• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Question about the health care bill

Yeah, that's the most hilarious thing I've read here all week!

Countless hours reading 3,000+ pages of the wrong bill - time shot to h3ll, never to be recovered. :lol:

Axiom, the correct bill is HR 3590, commonly called "the Senate bill" and titled "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." It was signed into law on Tuesday.

Your AHCAA PDF is HR 3962, commnly called "the House bill." It was placed in the Senate's In-Box back in November and the Senate ignored it.

It's dead Jim.

Eh. I've read several versions of the bill. Laugh away.
Except for Garm, who is in no position to laugh about anything.



oh just you wait til Monday

What is with you and threats?
 
Laugh about what, and why on Monday?

Just heard something very funny, too inappropriate for MISC.

I'm sure you did. How interesting that you chose to direct that statement at me, then, in a thread that had nothing to do with something very funny yet inappropriate for Miscellaneous.

I know all about the faux indigence and 'outrage' at me as a person because of the low level of slime that I am considered because a bunch of whiney internet nerds took offense in a far too politically correct manner int he same realm where they act like the worst of humanity
 
Just heard something very funny, too inappropriate for MISC.

I'm sure you did. How interesting that you chose to direct that statement at me, then, in a thread that had nothing to do with something very funny yet inappropriate for Miscellaneous.

I know all about the faux indigence and 'outrage' at me as a person because of the low level of slime that I am considered because a bunch of whiney internet nerds took offense in a far too politically correct manner int he same realm where they act like the worst of humanity

You might not want to drag that in here.
 
Gap in health care law's protection for children

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Hours after President Barack Obama signed historic health care legislation, a potential problem emerged. Administration officials are now scrambling to fix a gap in highly touted benefits for children.
Obama made better coverage for children a centerpiece of his health care remake, but it turns out the letter of the law provided a less-than-complete guarantee that kids with health problems would not be shut out of coverage.
Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday.
However, if a child is accepted for coverage, or is already covered, the insurer cannot exclude payment for treating a particular illness, as sometimes happens now. For example, if a child has asthma, the insurance company cannot write a policy that excludes that condition from coverage. The new safeguard will be in place later this year.
Full protection for children would not come until 2014, said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, another panel that authored the legislation. That's the same year when insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to any person on account of health problems.


Obama's public statements have conveyed the impression that the new protections for kids were more sweeping and straightforward.


More at that article.


This video makes me giggle.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AOJBiklP1Q[/yt]
 
That is why i said 'wait until monday' and you felt threatened by a voice on the tubes of the internets.

I felt threatened? Nah. You know what you were implying, and I know what you were implying. It wasn't anything drastic or life threatening or anything stupid like that, but once more you stuck your foot in your mouth and had to retract quickly and make it appear you meant something else. So just drop it before you do it again.

Gap in health care law's protection for children

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Hours after President Barack Obama signed historic health care legislation, a potential problem emerged. Administration officials are now scrambling to fix a gap in highly touted benefits for children.
Obama made better coverage for children a centerpiece of his health care remake, but it turns out the letter of the law provided a less-than-complete guarantee that kids with health problems would not be shut out of coverage.
Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday.
However, if a child is accepted for coverage, or is already covered, the insurer cannot exclude payment for treating a particular illness, as sometimes happens now. For example, if a child has asthma, the insurance company cannot write a policy that excludes that condition from coverage. The new safeguard will be in place later this year.
Full protection for children would not come until 2014, said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, another panel that authored the legislation. That's the same year when insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to any person on account of health problems.


Obama's public statements have conveyed the impression that the new protections for kids were more sweeping and straightforward.
More at that article.


This video makes me giggle.

Yeah, I came across that in the bill. I thought at first that I had read it wrong, but sure enough, children with pre-existing conditions are under a different sub-clause based on filing status and eligibility of the parents. I wonder how that's going to work out. Perhaps it's explained later on in the bill.
 
Well you'd already know if you'd been reading the right bill. :D

While you're in there, dig through the part about student loans. That's going to directly affect many of the younger TNZers very soon. My big worry (which just occured to me while I was cutting up onions and peppers) is that in a year or so MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) could easily lobby for and win a provision denying student loans to anyone convicted of DWI, DUI, or possibly even PI (public intoxication). MADD is very good about getting their way with politicians because nobody is for drunk driving, at least now that Ted Kennedy has passed.

The other worry is that the current bill allows federal funding for viagra for convicted sex offenders. That's just not right.
 
Well you'd already know if you'd been reading the right bill. :D

While you're in there, dig through the part about student loans. That's going to directly affect many of the younger TNZers very soon. My big worry (which just occured to me while I was cutting up onions and peppers) is that in a year or so MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) could easily lobby for and win a provision denying student loans to anyone convicted of DWI, DUI, or possibly even PI (public intoxication). MADD is very good about getting their way with politicians because nobody is for drunk driving, at least now that Ted Kennedy has passed.

Section 847 of the bill gets into individual student loans, although the student loans are for nurses/nursing school. Under the provisions in the bill, loan agreements are increased approximately 30%, depending upon the course and degree training chosen. If the student drops out or is non-compliant, their repayment will be the maximum interest for that year + 2% interest on top of that until the loan is repaid. Now, if I read it correctly, the actual loan doesn't get disbursed until 10 months after the student begins the 6 year program, and not before they are assigned to the school faculty full time.

The other worry is that the current bill allows federal funding for viagra for convicted sex offenders. That's just not right.

I don't find that in the bill anywhere.

I'm only on page 414 in terms of reading through the bill, and have made my way mainly through the pre-existing conditions and small business health coverage sections.
 
Just heard something very funny, too inappropriate for MISC.

I'm sure you did. How interesting that you chose to direct that statement at me, then, in a thread that had nothing to do with something very funny yet inappropriate for Miscellaneous.

I know all about the faux indigence and 'outrage' at me as a person because of the low level of slime that I am considered because a bunch of whiney internet nerds took offense in a far too politically correct manner int he same realm where they act like the worst of humanity

Attention whore much? :rolleyes:
 
The other worry is that the current bill allows federal funding for viagra for convicted sex offenders. That's just not right.

I don't find that in the bill anywhere.

I'm only on page 414 in terms of reading through the bill, and have made my way mainly through the pre-existing conditions and small business health coverage sections.

Well, the Republicans have proposed an amendment to the House reconcilliation bill to close the free federal viagra for sex offenders loophole, but I'm sure Reed and Pelosi will oppose it.
 
The other worry is that the current bill allows federal funding for viagra for convicted sex offenders. That's just not right.

I don't find that in the bill anywhere.

I'm only on page 414 in terms of reading through the bill, and have made my way mainly through the pre-existing conditions and small business health coverage sections.

Well, the Republicans have proposed an amendment to the House reconcilliation bill to close the free federal viagra for sex offenders loophole, but I'm sure Reed and Pelosi will oppose it.

I get the feeling there's no such subsection. More than likely, with the way the GOP is behaving, it's merely another way to throw a temper tantrum and stomp their feet.
 
Well would you support an amendment to the bill to ban federal viagra funding for convicted sex offenders?

The Amendment as proposed reads:

No Erectile Dysfunction Drugs To Sex Offenders – This amendment would enact recommendations from the Government Accountability Office to stop fraudulent payments for prescription drugs prescribed by dead providers or, to dead patients. This amendment also prohibits coverage of Viagra and other ED medications to convicted child molesters, rapists, and sex offenders, and prohibits coverage of abortion drugs.
 

Interesting...Regardless, according to the article, after 2014, none of us (children or adults) will have to worry about being denied the purchase of healthcare insurance due to pre-existing conditions. Also, the Obama administration is working to see if they can fix the situation for children sooner. Though, I don't know if the latter is possible without new legislation.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top