HopeyCare

"YOU'LL LOVE THIS! Page 167 lines 18-23, any individual who doesn't have HopeyCare, or Government approved plan will be taxed 2.5% of income."

To be fair on this one, the bill also mandates that everyone is to have health insurance. Much like people with cars must car insurance. If there wasn't a 2.5% tax penalty, there would be no incentive to have coverage. I believe I also heard that there will be a cap as to how much will be put on.

Sec 123. the duties of the health benefits advisory commitee " (b) Duties-

(1) RECOMMENDATIONS ON BENEFIT STANDARDS- The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall recommend to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the `Secretary') benefit standards (as defined in paragraph (4)), and periodic updates to such standards. In developing such recommendations, the Committee shall take into account innovation in health care and consider how such standards could reduce health disparities.

(2) DEADLINE- The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall recommend initial benefit standards to the Secretary not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(3) PUBLIC INPUT- The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall allow for public input as a part of developing recommendations under this subsection.

(4) BENEFIT STANDARDS DEFINED- In this subtitle, the term `benefit standards' means standards respecting--

(A) the essential benefits package described in section 122, including categories of covered treatments, items and services within benefit classes, and cost-sharing; and

(B) the cost-sharing levels for enhanced plans and premium plans (as provided under section 203(c)) consistent with paragraph (5).

(5) LEVELS OF COST-SHARING FOR ENHANCED AND PREMIUM PLANS-

(A) ENHANCED PLAN- The level of cost-sharing for enhanced plans shall be designed so that such plans have benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 85 percent of the actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package described in section 122(c)(3)(B).

(B) PREMIUM PLAN- The level of cost-sharing for premium plans shall be designed so that such plans have benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 95 percent of the actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package described in section 122(c)(3)(B)."

This is all sec. 1177 says. "SEC. 1177. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF SPECIAL NEEDS PLANS TO RESTRICT ENROLLMENT.

(a) In General- Section 1859(f)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-28(f)(1)) is amended by striking `January 1, 2011' and inserting `January 1, 2013 (or January 1, 2016, in the case of a plan described in section 1177(b)(1) of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009)'.

(b) Grandfathering of Certain Plans-

(1) PLANS DESCRIBED- For purposes of section 1859(f)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-28(f)(1)), a plan described in this paragraph is a plan that had a contract with a State that had a State program to operate an integrated Medicaid-Medicare program that had been approved by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services as of January 1, 2004.

(2) ANALYSIS; REPORT- The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall provide, through a contract with an independent health services evaluation organization, for an analysis of the plans described in paragraph (1) with regard to the impact of such plans on cost, quality of care, patient satisfaction, and other subjects as specified by the Secretary. Not later than December 31, 2011, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on such analysis and shall include in such report such recommendations with regard to the treatment of such plans as the Secretary deems appropriate."

I'm going to jump to the advanced care consultation section 1233 of the bill.

"Advance Care Planning Consultation

`(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term `advance care planning consultation' means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:

`(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.

`(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.

`(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.

`(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).

`(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.

`(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include--

`(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual's family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;

`(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and

`(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a health care proxy).

`(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations under clause (i) to consultations furnished in a State--

`(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical orders respected across all care settings; and

`(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).

`(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that--

`(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;

`(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional's authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;

`(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment; and

`(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association."

I didn't see where in the bill it says an order for the end of life. However, the bills posted at http://thomas.loc.gov don't have pages and line numbers, only the sections numbers, so Sam, if you could get sections numbers for what you have posted, that would be helpful finding what you have posted so I can read them and attempt to figure out what it says.

Sam,

The craziness gets crazier. Here is another moment of liberal stupidity on parade. US REP. Carol Shea-Porter, Democrat NH, said "...my constituents would love to wait in line for medical care." There is a youtube video of this. I was also thinking of your comments that "bureauweenies" would be making health care decisions. At first I wondered about that. Then I realized, of course bureaucrats will be making health care decisions. Bureaucrats are a part of any federal government program. Bureaucrats are to gov. programs like wet is to water. Where will race figure in to health care decisions? If one of these "bureauweenies" makes a decision a person of color does not like, can they cry racism? Of course they can, and they will. They would not necessarily cry racism because they believed racism was occurring. They just might wanna live, and get treatment, so they take any shot they have. Wasn't it you Sam that said, bad laws make criminals out of good people?

npwinder,

I agree that IF you are going to FORCE everyone into compliance, fines for non-compliance would be necessary. The part in that paragraph that bothers me, was how the illegals would not be penalized for non-compliance. Yet they will be fully covered, right?

America has the best healthcare system in the world? Are you kidding me? America ranks at or near the bottom of countries similar to us. Canada? Despite the lies and spins from the Republican Party that you have eaten up with a spoon is ranked higher. Are there issues with the system in Canada? Yes, but show me a system that is perfect and I'll show you make believe land. England, France, Germany all rank higher than America. That is hardly the best system in the world.

Right now conglomerates are running a racket with health care. If you are lucky enough to have insurance those companies can raise your premiums with no cause what-so-ever. How is that fair, or even right?

What they are offering right now is a public option, if you have insurance and want to stay with that insurer, guess what, you can. All the public option really does is give those without insurance an option of taking on coverage from the government or from public ensurers. The plan also will help small businesses be able to offer affordable coverage to their employees.

Some senators keep asking what's the rush with health care reform. They act as if this is a new idea and that we haven't been trying to reform health care for over 40 years.

Also under the reform more people will be covered which means when the initially get sick they go see a doctor and get it taken care of instead of waiting until they are on deaths door and going to the emergency room, which can't turn them away with or without insurance, and we, as taxpayers end of footing the bill.

I've noticed through this first year that the extreme right isn't against unfair taxes, since they are completely against programs that will ease their taxes, they are just against Obama. The first tea party, the professed and professed to anyone with a camera and microphone that the protest wasn't against Obama but against taxes. By the second tea party (which oddly enough they were surprised that their protests weren't covered. It was only on the 4th of July when the rest of us were celebrating our country) any pretext of protesting against taxes was out the window and these new protests were in complete opposition to Obama.

By the way, what have the Republicans offered in the way of reform for healthcare? I'm sure most of you can recite their plans from heart. We don't have a concrete plan, YET, but it is coming. But we know it's better than the plan now. This is the same line they have given for everything this year. They are no longer the party of no, but the party of we don't have new ideas but when we do have an idea it will be better than the ones now.

In all probability/possibility, Believing Christians may not have to worry about being refused Health care, what with living, soon, at a place, far, far, better than our present circumstance provides.

If my study is correct, Jesus will be coming for His Bride, this Yom Teruah/Rosh Hashanah, in September. I have high hopes that I be correct.

The President might just have a very empty Nation to rule, very soon.

In Messiah. Arley

Sam,

All your B.S. excerpts are from the working papers being passed around congress.

Most of the portions you are screaming about will never see the light of day.

MANY OF THESE have been plugged in by opponents who want truckdrivers who lack understanding of the legislative process to read and go ballistic blasting the President -- who has said repeatedly, if the bills are passed and do not meet the standards already set out,

HE WILL VETO THE BILL.

Read a few websites, or some authoritative source -- which sure as hell does not include an uber-conservative website produced by people who are determined to force the nation into failure.

Have you noticed?

The banks are showing quarterly profits for the first time in several years. Ford showed a quarterly profit. Housing starts are up. The stock market has had multiple major gains.

CitiGroup is sending feelers to see how much bonus they can pay the successful director of their Connecticut trading operation. His contract says at the current level of operations, he gets $100-Million. They signed the contract.

Paying him may be legal, even though CitiGroup receied about $50-Billion of the bailout money.

Guess what Sam -- these are not signs of Obama failing.

You have been frantically eager to blame all the Bush/Cheney disasters on the Democrats, yet not a peep out of you now that in just under six months, the economic mess is easing.

In case you haven't checked your history of depressions and recessions -- six months for the first signs of recovery, after a major economic slump hits full disaster condition -- is a blooming economic miracle.

Much of this recovery is directly attributable to the major overseas money regaining faith in the U.S. getting its act together.

My lady and I have been dealing with these people in London, Bonn, Brussels, Zurich, Milan, Rome, Beirut, Dubai City, Mumbai, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Rio, Buenas Aires, Santiago, Lima, Melbourne and Capetown for years.

Beginning about 2004, they basically withdrew from any dealings in the U.S. at all.

That continued until about May 1st this year.

We are seeing them willingly discussing moving money into the U.S. again.

Through about 2003, the U.S. was the preferred target for their investments. When the rest of the world realized that the Bush/Cheney crowd was ignoring everyone in the blind pursuit of personal Bush family vengence against Sadaam Hussein -- We were no longer the favorite investment destination for anyone but the Chinese, and they were piling up credits with the U.S. government, to help ward off trade restrictions or opposition to their unfair trade practices.

But, finally they are finding practices such as their illegal subsidizing of soda ash exports to the world are being challenged by the new administration.

Sam -- forget your Neo-Nazi, totally biased and distorted websites. They are practicing the standard Hermann Goebbels tactic -- Tell a big lie and keep repeating it, at least some of the people will believe it.

If those people tell you that the Mississippi River at New Orleans would freeze with six feet thick ice on August 15 -- are your going to accept that as absolute gospel??

You continue referring to "Hopey Change" -- well Gearjammer, you better pray the changes are successful -- because if they fail -- you are out of business.

How are you at digging ditches by hand on public works projects??

The Texas and New Mexico drought is digging the hole that much deeper for a lot of people there, compounding a serious income loss with wheat which is barely covering harvest costs.

A strong export market will provide better markets for Northern Plains wheat, where near record production is already pilng up.

But if the folks overseas lose hope in our recovery -- buckle up, it could be a rough ride for the Wheat Belt.

We have successful insurance companies making a profit with thousands of employees. Let's try something new like a government run plan that will force these companies to make less money or go out of business completely and we'll just pass more stimulus plans for all the people who get laid off.

People currently have the choice to choose health care or not. Let's try something new. Let's make perfectly healthy people who don't wan't health insurance pay a $1,000 fine for their audacity to try saving money by not purchasing something they don't want. Btw, if the point of the $1,000 fine isn't to get people into the government "option" plan then why has nobody ever suggested a $1,000 fine for not having health insurance without provisions for a government plan? Oh yeah, because that would mean everyone would have to get private insurance. Silly me.

Our government doesn't have the power to decide who can and who can't be treated for specific ailments. Let's appoint a board to decide who can get treatment and this board can also decide what treatment they "qualify" for and what treatments they can be denied.

Looking at all this "change" it's clear to me that freedom of choice must be out the window.

hey proud

I have insurance, its just a shame that they put provisions in my policy that says they wont cover most of what ails me because it is a preexiting condition. My deductalbe is so high I have to take out a loan to cover it anyhow. What a total rip off. So, like I said, the system is broke, no need to even try to fix it. Those 10 to 15% that dont have insurance can just die in there bed. I wonder what Jesus would do? He could heal them with a touch but the conservatives would run him out of town after the insurance companies started griping.

If Jesus went to Taco Belle for guidance it would be to give not receive. I'm sure it would have to be a very long sermon and he might even cast out a few demons while he's at it.

my premium is 700 dollars a month, my deductable is 5 thousand a year. I cannot believe that they will raise my taxes 16 thousand dollars a year. They wont cover prexisting because they would go broke? Thats correct, thank you for pointing out another flaw in a completley flawed system.

Do you think Dick Cheneys insurance covered his preexisting heart condition? I bet it did. Do you think Barney Franks speech pathologist gets paid from his insurance carrier, even though he has talked that way since he was 16? I bet so.

I really hope that you never have to go through loosing everything you have worked your entire life for to pay medical bills.

another joke is that "you can shop around for the best coverage". Thats a load of crap. I tried to change my policy with my current provider, thats right, the same company, just a different deductable. Suddenly they wont cover my childs allergies and a whole host of other things. So, im stuck with what I have until I die.

So, does Dick Cheney have to pay for his heart meds or his bypass? It was prexisting. Ill bet not.

Take others hard earned money? Like Paris Hiltons hard earned money?

Doctors dont have to treat you. A friend of mine had cancer. She called a cancer specality clinic in Colorado for treatment. They told her to bring 25k with her or they would not see her. Needless to say, withing 6 months she was dead. If only she would have told them, "blogger Mccook 1 says you have to treat me" then perhps she would be alive today.

So the system works just great, why change it? Some of our elected represtetatives seem to want to deny everyone the coverage they have. They rail aginst "government run health care" and I ask my self, hmmm, your on it. If its that bad get off of you current program and shop around and pay for it out of your own pocket.

They are all milliionairs anyhow so it probably wouldent matter to them.

I find it interesting how much of the debate over health care has shifted away from controlling costs. There is little to no mention of ways to control spending rather just arguing over who needs to be covered by "insurance" and who needs to pay for it. Bigdawg is right a lot of people don't have access to good health care, a lot of people also do a bad job of taking care of themselves in general. However; how is just suddenly enrolling a bunch more people going to do anything except increase the cost?

McCook1 is also correct, Bigdawg's friend had access to health care. Because she didn't have the money to upfront 25k for the best specialist isn't a knock on the healthcare system in my opinion. There has been talk about taxing the wealthy and thier "Cadillac" healthcare. This is the example Bigdawg illustrates. His friend couldn't afford a Cadillac and apparently didn't access her Chevy. I don't feel the government should step in and take away anyone's Cadillac to give everyone a Yugo.

As I've said many times I'm not a fan of government, it has good intentions but poor results. I'm still waiting for anyone to show me a government program that is run efficiently and effectively.