, it will be tight though, because I already have a New Orleans trip planned for the 31st-3rd. Plus, weather permitting of course...

I'll let you know if I plan a definitive trip.
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby Saint John » Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:08 pm

lol...hard to believe I have to pay for lazy fucks with no insurance. Why can't people simply pay their own way? :? These are, by and large, the same people that do have enough money for cell phones, hair appointments, manicures and pedicures, lottery tickets, cigarettes, booze and/or drugs. Unreal. I have too much pride to have someone pay my way...unless catastrophic circumstances occured. And that's simply not the case with the overwhelming majority of these fuckers. Lazy, prideless fucks.
User avatar
Saint John
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 21723
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Uranus

Postby Lula » Tue Nov 10, 2009 1:38 pm

unconstitutional? now i've heard it all. my employer will charge me $3000 if i opt out of the district's health insurance, shall i take this to my union claiming it is unconstitutional? maybe i'm not understanding.... don't you think a scholar on the constitution would have known this before pushing for the bill? the republicans want folks to be able to buy out of state insurance, does that change it to interstate commerce? i'm way too tired after teaching, of all things the declaration of independence, to debate this. :lol:
Until we meet again, may God
Hold you in the palm of his hand.

for Dean
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby fredinator » Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:22 pm

Lula, *sigh* you're a saint. Which reminds me, time to go vote for your precious dumpling.
fredinator
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:30 pm

Postby fredinator » Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:31 pm

Here is the health bill parsed by the Wall Street Journal; I don't understand why all the teabaggers (lol) are in hysterics--this sounds like a damn good bill to me:

With the House health bill passed, Congress moves a step closer to making the biggest changes to the health system in more than four decades. Here's a look at what the bill would mean for various groups:

The uninsured: They're the biggest winners under the bill. Starting in 2013, it gives government subsidies to a chunk of low- and middle-income Americans and expands Medicaid to cover a greater swath of the poor. At the lowest income level, the subsidy would keep a family of four earning just over $29,000 a year from paying more than 1.5% of their income on insurance premiums. It reaches as far up as a family of four earning about $88,000 a year, so they would pay no more than 12% of their income toward insurance.

Shopping for insurance would probably get easier since the bill creates new exchanges designed to allow consumers who buy their own policies to compare plans side by side. One of those plans would be a government-run insurance plan, also known as the "public option."

Obtaining coverage would get easier because the bill prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage to people over pre-existing health conditions.

But for those who don't want insurance, there's a downside. Once these changes take effect, people who choose to go uncovered would generally have to pay a penalty equal to as much as 2.5% of their income.

The insured: Democrats tried to pack the bill with benefits for this group, but the upside is less tangible and some of the wealthy would see higher taxes. Most consumers would see their out-of-pocket medical costs capped at $5,000 a year for individuals and $10,000 a year for families. Insurance companies could no longer drop coverage when customers got sick.

Some perks would go away. Employees with tax-free flexible spending accounts could no longer use them to buy over-the-counter medicines, and they couldn't put more than $2,500 a year in the accounts.

To finance the overhaul, individuals who earn more than $500,000 a year or families making $1 million or more annually would pay a new 5.4% tax on top of existing income taxes.

Seniors on Medicare: Over time, the bill would close a gap in prescription drug coverage. Currently, Medicare participants are responsible for paying drugs' full price in the "doughnut hole," which kicks in when their drug spending exceeds $2,700 and goes up to $6,154 per year.

Medicare recipients would no longer have to pay out of pocket for preventive care. Certain early retirees could tap into a new fund that offsets the cost of high-cost health claims.

Since cuts to Medicare spending are one of the bill's biggest funding sources, some benefits could evaporate from the program. Core benefits aren't likely to be affected. Most likely to be eliminated are benefits such as free fitness classes offered by private insurers who cover some people on Medicare.
Health-Care Overhaul Proposals

Compare legislation taking shape in the House and Senate.

Large employers: The biggest changes don't directly affect most large employers. The health-insurance plans they currently offer employees would get grandfathered in to protect them from most new insurance requirements. Those offering skimpy coverage, or none at all, would have to pay a fine of up to 8% of their payroll.

Small Employers: The bill gives tax credits to firms with up to 25 workers and an average annual salary of $40,000. Employers with payroll of less than $500,000 are exempt from paying a fine if they don't offer insurance. And the bill gives them grants to create employee wellness programs. But business owners with larger payrolls would face the fine if they don't offer sufficient coverage.

Also, the tax on the wealthy could affect some small-business owners, depending on the tax structure of their income. That is a big reason small business groups have vocally opposed the bill.

Doctors: Primary-care doctors could see a strain from an influx of the newly insured. While the bill carries new incentives to boost the supply of these doctors, health professionals expect demand to outpace the supply.

The bill's provisions on medical liability are far short of what most doctors want. It creates new incentive payments to states that have alternative medical liability laws aimed at cracking down on frivolous malpractice lawsuits. Also, the bill doesn't address a looming sharp cut in payments to doctors under Medicare.

Hospitals: With more Americans carrying insurance, they would no longer give away so much uncompensated care. But the money the government gives them to lessen that burden would also go down, and they fear the new paying customers won't offset the cuts. They would also face new penalties for readmitting Medicare patients in instances that the government deems unnecessary.

Insurance companies: They're probably losers. The bill forces them to abandon some of their most profitable practices without any guarantee the tens of millions of new customers they'll likely get would make up the difference.

Insurers couldn't charge an older customer more than twice as much as a young one for insurance. They face caps on how much they spend on administrative costs. Since some of the requirements take effect as soon as next year, insurers say it would throw off contracts they're locking in right now during employer open enrollment for policies.

But the most widely cited threat that insurers face under the bill – the new public insurance plan – may be overblown. The plan is only open at first to individuals who can't get coverage at work and certain small businesses, though some larger employers could eventually gain access. Because the public plan would have to negotiate prices with doctors and hospitals just as private insurers do, the Congressional Budget Office has projected that the public plan generally wouldn't offer lower premiums and wouldn't take away many customers from private insurers.

Pharmaceutical companies: The bill costs them far more than they had hoped. Drug makers estimate they'll forgo $125 billion to $150 billion over the next decade, largely in lower government payments for drugs, under the changes. However, they would gain business because wider insurance coverage means more people taking prescriptions.

To discourage undue influence over health-care providers, drug makers and distributors would be required to report any payments they make totaling more than $5 to doctors, pharmacies, hospitals and other care providers.

Write to Janet Adamy at janet.adamy@wsj.com
fredinator
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:30 pm

Postby Lula » Wed Nov 11, 2009 5:08 am

fredinator wrote:Lula, *sigh* you're a saint. Which reminds me, time to go vote for your precious dumpling.


thanks!! as for the voting- the contest is pretty much over. wyatt doesn't stand a chance in the "fan favorite" category. the "people" are looking over the entries and will selrct 5 from each group, then we might have something to vote for ;). i thank you for your dedication tho!!

great info from of all places- the wall street journal! nice find 8)
Until we meet again, may God
Hold you in the palm of his hand.

for Dean
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby treetopovskaya » Wed Nov 11, 2009 6:09 am

User avatar
treetopovskaya
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3071
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:58 pm

Postby Ehwmatt » Wed Nov 11, 2009 6:18 am

Lula wrote:unconstitutional? now i've heard it all. my employer will charge me $3000 if i opt out of the district's health insurance, shall i take this to my union claiming it is unconstitutional? maybe i'm not understanding.... don't you think a scholar on the constitution would have known this before pushing for the bill? the republicans want folks to be able to buy out of state insurance, does that change it to interstate commerce? i'm way too tired after teaching, of all things the declaration of independence, to debate this. :lol:


If Obama is a scholar on the Constitution, consider me Neal Schon.
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby lights1961 » Wed Nov 11, 2009 6:46 am

Rockindeano wrote:
Ehwmatt wrote:
Rockindeano wrote:
Lula wrote:
donnaplease wrote:One more thing... you can fight an insurance company if you disagree with something they've done. You have no recourse with the federal government. Who ya gonna argue your case to?


good luck fighting an insurance company. if you want to fight the feds you go to court and you vote.


God, aren't you tired of trying to argue a point with these close minded sonsofbitches? Jesus, you are stronger or dumber than I, you choose.

We got ourselves a Health Bill- almost.

I say fuck you Cons!


Why is it that people who don't share your viewpoint are "close minded?" I thought liberals were supposed to embrace differences?


Dude stop. The hardcores in this thread have sat by and ambushed each and everything Obama has done and pounce on every little misstep and scoff at each and every bill introduced and backed by Liberal idealogogy. I say fuck em and love it.


turnabout is fairplay in policy making... which you did with everything W did...and dont deny it... and we dont like policy Obama is doing now... same thing... different parties...

R
Rick
lights1961
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5362
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 7:33 am

Postby Behshad » Wed Nov 11, 2009 6:51 am

Saint John wrote:lol...hard to believe I have to pay for lazy fucks with no insurance. Why can't people simply pay their own way? :? These are, by and large, the same people that do have enough money for cell phones, hair appointments, manicures and pedicures, lottery tickets, cigarettes, booze and/or drugs. Unreal. I have too much pride to have someone pay my way...unless catastrophic circumstances occured. And that's simply not the case with the overwhelming majority of these fuckers. Lazy, prideless fucks.



Why do you think you pay taxes ? :wink: If youre dead against giving some your hard earned money to those lazy bones, then youre not really questioning the Obama admin, but rather the entire taxation system :) :P
Image
User avatar
Behshad
MP3
 
Posts: 12584
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:08 am

Postby Ehwmatt » Wed Nov 11, 2009 6:54 am

Behshad wrote:
Saint John wrote:lol...hard to believe I have to pay for lazy fucks with no insurance. Why can't people simply pay their own way? :? These are, by and large, the same people that do have enough money for cell phones, hair appointments, manicures and pedicures, lottery tickets, cigarettes, booze and/or drugs. Unreal. I have too much pride to have someone pay my way...unless catastrophic circumstances occured. And that's simply not the case with the overwhelming majority of these fuckers. Lazy, prideless fucks.



Why do you think you pay taxes ? :wink: If youre dead against giving some your hard earned money to those lazy bones, then youre not really questioning the Obama admin, but rather the entire taxation system :) :P


Taxes are supposed to be for infrastructure and improvements, not for letting someone crap out 6 kids out of wedlock, turn around, and say HELP ME.
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby Ehwmatt » Wed Nov 11, 2009 6:57 am

And they [taxes] also sure as shit can't keep going up with no end in sight. There's a point of no return with taxation in this country, given the foundation it's built on. We're teetering on the brink of it already
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby Behshad » Wed Nov 11, 2009 7:09 am

SUPPOSED to be is different of what theyre actually used for. Youre not suggesting that the welfare system JUST started as of Janury 20th of this year are you!???
How and WHO do you think pays for the welfare system in this country ??
Image
User avatar
Behshad
MP3
 
Posts: 12584
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:08 am

Postby lights1961 » Wed Nov 11, 2009 7:10 am

obama finally today gave a nice talk at Ft Hood... and because why???? It wasnt all about himself... loved the stories about the soldiers lifes and what they left behind, why they joined to SERVE... heard it on the radio...


Rick
Rick
lights1961
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5362
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 7:33 am

PreviousNext

Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests