Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-27-2015, 06:40 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
5,302 posts, read 5,980,983 times
Reputation: 10851

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
When you establish a process the intent of those using it is irrelevant. If you fail to consider that, you ought not be in the procedure writing business. <snip>
Well, actually no. All potential consequences cannot possibly be anticipated when a law/statute or regulation is passed and if a problem arises, it is expected that there will be subsequent legislative action to fix it.

If memory serves me correct (a big if), MMOB's job was writing statutes and/or regulations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-27-2015, 06:47 PM
 
31,672 posts, read 40,955,698 times
Reputation: 14419
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenora View Post
Well, actually no. All potential consequences cannot possibly be anticipated when a law/statute or regulation is passed and if a problem arises, it is expected that there will be subsequent legislative action to fix it.

If memory serves me correct (a big if), MMOB's job was writing statutes and/or regulations.
True, we got here because of it being called a loophole by some.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2015, 06:52 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,299,625 times
Reputation: 27718
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
True, we got here because of it being called a loophole by some.
Anything they want to cut off these days is termed a "loophole".
Makes it then sound like they are fixing the system.

Only it was them that created this system to begin with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2015, 07:05 PM
 
11,164 posts, read 15,957,298 times
Reputation: 29858
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...a-budget-deal/

Leaders are expected to soon present details of the deal — it is expected to include equal increases in both domestic and military spending and would prevent a premium increase for Medicare Part B recipients from going into effect — to members over the coming days, setting up a very tight time frame to build support for the plan before Congress will be required to vote on debt limit increase. The Treasury Department says the debt limit will be hit by Nov. 3.
Looks like it reduces, but does not eliminate the increase:

Under the agreement, Medicare’s Part B premiums for this group of roughly 15 million people will increase from the current rate of $104.90 per month to $120 per month next year, plus a $3 surcharge. After holding level since 2013, the monthly premiums for these people would have soared to nearly $160 without the legislative adjustment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...care-premiums/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2015, 07:08 PM
 
31,672 posts, read 40,955,698 times
Reputation: 14419
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadManofBethesda View Post
Looks like it reduces, but does not eliminate the increase:

Under the agreement, Medicare’s Part B premiums for this group of roughly 15 million people will increase from the current rate of $104.90 per month to $120 per month next year, plus a $3 surcharge. After holding level since 2013, the monthly premiums for these people would have soared to nearly $160 without the legislative adjustment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...care-premiums/
Yeah, I read that earlier. Probably some other clarifications and surprises to occur. You would know best but aren't there regs that would need to be written.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2015, 07:12 PM
 
3,750 posts, read 4,945,686 times
Reputation: 3666
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
I read a little bit about it, but none of it was attributed. It involved longer waiting periods to receive benefits, more stringent requirements to qualify and an increased effort on getting SSDI recipients to return to work. The article I read said medicare cuts would involve 'changes in payments to providers' which would really suck, if they keep that up people on medicare will be in as bad a position as medicaid patients when it comes to finding doctors.
I see these changes not accomplishing much aside from making more disabled people homeless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2015, 07:14 PM
 
11,164 posts, read 15,957,298 times
Reputation: 29858
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenora View Post
If memory serves me correct (a big if), MMOB's job was writing statutes and/or regulations.
To clarify, I did some of that while working in the judiciary, not in the legislative branch. It was mostly Title 28 and some Title 5. It would then go to Congressional Staff who would insert it into the appropriate legislation to then be voted on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2015, 07:14 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
5,302 posts, read 5,980,983 times
Reputation: 10851
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
Yeah, I read that earlier. Probably some other clarifications and surprises to occur. You would know best but aren't there regs that would need to be written.
It's in the proposed Statutes; er, I mean "Discussion Draft"

Title VI - Health Care, Sec. 601

http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/...PIH-BUDGET.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2015, 07:27 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
5,302 posts, read 5,980,983 times
Reputation: 10851
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadManofBethesda View Post
To clarify, I did some of that while working in the judiciary, not in the legislative branch. It was mostly Title 28 and some Title 5. It would then go to Congressional Staff who would insert it into the appropriate legislation to then be voted on.
Close enough!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2015, 07:43 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,767 posts, read 26,060,801 times
Reputation: 33896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mini-apple-less View Post
I see these changes not accomplishing much aside from making more disabled people homeless.
Maybe I missed something can you direct me to the change that would render people homeless?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top