Health Care Bill Debate

Tiassa said:
We shouldn't have gone to Iraq.

The killed and wounded in Iraq—that is, the officially reported killed and wounded—is a greater number than the total U.S. troops deployed in Afghanistan at the end of the former administration.

Tells us something about the former president's focus.
Click to expand...

And this has what to do with anything about the Health Care Bill Debate ?
 
Startraveler said:
You would prefer income eligibility not be verified before subsidies are provided?
Click to expand...

Now where did I make such a statement:

Originally Posted by Buffalo Roam
The purpose, again, is to verify "affordability credits."
Click to expand...

What I would prefer is that the Federal Government would get out of providing health care all together, the only roll of the Federal Government should be to make sure that, Insurances deliver on their contracts, and that the Health Care Industry is safe, it is not a Constitutional perview of the Federal Government to provide any health care.
 
John T. Galt said:
If this is true joe, then explain this statement found directly in the bill: Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation.

Source
Click to expand...

Of what relevance is your statement? Section 431 (page 112 for those who care to read it) says that if requested the IRS can release certian tax information to the Health Insurance Exchange for determining insurance pricing. What is so evil in that? I'd say it is streamlining and efficient way of processing and validating entitlement and pricing. I take it you prefer something more expensive and inefficient?

The whole point of the Health Insurance Exchange is to ensure that everyone can purchase afordable health insurance. The income and family size disclosure from the IRS prevents duplication and error. What is wrong with that, no defense is needed for this clause.

It is the right wing whacko web sites making muck of something simple, logical and efficient and benign.
 
Last edited:
Buffalo Roam said:
Now where did I make such a statement:

What I would prefer is that the Federal Government would get out of providing health care all together, the only roll of the Federal Government should be to make sure that, Insurances deliver on their contracts, and that the Health Care Industry is safe, it is not a Constitutional perview of the Federal Government to provide any health care.
Click to expand...

So you want the government to withdraw your government provided healthcare then or do you just want government to withdraw everyone elses government provided healthcare?

Your wants, leave us exactly where we are today which is clearly unsustainable. The guise of safety has been and continues to be misused in order to protect industry oligopolies. Most recently, george II explaining to the nation that precription drugs purchased in Canada were potenitally dangerous...this in order to keep senior citizens from crossing the border and purchasing prescription drugs for a small fraction of the price that they can be acquired for in the US.

The current roll played by the US government and local governments is not sustainable.
 
Buffalo Roam said:
Now where did I make such a statement:
What I would prefer is that the Federal Government would get out of providing health care all together
Click to expand...

Why do you consider providing subsidies to certain individuals buying insurance in the individual markets to be the federal government "providing health care"?
 
joepistole said:
Interesting, it is obvious you have not read HR 3200 because it Section 431(a) is referenced only once and in reference to the treatment of Indian tribes as states.

Page 851 HR Bill 3200

‘‘(n) INDIAN TRIBES TREATED AS STATES.—In this
11 section, paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of section 431(a)
12 shall apply.’’.

The only documentation backing your claim is on right wing whacko web sites. Those sites who never bother themselves with little things like truthfulness. You should check your sources before believing them.

So John T. Galt, please check the veracity of your claims before you make them.
Click to expand...

Have you read the bill? in:

H.R.3200
America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SEC. 431. DISCLOSURES TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUBSIDIES.

(a) In General- Subsection (l) of section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(21) DISCLOSURE OF RETURN INFORMATION TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUBSIDIES-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary, upon written request from the Health Choices Commissioner or the head of a State-based health insurance exchange approved for operation under section 208 of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, shall disclose to officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, return information of any taxpayer whose income is relevant in determining any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Such return information shall be limited to--

`(i) taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer,

`(ii) the filing status of such taxpayer,

`(iii) the modified adjusted gross income of such taxpayer (as defined in section 59B(e)(5)),

`(iv) the number of dependents of the taxpayer,

`(v) such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof), and

`(vi) the taxable year with respect to which the preceding information relates or, if applicable, the fact that such information is not available.

`(B) RESTRICTION ON USE OF DISCLOSED INFORMATION- Return information disclosed under subparagraph (A) may be used by officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, only for the purposes of, and to the extent necessary in, establishing and verifying the appropriate amount of any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 and providing for the repayment of any such credit which was in excess of such appropriate amount.'.

(b) Procedures and Recordkeeping Related to Disclosures- Paragraph (4) of section 6103(p) of such Code is amended--

(1) by inserting `, or any entity described in subsection (l)(21),' after `or (20)' in the matter preceding subparagraph (A),

(2) by inserting `or any entity described in subsection (l)(21),' after `or (o)(1)(A)' in subparagraph (F)(ii), and

(3) by inserting `or any entity described in subsection (l)(21),' after `or (20)' both places it appears in the matter after subparagraph (F).

(c) Unauthorized Disclosure or Inspection- Paragraph (2) of section 7213(a) of such Code is amended by striking `or (20)' and inserting `(20), or (21)'.​
Click to expand...
I find nothing that refers to the Status of the Indians as States it sure isn't in SEC. 431.

and here is page 851, 852, and 853 of HR 3200, and I don't find anything that addresses the status of the Indians as States:

p.851
1 ‘‘(m) APPROPRIATIONS.—Out of any money in the
2 Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated,
3 there is appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this
4 section—
5 ‘‘(1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
6 ‘‘(2) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
7 ‘‘(3) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2012;
8 ‘‘(4) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
9 ‘‘(5) $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2014.
10 ‘‘(n) INDIAN TRIBES TREATED AS STATES.—In this
11 section, paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of section 431(a)
12 shall apply.’’.

FOR DUAL ELIGIBLES.
Title XI of the Social Security Act is amended by
inserting after section 1150 the following new section:
‘‘IMPROVED COORDINATION AND PROTECTION FOR DUAL
ELIGIBLES
‘‘SEC. 1150A. (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall
provide, through an identifiable office or program within
the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, for a fo22
cused effort to provide for improved coordination between
Medicare and Medicaid and protection in the case of dual
eligibles (as defined in subsection (e)). The office or pro25
gram shall—

p.852

1 ‘‘(1) review Medicare and Medicaid policies re2
lated to enrollment, benefits, service delivery, pay3
ment, and grievance and appeals processes under
4 parts A and B of title XVIII, under the Medicare
5 Advantage program under part C of such title, and
6 under title XIX;
7 ‘‘(2) identify areas of such policies where better
8 coordination and protection could improve care and
9 costs; and
10 ‘‘(3) issue guidance to States regarding improv11
ing such coordination and protection.
12 ‘‘(b) ELEMENTS.—The improved coordination and
13 protection under this section shall include efforts—
14 ‘‘(1) to simplify access of dual eligibles to bene15
fits and services under Medicare and Medicaid;
16 ‘‘(2) to improve care continuity for dual eligi17
bles and ensure safe and effective care transitions;
18 ‘‘(3) to harmonize regulatory conflicts between
19 Medicare and Medicaid rules with regard to dual eli20
gibles; and
21 ‘‘(4) to improve total cost and quality perform22
ance under Medicare and Medicaid for dual eligibles.
23 ‘‘(c) RESPONSIBILITIES.—In carrying out this sec24
tion, the Secretary shall provide for the following:

p.853

1 ‘‘(1) An examination of Medicare and Medicaid
2 payment systems to develop strategies to foster more
3 integrated and higher quality care.
4 ‘‘(2) Development of methods to facilitate ac5
cess to post-acute and community-based services and
6 to identify actions that could lead to better coordina7
tion of community-based care.
8 ‘‘(3) A study of enrollment of dual eligibles in
9 the Medicare Savings Program (as defined in section
10 1144(c)(7)), under Medicaid, and in the low-income
11 subsidy program under section 1860D–14 to identify
12 methods to more efficiently and effectively reach and
13 enroll dual eligibles.​
Click to expand...
 
Tiassa said:
We shouldn't have gone to Iraq.

The killed and wounded in Iraq—that is, the officially reported killed and wounded—is a greater number than the total U.S. troops deployed in Afghanistan at the end of the former administration.

Tells us something about the former president's focus.
Click to expand...

And what the hell does any of that have to do with a sincere effort? Answer it doesn't. Care to try again?

BTW I agree with the title of your response (....it should have been obvious), but not for the reasons you think.
 
joepistole said:
Of what relevance is your statement? Section 431 (page 112 for those who care to read it) says that if requested the IRS can release certian tax information to the Health Insurance Exchange for determining insurance pricing. What is so evil in that? I'd say it is streamlining and efficient way of processing and validating entitlement and pricing. I take it you prefer something more expensive and inefficient?

The whole point of the Health Insurance Exchange is to ensure that everyone can purchase afordable health insurance. The income and family size disclosure from the IRS prevents duplication and error. What is wrong with that, no defense is needed for this clause.

It is the right wing whacko web sites making muck of something simple, logical and efficient and benign.
Click to expand...

You know what joe? You're right that response I gave went well over your head. In your drunken stupor you had forgotten what the discussion was centered around.

Now please after you have trolled, obfuscated, and flamed report me to one of your favorite mods.

This is why it is impossible to debate with you. When your ass has been toasted and you know it, you change the topic. Then accuse others of doing exactly what you haven't done or are doing. In this case reading the bill.

BTW- after reading that nice twist to make the section seem benign. Are you sure you don't work for the administration? I have a hard time believing it....then again maybe not. One need not have intelligence or attempt to be factual to work for this administration. Which czar are you?
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RxKFkyt-I0

http://michaelconnelly.viviti.com/entries/general/the-truth-about-the-health-care-bills

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HEALTH CARE BILL


Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.

However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration, authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures.

You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed "acceptable" to the "Health Choices Administrator" appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a "tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the “due process of law.”

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;" The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation" to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source.

Here is a link to the constitution:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

And another to the Bill of Rights:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Michael Connelly

Retired attorney, Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton, Texas
 
If you follow that particular part of the discussion ....

Buffalo Roam said:

And this has what to do with anything about the Health Care Bill Debate ?
Click to expand...

It's an answer to a specific question. You know, the one I quoted in that post.

That question was based on my response to Madanthonywayne in a discussion that got merged into the present thread.

• • •​

John T. Galt said:

And what the hell does any of that have to do with a sincere effort? Answer it doesn't. Care to try again?
Click to expand...

In late 2005, the head of the U.S. Army Reserve told President Bush that his service was in peril of becoming a broken force. We've heard much talk about stop-loss, the inappropriate use of Reserve and National Guard troops for extended overseas tours, and other personnel challenges such as diminishing standards for enlistment. We stretched far too thin for Iraq.

The thing is that Iraq was a political choice. The significance of the Iraqi Bush Adventure in terms of the role of the American military is still unresolved. People famously recall Cheney, in 1994, saying that the reason we didn't go to Baghdad the first time 'round was, well, that it would lead to chaos, sectarian violence, and a quagmire. Even more important, though, of all the things I didn't like about Poppy Bush, he was correct when he said during the Gulf War that going to Baghdad was not the traditional mission of our services. Liberating Kuwait was one thing, but taking down Iraq something else entirely.

By any reasonable custom of warfare, we had a proper reason to go to Afghanistan. Not so for Iraq. Had Bush focused on Afghanistan—e.g., a sincere effort—instead of diverting our primary focus to Iraq, I can't tell you what it would look like today. Nobody invades the Kush and wins. Maybe we would be the first. But I have a feeling that if we had 150,000 troops in Afghanistan from the outset, instead of 31,000 at the peak of the Bush administration's commitment to the theatre, I think we would have made better progress.

But no. Iraq, the fraudulent war, was just that much more important.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps

Buffalo Roam said:

And now has no context or reference.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. For that particular thread of the discussion, though, one can trace back through the quotes if they are so inclined. Might not cover every post in the original thread, but I think there's plenty there to establish context.
 
Tiassa said:
Perhaps. For that particular thread of the discussion, though, one can trace back through the quotes if they are so inclined. Might not cover every post in the original thread, but I think there's plenty there to establish context.
Click to expand...

Only to you.
 
John T. Galt said:
You know what joe? You're right that response I gave went well over your head. In your drunken stupor you had forgotten what the discussion was centered around.

Now please after you have trolled, obfuscated, and flamed report me to one of your favorite mods.

This is why it is impossible to debate with you. When your ass has been toasted and you know it, you change the topic. Then accuse others of doing exactly what you haven't done or are doing. In this case reading the bill.

BTW- after reading that nice twist to make the section seem benign. Are you sure you don't work for the administration? I have a hard time believing it....then again maybe not. One need not have intelligence or attempt to be factual to work for this administration. Which czar are you?
Click to expand...

Galt, you again demonstrate you don't know the meanings of the words you use. As for the rest, it makes no sense what so ever!!! LOL, maybe too much of that limbaugh juice :)

A brain is a terrible thing not to have :)
 
I'm not the only literate person in this community, Mr. Roam

Buffalo Roam said:

Only to you.
Click to expand...

Do you actually care? That is, would you like to participate in that discussion?

Page 29 (#574-580)

• #2358962/574 (Madanthonywayne, topic post)
• #2358979/575 (Spidergoat)
• #2358980/576 (Joepistole)
• #2359002/577 (Startraveler)
• #2359019/578 (Iceaura)
• #2359068/579 (Gustav)
• #2359088/580 (Madanthonywayne)

Page 30 (#581-593)

• #2359090/581 (Spidergoat)
• #2359095/582 (Iceaura)
• #2359114/583 (Spidergoat)
• #2359148/584 (PJdude1219)
• #2359183/585 (Tiassa)
• #2359216/586 (Madanthonywayne)
• #2359239/587 (Iceaura)
• #2359399/588 (Tiassa)
• #2359480/589 (Madanthonywayne)
• #2359551/590 (Tiassa)
• #2360064/591 (Iceaura)
• #2360106/592 (Tiassa)
• #2360354/593 (John T. Galt; post-merge)​

Turns out, they're pretty sequential (#574-593), even easier than I had presumed. And there's your context.

Or were you just looking for something to complain about?
 
michael connelly said:
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
Click to expand...
No problem then: the Supreme Court throws it out, if it ever gets that far.

As Connelly himself has noted (see his website) even "one of the most liberal" justices on the current Court, Ruth Ginsburg, takes a dim view of the kinds of Constitutional violations Connelly fears. So surely with the rest of the Court in good Reaganite hands, as supported by Connelly over the years, we are safe from governmental intrusions of the apocalyptic type he envisions?

Meanwhile, notice that all the worst parts of the law, the invasions of privacy and so forth - from Connelly's point of view worst - stem from attempts to protect the current private insurance corporations in the current way they do business. Under the French, Swiss, Canadian, German, Norwegian, etc, systems, there is no need to investigate incomes and employment, no need to carry intrusive and private information on one's medical insurance card, no need for IRS involvement in medical care.

We could even kick out the current major IRS involvement - its role in auditing tax breaks and tax cuts involving medical care or insurance. For some reason, "conservatives" don't seem to be as worried about the necessary IRS involvement in tax cuts and breaks, but they are fully as intrusive and threatening. We could banish them.
 
Mod Note: Complaints can be made through PM'ing me or through creating a thread in the appropriate subforum.

A quick point: Do not operate under the assumption that people and posts are not moderated just because you cannot see the private conversations between the mods and that member.
 
joepistole said:
ps Galt if you posted something of substance every once in a while you would not have to worry about trouble with the mods...just a suggestion. :)
Click to expand...

Furthermore, joe, I have and do. I can't help that you have issues with opposition and refuse to respond to the substance of posts.

I gave you a factual portion of the H.C. twice and I got an infraction. I hope honest people will see this and stand up for the idea of debate and what is real trolling and flaming.

I also think something should about done about runaway mods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top