Reply With Quote
so stupak got what he wanted..
bills are law. executive orders can be changed at anytime. that's the point i'm trying to make. forest, not tree.It took him too long?
so stupak got what he wanted..
Outside of the actual bill, three days later, yes. Not the way you stated that it was in bill. That is correct. Yes.
Thanks.
The problem with any article led "fact check" is that it purports to be an accurate portrayal of the "truth" which is always open to interpretation.
If it's a true "fact check"... then print the 2500 pages of the bill... that's the only "truth" that there is...
But the reader then comes up with his own interpretation...
I hear you. Obama could set it aside on a whim.
What you said was literally wrong. VLE just owned you. This puny comeback availed you nothing.
Maybe. I don't think he's that dumb. Errr. Someone might take the fall. Who knows. It shouldve been written in the bill, contrary to what georgy states. Ahem.
ooohhhh
Fall guy?
ah. the metalanguage of debate. call some one else's take on an issue "spin" but fail to categorize your own details within that set.
apparently the ins ute of medicine which defined five criteria for healthcare reform: that it should not be tied to a job, be affordable for individuals and families, affordable for society, and also provide access to high-quality care for everyone.
so massachussetts has the same plan in place essentially that was just passed and so far it has been a failure.
the state has more than 200,000 without coverage, and the count is going up with rising unemployment.
for an individual earning $31,213, the cheapest plan can cost $9,872 in premiums and out-of-pocket payments and low-income residents, previously eligible for free care, have insurance policies requiring unaffordable copayments for office visits and medications.
spending for the mass. subsidized program has doubled, from $630 million in 2007 to $1.3 billion for 2009.
the cambridge health alliance was forced to interrupt care for HIV and even cancers that could be treated with chemotherapy.
partners healthcare, which includes two major tertiary care hospitals in boston, was able to negotiate a secret agreement with blue cross to be paid 30 percent more for their services than other providers in the state, contributing to an increase in healthcare costs for that state which are already the highest per person in the world.
so massachusetts healthcare reform fails the ins ute of medicine criteria. but somehow congress made it a model for the nation. an article from The Milbank Quarterly, by brandeis health policy experts, studied how Massachusetts has handled the insurance requirement since 2006 and described the lessons policymakers have learned. the suthor of the article stated this : "While Massachusetts, like the rest of the country, still has problems with rising health care costs, this program greatly expanded coverage and access to health care services. The program also reduces the fear that insurances companies will drop coverage as soon as you get sick." not exactly a ringing endorsment nor are the words of those physician groups who did endorse the current reform bill.
dr. stubbs of the american academy of physicians stated :
" [we] should urge the United States to enact the improvements" included in the ‘corrections’ legislation including "increasing the subsidies to making coverage affordable, providing equitable support to all states to cover the cost of expanding Medicaid, eliminating the Medicare Part D doughnut hole, and increasing Medicaid payments for primary care physicians."
but this is just spin i guess, despite the fact that these impacts in mass and predicted impacts for the rest of the nation are impacting more than just the non-voting impact (who, by the way, voted in record number in 2008 and were a vital reason for why obama won the election).
in the end stupak got what he wanted... that was my intent..he got what he wanted after he voted for the bill...
Oh I forgot..I was SOOOOOO owned on this..
It would seem the issue of affordability arises, no?
I am fond of this one.
Ah, thanks.
"It would seem the issue of affordability arises"
One way to have Real Revolution would be to kill all tax-free employer group plans, have the employers pay their group plan costs as salaries, and make EVERYBODY pay for 100% of their health insurance after-tax.
Right now, individual plans, or even non-employer group plans (through NASE), and upcoming plans through the exchanges, are paid with after-tax income. Very unfair.
in the end stupak got what he wanted... that was my intent..he got what he wanted after he voted for the bill...
Oh I forgot..I was SOOOOOO owned on this..
Still heating up your radials? The race is already over.
And this one:
I find listening to Ween much more entertaining than the banal bull being bandied about.
The Pod is a pretty great rock n roll album, period.
Yeah its some of the best lo-fi goodness ever created.
They have songs for every occasion. Here's a good song to dedicate to recently ex-girlfriends.
that was my point. the mass plan has often been quite unaffordable for many middle-class and lower income families.
I guess the opposition to this bill was mostly content to presume this, but it's striking to me that affordability hasn't been a bigger theme in this discussion. At least, not here.
Just a guess, most who have access to the internets and the time to participate in forums such as don't find this matter to be a huge concern personally.
I do think this was built into the bill for a reason, that being to lay the groundwork for a political push to create a public option. Not that such an option would be any less expensive, but the political gold of 'evil insurers' does not go away with this law. That the originators of this bill might experience some blowback themselves such that the public might get changes in the opposite direction might be the reality. Given how American politics operates, the mandate will continue to exist, the private members of the exchange will not face compe ion from Uncle Sam, subsidies to address the affordability issue will increase, and income tax rates will rise for a much larger segment of the population, assuming that the federal government's major debt holders lose their appe e for holding and continuing to invest in its debt.
A public option to bail us out from an increasingly unaffordable mandate? Plausible.
Which, in turn, is unaffordable itself without significant tax increases and increased 'cost savings.'
"Tighten the belt, pay down the debt."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
