|
Post by pumpkinette on Mar 23, 2010 14:48:53 GMT
Dear das, THANK YOU for having an open mind (unlike some on here). ;D He may well have an open mind but I thought I also saw his tongue in his cheek? ;D I'm open minded, Pumpkinette. Although, the day Bush was elected I wasn't wondering if a war would start under his leadership, I was wondering when. And I was torn between soon and very soon. Naturally, my main reaction on the day of 9/11 was like most other people's; shock, disbelief, horror... However, it also crossed my mind as I watched the news, quite forcefully crossed my mind, that this could be an inside job -- because what a blank page it would give the government to do as they liked! So I'm open to the idea. It's just that the facts don't really support the idea. If you want to show me the ''magic bullet'' of the case, the one clincher of the truther argument, I'll happily look at it with an open mind -- although, I will argue it with you because that's just one of my techniques for trying to understand something - hopefully draw out an argument from you that I can either eventually dismiss completely or no longer deny because it's undeniable! I just noticed how Bushadmirer posted "nutty views" above the Sheen thing so answered that. I think it's wonderful you'll even CONSIDER 9/11 truth stuff. I'm NOT being sarcastic here, I mean it! I'd be glad to post some links for you on it if you like. NONE of them will be from the SCUM who have infiltrated the movement (the Jews did it all, aliens did it, no planes hit the Twin Towers, etc.) but it'll just be stuff from the reasonable people.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 23, 2010 14:53:59 GMT
yeah unfortunately, obama does subscribe to the moronic notion of one world, instead of the reality that earth is composed of 195+ TOTALLY separate and distinct countries. By "one world", do you mean a version of United Nations and peace treaties galore. A global EU or America? A global USSR? Or do you mean the lizards? Hmm. The killing stuff hasn't been that cool so far. Talking might be just as effective or more pertinently just as ineffective? Only with less dead kids. And it's sort of the christian philosophy..you know...thou shalt not kill..and so on. i'm not a big fan of the united nations, but it is okay, for the reason that the european union is NOT okay. trade and defense treaties are fine, and necessary. NO other affiliation is acceptable however. common currency, unrestricted travel between countries, and particularly the imbecillic idea that a governing body dictating to the sovereign nations is okay, is inherently wrong on its face, and there is NO legitimate excuse for it. the internal affairs of a nation is SOLELY the province of that nation. that's what soverignty is about, and soverignty trumps absolutely everything, without exception
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 23, 2010 14:55:36 GMT
it is fine to talk to those who are intelligent, and rational enough to talk. in the case of islamofascists, the ONLY reasonable thing to do is exterminate them, as the insect pests that they are. killing garbage such as jihad jane is in no way different than swatting a fly, except that the fly doesn't do anything to deserve to die
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 23, 2010 15:01:02 GMT
By "one world", do you mean a version of United Nations and peace treaties galore. A global EU or America? A global USSR? Or do you mean the lizards? Hmm. The killing stuff hasn't been that cool so far. Talking might be just as effective or more pertinently just as ineffective? Only with less dead kids. And it's sort of the christian philosophy..you know...thou shalt not kill..and so on. I've been against a 1 world government for years. A big reason for this is I'm a Christian and 1 world government is going to be unique to the anti-Christ. I want NO part of it EVER. MANY leaders in the world are FOR 1 world government, including Obama. This to me confirms what the Bible says about most people not even caring to know God, etc., and that most of the world system is evil. There ARE politicians who ARE against 1 world government and they have my support. I no longer vote for anyone who's part of any group who's for 1 world government, any kind of tyranny, etc. This is 1 reason I didn't vote for Obama. of course, you are totally right. that is the primary reason to fight the one world stupidity. however, you have to contend with folks who refuse to accept the reality of god, so you have to have other reasons in order to make the argument.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Mar 23, 2010 15:06:18 GMT
Sheen...victims...I was confused about this so have had to google it and you mean the 9/11 conspiracy theory thing, right? Sheen wants Obama to admit that they weren't really planes that flew into the twin towers... I wouldn't want to meet Sheen if I was Obama either. The President of America doesn't have time to meet all the alien abductees in the country. I brought up the Charlie Sheen thing as an EXAMPLE of how Obama could care less about certain groups of people. Talking about the veteran thing reminded me of it. Fair enough. Bad example, imho. It certainly hasn't made me even question Obama's integrity. That's because no sane president, of any persuasion, would touch this conspiracy with a bargepole. It's a mess of a conspiracy theory. No one touched the JFK one, did they? Isn't that just as ominous? I suspect there are things to be discovered by a fresh investigation. I don't know what they are. I expect one or two of the conspiracy ''facts'' could be found to be near enough the truth but which ones...could be any, I guess. Highlighting suspected whitewashing in an inquiry is an admirable activity and very worthwhile. Questioning the government is vital. Demanding action on any corruption of any sort is almost an obligatory act for any good citizen. Sheen's not doing that. He's demanding an inquiry to prove the conspiracy right. Only one conclusion will satiate him. If it doesn't prove him right he will claim more whitewashing. It's a waste of everyone's time, money and energy. He's not fighting for truth or democracy or transparency, he's fighting for his version of events to be validated. Such a demand is not valid and I fear it will only end in tears. cf. Fayed and his Diana Conspiracies.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 23, 2010 15:13:32 GMT
Clemie Not convinced 'Stalinization' is the correct word; Stalin wasn't very big on healthcare iirc. Although he did seem to think very cold weather and hard work was a cure for dissidence. The "Stalin" bit was intended to be TIC, as was the animal care bit. Thank goodness for that; I thought you'd gone to the dark side!
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Mar 23, 2010 15:18:52 GMT
LOL!
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Mar 23, 2010 15:20:23 GMT
There's at least a few reasons I hate Obama's guts and this veteran thing is 1 of them. If anyone on here is interested in the reasons I'll be glad to list them, post links, etc. However, I've looked up a few more things online and stand corrected on that what Obama did AFTER this issue came up wasn't as bad as I originally thought. He did make it right to a degree. However, I won't change my mind that to even CONSIDER such a thing as this was disgusting and wrong. I'm very glad he got blasted by the veterans, etc. He SHOULD have been. The LEAST the veterans deserve is free medical care for life. Can't say fairer than that!
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 23, 2010 15:25:04 GMT
By "one world", do you mean a version of United Nations and peace treaties galore. A global EU or America? A global USSR? Or do you mean the lizards? Hmm. The killing stuff hasn't been that cool so far. Talking might be just as effective or more pertinently just as ineffective? Only with less dead kids. And it's sort of the christian philosophy..you know...thou shalt not kill..and so on. i'm not a big fan of the united nations, but it is okay, for the reason that the european union is NOT okay. trade and defense treaties are fine, and necessary. NO other affiliation is acceptable however. common currency, unrestricted travel between countries, and particularly the imbecillic idea that a governing body dictating to the sovereign nations is okay, is inherently wrong on its face, and there is NO legitimate excuse for it. the internal affairs of a nation is SOLELY the province of that nation. that's what soverignty is about, and soverignty trumps absolutely everything, without exception The United Nations is just another gravy train. Interestingly you compare it to the EU, but not the US. I was under the impression that any one of the 50 U.S. states are federated and share sovereignty with the federal government. The EU states have pooled a good deal but not all of their sovereignty. An EU state can leave the union if it so chooses; in 1985, Greenland left the European Economic Community as it then was. If an American state wanted to unilaterally leave, or secede from the Union could it? Somehow I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Mar 23, 2010 15:33:52 GMT
i'm not a big fan of the united nations, but it is okay, for the reason that the european union is NOT okay. trade and defense treaties are fine, and necessary. NO other affiliation is acceptable however. common currency, unrestricted travel between countries, and particularly the imbecillic idea that a governing body dictating to the sovereign nations is okay, is inherently wrong on its face, and there is NO legitimate excuse for it. the internal affairs of a nation is SOLELY the province of that nation. that's what soverignty is about, and soverignty trumps absolutely everything, without exception The United Nations is just another gravy train. Interestingly you compare it to the EU, but not the US. I was under the impression that any one of the 50 U.S. states are federated and share sovereignty with the federal government. The EU states have pooled a good deal but not all of their sovereignty. An EU state can leave the union if it so chooses; in 1985, Greenland left the European Economic Community as it then was. If an American state wanted to unilaterally leave, or secede from the Union could it? Somehow I doubt it. Good question.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Mar 23, 2010 15:35:17 GMT
it is fine to talk to those who are intelligent, and rational enough to talk. in the case of islamofascists, the ONLY reasonable thing to do is exterminate them, as the insect pests that they are. killing garbage such as jihad jane is in no way different than swatting a fly, except that the fly doesn't do anything to deserve to die It pukes on your food.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 23, 2010 16:43:16 GMT
i'm not a big fan of the united nations, but it is okay, for the reason that the european union is NOT okay. trade and defense treaties are fine, and necessary. NO other affiliation is acceptable however. common currency, unrestricted travel between countries, and particularly the imbecillic idea that a governing body dictating to the sovereign nations is okay, is inherently wrong on its face, and there is NO legitimate excuse for it. the internal affairs of a nation is SOLELY the province of that nation. that's what soverignty is about, and soverignty trumps absolutely everything, without exception The United Nations is just another gravy train. Interestingly you compare it to the EU, but not the US. I was under the impression that any one of the 50 U.S. states are federated and share sovereignty with the federal government. The EU states have pooled a good deal but not all of their sovereignty. An EU state can leave the union if it so chooses; in 1985, Greenland left the European Economic Community as it then was. If an American state wanted to unilaterally leave, or secede from the Union could it? Somehow I doubt it. you doubt correctly. it was tried once, and failed. there is NO similarity between the u.s. and the eu. with the exception of texas, none of the states were ever a sovereign nation. the colonies were always a loose confederation even before the declaration of independence. no states actually fought wars against each other. except for louisiana, all the states had only one common language, which was understood in every other state. each state had pretty much the same culture. NONE of those things are true about the european countries. the countries that make up the eu kowtow to every imbecillic comment that comes out of brussels. the states of the u.s. have every right and responsibility not specifically spelled out in the constitution to belong to the federal government.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 23, 2010 16:45:09 GMT
it is fine to talk to those who are intelligent, and rational enough to talk. in the case of islamofascists, the ONLY reasonable thing to do is exterminate them, as the insect pests that they are. killing garbage such as jihad jane is in no way different than swatting a fly, except that the fly doesn't do anything to deserve to die It pukes on your food. it shyts on it too, but not if you keep it away from your food, or cover your food. still, if i'm eating outside, i would much prefer a swarm of flies to a swarm of bees
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Mar 23, 2010 17:52:13 GMT
The United Nations is just another gravy train. Interestingly you compare it to the EU, but not the US. I was under the impression that any one of the 50 U.S. states are federated and share sovereignty with the federal government. The EU states have pooled a good deal but not all of their sovereignty. An EU state can leave the union if it so chooses; in 1985, Greenland left the European Economic Community as it then was. If an American state wanted to unilaterally leave, or secede from the Union could it? Somehow I doubt it. you doubt correctly. it was tried once, and failed. there is NO similarity between the u.s. and the eu. with the exception of texas, none of the states were ever a sovereign nation. the colonies were always a loose confederation even before the declaration of independence. no states actually fought wars against each other. except for louisiana, all the states had only one common language, which was understood in every other state. each state had pretty much the same culture. NONE of those things are true about the european countries. the countries that make up the eu kowtow to every imbecillic comment that comes out of brussels. the states of the u.s. have every right and responsibility not specifically spelled out in the constitution to belong to the federal government. A Union of the not so free, then. One of the saving graces of the EU is it has the sort of clout that Uncle Sam understands..... Steel tariffs, anyone?
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 23, 2010 18:53:55 GMT
9/11 conspiracy theories are right there with holocaust denial, alien invasions, and the belief that the moon is made out of green cheese.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Mar 23, 2010 18:54:53 GMT
This seems to be slipping some distance from the stated topic, but I'll put this here and hope for the best. I know some of you don't like c&p, but this article is not loaded with partisan opion - it's mostly even, and it gives a pretty good presentation of some details in the health care reform act. As you'll see, the changes are not all that drastic. It will probably leave you wondering what all the shouting was about. Things are rather quiet today - as if those who were wailing and frothing at the mouth have got a grip, said, "oh, is that all?" and moved on. Rush Limbaugh - who had spent months whipping the loonies into a fever - had said he'd move to Costa Rica if the HR passed. I want to know when. Hopefully soon? naaaaa . . . just a bag of air. ------------------------------------------ Health care gains start soon — bigger ones later Health care overhaul will bring real change, but it’s going to happen slowly 3:27 p.m. PT, Mon., March. 22, 2010 WASHINGTON - The first changes under the new health care law will be easy to see and not long in coming: There'll be $250 rebate checks for seniors in the Medicare drug coverage gap, and young adults moving from college to work will be able to stay on their parents' plans until they turn 26. But the peace of mind the president promised — the antidote for health care insecurity, whether you favored or opposed his overhaul — is still a ways beyond the horizon, starting only in 2014. Insurers then will be barred from turning down people with medical problems, and the government will provide tax credits to help millions of working families buy coverage they can't afford now. Health care overhaul will bring real change, but it's going to happen slowly. President Barack Obama plans to sign the main legislation Tuesday in the White House East Room after a bitterly divided House approved it Sunday night. That will cap a turbulent, yearlong quest by the president and congressional Democrats to remake the nation's health care system, fully one-sixth of the U.S. economy. Obama's signature will start the Senate considering a package of changes the House also has approved. But the main overhaul will already be officially on the books. Still, if Obama wants to actually preside over the expansion of coverage to more than 30 million people, he'll first have to persuade a majority of Americans to re-elect him in 2012. "For people who have the greatest need, a number of things will start quickly and make a difference," said DeAnn Friedholm of Consumers Union. For others, 2014 may seem like a long way away. "Some people may be frustrated that it's going to be several years, but that is the reality of what it takes to make these significant changes," she added. The main reason that Obama's plan phases in slowly boils down to cost. The Medicare cuts and tax increases to finance the bill start early; the subsidies to help people purchase coverage come later. That combination keeps the cost of the overhaul under $1 trillion in its first decade, as Obama promised. Republicans call it an accounting gimmick — but in past years they also resorted to it. Here's a look at some of the major impacts for consumers: Coming soon: Roughly a third of people in their 20s are uninsured, so allowing young adults to remain on their parents' plans until 26 would be a significant new option for families. Adult children would not be able to stay on a parental plan if they had access to employer coverage of their own. But they could get married and still be covered. (Grandkids, however, would not qualify.) Regulations will clarify to what degree young adults have to be financially dependent on their parents. Other reforms starting this year would prevent insurers from canceling the policies of people who get sick, from denying coverage to children with medical problems, and from putting lifetime dollar limits on a policy. These changes will spread risks more broadly, but they're also likely to nudge insurance premiums somewhat higher. Obama's plan also includes an important new program for the most vulnerable: uninsured people who can't get coverage because of major medical problems. It's intended to provide an umbrella of protection until the broad expansion of coverage takes effect in 2014. The government will pump money into high-risk insurance pools in the states, making coverage available for people in frail health who have been uninsured for at least six months. The premiums could still be a stretch, but for people who need continuing medical attention, it could make a dramatic difference. "For people who have not been able to get anything, who have expensive chronic illnesses or other conditions, it could be a lifesaver," said Friedholm. There is a catch, however. The $5 billion Obama has allocated for the program is unlikely to last until 2014. In fact, government experts have projected it could run out next year. Winners and losers Among seniors, the plan will create both winners and losers. On the plus side, it gradually closes the dreaded "doughnut hole" prescription coverage gaps improves preventive care and puts a new emphasis on trying to keep seniors struggling with chronic diseases in better overall health. But it also cuts funding for popular private insurance plans offered through the Medicare Advantage program. About one-quarter of seniors have signed up for the plans, which generally offer lower out-of-pocket costs. That's been possible because the government pays the plans about 13 percent more than it costs to cover seniors in traditional Medicare. As the payments are scaled back, it could trigger an exodus from Medicare Advantage. "It's not all black and white; sometimes it's gray," said James Firman, president of the National Council on the Aging. "Overall we think this plan is very good, and will provide some significant benefits for seniors. There will be some pain among some people in Medicare Advantage plans." The prescription coverage gap will be totally closed in 2020. At that point, seniors will be responsible for 25 percent of the cost of their medications until Medicare's catastrophic coverage kicks in, dropping their copayments to 5 percent. Coming later: The real transformation of America's health insurance system won't take place until 2014. Four breathtaking changes will happen simultaneously: Insurers will be required to take all applicants. They won't be able to turn down people in poor health, or charge them more. States will set up new insurance supermarkets for small businesses and people buying their own coverage, pooling together to get the kind of purchasing clout government workers have now. Most Americans will be required to carry health insurance, either through an employer, a government program or by buying their own. Those who refuse will face fines from the IRS. Tax credits to help pay for premiums will start flowing to middle-class working families, and Medicaid will be expanded to cover more low income people. Households making up to four times the poverty level — about $88,000 for a family of four— will be eligible for assistance. But the most generous aid — including help with copayments and deductibles — will be for those on the lower-to-middle rungs of the income scale. When all is said and done, the majority of working-age Americans and their families will still have employer-sponsored coverage, as they do now. But the number of uninsured will drop by more than half. Illegal immigrants would account for more than one-third of the remaining 23 million people without coverage. "I hope it is not repealed, because we do need to extend coverage to most of our population," said Gail Wilensky, who ran Medicare for President George H.W. Bush and remains a leading health care adviser to Republicans. "But it could well be substantially modified. It expands coverage, but it does very little to take on two other major issues: improving quality and leveling the rate of growth in spending." www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35992060/ns/politics-health_care_reform//
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Mar 23, 2010 19:15:44 GMT
This seems to be slipping some distance from the stated topic, but I'll put this here and hope for the best. I know some of you don't like c&p, but this article is not loaded with partisan opion - it's mostly even, and it gives a pretty good presentation of some details in the health care reform act. As you'll see, the changes are not all that drastic. It will probably leave you wondering what all the shouting was about. Things are rather quiet today - as if those who were wailing and frothing at the mouth have got a grip, said, "oh, is that all?" and moved on. Rush Limbaugh - who had spent months whipping the loonies into a fever - had said he'd move to Costa Rica if the HR passed. I want to know when. Hopefully soon? naaaaa . . . just a bag of air. ------------------------------------------ Health care gains start soon — bigger ones later Health care overhaul will bring real change, but it’s going to happen slowly 3:27 p.m. PT, Mon., March. 22, 2010 WASHINGTON - The first changes under the new health care law will be easy to see and not long in coming: There'll be $250 rebate checks for seniors in the Medicare drug coverage gap, and young adults moving from college to work will be able to stay on their parents' plans until they turn 26. But the peace of mind the president promised — the antidote for health care insecurity, whether you favored or opposed his overhaul — is still a ways beyond the horizon, starting only in 2014. Insurers then will be barred from turning down people with medical problems, and the government will provide tax credits to help millions of working families buy coverage they can't afford now. Health care overhaul will bring real change, but it's going to happen slowly. President Barack Obama plans to sign the main legislation Tuesday in the White House East Room after a bitterly divided House approved it Sunday night. That will cap a turbulent, yearlong quest by the president and congressional Democrats to remake the nation's health care system, fully one-sixth of the U.S. economy. Obama's signature will start the Senate considering a package of changes the House also has approved. But the main overhaul will already be officially on the books. Still, if Obama wants to actually preside over the expansion of coverage to more than 30 million people, he'll first have to persuade a majority of Americans to re-elect him in 2012. "For people who have the greatest need, a number of things will start quickly and make a difference," said DeAnn Friedholm of Consumers Union. For others, 2014 may seem like a long way away. "Some people may be frustrated that it's going to be several years, but that is the reality of what it takes to make these significant changes," she added. The main reason that Obama's plan phases in slowly boils down to cost. The Medicare cuts and tax increases to finance the bill start early; the subsidies to help people purchase coverage come later. That combination keeps the cost of the overhaul under $1 trillion in its first decade, as Obama promised. Republicans call it an accounting gimmick — but in past years they also resorted to it. Here's a look at some of the major impacts for consumers: Coming soon: Roughly a third of people in their 20s are uninsured, so allowing young adults to remain on their parents' plans until 26 would be a significant new option for families. Adult children would not be able to stay on a parental plan if they had access to employer coverage of their own. But they could get married and still be covered. (Grandkids, however, would not qualify.) Regulations will clarify to what degree young adults have to be financially dependent on their parents. Other reforms starting this year would prevent insurers from canceling the policies of people who get sick, from denying coverage to children with medical problems, and from putting lifetime dollar limits on a policy. These changes will spread risks more broadly, but they're also likely to nudge insurance premiums somewhat higher. Obama's plan also includes an important new program for the most vulnerable: uninsured people who can't get coverage because of major medical problems. It's intended to provide an umbrella of protection until the broad expansion of coverage takes effect in 2014. The government will pump money into high-risk insurance pools in the states, making coverage available for people in frail health who have been uninsured for at least six months. The premiums could still be a stretch, but for people who need continuing medical attention, it could make a dramatic difference. "For people who have not been able to get anything, who have expensive chronic illnesses or other conditions, it could be a lifesaver," said Friedholm. There is a catch, however. The $5 billion Obama has allocated for the program is unlikely to last until 2014. In fact, government experts have projected it could run out next year. Winners and losers Among seniors, the plan will create both winners and losers. On the plus side, it gradually closes the dreaded "doughnut hole" prescription coverage gaps improves preventive care and puts a new emphasis on trying to keep seniors struggling with chronic diseases in better overall health. But it also cuts funding for popular private insurance plans offered through the Medicare Advantage program. About one-quarter of seniors have signed up for the plans, which generally offer lower out-of-pocket costs. That's been possible because the government pays the plans about 13 percent more than it costs to cover seniors in traditional Medicare. As the payments are scaled back, it could trigger an exodus from Medicare Advantage. "It's not all black and white; sometimes it's gray," said James Firman, president of the National Council on the Aging. "Overall we think this plan is very good, and will provide some significant benefits for seniors. There will be some pain among some people in Medicare Advantage plans." The prescription coverage gap will be totally closed in 2020. At that point, seniors will be responsible for 25 percent of the cost of their medications until Medicare's catastrophic coverage kicks in, dropping their copayments to 5 percent. Coming later: The real transformation of America's health insurance system won't take place until 2014. Four breathtaking changes will happen simultaneously: Insurers will be required to take all applicants. They won't be able to turn down people in poor health, or charge them more. States will set up new insurance supermarkets for small businesses and people buying their own coverage, pooling together to get the kind of purchasing clout government workers have now. Most Americans will be required to carry health insurance, either through an employer, a government program or by buying their own. Those who refuse will face fines from the IRS. Tax credits to help pay for premiums will start flowing to middle-class working families, and Medicaid will be expanded to cover more low income people. Households making up to four times the poverty level — about $88,000 for a family of four— will be eligible for assistance. But the most generous aid — including help with copayments and deductibles — will be for those on the lower-to-middle rungs of the income scale. When all is said and done, the majority of working-age Americans and their families will still have employer-sponsored coverage, as they do now. But the number of uninsured will drop by more than half. Illegal immigrants would account for more than one-third of the remaining 23 million people without coverage. "I hope it is not repealed, because we do need to extend coverage to most of our population," said Gail Wilensky, who ran Medicare for President George H.W. Bush and remains a leading health care adviser to Republicans. "But it could well be substantially modified. It expands coverage, but it does very little to take on two other major issues: improving quality and leveling the rate of growth in spending." www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35992060/ns/politics-health_care_reform// Maybe those who are quiet have other priorities they need to meet 1st. There's things like having to work full-time, not feeling well, etc., that causes people to delay stuff.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Mar 23, 2010 19:16:58 GMT
9/11 conspiracy theories are right there with holocaust denial, alien invasions, and the belief that the moon is made out of green cheese. Thanks for keeping an open mind!
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Mar 23, 2010 19:20:22 GMT
This seems to be slipping some distance from the stated topic, but I'll put this here and hope for the best. I know some of you don't like c&p, but this article is not loaded with partisan opion - it's mostly even, and it gives a pretty good presentation of some details in the health care reform act. As you'll see, the changes are not all that drastic. It will probably leave you wondering what all the shouting was about. Things are rather quiet today - as if those who were wailing and frothing at the mouth have got a grip, said, "oh, is that all?" and moved on. Rush Limbaugh - who had spent months whipping the loonies into a fever - had said he'd move to Costa Rica if the HR passed. I want to know when. Hopefully soon? naaaaa . . . just a bag of air. ------------------------------------------ Health care gains start soon — bigger ones later Health care overhaul will bring real change, but it’s going to happen slowly 3:27 p.m. PT, Mon., March. 22, 2010 WASHINGTON - The first changes under the new health care law will be easy to see and not long in coming: There'll be $250 rebate checks for seniors in the Medicare drug coverage gap, and young adults moving from college to work will be able to stay on their parents' plans until they turn 26. But the peace of mind the president promised — the antidote for health care insecurity, whether you favored or opposed his overhaul — is still a ways beyond the horizon, starting only in 2014. Insurers then will be barred from turning down people with medical problems, and the government will provide tax credits to help millions of working families buy coverage they can't afford now. Health care overhaul will bring real change, but it's going to happen slowly. President Barack Obama plans to sign the main legislation Tuesday in the White House East Room after a bitterly divided House approved it Sunday night. That will cap a turbulent, yearlong quest by the president and congressional Democrats to remake the nation's health care system, fully one-sixth of the U.S. economy. Obama's signature will start the Senate considering a package of changes the House also has approved. But the main overhaul will already be officially on the books. Still, if Obama wants to actually preside over the expansion of coverage to more than 30 million people, he'll first have to persuade a majority of Americans to re-elect him in 2012. "For people who have the greatest need, a number of things will start quickly and make a difference," said DeAnn Friedholm of Consumers Union. For others, 2014 may seem like a long way away. "Some people may be frustrated that it's going to be several years, but that is the reality of what it takes to make these significant changes," she added. The main reason that Obama's plan phases in slowly boils down to cost. The Medicare cuts and tax increases to finance the bill start early; the subsidies to help people purchase coverage come later. That combination keeps the cost of the overhaul under $1 trillion in its first decade, as Obama promised. Republicans call it an accounting gimmick — but in past years they also resorted to it. Here's a look at some of the major impacts for consumers: Coming soon: Roughly a third of people in their 20s are uninsured, so allowing young adults to remain on their parents' plans until 26 would be a significant new option for families. Adult children would not be able to stay on a parental plan if they had access to employer coverage of their own. But they could get married and still be covered. (Grandkids, however, would not qualify.) Regulations will clarify to what degree young adults have to be financially dependent on their parents. Other reforms starting this year would prevent insurers from canceling the policies of people who get sick, from denying coverage to children with medical problems, and from putting lifetime dollar limits on a policy. These changes will spread risks more broadly, but they're also likely to nudge insurance premiums somewhat higher. Obama's plan also includes an important new program for the most vulnerable: uninsured people who can't get coverage because of major medical problems. It's intended to provide an umbrella of protection until the broad expansion of coverage takes effect in 2014. The government will pump money into high-risk insurance pools in the states, making coverage available for people in frail health who have been uninsured for at least six months. The premiums could still be a stretch, but for people who need continuing medical attention, it could make a dramatic difference. "For people who have not been able to get anything, who have expensive chronic illnesses or other conditions, it could be a lifesaver," said Friedholm. There is a catch, however. The $5 billion Obama has allocated for the program is unlikely to last until 2014. In fact, government experts have projected it could run out next year. Winners and losers Among seniors, the plan will create both winners and losers. On the plus side, it gradually closes the dreaded "doughnut hole" prescription coverage gaps improves preventive care and puts a new emphasis on trying to keep seniors struggling with chronic diseases in better overall health. But it also cuts funding for popular private insurance plans offered through the Medicare Advantage program. About one-quarter of seniors have signed up for the plans, which generally offer lower out-of-pocket costs. That's been possible because the government pays the plans about 13 percent more than it costs to cover seniors in traditional Medicare. As the payments are scaled back, it could trigger an exodus from Medicare Advantage. "It's not all black and white; sometimes it's gray," said James Firman, president of the National Council on the Aging. "Overall we think this plan is very good, and will provide some significant benefits for seniors. There will be some pain among some people in Medicare Advantage plans." The prescription coverage gap will be totally closed in 2020. At that point, seniors will be responsible for 25 percent of the cost of their medications until Medicare's catastrophic coverage kicks in, dropping their copayments to 5 percent. Coming later: The real transformation of America's health insurance system won't take place until 2014. Four breathtaking changes will happen simultaneously: Insurers will be required to take all applicants. They won't be able to turn down people in poor health, or charge them more. States will set up new insurance supermarkets for small businesses and people buying their own coverage, pooling together to get the kind of purchasing clout government workers have now. Most Americans will be required to carry health insurance, either through an employer, a government program or by buying their own. Those who refuse will face fines from the IRS. Tax credits to help pay for premiums will start flowing to middle-class working families, and Medicaid will be expanded to cover more low income people. Households making up to four times the poverty level — about $88,000 for a family of four— will be eligible for assistance. But the most generous aid — including help with copayments and deductibles — will be for those on the lower-to-middle rungs of the income scale. When all is said and done, the majority of working-age Americans and their families will still have employer-sponsored coverage, as they do now. But the number of uninsured will drop by more than half. Illegal immigrants would account for more than one-third of the remaining 23 million people without coverage. "I hope it is not repealed, because we do need to extend coverage to most of our population," said Gail Wilensky, who ran Medicare for President George H.W. Bush and remains a leading health care adviser to Republicans. "But it could well be substantially modified. It expands coverage, but it does very little to take on two other major issues: improving quality and leveling the rate of growth in spending." www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35992060/ns/politics-health_care_reform// "Is that all?"- I notice you don't mention how people will be FINED if they don't join this. ***### that! Talk about evil! There's NO freedom in that! When people buy a car it's THEIR choice to buy 1 and then be fined if they don't have insurance and cause a wreck, etc. THIS gives people NO choice! In other words, LESS FREEDOM! Before I hear any stuff about where I learned this info, I found it on AOL.com on the front page with the latest news on yesterday. I thought I'd point that out before hearing that I probably found the info on FOX (FAUX) or some e-mail.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 23, 2010 19:30:20 GMT
the bill is not good, but it is somewhere to start. the ONLY intelligent way to do it is for total government option. we can allow those who are stupid enough to want to continue to line the pockets of the insurance companies to continue to do so, but give the normal people health insurance for a reasonable cost, and ensure that they have better care than insurance companies provide
|
|