Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mind finding me the section in the senate bill that says the same, or are you taking part in your typical selective reading of bills?
Hmmm. Not too familiar with the Senate bill, are you. It doesn't set up a public option as the House bill does. It creates mechanisms under which states can create their own public options if they choose to do so. This is the so-called opt-out provision. In that version a revolving federal trust fund is established from which disbursements may be made to meet the stipulated purposes of the bill. Because the number of states who would seek to create a public option is unknown, the dollar amounts are as the HHS Secretary may determine to be necessary. There is, however, no stipulated purpose to provide any ongoing subsidy to any state plan...just start-up costs...which are again repayable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
edited: ooh wait, you are being dishonest again, section 222,b2c, deals with ONLY startup funding. Nothing appropriates anything other than $2Billion for a startup account.
No. When it says "Nothing in this section", it is referring to Subtitle B - Section 222. That is, to Public Health Insurance Option, Premiums and Financing. It is a specific proscription of any sort of ongoing subsidy of the type that our FOX News bimbette was alluding to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Have something all of those additional taxes cant be used to fund healthcare, or do you think we are to stupid to be able to checkout the accuracy of your postings?
I think that you all are not nearly well enough informed about the health care reform bills to know what you are talking about, but the taxes and fees and cost savings referred to in the bill could certainly be used to fund health care. That is the whole purpose. They could not, however, be used to fund subsidies to the public option.
I would love to know what this bill entails. You hear both sides smoothing over why it should or should not be passed. Instead of this, why doesn't he put more emphasis in the economy and getting jobs back for people so they can get benefits.
What happened to work for what you want and need instead of hey, hand it to me on a silver platter. If you ever want a free ride, like free medical and free money and be tax free, go down to Key West, Florida, go out about a quarter mile, swim to shore and yell Si Si Si, I mades its I mades its. You will be given status right away and all the benefits you want while the rest of us work like dogs to just survive!
Do I sound bitter? I probably am. Lets get someone in this office that can actually do the job and stop playing dress up in mommy and daddy's clothes.
I would love to know what this bill entails. You hear both sides smoothing over why it should or should not be passed. Instead of this, why doesn't he put more emphasis in the economy and getting jobs back for people so they can get benefits.
What happened to work for what you want and need instead of hey, hand it to me on a silver platter. If you ever want a free ride, like free medical and free money and be tax free, go down to Key West, Florida, go out about a quarter mile, swim to shore and yell Si Si Si, I mades its I mades its. You will be given status right away and all the benefits you want while the rest of us work like dogs to just survive!
Do I sound bitter? I probably am. Lets get someone in this office that can actually do the job and stop playing dress up in mommy and daddy's clothes.
Hmmm. Not too familiar with the Senate bill, are you. It doesn't set up a public option as the House bill does. It creates mechanisms under which states can create their own public options if they choose to do so. This is the so-called opt-out provision. In that version a revolving federal trust fund is established from which disbursements may be made to meet the stipulated purposes of the bill. Because the number of states who would seek to create a public option is unknown, the dollar amounts are as the HHS Secretary may determine to be necessary. There is, however, no stipulated purpose to provide any ongoing subsidy to any state plan...just start-up costs...which are again repayable.
No. When it says "Nothing in this section", it is referring to Subtitle B - Section 222. That is, to Public Health Insurance Option, Premiums and Financing. It is a specific proscription of any sort of ongoing subsidy of the type that our FOX News bimbette was alluding to.
I think that you all are not nearly well enough informed about the health care reform bills to know what you are talking about, but the taxes and fees and cost savings referred to in the bill could certainly be used to fund health care. That is the whole purpose. They could not, however, be used to fund subsidies to the public option.
I think there is a very real reason why the healthcare bill has HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS in "taxes" associated with it. If its not to cover healthcare, then its just another tax. Which is it? You've argued switches from thread to thread. Should I be thrilled that we are getting NEW taxes, under the guise that it'll help pay for 30,000,000 americans and now to find out that its not, its only a NEW tax.
I am not sure they would have found that those 6 arteries were from 85% to 95% plugged because he death panel would have had to determine whether I was too old to receive the heart cath to determine how close to death I was. Hey all that stuff had to cost over $30,000 and I think I would have been sent home with instructions to take it easy so as not to do too much more damage to the heart.
No such thing as death panels. The health care reform bills deal with the means of financing and with long-term cost containment initiatives. There are no provisions for intruding into medical decision-making.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
Could you explain to me just how Medicare works today and how it would work after $500 billion had been taken from it over 10 years. Yes, I do believe you understand that much better than I do. Please let me know about this problem and how the Dems plan to deal with it.
Again, the Medicare cuts are reductions in the unit-cost of services provided, not in their provision. Most of these cuts have already been agreed to by providers.
No such thing as death panels. The health care reform bills deal with the means of financing and with long-term cost containment initiatives. There are no provisions for intruding into medical decision-making.
Again, the Medicare cuts are reductions in the unit-cost of services provided, not in their provision. Most of these cuts have already been agreed to by providers.
Care to back up those claims with real evidence contained in the bill? Bet you cannot!
They receive subsidies, just as do small businesses who have trouble covering their shares of the premiums...
Subsidies paid for by who? Anyone? Anyone?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
