H.R. 3200 The Real Deal

[Light]

Originally Posted by Ferd

One small note here....
Medicare is bankrupt. we are on the hook for 56 TRILLION dollars of unfunded mandates related to Medicare over the next 30 years.....


Medicare is PROOF that this kind of governemnt socialist system is unsustainable.

Peace and love my brother....

Br. you know very well the reason Medicare and SS are in the shape they are in is because for years money is taken out of those programs to pay for things that were not in the budget. If the funds had been left in there would be no problem.
Look at the money that could have been used in Medicare if we hadn't started a war with a country that did not attack us.

[A.W. Bowman]

Originally Posted by Light

Br. you know very well the reason Medicare and SS are in the shape they are in is because for years money is taken out of those programs to pay for things that were not in the budget. If the funds had been left in there would be no problem.
Look at the money that could have been used in Medicare if we hadn't started a war with a country that did not attack us.

Thank you! Amen! And, so let's give our providers/protectors even more money to squander away, while placing even more curbs on our rights, freedoms, and privileges - haven't they done enough to us already?

Silly question. Of course not.

[A.W. Bowman]

My purpose in posting the bill and the notes that I received in an email was twofold:

1. First to bring the actual legislation out in the open for individual review. Why not read what it actually says, rather than just taking someone else’s word for it?

2. Included a number of perceived problems for investigation and discussion. Let’s take a closer look at the facts, rather than opinions only.

Finally, on a more personal note.

From this bill, it cannot be stated otherwise: Politicians and bureaucrats will be making medical policy decisions for both you and your doctor. Really, how many folks on this forum would want me making these kinds of decisions for (and imposing them) on you and your family, as currently proposed in this bill?

Right now, my wife is a prime candidate for “restricted” health care. That is, it will cost too much to provide her with the medical treatment necessary to substance her life. She has neither the wealth, political clout, nor high social or professional standing to qualify her for preferential treatment (exemption from the provisions of H.R.3200). If it were not for several “non-government agencies”, charity organizations and medical personal and facilities who discounted or wrote off many of her medical bills for over two years, our currently in place, benevolent government disability medical system would have set my wife off to one side to simply die. As a matter of fact, that is exactly what our providers and proctors did. I suppose it was with great reluctance the government agency had to recognize that because of the assistance she received, she did not die as expected, and she is now considered another drain on the economy (a non productive economic unit, as Karl Marks might say.)

So, no. This is not just another philosophical, political, or intellectual exercise for me.

Listen real close to the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJYvaLS-xOw

After all of the schmoozing words and the political double speak, who gets to set policy and make the "end of life" decisions. While you and your doctor discuss your treatment options, those options are listed, approved and defined by a bureaucrat who has never seen or spoken with you or your doctor.

Does anyone have a problem with this picture?

[A.W. Bowman]

Question: Can a person without money or insurance obtain quality health in the US?

Answer: Yes. But you have to look for it.

Question: Does something need to be done to make our medical system better (more efficient, affordable, etc.)

Answer: Yes!

Question: What is the "best" solution?

Answer: I don't know. However, I bet if the doctors, medical facilities and organizations, pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment manufactures, etc, were allowed to get together and develop their own national health insurance company (plans), independent of the government, they could come up with a good one, or even several of them.

Will that ever be allowed to happen? Not likely (Antitrust Laws). The medical industry is just too big for the government to give up control over.

[Light]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Light, can you actually rebut Ha Shaliach's post, point by point, with references that show where he is wrong? You've been calling so many people liars, it seems that you should acknowledge it with equal candor when someone posts the truth.

Sister I have only call one person on this board a liar. I have not read Ha Shaliach's post but I will. If he posts something that is true then I will agree with him on that subject loud and clear, but if he is not correct I will disagree and say it loud and clear.

[A.W. Bowman]

Then, there are all of the Social Security provisions cited in this bill. Anyone care to look them up?

http://www.ssa.gov/regulations/

Perhaps this just a little more work than most are willing to under take. But, then again, that is why we take some fast talking salesmen that pushes through laws that no one really understands, needs or even wants.

In this one man's opinion, it is a bad law. Like the Stimulus Package (the true effects are yet to be felt), it is sweet to the taste (money in the pocket), but in the end it will sour the stomach (inflation is coming).

[A.W. Bowman]

But, then again - for REDUCTION OF [Social Security] INSURANCE BENEFITS

Maximum Benefits

Sec. 203. [42 U.S.C. 403] (a)(1) In the case of an individual whose primary insurance amount has been computed or recomputed under section 215(a)(1) or (4), or section 215(d), as in effect after December 1978, the total monthly benefits to which beneficiaries may be entitled under section 202 or 223 for a month on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of such individual shall, except as provided by paragraphs (3) and (6) (but prior to any increases resulting from the application of paragraph (2)(A)(ii)(III) of section 215(i)), be reduced as necessary so as not to exceed—

-------------------
moving down a little-

(3)(A) When an individual who is entitled to benefits on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of any insured individual and to whom this subsection applies would (but for the provisions of section 202(k)(2)(A)) be entitled to child's insurance benefits for a month on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of one or more other insured individuals, the total monthly benefits to which all beneficiaries are entitled on the basis of such wages and self-employment income shall not be reduced under this subsection to less than the smaller of—

(i) the sum of the maximum amounts of benefits payable on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of all such insured individuals, or

(ii) an amount (I) initially equal to the product of 1.75 and the primary insurance amount that would be computed under section 215(a)(1), for January of the year determined for purposes of this clause under the following two sentences, with respect to average indexed monthly earnings equal to one-twelfth of the contribution and benefit base determined for that year under section 230, and (II) thereafter increased in accordance with the provisions of section 215(i)(2)(A)(ii).

The year established for purposes of clause (ii) shall be 1983 or, if it occurs later with respect to any individual, the year in which occurred the month that the application of the reduction provisions contained in this subparagraph began with respect to benefits payable on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of the insured individual. If for any month subsequent to the first month for which clause (ii) applies (with respect to benefits payable on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of the insured individual) the reduction under this subparagraph ceases to apply, then the year determined under the preceding sentence shall be redetermined (for purposes of any subsequent application of this subparagraph with respect to benefits payable on the basis of such wages and self-employment income) as though this subparagraph had not been previously applicable.

(B) When two or more persons were entitled (without the application of section 202(j)(1) and section 223(b)) to monthly benefits under section 202 or 223 for January 1971 or any prior month on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of such insured individual and the provisions of this subsection as in effect for any such month were applicable in determining the benefit amount of any persons on the basis of such wages and self-employment income, the total of benefits for any month after January 1971 shall not be reduced to less than the largest of—

-----------------
Can be summed up in one simple word: "What?"

So, if no one wants to undertake this challenge, surly we will all understand.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Ferd

OK ive read quite a bit of this insanity and now I am really really mad!


anyone who thinks this document is worthy of voting for is a moron. Not a liberal. not a communist. not a Neo-facist.

a complete pelosi MORON!


STUPID!!!!!!


This thing is so mired in legaleez that you cant really figure out what they are saying and it can have 15 different meanings depending on what they want it to mean after it passes!!!!!!!!!!!!

these people are just idiots of the highest order


really. I mean REALLY!!!!!!!! I am mad about this!!!!!!!

I've only been checking this out for the last couple of weeks, ad like you Ferd, the more I learn, the more I want to find some answers, the angrier I get.

This is garbage.

[Light]

Originally Posted by HaShaliach

But, then again - for REDUCTION OF [Social Security] INSURANCE BENEFITS

Maximum Benefits

Sec. 203. [42 U.S.C. 403] (a)(1) In the case of an individual whose primary insurance amount has been computed or recomputed under section 215(a)(1) or (4), or section 215(d), as in effect after December 1978, the total monthly benefits to which beneficiaries may be entitled under section 202 or 223 for a month on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of such individual shall, except as provided by paragraphs (3) and (6) (but prior to any increases resulting from the application of paragraph (2)(A)(ii)(III) of section 215(i)), be reduced as necessary so as not to exceed—

-------------------
moving down a little-

(3)(A) When an individual who is entitled to benefits on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of any insured individual and to whom this subsection applies would (but for the provisions of section 202(k)(2)(A)) be entitled to child's insurance benefits for a month on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of one or more other insured individuals, the total monthly benefits to which all beneficiaries are entitled on the basis of such wages and self-employment income shall not be reduced under this subsection to less than the smaller of—

(i) the sum of the maximum amounts of benefits payable on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of all such insured individuals, or

(ii) an amount (I) initially equal to the product of 1.75 and the primary insurance amount that would be computed under section 215(a)(1), for January of the year determined for purposes of this clause under the following two sentences, with respect to average indexed monthly earnings equal to one-twelfth of the contribution and benefit base determined for that year under section 230, and (II) thereafter increased in accordance with the provisions of section 215(i)(2)(A)(ii).

The year established for purposes of clause (ii) shall be 1983 or, if it occurs later with respect to any individual, the year in which occurred the month that the application of the reduction provisions contained in this subparagraph began with respect to benefits payable on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of the insured individual. If for any month subsequent to the first month for which clause (ii) applies (with respect to benefits payable on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of the insured individual) the reduction under this subparagraph ceases to apply, then the year determined under the preceding sentence shall be redetermined (for purposes of any subsequent application of this subparagraph with respect to benefits payable on the basis of such wages and self-employment income) as though this subparagraph had not been previously applicable.

(B) When two or more persons were entitled (without the application of section 202(j)(1) and section 223(b)) to monthly benefits under section 202 or 223 for January 1971 or any prior month on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of such insured individual and the provisions of this subsection as in effect for any such month were applicable in determining the benefit amount of any persons on the basis of such wages and self-employment income, the total of benefits for any month after January 1971 shall not be reduced to less than the largest of—

-----------------
Can be summed up in one simple word: "What?"

So, if no one wants to undertake this challenge, surly we will all understand.

Sounds like Greek to me but I do know one thing. When I signed up for SS they fixed the amount I was to be paid on money paid in from the age 55 to age 65. Any monies paid in before 55 years of age did not count.

[A.W. Bowman]

Greek I can handle - its the English that gives me a head ache. LOLOL