YES THEY DID! Health Care Passed.

Black Swan

Overheal wrote: »

Tony Weiner explains it here

This vid was a good summary of a public option that some Dems were fighting for, but did not get in the current reform bill passed by Congress.

sink wrote: »

AFAIK there will be a government option, not sure of the details.

"And though there's no public option..." in the health care reform bill.

Source: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/who_is_left_uninsured_by_the_h.html

"The Senate made bigger changes still, killing the sweeping public option and passing the bill on Christmas Eve. But because of the changes, it would have to go back to the House for another vote."

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/22/eveningnews/main6323649.shtml

"There is no 'national health care plan' in the legislation – he signaled he was willing to drop the government-run 'public option' insurance early on in negotiations..."

Source: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/03/the-ideals-of-2007-meet-the-pragmatics-of-2010-president-obama-returns-to-iowa-to-talk-health-care-reform.html

“if you want more choices, you will also have the option of purchasing a number of affordable private plans;" i.e., from for-profit medical insurance corporations, ergo, this is capitalized medicine.

Source: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/03/the-ideals-of-2007-meet-the-pragmatics-of-2010-president-obama-returns-to-iowa-to-talk-health-care-reform.html

metaoblivia

Blue Lagoon is right; there is no government or public option in the bill. There was one in the original House bill, but it was killed in the Senate.

And Blue Lagoon is right in that it's forced capitalism. One of the glaring flaws of this bill is that it does nothing to curb the actual cost of health care, and that is something Congress will have to address somewhere down the line if HCR is to be successful. Whether they do that by providing a public option, I don't know.

And that's not to say I'm not happy with the bill. I think it's a step in the right direction. I'm was born with a genetic condition called Ehlers Danlos Syndrome. EDS can range from very mild with a negligible effect on a person's health and lifespan to extremely severe and life-threatening. I have a very mild version that requires no extra medical care. But because I have it, and because it's been diagnosed, I have a pre-existing condition. Unless I get a job with benefits, I will be denied health care coverage or forced to pay premiums I can't afford.

Suffice it to say, I'm happy that insurance companies will no longer be able to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions (although I wish it kicked in sooner). However, I'm skeptical as to how much they're going to charge someone like me when I'm forced to buy in because, again, nothing has been done with regards to the cost of health care.

Manic Moran

And Blue Lagoon is right in that it's forced capitalism

Which gives rise to one of the planned legal challenges. The concept of mandating private purchases for yourself is something of untested legal waters. The only other legislation I can think of which could mandate an expense simply for existing other than taxation is the Militia Act of 1792, which required that all able bodied white males between a certain age have a musket and a certain amount of ammunition. (But even at that, it could just be a one-off expense, or even received as a gift).

NTM

Ludo

Is car insurance not mandatory in the US?

Manic Moran

Ludo wrote: »

Is car insurance not mandatory in the US?

Not for yourself. Coverage is mandatory so that you can cover other people that you hit, as someone hitting you is generally out of your control. The decision as to whether or not you want insurance to cover damage to your own vehicle or your own medical expenses is at your discretion. Your risk, under your control.

Besides, you can simply choose to not drive a car. Then you don't need car insurance. You can't really choose to not live so that you don't have to have health insurance. Well, you could, but for the purposes of health insurance, it's a bit irrelevant.

NTM

kev9100

I just thought i would post this.





The above is Senator Edward Kennedy's tomb with a note from his son Patrick. R.I.P to a true supporter of HCR and the Liberal Lion of the Senate.

20Cent

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not for yourself. Coverage is mandatory so that you can cover other people that you hit, as someone hitting you is generally out of your control. The decision as to whether or not you want insurance to cover damage to your own vehicle or your own medical expenses is at your discretion. Your risk, under your control.

Besides, you can simply choose to not drive a car. Then you don't need car insurance. You can't really choose to not live so that you don't have to have health insurance. Well, you could, but for the purposes of health insurance, it's a bit irrelevant.

NTM

Getting sick or being in an accident is generally out of your control also. If something does happen and a person has no insurance then someone still has to pay anyway. Unless you advocate leaving crash victims to die in their cars or cancer patients to just hurry up and die.

I agree about this being a good thing for insurance companies a public option would be better.

Overheal

20Cent wrote: »

Getting sick or being in an accident is generally out of your control also. If something does happen and a person has no insurance then someone still has to pay anyway. Unless you advocate leaving crash victims to die in their cars or cancer patients to just hurry up and die.

I agree about this being a good thing for insurance companies a public option would be better.

I had thought of the Car Insurance rebuttal already.

The problem is nobody forces you to drive, or own a car. Its simply a case that you are mandated to have insurance if you make the Choice to own a vehicle.

bonkey

20Cent wrote: »

I agree about this being a good thing for insurance companies a public option would be better.

I tend to prefer the approach that the Swiss have.

Here, in order to offer health care, you have to offer a basic package, which is open to (almost?) everyone. The government define the minimum contents of this package, and the maximum price that it can be charged at.

If you don't offer this package, you can't play in the market. If you do offer it, then you can offer other packages too...which is where the money is to be made.

There is, pretty-much, no money to be made on the basic package. It is, in some cases, loss-making. But if you won't take that...you don't get to play. If you can make money on it, you can undercut others, and steal huge market segment.

Of course...it should be remembered Swiss healthcare is expensive by anyone's standard...but the basic idea is one I find quite smart.

I'd also note that health insurance is mandatory here.

Regarding the whole "paying for the stupid" argument, I'd argue that nothing has changed. The existing systems didn't preclude stupid people from having health insurance.

Manic Moran

Getting sick or being in an accident is generally out of your control also

You might have an argument on the getting sick bit, but there are still things you can do to minimize the risks. You can take the effort to exercise, you can avoid high-risk activities like smoking, you can diet correctly etc. You can make your own mind up if you think the chances of injury/illness to yourself warrant the expense, much as you can make the same gamble with house insurance in case a fire or earthquake destroys everything you own.
Where the vehicle accident is concerned, there are only three possibilities I can see: Your fault, the other guy's fault, or an equipment defect with the vehicle or road. The latter is extremely rare (Current debate about Toyota accelerators notwithstanding) and may generally be recouped through litigation when it does happen, the 'other guys fault' insurance is already mandated by law (and just for good measure I need to pay into an 'uninsured motorists' fund when I renew the registration on my vehicle), which, on a practical level, leaves 'you' as the only likely cause for an accident which isn't already covered by other means. If you think that you're a damned good driver then that's your decision to not cover yourself and save some money. If you overestimate your abilities to drive or maintain your vehicle, then you've nobody to blame for your impending bankruptcy than yourself.

NTM

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

I had thought of the Car Insurance rebuttal already.

The problem is nobody forces you to drive, or own a car. Its simply a case that you are mandated to have insurance if you make the Choice to own a vehicle.

See Post #56, Para 2: ;-P

NTM

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

See Post #56, Para 2: ;-P

NTM

SILENCE!

Eliot Rosewater

bonkey wrote: »

I'd also note that health insurance is mandatory here.

It sounds similar to the Dutch system that Fine Gael are promoting here in Ireland. It seems like a good idea - give the management of the industry to the private market while still keeping some checks on irresponsible behavior.

bonkey wrote: »

Of course...it should be remembered Swiss healthcare is expensive by anyone's standard

Why do you think that is?

I often hear people complaining about how health care is so expensive (insinuating that it shouldn't be), but its strikes me as a very costly industry. Are the high prices in Switzerland merely a reflection of the true cost of medicine?

Anonymous1987

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Why do you think that is?

I often hear people complaining about how health care is so expensive (insinuating that it shouldn't be), but its strikes me as a very costly industry. Are the high prices in Switzerland merely a reflection of the true cost of medicine?

Excellent point. However there is scope for businesses to increase the cost to the consumer in name of quality treatment with "quality" being very hard to determine. I think the industry warrants extra scrutiny. For example it seems the healthcare bill will try and recoup its expenses by taxing industry however there is certainly scope for industry to pass this tax on the the final consumer.

20Cent

Manic Moran wrote: »

You might have an argument on the getting sick bit, but there are still things you can do to minimize the risks. You can take the effort to exercise, you can avoid high-risk activities like smoking, you can diet correctly etc. You can make your own mind up if you think the chances of injury/illness to yourself warrant the expense, much as you can make the same gamble with house insurance in case a fire or earthquake destroys everything you own.
Where the vehicle accident is concerned, there are only three possibilities I can see: Your fault, the other guy's fault, or an equipment defect with the vehicle or road. The latter is extremely rare (Current debate about Toyota accelerators notwithstanding) and may generally be recouped through litigation when it does happen, the 'other guys fault' insurance is already mandated by law (and just for good measure I need to pay into an 'uninsured motorists' fund when I renew the registration on my vehicle), which, on a practical level, leaves 'you' as the only likely cause for an accident which isn't already covered by other means. If you think that you're a damned good driver then that's your decision to not cover yourself and save some money. If you overestimate your abilities to drive or maintain your vehicle, then you've nobody to blame for your impending bankruptcy than yourself.

NTM

So what happens to anyone without insurance and can't afford treatment?

Manic Moran

20Cent wrote: »

So what happens to anyone without insurance and can't afford treatment?

They go bankrupt, and the State taxpayer fields the excess.

NTM

bonkey

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Why do you think that is?

I often hear people complaining about how health care is so expensive (insinuating that it shouldn't be), but its strikes me as a very costly industry. Are the high prices in Switzerland merely a reflection of the true cost of medicine?

Its a combination of factors.

In general, the service offered is generally of a high standard. Well equipped hospitals are the standard, not the exception. There are four "super hospitals" (Geneva, Bern, Basel, Zurich) which are equipped for almost anything and have all the really specialist stuff, but for humdrum affairs like MRI scans, hip replacement surgery, and so forth, the local hospital will be well equipped.

That level of quality costs.

Waiting lists are mostly an alien concept. That costs too.

To top it all off, Swiss salaries are high....and that really costs.

Healthcare costs, sure....and doing healthcare well, in a country with high costs of living to begin with, is really going to cost....but you know what...I'll pay it happily, and I don't begrudge (some of) my taxes going to pay for the unemployed and/or poor to have it too. I can think of a lot of worse ways in which governments have spent my taxes.

bonkey

Manic Moran wrote: »

They go bankrupt, and the State taxpayer fields the excess.

NTM

But then why not have car insurance optional on the same basis?

When someone causes 3rd party injury/damage, and doesn't have insurance....let them go bankrupt and let the State taxpayer pick up the excess.

Also, if the taxpayer is already picking up the tab for any medical care that someone can't afford to pay, how does the new system change who ultimately pays the bill, other than limiting personal exposure (which isn't per se a bad thing).

Rather than Joe Q NoInsurance going backrupt, and every taxpayer paying the rest of his bill, Joe Q NowWithInsurance doesn't go bankrupt, and everyone else (via their mandatory health insurance) pays the rest of his bill anyway.

The net difference is the tradeoff of someone not going bankrupt (which inflicts its own costs, financially and socially) against how much of their bill they could have paid by being bankrupted.

Black Swan

Does health care reform still allow hospitals to charge $10 for one aspirin as they have in the past? (when you can buy a bottle of 100 aspirin a CVS drug store for 99 cents)

Manic Moran

Curses. Seems the computer ate my reply yesterday.

bonkey wrote: »

But then why not have car insurance optional on the same basis?

When someone causes 3rd party injury/damage, and doesn't have insurance....let them go bankrupt and let the State taxpayer pick up the excess.

For starters, I'm not sure the State's coffers could afford it. Apparently in 2005 (The most recent figures I could find in a hurry, I'm running on battery power here), California spent $7.4bn in covering uninsured medical expenses. And that's generally the 'By law lifesaving ER treatment cannot be refused just because the injured party has no insurance.' I'd hate to see what it would cost if the average car prang also got covered by the taxpayer.

There is a moral difference as well. In the case of the uninsured injuree, the people who suffer are the injuree (obviously) and the corporation, be it the hospital, State or whatever, which has to wait until the legal process is completed that they can get all the funds owed, the latter of which suffers few real-world hassles while they wait for their money. In the case of the uninsured motorist, there is a third party involved who is also suffering damage: If my car is pranged, I can't wait for the wonderful wheels of justice and bureaucracy to turn for months until I get the money I need to buy/repair the car so I can go back to work. Why should I be penalised in such a manner?

Also, if the taxpayer is already picking up the tab for any medical care that someone can't afford to pay, how does the new system change who ultimately pays the bill, other than limiting personal exposure (which isn't per se a bad thing).

It doesn't. Which is the problem. The solution is to have more people who can afford to have coverage, by cutting the costs of healthcare, not to have the taxpayer simply pay the same money by a different route. The government is out of money. Instead of re-labelling the expense to something more politically acceptable, try reducing the expense. Now everybody can receive Blue Lagoon's $10 aspirin. I'm thrilled.

NTM

Amerika

If this health care bill is so great, why did the Democrats who wrote the bill quitely insert, at the last moment, provisions that excluded themselves from the rules of the bill?

Ludo

Amerika wrote: »

If this health care bill is so great, why did the Democrats who wrote the bill quitely insert, at the last moment, provisions that excluded themselves from the rules of the bill?

What is this about? Haven't heard that one?

GuanYin

Amerika wrote: »

If this health care bill is so great, why did the Democrats who wrote the bill quitely insert, at the last moment, provisions that excluded themselves from the rules of the bill?

Please, enlighten us all with evidence that this is true.

metaoblivia

It is true to some extent, but the language used was actually introduced by a Republican, Tom Coburn.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_109/news/44605-1.html

simplistic2

A look at the future...

The Fix Is In

...while spending on Britain’s National Health Service had increased by 60% under the Labour government, its output had decreased by 4%. No doubt the spending of a Soviet-style organization like the NHS is more easily measurable than its output, but the former minister’s remark certainly accords with the experiences of many citizens, who see no dramatic improvement in the service as a result of such vastly increased outlays. On the contrary, while the service has taken on 400,000 new staff members—that is to say, one-fifth of all new jobs created in Britain during the period—continuity of medical care has been all but extinguished. Nobody now expects to see the same doctor on successive occasions, in the hospital or anywhere else. . . .
There is a possible explanation other than managerial inexperience for the waste, namely that the waste was intended and desired: indeed, that it was the principal object of the spending. Experience has long shown that further spending by state-monopoly suppliers of services (if services is quite the word I seek) benefits not the consumers but the providers. And they—ever more numerous—naturally vote for their own providers, the politicians. Thus the NHS has become an enormously expensive method of ballot-stuffing.

bonkey

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'd hate to see what it would cost if the average car prang also got covered by the taxpayer.

A subset of taxpayers are already covering the cost of these "prangs"...those who actually pay for insurance.

It wouldn't actually cost any more...it would just change the distribution of who's paying teh bill. It might additionally involve a change in how the monies are collected (taxes instead of insurance payments), but that's about it.

There is a moral difference as well.
...
If my car is pranged, I can't wait for the wonderful wheels of justice and bureaucracy to turn for months until I get the money I need to buy/repair the car so I can go back to work. Why should I be penalised in such a manner?

Shouldn't this moral factor also apply to healthcare?

If the struggling-to-get-by person falls ill through no fault of their own, is it morally right that they be driven into penury or indeed bankruptcy as a result?

Isn't there, in effect, a financial "watershed" in such a system, where once you're above it, you can additionally be protected against being driven into bankruptcy through no fault of your own. Reward the richer by protecting them against losing it all, whilst telling the poorer that because they are poor they get to lose everything. How is that moral?

It doesn't. Which is the problem. The solution is to have more people who can afford to have coverage, by cutting the costs of healthcare, not to have the taxpayer simply pay the same money by a different route.

I would argue that a proper solution can only be reached by first dealing with inclusion and then dealing with cost.

If Obama, or anyone, managed to make healtchare less expensive, then more people would be included. Suggest then that the system be expanded to cover those who still couldn't afford it, and I would be of the opinion that opposition would be far, far greater.

By dealing with inclusion first, the basic (and moral) aim of inclusion is dealt with....and everyone has a vested interest in costs being brought under control. Do it the other way around, and anyone who can afford healthcare (which is now an expanded group) have a vested interest in denying inclusion to anyone else.

The government is out of money.

With respect, the US government has been out of money for a long time...but that hasn't stopped them spending it hand over fist.

Now everybody can receive Blue Lagoon's $10 aspirin. I'm thrilled.

And when the government turn around and point out that this is a problem....they'll have a basis to argue from. Before the legislation was passed, it was someone else's problem....the problem of those who could afford healthcare. By assuming responsibility for a large number of people, the government have given themselves a very good reason to be able to stick their oar in.

It was the wonderful free market which gave you your $10 aspirin. Over here, it was regulation via government involvement which led to the health insurers mandating the use of generics over such products.

You have to start somewhere. I think giving people healthcare is a pretty good place to start.

Amerika

GuanYin wrote: »

Please, enlighten us all with evidence that this is true.

I heard it on the radio (WABC) yesterday that it was reported in Politico. Here is the link which pretty much resembles the other one listed previously.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34900.html

jank

So the bill is to be sent back to the house for a second vote sometime tonight. A few lines had to be taken out of the bill but very minor by all accounts. Then its done........ ZZZZZ!

What next well best summed up by Yousef Munayyer.
http://www.politico.com/arena/

This is the end of the health care debate….for now. Partly because this president is likely to move on to other issues and partly because we are all pretty sick of it (No pun intended). If the debate arises again in the future it will be because the legislation we just passed doesn’t significantly reduce health care costs even though millions will be covered.

Making a big fuss out of losing this one is an ineffective strategy for Republicans. Playing to the base and enraging those segments of the right who have been on display recently maybe successful tactics for trying to stall and delay passage but won’t win back congressional seats en masse. The sooner Republicans realize this and make a legitimate case for deficit reduction that doesn’t compromise necessary government programs in this weak economy the sooner they will be taken seriously by America’s center.

The “Armageddon-Socialist-Nazism” nonsense will not cut it.

Speaking of "Armageddon-Socialist-Nazism” nonsense, seems there has been a spate of attacks on Democrats this week and more will follow when they go home for the weekend.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35044.html

Amerika

Told you so! Didn’t take long, now did it? Cost of over $1 Trillion, and still leaving 37 million uninsured. Hmmmmm.

So does anybody still believe “If you have health care, you can keep your health care. If you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. We're not going to-- tell that you've got to switch one way or the other. But like Federal employees, you will suddenly have a menu of options that you can take a look at. And we think that the forces of competition, good information, consumers are going be making good choices, all that is going help drive down costs, give people better quality, and allow more people to get coverage.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23784.html

Mr. Incognito

Why are you posting a link to an Article written in June 2009 and is referring to a hypothetical bill that had not existed at that time and says

Could
May
Might

Seriously, that's a piss poor attempt.

Amerika

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Why are you posting a link to an Article written in June 2009 and is referring to a hypothetical bill that had not existed at that time and says

Could
May
Might

Seriously, that's a piss poor attempt.

Ooops. The article I just read about the increased cost estimates from the CBO came from a conservative website. I didn’t want it to just turn into another series of ad hominem attacks, so I tried to pick a neutral site. Obviously I picked the wrong one (again ).

Here.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/cbo-health-care-bill-will-cost-115-billion-more-than-previously-assessed.html

Flamed Diving

jank wrote: »

Look up Oxymoron.

Just flicking through this thread, and I would be interested in how describing Josef Stalin as a fascist and communist would be an oxymoron?

Indeed, how any system of totalitarian wealth distribution could not be described as such?

I have predicted some of your initial feelings, and rest assured that I am aware that not all collectivist regimes are necessarily totalitarian.

I realise this is an off-topic post, which is why I promise not to respond to your... response.

Cheers.

jank

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Just flicking through this thread, and I would be interested in how describing Josef Stalin as a fascist and communist would be an oxymoron?

Indeed, how any system of totalitarian wealth distribution could not be described as such?

I have predicted some of your initial feelings, and rest assured that I am aware that not all collectivist regimes are necessarily totalitarian.

I realise this is an off-topic post, which is why I promise not to respond to your... response.

Cheers.

May I direct you to this thread.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055899697

I am curious though on your need to post when you already said that you weren't going to respond to my....response. Talk about a waste of a bandwidth.

Overheal

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66378076&postcount=59

Amerika

Nancy Pelosi famously said in regards to ObamaCare: “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” Well, the “you can find out what is in it” is now beginning to trickle through, and that fog looks to be more like a bog (without the controversy).
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/you_re_losing_your_plan_O2H1EFmYlHSoQmqp48uDHI

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

Nancy Pelosi famously said in regards to ObamaCare: “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” Well, the “you can find out what is in it” is now beginning to trickle through, and that fog looks to be more like a bog (without the controversy).
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/you_re_losing_your_plan_O2H1EFmYlHSoQmqp48uDHI

What were you doing when the Republicans were in power? Just curious if you were so eager to condemn their massive increases in public spending and the overall size of the State.

Overheal

Yes I know I for one fully supported the making of what I am sure must be a whole NSA section or two of people who sit around a computer listening to couples have phone sex in the name of liberty :rolleyes:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/peggy/theyre-listening-in-on-your-phone-sex

So I can see how Republicans might be a little distressed that a government agency get set up to regulate healthcare, etc.

Amerika

Denerick wrote: »

What were you doing when the Republicans were in power? Just curious if you were so eager to condemn their massive increases in public spending and the overall size of the State.

Other than defense spending, I was against most of the spending that happened during Bush’s administration. I wish there was some source to show what Bush’s budget proposals looked like when they were sent to Congress, and then show what came out of Congress after they added to it. I hear the amounts added to the budget by Congress were mind boggling. Curiosity satisfied?

Overheal wrote: »

So I can see how Republicans might be a little distressed that a government agency get set up to regulate healthcare, etc.

Did you even read the article. It’s not "a" (as in one), but 160 new government agencies responsible for control, that the bill created.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Did you even read the article. It’s not "a" (as in one), but 160 new government agencies responsible for control, that the bill created.

And it doesnt really break down those organizations. Is that 3 agencies per State, plus 10 for Federal? Is it 160 agencies where one crosses, the Ts and one dots the Is? Far to vague in that article to really get scared about.

Thats the only article I could find when i tried to run a search for 160 agencies and health care. So I'm left to conclude that either the New York Post is a revolutionary pioneer in journalism, or their fluffing the number.

Lirange

Daddy done raise his girl right?

Or I guess that would be mamma Bush. Well I reckon the gene pool is not unsalvageable. The Bush women were pinko libs all along long. Who knew?

Overheal

Im sure thats why the first lady was so mum during the presidency.

Amerika

Remember when we were discussing this and how everyone swore up and down that abortions would not be paid for by federal funds? They even specifically promised, by a means-absolutely-nothing executive order, to not allow federal funds for abortion, in order to get Bart Stupak and other pro-life democrats to sign onto the bill?

Well, IMO anybody who believes anything this lying administration promises is a moron. And this just helps to solidify my position.

$160 million to Pennsylvania alone.

http://www.earnedmedia.org/nrlc0713.htm.

And before the Obamabots jump to his defense, here is the pertanant part:

“…includes only abortions and contraceptives that satisfy the requirements of" several specific statutes, the most pertinent of which is 18 Pa. C.S. § 3204, which says that an abortion is legal in Pennsylvania (consistent with Roe v. Wade) if a single physician believes that it is "necessary" based on "all factors (physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age) relevant to the well-being of the woman."

Doctor, I’m pregnant again and I need another abortion.
How are you going to pay for this?
I don’t have any money and I’m on welfare.
Sorry, but the new Obama heath care reform bill doesn’t pay for abortion on demand.
Oh my, what am I going to do, this pregnancy has me so upset that I can’t sleep at night.
Well now that’s something completely different, let’s go suck some brains out. Nurse, fill out the paperwork for government payment.




.

kev9100

Amerika wrote: »

Doctor, I’m pregnant again and I need another abortion.
How are you going to pay for this?
I don’t have any money and I’m on welfare.
Sorry, but the new Obama heath care reform bill doesn’t pay for abortion on demand.
Oh my, what am I going to do, this pregnancy has me so upset that I can’t sleep at night.
Well now that’s something completely different, let’s go suck some brains out. Nurse, fill out the paperwork for government payment.




.

I really hope that was a (awful) joke. If you are so blind that you think the decision to have an abortion isn't one of the most difficult and painful decisions someone can make, I pity you.

Overheal

Executive Order -- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's Consistency with Longstanding Restrictions on the Use of Federal Funds for Abortion

EXECUTIVE ORDER

ENSURING ENFORCEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ABORTION RESTRICTIONS IN THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (Public Law 111-148), I hereby order as follows:

Section. 1. Policy. Following the recent enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the "Act"), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment. The purpose of this order is to establish a comprehensive, Government-wide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors -- Federal officials, State officials (including insurance regulators) and health care providers -- are aware of their responsibilities, new and old.

The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly created health insurance exchanges. Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. 300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, section 508(d)(1) of Public Law 111-8) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

Numerous executive agencies have a role in ensuring that these restrictions are enforced, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Office of Personnel Management.

Sec. 2. Strict Compliance with Prohibitions on Abortion Funding in Health Insurance Exchanges. The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014. The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires State health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.

I hereby direct the Director of the OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this order, a model set of segregation guidelines for State health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act's segregation requirements, established in section 1303 of the Act, for enrollees receiving Federal financial assistance. The guidelines shall also offer technical information that States should follow to conduct independent regular audits of insurance companies that participate in the health insurance exchanges. In developing these model guidelines, the Director of the OMB and the Secretary of HHS shall consult with executive agencies and offices that have relevant expertise in accounting principles, including, but not limited to, the Department of the Treasury, and with the Government Accountability Office. Upon completion of those model guidelines, the Secretary of HHS should promptly initiate a rulemaking to issue regulations, which will have the force of law, to interpret the Act's segregation requirements, and shall provide guidance to State health insurance commissioners on how to comply with the model guidelines.

Sec. 3. Community Health Center Program. The Act establishes a new Community Health Center (CHC) Fund within HHS, which provides additional Federal funds for the community health center program. Existing law prohibits these centers from using Federal funds to provide abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), as a result of both the Hyde Amendment and longstanding regulations containing the Hyde language. Under the Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds for Community Health Centers under section 10503 and all other relevant provisions. I hereby direct the Secretary of HHS to ensure that program administrators and recipients of Federal funds are aware of and comply with the limitations on abortion services imposed on CHCs by existing law. Such actions should include, but are not limited to, updating Grant Policy Statements that accompany CHC grants and issuing new interpretive rules.

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law or Presidential directive to an agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 24, 2010.








Just sayin'.


According to Stupak himself he was aware that's what the Bill did: it reinforced the existing amendments and directly applied them to new and future healthcare reform. He appeared to be under no illusion about the exceptions.

Amerika

kev9100 wrote: »

I really hope that was a (awful) joke. If you are so blind that you think the decision to have an abortion isn't one of the most difficult and painful decisions someone can make, I pity you.

I wish you were right, but reality is a not always pretty. And I have worked with people who consider abortion just another form of birth control, and think nothing of it. My former next door neighbor was a doctor who performed abortion on demand. His stories would make you sick. If it shocked you good! Because this is just the way it is here quite often. :mad:

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

I wish you were right, but reality is a not always pretty. And I have worked with people who consider abortion just another form of birth control, and think nothing of it. My former next door neighbor was a doctor who performed abortion on demand. His stories would make you sick. If it shocked you good! Because this is just the way it is here quite often. :mad:

And abortion on demand is not covered.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

And abortion on demand is not covered.

You are right. But abuses will abound when you add the emotional and psychological loopholes. Also, no executive order or regulation can override a statutory mandate unless Congress passes a law that prohibits federal funding from being used in this manner. And Congress refused to make it law.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

You are right. But abuses will abound when you add the emotional and psychological loopholes. Also, no executive order or regulation can override a statutory mandate unless Congress passes a law that prohibits federal funding from being used in this manner. And Congress refused to make it law.

It's really no different than any medical loophole, "Yeah I have chest pains, bump me up to the front of the ER. Yeah my insurance only covers emergencies."

The Joy is there's so many Right-Wing Pro-Lifers out there that keeping Doctors from exploiting said loophole should really be a non-issue.

kev9100

Amerika wrote: »

You are right. Also, no executive order or regulation can override a statutory mandate unless Congress passes a law that prohibits federal funding from being used in this manner. And Congress refused to make it law.

But if Congress had done that, all it would have done is make it even more difficult for poor women to get an abortion for genuine medical reasons. The rich would still be able to get an abortion because they can afford it. How is that fair?

Amerika

kev9100 wrote: »

But if Congress had done that, all it would have done is make it even more difficult for poor women to get an abortion for genuine medical reasons. The rich would still be able to get an abortion because they can afford it. How is that fair?

It has been reported that an estimated 50 million babies in the US have been aborted since 1973. Approximately 24% of all U.S. pregnancies end in abortion.

And the reported Reasons For Abortion:

• 98% Personal Choice (unwanted or inconvenient)
• 1.7% Life/Health of Mother or Child
• .3% Rape/Incest

Still want to talk about fairness?

A true request to me from an employee:
I need off next Wednesday. I have to take my girlfriend to get an abortion.
What’s going on here, you used that excuse last month.
That was a different girlfriend.