What is actually on the Health Care Reform Bill

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
The liberty council is an extremely conservative group with their own agenda. I would just read the text of the bill, as opposed to someone else's interpretation of it... but you know... I am just a scientist. >.>

Therein lies the problem.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
As Bill O'Reilly stated today, the house bill is over 1000 pages long and the senate bill is 6XX pages long... "No bill needs to be that long" - O'Reilly... To answer your question, there is so much on the bill that I'm not even sure if any ONE person knows everything that is on it. They are stating that they will eventually water it down, so-to-speak, within the coming months.

I am not in favor of the health care reform bill, at least not in its current state, but the 2 assertions you made were addressed by Obama yesterday during his townhall meeting. Specifics on that can be found on the whitehouse website: www.whitehouse.gov
 
Also just a thought that hasn't been brought up yet, America essentially subsidizes advances in medicine. Our absurdly high health care costs, are essentially subsidizing all the pharmaceuticals and what not, I mean how else are they making money and making new drugs, they surely don't charge as much for the same drug in Mexico, Canada, or the UK.
 
dear god.. didn't we JUST do this..

:beat:

I started this thread before the one last night. Which is why I am refraining from making any opinionated posts on my own thread.
 
The liberty council is an extremely conservative group with their own agenda. I would just read the text of the bill, as opposed to someone else's interpretation of it... but you know... I am just a scientist. >.>

Conservative or not, agenda or not. Having the issues everyone is raving about listed out complete with page numbers from the bill gives you the ability to read the bill for yourself and stop taking others word for everything. Thought that was apparent in my post? I guess you know what happens when we start assuming.
 
The Liberty Council has got some good crack, because they are seriously f'ed up in interpreting the bill.

TLC says: "Sec. 225, Pg. 127, Lines 1-16 - Doctors – the government will tell YOU what you can make.

The Bill says: "The Secretary shall provide for the annual participation of physicians under the
public health insurance option, for which payment may be made for services furnished
during the year."

Yeah, so how does this differ from payment from Medicaid or Medicare (in that they'll get paid by the gov't for the services for people who are under those plans)? It's not like the gov't is saying "you can make $X."
 
Last edited:
Yeah, so how does this differ from payment from Medicaid or Medicare (in that they'll get paid by the gov't for the services for people who are under those plans)? It's not like the gov't is saying "you can make $X."

Good point, but I think the issue at hand here is that medicaid or medicare is a very small percentage of patients (some providers dont accept at all) and compared to the proposed plan you would be facing a much much larger group of these types of issues.
 
1. End-of-life counseling every 5 years. This provision also locks in estate taxes ahead of time (page 425) As far as end-of-life treatment goes, HR3200 describes it on page 429. The wording they use is this: a government "ORDER" for end-of-life plans. Order? That doesn't sound like much of an option to me.
2. Page 102 of HR3200: everyone who is eligible for Medicare will be auto-enrolled in the public option. The only choice you have is to keep the public option or drop it and be forced to pay a tax.
3. Page 126: Employers must auto-enroll ALL employees, not just full-time employees, and their families. Likewise, they also have the option of keeping the public plan or dropping it and paying a tax.


If HR3200 goes through, soon we'll have a state-owned monopolistic health insurance, which will dictate the treatment options and reimbursement rates. You can't argue with a 500 lb gorilla called federal government.
 
The Liberty Council has got some good crack, because they are seriously f'ed up in interpreting the bill.


The Bill says: "The Secretary shall provide for the annual participation of physicians under the
public health insurance option, for which payment may be made for services furnished
during the year."

Yeah, so how does this differ from payment from Medicaid or Medicare (in that they'll get paid by the gov't for the services for people who are under those plans)? It's not like the gov't is saying "you can make $X."

The difference from Medicare and Medicaid is, you DON'T HAVE TO TAKE IT. Rest assured, Medicare does distort the market in unpredictable ways, creates waste and fraud, but there is still some common sense out there. Once the government has its paws on 100% market share, it will use its monopsonistic powers to dictate how much $x you make.

What is so hard to understand here?

For those who dont' know: monopsony is when there is one buyer on the market and many sellers. It's the opposite of monopoly, but can be equally destructive.
 
As far as end-of-life treatment goes, HR3200 describes it on page 429. The wording they use is this: a government "ORDER" for end-of-life plans. Order? That doesn't sound like much of an option to me.

Here is the actual text (which so many people seem to have a real problem directly quoting):

‘(5)(A)For purposes of this section, the term ‘order regarding life sustaining treatment' means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that —

‘‘(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional's authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care;

‘‘(ii) effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;

‘‘(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary); and

‘‘(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (asdefined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the individual.

‘‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specifiedinterventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items—

Sounds to me like "order" is simply being used in the context of an advanced directive order or living will order.

You know, you guys would be a lot more convincing if you stopped crying wolf.
 
2. Page 102 of HR3200: everyone who is eligible for Medicare will be auto-enrolled in the public option. The only choice you have is to keep the public option or drop it and be forced to pay a tax.

Nothing about Medicare or the public option here. However, there is a provision to enroll all Medicaid eligible people into Medicaid if they don't purchase their own insurance plan:

(3) AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT OF MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS INTO MEDICAID-The Commisioner shall provide for a process under which an individual who is described under section 202(d)(3) and has not elected to enroll in an Exhange-participating health benefits plan is automatically enrolled under Medicaid.

Nilf said:
3. Page 126: Employers must auto-enroll ALL employees, not just full-time employees, and their families. Likewise, they also have the option of keeping the public plan or dropping it and paying a tax.

Couldn't find that part. Could you help a brother out?
 
I have a question. CNN, which I have on in the background, stated that a major concern at the town hall meetings today is patients not being able to choose their doctor.

This confuses me, because not being able to choose your doctor has been one of the many problems with managed care, not universal health insurance. In most nations with NHI, people do choose their doctors and are free to switch.

Is there something in the bill that suggests people can't choose their doctors, or are they just ******ed?
 
3050354749_8d2ce85f29_o.gif
 
Top