Here we go... NO new Medicaid patients! [Archive]

Dadnatron

03-18-2010, 12:06 AM

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011367936_walgreens18m.html

Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16

Effective April 16, Walgreens drugstores across the state won't take any new Medicaid patients, saying that filling their prescriptions is a money-losing proposition — the latest development in an ongoing dispute over Medicaid reimbursement.

The company, which operates 121 stores in the state, will continue filling Medicaid prescriptions for current patients.

In a news release, Walgreens said its decision to not take new Medicaid patients stemmed from a "continued reduction in reimbursement" under the state's Medicaid program, which reimburses it at less than the break-even point for 95 percent of brand-name medications dispensed to Medicaid patents.

Walgreens follows Bartell Drugs, which stopped taking new Medicaid patients last month at all 57 of its stores in Washington, though it still fills Medicaid prescriptions for existing customers at all but 15 of those stores.

Doug Porter, the state's director of Medicaid, said Medicaid recipients should be able to readily find another pharmacy because "we have many more pharmacy providers in our network than we need" for the state's 1 million Medicaid clients.

He said those who can't can contact the state's Medical Assistance Customer Service Center at 1-800-562-3022 for help in locating one.

Along with Walgreens and Bartell, the Ritzville Drug Company in Adams County announced in November that it would stop participating in Medicaid.

Fred Meyer and Safeway said their pharmacies would continue to serve existing Medicaid patients and to take new ones, though both expressed concern that the reimbursement rate is too low for pharmacies to make a profit.

The amount private insurers and Medicaid pay pharmacies for prescriptions isn't the actual cost of those drugs but rather is based on what's called the drug's estimated average wholesale price. But that figure is more like the sticker price on a car than its actual wholesale cost.

Washington was reimbursing pharmacies 86 percent of a drug's average wholesale price until July, when it began paying them just 84 percent. While pharmacies weren't happy about the reimbursement reduction, the Department of Social and Health Services said that move was expected to save the state about $10 million.

Then in September came another blow. The average wholesale price is calculated by a private company, which was accused in a Massachusetts lawsuit of fraudulently inflating its figures. The company did not admit wrongdoing but agreed in a court settlement to ratchet its figures down by about 4 percent.

That agreement took effect in September — and prompted a lawsuit by a group of pharmacies and trade associations that said Washington state didn't follow federal law in setting its reimbursement rate, and that that rate is too low. The lawsuit is pending.

"Washington state Medicaid is now reimbursing pharmacies less than their cost of participation," said Jeff Rochon, CEO of the Washington State Pharmacy Association.

Pharmacies that continue to fill Medicaid prescriptions at the current state reimbursement rate are "at risk of putting themselves out of business altogether," he said.

legbuh

03-18-2010, 12:12 AM

that's what this healthcare bill is all about. make ins. companies take everyone, pre-existing condition or not, limit what they can charge and thus drive them out of business and implement a single payer system. If you think it's for any "good" reason you're just looking for handouts. And with most other "entitlements".

Dadnatron

03-18-2010, 12:27 PM

I just don't think people understand that medicine is a business. If you keep trying to force a business to do things which are not good for it, the business will either change or quit. This is an example... Walgreens says that the cost of the medication now EXCEEDS the price Medicaid will pay.

How many of you would go to work all day... and then leave $5 in a can on the way out the door?

This is what is going to happen, and medicine in general will suffer. Be prepared to have a HUGELY divergent medical system. Where those with Private Insurance or their own Funds will have ONE type of medical care. And those on this government system will have a completely DIFFERENT type. You will then see laws trying to FORCE providers to give care simply because the Government SAYS they should. Didn't we see this tried in a big EuroAsian block of country's a few years back?

Why... if they can try to force me to provide healthcare at rates they choose for 'the common good'... won't they force a roofer to FIX MY ROOF at rates which would be better to my bank account? I HAVE TO HAVE a roof over my head just the same as someone HAS TO HAVE me fixing their aneurysm.

This is the beginning of HUGE Government rationing. Providers will leave and their won't be either the money or the people to do what needs to be done. Therefore, there will be significant limits on the type of care you can get. And you won't be able to say anything, because it will be Congress doing the Limiting.

My partner was in DC yesterday, talking to several Congressmen about this. He basically said, we should really begin looking at how we are going to step out of Medicare/Medicaid altogether. We have had a business look at logistics already.

pmgamer18

03-18-2010, 01:08 PM

The Drug plain was pushed on us but the last President. Yet you can get Generic drugs from Walmart 90 days worth for $10.00. So if your drug is on there list go for it.

JRA

03-18-2010, 01:18 PM

Dr. John Crisler

03-18-2010, 01:50 PM

Dadnatron

03-18-2010, 03:30 PM

I love the way the Obama administration demonizes physicians.

In Michigan the Dems tried like hell to push through a special 3% tax on all our doctors. Just the doctors (not lawyers, even though they make their livings through a court system we pay for). On our GROSS (like our ridiculous business tax--on gross, whether you made a profit or not).

Of course, politicians are lawyers, so they aren't going to do anything but promote their incomes. Trial lawyer money made sure Obama couldn't find one word of tort reform in 2,200 pages.

I asked my medical students how many of them would be moving to other states to practice if that special tax went through (after we paid to educate them). All 12 of them raised their hands.

This week or socialist Governor announced this Saturday will be "Meatout Day", in support of her radical PETA supporters. Our beef industry is wondering what they did to be attacked.

The Democrats have shown over and over again they absolutely hate business. The problems with our economy will only grow when those who have never tried to run a business are in charge of all business.

I try to listen to all sides...

My homepage is MSNBC... but I pull up Drudge/Foxnews/WSJ as well. I listen to Sirius Patriot/Foxnews/Left...

I was listening to Sirius Left the other day... and this is why we are in such bad straights. A caller called in and actually said "I just don't get it, why would ANYONE be against free healthcare?" And the host said "I agree... those idiots on the right are just in it for the money."

I immediately saw that there is NO argueing with stupidity. I absolutely couldn't believe that this had really been said and then agreed upon. They really think that all this is going to be 'free' and they will get what all those 'damn rich people' have.

It is like my Brother-in-law said occurred right after the elections. He had a black female employee begin calling all the white employees 'crackers'. When he told her it was inappropriate, she said 'Obama won, I can call you whatever I want."

Another was a patient came into my office and when she was signing the information, releases, etc and was given the sheet which basically states 'you are responsible for your bill'. She said "I don't have to pay nuthin', I voted Obama for president."

I realized at that time, that her vote counted just as much as mine.............

LowT

03-18-2010, 03:38 PM

Statement of Congressman Ron Paul

United States House of Representatives

More Government Won't Help

September 23, 2009

Government has been mismanaging medical care for more than 45 years; for every problem it has created it has responded by exponentially expanding the role of government.
Points to consider:
1.) No one has a right to medical care. If one assumes such a right, it endorses the notion that some individuals have a right to someone else’s life and property. This totally contradicts the principles of liberty.
2.) If medical care is provided by government, this can only be achieved by an authoritarian government unconcerned about the rights of the individual.
3.) Economic fallacies accepted for more than 100 years in the United States has deceived policy makers into believing that quality medical care can only be achieved by government force, taxation, regulations, and bowing to a system of special interests that creates a system of corporatism.
4.) More dollars into any monopoly run by government never increases quality but it always results in higher costs and prices.
5.) Government does have an important role to play in facilitating the delivery of all goods and services in an ethical and efficient manner.
6.) First, government should do no harm. It should get out of the way and repeal all the laws that have contributed to the mess we have.
7.) The costs are obviously too high but in solving this problem one cannot ignore the debasement of the currency as a major factor.
8.) Bureaucrats and other third parties must never be allowed to interfere in the doctor/patient relationship.
9.) The tax code, including the ERISA laws, must be changed to give everyone equal treatment by allowing a 100% tax credit for all medical expenses.
Laws dealing with bad outcomes and prohibiting doctors from entering into voluntary agreements with their patients must be repealed. Tort laws play a significant role in pushing costs higher, prompting unnecessary treatment and excessive testing. Patients deserve the compensation; the attorneys do not.
10.) Insurance sales should be legalized nationally across state lines to increase competition among the insurance companies.
11.) Long-term insurance policies should be available to young people similar to term-life insurances that offer fixed prices for long periods of time.
12.) The principle of insurance should be remembered. Its purpose in a free market is to measure risk, not to be used synonymously with social welfare programs. Any program that provides for first-dollar payment is no longer insurance. This would be similar to giving coverage for gasoline and repair bills to those who buy car insurance or providing food insurance for people to go to the grocery store. Obviously, that could not work.
13.) The cozy relationship between organized medicine and government must be reversed.
Early on medical insurance was promoted by the medical community in order to boost re-imbursements to doctors and hospitals. That partnership has morphed into the government/insurance industry still being promoted by the current administration.
14.) Threatening individuals with huge fines by forcing them to buy insurance is a boon to the insurance companies.
15.) There must be more competition for individuals entering into the medical field. Licensing strictly limits the number of individuals who can provide patient care. A lot of problems were created in 20th century as a consequence the Flexner Report (1910), which was financed by the Carnegie Foundation and strongly supported by the AMA. Many medical schools were closed and the number of doctors was drastically reduced. The motivation was to close down medical schools that catered to women, minorities and especially homeopathy. We continue to suffer from these changes which were designed to protect physician’s income and promote allopathic medicine over the more natural cures and prevention of homeopathic medicine.
16.) We must remove any obstacles for people seeking holistic and nutritional alternatives to current medical care. We must remove the threat of further regulations pushed by the drug companies now working worldwide to limit these alternatives.
True competition in the delivery of medical care is what is needed, not more government meddling.

http://www.house.gov/list/speech/tx14_paul/MoreGov.shtml

Dadnatron

03-18-2010, 05:39 PM

I agree completely LowT.

I will happily do my job with increased competition. I have no worry what-so-ever that I will be outdone.

I, being 'establishment' would agree to every one of those points by Paul. On the condition that the patient accept his/her choices and the ramifications of what goes with it. Free choices are exactly what people need, but they also need to own the corresponding effects of those choices.

I can truly see such a meltdown coming that in fact, after all the dust settles, we might be right where he is talking about. We might have collapse due to our spending and fallacious belief that debt is not real, and then when people quit working... and everything falls apart... maybe we will remember why this country was founded in the first place.

JanSz

03-18-2010, 06:15 PM

I realized at that time, that her vote counted just as much as mine.............

We are going to have riots (social adjustments).

Wonder if they will be contained to high density urban areas or will spread wider.

They will probably start after Moody change ratings for US debt (which is soon).

...........

http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/2010/0316/Moody-s-hints-at-move-that-could-be-catastrophic-for-US-debt

Moody’s hints at move that could be catastrophic for US debt
Moody said Monday that it would consider downgrading its triple-A rating for US Treasury Bonds if Washington continues to pile up record deficits. The move would make it significantly harder for the US to finance its debt by borrowing from other countries.

BigJimcalhoun

03-18-2010, 07:22 PM

We are going to have riots (social adjustments)
Everyone here should get an AK-47 while they are still cheap. They are less than $400 and are legal in 45 states. AKs are good for riot protection and projection of force.

JanSz

03-18-2010, 07:31 PM

Everyone here should get an AK-47 while they are still cheap. They are less than $400 and are legal in 45 states. AKs are good for riot protection and projection of force.

Not sure what I would do with a gun.

From my boating days, I still have a stainless steel Mossberg.

Similar to this one, less rust.

[http://www.mossberg.com/images/Mossberg_Guns/930/New/51414.jpg

//

anyman

03-18-2010, 09:31 PM

Everyone here should get an AK-47 while they are still cheap. They are less than $400 and are legal in 45 states. AKs are good for riot protection and projection of force.

But only in the newer piston form and with aimpoint red dot sights.

See here:

http://www.lwrci.com/p-4-m6a2.aspx

An AK is fine, so long as the target is fairly close. Hard to hit much with one beyond 50 yards, especially on rapid fire. Too much muzzle climb and jumping around.

Bulldog

03-18-2010, 11:30 PM

But only in the newer piston form and with aimpoint red dot sights.

See here:

http://www.lwrci.com/p-4-m6a2.aspx

An AK is fine, so long as the target is fairly close. Hard to hit much with one beyond 50 yards, especially on rapid fire. Too much muzzle climb and jumping around.

How much does one of those cost? I haven't shot my rifle in years, but I may have to start again. Gotta be prepared.

Dadnatron

03-19-2010, 11:44 AM

There's nothing to worry about.

Tha Govmint'll 'tect you!

Really... best thing to do would be to hole up on a grain elevator near water and watch the rest of the US burn for a while. Corncakes, cornmush, cornbread might get old after a while, but better than the alternative.

I have mine all picked out... just up the road a bit.

Bulldog

03-19-2010, 11:59 AM

Not sure what I would do with a gun.

From my boating days, I still have a stainless steel Mossberg.

Similar to this one, less rust.

//

A sawed off shotgun is the way to go for close combat. Just point and shoot from the hip if you have to. Won't miss much.

JRA

03-19-2010, 12:05 PM

A sawed off shotgun is the way to go for close combat. Just point and shoot from the hip if you have to. Won't miss much.

It is also the best gun to keep by you bed for self defense.
My theory is, if someone breaks into my house late at night, I will be half asleep and I won't be able to aim and hit my target with a pistol, where using a shotgun I will just shoot in the direction of the noise, and I should stop the intruder.

pmgamer18

03-19-2010, 12:13 PM

That is some can of worms this thread open up. Just what dose all this talk about guns have to do with low T.

JRA

03-19-2010, 12:16 PM

I try to listen to all sides...

My homepage is MSNBC... but I pull up Drudge/Foxnews/WSJ as well. I listen to Sirius Patriot/Foxnews/Left...

I was listening to Sirius Left the other day... and this is why we are in such bad straights. A caller called in and actually said "I just don't get it, why would ANYONE be against free healthcare?" And the host said "I agree... those idiots on the right are just in it for the money."

I immediately saw that there is NO argueing with stupidity. I absolutely couldn't believe that this had really been said and then agreed upon. They really think that all this is going to be 'free' and they will get what all those 'damn rich people' have.

It is like my Brother-in-law said occurred right after the elections. He had a black female employee begin calling all the white employees 'crackers'. When he told her it was inappropriate, she said 'Obama won, I can call you whatever I want."

Another was a patient came into my office and when she was signing the information, releases, etc and was given the sheet which basically states 'you are responsible for your bill'. She said "I don't have to pay nuthin', I voted Obama for president."

I realized at that time, that her vote counted just as much as mine.............

The Foundation
"[G]iving [Congress] a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole [Constitution] to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. Certainly, no such universal power was meant to be given them." --Thomas Jefferson

Government & Politics
Constitution in the Shredder

"We are absolutely giddy over the great news that we've gotten," House Democratic Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) declared Thursday. No wonder. The Congressional Budget Office provided a predictable boost to Democrats this week with its "preliminary" estimate that the updated health care takeover bill (text here) would cost $940 billion over the next 10 years -- all without adding to the deficit.

If you believe that, we have some oceanfront property in Arizona for sale.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) cooed, "I love numbers. They're so precise." That is, if by "precise" she means bogus. The CBO is required to take legislation as it's written (or, more precisely in this case, how it's described), not necessarily as it will be enacted. The deficit-neutral finding is based on the Demo claim that increased taxes and shuffling Medicare and Medicaid expenses will "save" money. Cutting these entitlements, however, is easier said than done. Additionally, implementation is delayed, meaning there will be hardly any spending for the first few years under the bill. On top of that, a provision was recently added to the bill that ends student loan subsidies to lenders -- which conveniently accounts for nearly all of the $19.8 billion in deficit "reduction" that Democrats are touting.

As we have pointed out numerous times before, however, the money business is almost entirely beside the point. House leaders are trying to foist upon us an unconstitutional nationalization of the health care industry using a cowardly and unconstitutional method, namely, the "Slaughter Rule."

Because of the election of Scott Brown to the open Senate seat in Massachusetts, Democrats were forced to abandon their machinations in the upper chamber, though not before threatening to use "reconciliation" to jam the bill through on a simple majority vote. Now, the House is planning to "deem" the Senate bill passed, rather than vote on it, in a process known as a "self-executing rule." As Mark Alexander observed, "'Slaughter' and 'self-executing' may describe both the process and the electoral future of many Democrats in the House."

Columnist Tony Blankley explains, "[U]nder the proposed scheme, the Senate bill would be 'deemed' to have passed the House and become law without a presidential signature. Then the Senate would pass the House-demanded amendments, and the House members would then cast only one vote -- for the amendments they like, rather than the underlying Senate bill they hate. Thus (so Pelosi's theory holds) politically protecting House members, who could say they never actually voted for the publicly despised Senate bill." Profiles in courage, no?

Republicans attempted to force an actual vote on the bill, but Democrats defeated that resolution Thursday 222-203. A "vote" -- likely via the Slaughter Rule -- on the Senate bill is tentatively scheduled for Sunday. (Here's a list of Democrats who might need a little encouragement.)

Democrats don't care, but Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution is pretty clear: "[T]he Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively." If the bill passes the House via the Demos' trickery, no single bill will have passed both houses. Thus, we have a bill that is disliked by a strong majority of Americans, enjoys strong bipartisan opposition in Congress, and is being rammed into law via unconstitutional means. There's a word for legislation like this: illegitimate.

Barack Obama, a narcissist if ever there was one, has made clear that his presidency hinges on the passage of ObamaCare. Turning up the pressure, Obama met with "undecided" Democrats this week, no doubt to make them offers they can't refuse. After the meeting, Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) said, "We went in there already knowing his presidency would be weakened if this thing went down, but the president clearly reinforced the impression the presidency would be damaged by a loss. He was subtle, but that was the underlying theme of the meeting -- the importance of passing this for the health of the presidency." It should go without saying that Obama's ego is not sufficient reason for trampling the Constitution while wrecking the American health system. But, then again, who says elected Democrats are principled?

Dadnatron

03-19-2010, 12:40 PM

JanSz

Will you pull that image of the shotgun off. It screws up the entire thread readability.

Nothing against the thought... just the image size that is the problem

GirlyMan

03-19-2010, 04:24 PM

I immediately saw that there is NO argueing with stupidity.

Can't argue with that. :wink:

The rest of the debate I find very complicated and intricate with good points made by all sides. Still don't understand why they don't just open up the FEHB to everyone. (My guess is that the public exchanges will look very much like the FEHB.) Too damn easy or what? One of the most contentious points, federal funding of abortion, is already prohibited in FEHB plans "except when the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or when the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest." Guess if they went that route they wouldn't have much to argue about and they really seem to like having something to argue about.

JanSz

03-19-2010, 05:56 PM

It is also the best gun to keep by you bed for self defense.
My theory is, if someone breaks into my house late at night, I will be half asleep and I won't be able to aim and hit my target with a pistol, where using a shotgun I will just shoot in the direction of the noise, and I should stop the intruder.

A sawed off shotgun is the way to go for close combat. Just point and shoot from the hip if you have to. Won't miss much.

I am in NJ.
Is it legal to cut out part of the barrel?
Where to cut it out?
If I posted picture of my gun, hopefully someone could describe location of cut?
Possibly I could buy barrel that is already properly modified?

Assuming shooting while half asleep,
I guess, I should get some buckshoot.
something like
WINCHESTER 12GA 2-3/4" 9 PELLETS #00 BUCKSHOT
suggestions??

Any need to modify gun further to get bigger buckshot spread?

I was using this gun to shoot sharks,
so I was using single bullets.

..
..

JanSz

Will you pull that image of the shotgun off. It screws up the entire thread readability.

Nothing against the thought... just the image size that is the problem

Note,
picture is gone, replaced by link.

when I find a link to imageshack I may replace it again with more fitting picture size.

Sorry for inconvenience.
JanSz

.
.

Bulldog

03-19-2010, 06:02 PM

I am in NJ.
Is it legal to cut out part of the barrel?
Where to cut it out?
If I posted picture of my gun, hopefully someone could describe location of cut?
Possibly I could buy barrel that is already properly modified?

Assuming shooting while half asleep,
I guess, I should get some buckshoot.
something like
WINCHESTER 12GA 2-3/4" 9 PELLETS #00 BUCKSHOT
suggestions??

Any need to modify gun further to get bigger buckshot spread?

I was using this gun to shoot sharks,
so I was using single bullets.

..
..

I believe there is a barrel length requirement for the gun to be legal and not considered a "hand gun"....but I don't know what that length is.

That said, I also believe it is illegal to cut off a shotgun barrel regardless of the length you cut it to. Best bet would be to purchase a new shotgun with the shortest legal barrel possible. Pump action is preferable (for me anyhow).

JRA

03-19-2010, 06:08 PM

I am in NJ.
Is it legal to cut out part of the barrel?
Where to cut it out?
If I posted picture of my gun, hopefully someone could describe location of cut?
Possibly I could buy barrel that is already properly modified?

Assuming shooting while half asleep,
I guess, I should get some buckshoot.
something like
WINCHESTER 12GA 2-3/4" 9 PELLETS #00 BUCKSHOT
suggestions??

Any need to modify gun further to get bigger buckshot spread?

I was using this gun to shoot sharks,
so I was using single bullets.

..
..

To stay legal and have it done correctly, take it to a gun shop, they will know how short it can be cut down and can do it for you.

For a good load stopping load 00 Buck two rounds, then add a slug round.

JanSz

03-19-2010, 06:30 PM

I believe there is a barrel length requirement for the gun to be legal and not considered a "hand gun"....but I don't know what that length is.

That said, I also believe it is illegal to cut off a shotgun barrel regardless of the length you cut it to. Best bet would be to purchase a new shotgun with the shortest legal barrel possible. Pump action is preferable (for me anyhow).

Possibly there are shorter barrels, but now I have room for 8 shots (I think),
shorter barrels will hold less ammunition.

Now I have synthetic buttstock
could change to pistol-grip, ?????

.

..

JRA

03-19-2010, 06:38 PM

Possibly there are shorter barrels, but now I have room for 8 shots (I think),
shorter barrels will hold less ammunition.

Now I have synthetic buttstock
could change to pistol-grip, ?????

.

..

The barrel on the shotgun you have should be short enough.
You can order a pistol grip off the internet to fit your gun and install it yourself.

GirlyMan

03-19-2010, 07:35 PM

Possibly there are shorter barrels, but now I have room for 8 shots (I think),
shorter barrels will hold less ammunition.

Now I have synthetic buttstock
could change to pistol-grip, ?????

What the hell, Jan? You lookin' to go Rambo? Why? ... Don't. Let's just relax and see what happens. Rambo JanSz scares the shit out of me for some reason.

JanSz

03-19-2010, 09:04 PM

Medicare Advantage MSA

Someone please explain to me what is it.

I do not have it.

Should I look into it?

...
I am 70yo

..

LowT

03-19-2010, 09:04 PM

The barrel on the shotgun you have should be short enough.
You can order a pistol grip off the internet to fit your gun and install it yourself.

Bad mojo.

Jansz is (I believe) in NJ. They still have an assault weapons ban.

Much of what is being discussed here would be very illegal for him to do.

http://www.lcav.org/states/newjersey.asp#assaultweapons

New Jersey Revised Statutes §§ 2C:39-1w and 2C:39-5f prohibit the knowing possession of "assault firearms" (unless the purchaser or possessor is licensed to possess the assault firearm or the weapon is registered or rendered inoperable), defined to include:
...

A semi-automatic shotgun with either a magazine capacity exceeding six rounds, a pistol grip, or a folding stock (§ 2C:39-1w(3));

....

A completely stupid law, but it's there...

JRA

03-20-2010, 10:20 AM

Bad mojo.

Jansz is (I believe) in NJ. They still have an assault weapons ban.

Much of what is being discussed here would be very illegal for him to do.

http://www.lcav.org/states/newjersey.asp#assaultweapons

A completely stupid law, but it's there...

JansZ, Because you are living in a state with strict gun laws, it would be wise to just leave your shotgun the way it came from the factory.

You might want to check the laws in NJ regarding shooting someone that has broken into your house, it might be illegal to hurt the poor criminal.

crazycrew

03-20-2010, 10:55 AM

Possibly there are shorter barrels, but now I have room for 8 shots (I think),
shorter barrels will hold less ammunition.

Now I have synthetic buttstock
could change to pistol-grip, ?????

.

..

You might consider The Judge as a good option; it shoots .410 and 45 long. Slugs as well

Taurus Judge Magnum Edition which can fire 3" shot shells. The 3" shot shell 000 buckshot version contains 5 pellets, which makes it more effective as a self defense round

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurus_Judge

Bulldog

03-20-2010, 11:41 AM

You might consider The Judge as a good option; it shoots .410 and 45 long. Slugs as well

Taurus Judge Magnum Edition which can fire 3" shot shells. The 3" shot shell 000 buckshot version contains 5 pellets, which makes it more effective as a self defense round

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurus_Judge

That looks like a pretty decent self defense weapon. Too bad I don't have a handgun permit.

cpeil2

03-20-2010, 12:02 PM

Medicare Advantage MSA

Someone please explain to me what is it.

I do not have it.

Should I look into it?

...
I am 70yo

..

Why would you ruin a perfectly good thread by posting a question that's not off-topic?

My mom has Medicare Advantage. As I understand it, it is equivalent to Medigap coverage. It provides additional coverage over and above basic Medicare coverage. It is nearly always an HMO-style plan. You can't have both Medicare Advantage and Medigap - only one or the other. MSA is medical savings account.

cpeil2

03-20-2010, 12:06 PM

JanSz

03-20-2010, 12:13 PM

Why would you ruin a perfectly good thread by posting a question that's not off-topic?

My mom has Medicare Advantage. As I understand it, it is equivalent to Medigap coverage. It provides additional coverage over and above basic Medicare coverage. It is nearly always an HMO-style plan. You can't have both Medicare Advantage and Medigap - only one or the other. MSA is medical savings account.

How one gets Medicare Advantage
ask for it and gets it free of charge
purchase it
available only to certain kind of people
details

What is Medigap
same questions as above

----
I have only(plain vanilla) what I was offered on my 65th birthday
Is there more available (for free)
Is it wise to spend money on available offers?
Which ones?
I get (almost daily) many offers to supplement my Medicare, I newer look at them.

///
As far as I can tell, my doc is satisfied with my Medicare card.
Plus, all my care cost me a pennies as is.
Including my cancer removal surgery on my thigh.

If I show different card some docs may not accept it.

///
I finally decided to go for Green Laser on my prostate.
Will see how it goes, first appointment next Tuesday.
Will see how much it will cost me (under new President).

//

cpeil2

03-20-2010, 01:49 PM

Both Medigap and Medicare Advantage are supplemental coverage. You pay an additional premium to a third party for the supplemental coverage.

If it were me, I would not want to be on Medicare without supplemental coverage. A few years ago, before my mom had the Medicare Advantage, she had cataract surgery. Even with Medicare, the surgery still cost her over $1000 OOP. The Medicare Advantage would have kicked in and covered at least a portion of the OOP expense.

Medigap plans are completely independent of Medicare and tend to cost more. But I suppose they provide more coverage.

Medicare Advantage plans are an optional part of the Medicare program, even though provided by third parties. I don't remember what my mom's monthly premium is for the Medicare Advantage, but it is paltry - maybe $50/mo. It also includes prescription coverage with an annual cap.

As a matter of fact, a friend of mine is on a Medicare Advantage plan through Kaiser and his premium is $40/mo.

I have heard though that Medicare Advantage is on the chopping block.

JanSz

03-20-2010, 03:47 PM

cpeil2

03-20-2010, 04:50 PM

I had a serious surgery on my thigh to remove cancer, plus hospital stay few days
hardly any expenses
I had two laser surgeries on my eyes
hardly any cost

My dental implants cost a lot
same with my wife's
(probably 40k total)
wife had a bone transplants (and still keeps smoking)
luckily last few years we lucked out.

My reported medical expenses in tax return
2006 1062.00
2007 1122.00
2008 3861.00

//

I'm glad to know that you can get good health care on Medicare without paying for supplemental coverage. My sister is a CRNA at an enormous teaching hospital in the southeast. She selects my mom's doctors for her, and I imagine cost doesn't figure too much in her choice of provider.

Dr. John Crisler

03-21-2010, 09:08 AM

The REAL problem is the corrupt liberal media that lays prostrate for the Democrats. Not one honest evaluation of this issue from ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, etc.

IF the media would conduct themselves with the honor the Founding Fathers protected for them, none of this would be happening. As things are, they are nothing but a trillion dollar per year propaganda machine for Obama and the Democrats. Look how they got an individual who is obviously not qualified in any way to lead the greatest country on earth.

Over 90% of those in the news media call themselves Democrats.
"Prostitutes" fits, too. They act as if their job is to promote an agenda--not report news. I don;t know how they can stand to look themselves in the mirror, as they help destroy our beloved country.

Dr. John Crisler

03-21-2010, 09:10 AM

crazycrew

03-21-2010, 10:27 AM

Obamacare raises costs and lowers benefits.

Only a Democrat thinks that is a good deal.

Local judge wrote this about the Obamacare bill

Subject: : Judge Kithil of Marble Falls , TX - HB3200 highlighted pages most egregious

JUDGE KITHIL wrote:

"I have reviewed selected sections of the bill, and find
it unbelievable that our Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a bill loaded with so many wrong-headed elements."

"Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible
for the financial mess of both Social Security and Medicare programs."

"I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons.

To start with, it is estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees will be required to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. ."

JUDGE KITHIL continued: "Other problems I have with
this bill include:

** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance
to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.

** Page 58 and 59: The government will have
real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.

** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by
the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).

** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this
section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)

** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same
regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.

** Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration
care according to the patient's age.

** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a
prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.

** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates
advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counceling.)

** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify
which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on:

"Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not
apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick 'fix' to make the plan financially sound for their future."

Honorable David Kithil
Marble Falls , Texas

GirlyMan

03-21-2010, 11:51 AM

JUDGE KITHIL wrote:

"Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not
apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick 'fix' to make the plan financially sound for their future."

Given that every Representative and Senator who was first elected in 1984 or later is on Social Security as part of FERS, I'm gonna have to take the rest of Judge Kithil's comments with a grain of salt. Only Congresspeople who were elected prior to 1984 had the option of remaining in CSRS which doesn't have a Social Security Component. I find it more than a little troubling that a Judge would not know this.

cpeil2

03-21-2010, 12:13 PM

Given that every Representative and Senator who was first elected in 1984 or later is on Social Security as part of FERS, I'm gonna have to take the rest of Judge Kithil's comments with a grain of salt. Only Congresspeople who were elected prior to 1984 had the option of remaining in CSRS which doesn't have a Social Security Component. I find it more than a little troubling that a Judge would not know this.

I worked for the VA a long time ago. We didn't pay Social Security at all. Instead we paid into CSRS. I few years after I left federal employment, I heard that federal employees had started paying Social Security. How does it work now? Do they pay into both, or is CSRS optional?

GirlyMan

03-21-2010, 12:24 PM

I worked for the VA a long time ago. We didn't pay Social Security at all. Instead we paid into CSRS. I few years after I left federal employment, I heard that federal employees had started paying Social Security. How does it work now? Do they pay into both, or is CSRS optional?

CSRS has not been an option for some 25 years. Those who were already in CSRS at the time of the switch had the option of staying in CSRS or switching to FERS. Anyone hired after FERS was in place did not have an option. I was hired in 1988 (military service put my hire date for benefits purposes at 1985). I did not have an option. FERS has essentially 3 components. A pension equal to 1% of the high-three year salary average for each year of service (1.1% if you wait until 62 or older), Social Security, and what is effectively a 401K called the Thrift Savings Plan where the Government will match up to 5% of the individual's contributions.

The difference between CSRS and FERS is the amount of pension (CSRS gets 2% per year of service up to a limit which tops out at 41 years 11 months of service), CSRS does not have a Social Security component, and CSRS can still contribute to the 401K but don't receive any matching funds. And FERS does not have a ceiling on the pension, so presumably if I can just work for another 75 years I can get paid the same amount to stay home.

cpeil2

03-21-2010, 12:29 PM

GirlyMan

03-21-2010, 12:35 PM

Yep, it was longer ago than that. Do they pay into both FERS and Social Security now?

Yes. 1% into FERS, 6.2% into Social Security (of the first $106,800). CSRS employees pay 7%, 7.5%, or 8% into CSRS, nothing into Social Security.

cpeil2

03-21-2010, 12:49 PM

CSRS has not been an option for over 25 years. Those who were already in CSRS at the time of the switch had the option of staying in CSRS or switching to FERS. Anyone hired after FERS was in place did not have an option. I was hired in 1985. I did not have an option. FERS has essentially 3 components. A pension equal to 1% of the high-three year salary average for each year of service (1.1% if you wait until 62 or older), Social Security, and what is effectively a 401K called the Thrift Savings Plan where the Government will match up to 5% of the individual's contributions.

The difference between CSRS and FERS is the amount of pension (CSRS gets 2% per year of service up to a limit which tops out at 41 years 11 months of service), CSRS does not have a Social Security component, and CSRS can still contribute to the 401K but don't receive any matching funds. And FERS does not have a ceiling on the pension, so presumably if I can just work for another 75 years I can get paid the same amount to stay home.

Of course, at that time, I wasn't thinking much about retirement, but older employees closer to retirement talked all the time about how fortunate we were because CSRS cost us about what Social Security did but the benefits were quite a bit more generous.

GirlyMan

03-21-2010, 01:15 PM

Of course, at that time, I wasn't thinking much about retirement, but older employees closer to retirement talked all the time about how fortunate we were because CSRS cost us about what Social Security did but the benefits were quite a bit more generous.

Yes, most who had the option of switching from CSRS to FERS opted not to. It is not clear which plan is better assuming Social Security continues to exist. If Social Security goes kaput, well then it's a no-brainer.

Bulldog

03-21-2010, 03:37 PM

cpeil2

03-21-2010, 03:42 PM

No kidding. Chris Matthews should have been fired immediately when he said it was his "job" to make sure that Obama is successful. What a frigging Dolt!

Why? I don't think one would consider him journalist - he's a commentator, a pundit, who has never been shy about declaring his liberal views.

Bulldog

03-21-2010, 03:49 PM

Why? I don't think one would consider him journalist - he's a commentator, a pundit, who has never been shy about declaring his liberal views.

I consider him a journalist.

If you watch the video I posted (after you replied to my post) you will see that his colleagues feel the same way.

cpeil2

03-21-2010, 03:51 PM

Why? I don't think one would consider him journalist - he's a commentator, a pundit, who has never been shy about declaring his liberal views.

Let me expound on the above. I don't think one would consider him a non-partisan journalist whose job it is to objectively report the news.

Bulldog

03-21-2010, 03:53 PM

Let me expound on the above. I don't think one would consider him a non-partisan journalist whose job it is to objectively report the news.

I would have to agree with that. Which is why I don't even go out of my way to watch/listen to him.

cpeil2

03-21-2010, 04:11 PM

I would have to agree with that. Which is why I don't even go out of my way to watch/listen to him.

Right - and for similar reasons, most liberals don't spend much time listening to the high-profile conservative pundits.

JRA

03-21-2010, 05:06 PM

Right - and for similar reasons, most liberals don't spend much time listening to the high-profile conservative pundits.

Exactly what do most Democrats spend their time listening to?
Damn sure is not the American people.

I thought Carter was the worst President I can remember, but Obama is now in first place.

GirlyMan

03-21-2010, 06:48 PM

Exactly what do most Democrats spend their time listening to?

Well, I've been a registered Republican since the age of 18 so I can't answer that question. But I will say that I don't listen to any pundits. But I do try to read as many as I can. It's too easy to obfuscate your rationale and reasoning by injecting sensationalism and emotional appeals into video and audio commentary. It's much harder to cry or yell in the written word. (Those who can do it effectively are poets, not pundits.) For example, I look forward to reading both Krauthammer and Krugman each week. Opposing political views, but both reasonable men making reasoned arguments without appealing to gimmickry (in contrast to Beck and Olbermann, e.g.). Don't necessarily agree with either, but do look forward to reading what both have to say.

I will admit to watching CSPAN and the news on PBS and BBC America (great impassive, slightly bemused view of American politics) and listening to NPR (not sure why Dr. Crisler included them in his "corrupt" list, but I don't share that impression).

EDIT: Goddam, I'm watching some press conference now where Representative Bachmann just said "This is not the rule of law, this is the rule of man." Please, please become a Democrat Ms. Bachmann, I don't know how much more of this I can take. William F. Buckley is rolling over in his grave.

EDIT: From my brother, the actuary, "From an actuarial perspective, single-payer mandatory-enrollment is the only feasible strategy which can be sustained long-term, everything else is just politicking until we inevitably agree on that."

cpeil2

03-21-2010, 09:00 PM

I will admit to watching CSPAN and the news on PBS and BBC America (great impassive, slightly bemused view of American politics) and listening to NPR (not sure why Dr. Crisler included them in his "corrupt" list, but I don't share that impression).

I love reading the web edition of the Guardian for the same reason. I also like Deutsche Welle.

cpeil2

03-21-2010, 09:14 PM

EDIT: From my brother, the actuary, "From an actuarial perspective, single-payer mandatory-enrollment is the only feasible strategy which can be sustained long-term, everything else is just politicking until we inevitably agree on that."

Might this be the voice of pure, numbers-driven pragmatism, untainted by ideology?

seekonk

03-21-2010, 09:47 PM

I...will...refrain...from...participating...in...t his...thread. Nothing good can come of it. I...will...refrain...from...participating...in...t his...thread.

GirlyMan

03-21-2010, 09:51 PM

Might this be the voice of pure, numbers-driven pragmatism, untainted by ideology?

Yes, it might very well be ... my brother's an actuary, it is "the voice of pure, numbers-driven pragmatism, untainted by ideology". That's what actuaries do.

seekonk

03-21-2010, 09:59 PM

Quoting Ron Paul:

No one has a right to medical care. If one assumes such a right, it endorses the notion that some individuals have a right to someone else’s life and property.

Sorry, but that inference makes absolutely no sense in any logic that I am aware of (and as a mathematician I know various).

LowT

03-21-2010, 10:11 PM

Sorry, but that inference makes absolutely no sense in any logic that I am aware of (and as a mathematician I know various).

If a person has a concrete right to medical care but cannot afford it then it must be provided. Who pays for it? Who pays for the doctors' time? Who pays for the supplies, the medicine, etc? Those costs must be covered somewhere...if funded by taxes then those who have must be taxed to support others.

Do we make doctors work for free? Do you raise taxes on me to pay for others?

I'm self-employed. I pay for my family's insurance out of pocket. I'm also forced to pay "self-employment" tax into medicare etc. I still struggled to pay thousands of dollars in hospital bills last year. So now I'm going to be taxed so other people can get free care?

GirlyMan

03-21-2010, 10:16 PM

Sorry, but that inference makes absolutely no sense in any logic that I am aware of (and as a mathematician I know various).

I don't see how to draw it, either. And I'm not a mathematician.

Mark

03-22-2010, 12:22 AM

If a person has a concrete right to medical care but cannot afford it then it must be provided. Who pays for it? Who pays for the doctors' time? Who pays for the supplies, the medicine, etc? Those costs must be covered somewhere...if funded by taxes then those who have must be taxed to support others.

Do we make doctors work for free? Do you raise taxes on me to pay for others?

I'm self-employed. I pay for my family's insurance out of pocket. I'm also forced to pay "self-employment" tax into medicare etc. I still struggled to pay thousands of dollars in hospital bills last year. So now I'm going to be taxed so other people can get free care?

There will also be calls for price controls. The inference really isnt that difficult. The problem is making wishes and desires into rights without regard for the consequences. Too many people want to get benefits without caring how those are paid for.

GirlyMan

03-22-2010, 12:30 AM

The inference really isnt that difficult.

Not difficult at all ... unless you're looking for a logical inference ...

Dr. John Crisler

03-22-2010, 05:43 AM

Governor’s budget again proposes physician tax to help fund MDCH budget

Mar 9th, 2010 | By Ryan | Category: Capitol Corner
Gov. Jennifer Granholm led the presentation of the Executive Budget recommendations to the Michigan Senate and House Appropriations Committees for FY 2010-2011. Details indicate the budget will again this year show significant reductions in state funded programs. With the ongoing economic decline in Michigan, the budget is at least $1.6 billion short of what is needed to maintain the present level of state programs. To compensate for this shortfall, the governor proposed a series of tax cuts, increases and program reductions to bring spending in line with anticipated revenues for the year.

The budget for the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) did not escape further cuts in programs. Included in the proposed reductions were a 7.7-percent reduction in monies for local public health departments and the closure of the public health testing lab in the Upper Peninsula. These proposed cuts will obviously be very unpopular with the Legislature.

The governor also again proposed a 3-percent physicians tax or an additional 11-percent reduction to providers for Medicaid reimbursement if the physician tax is not approved. MOA joined with MSMS in immediately issuing a joint press release stating our continuing opposition to this approach to funding state health care programs. Both the proposed tax and potential 11-percent cut in provider payments are especially troubling at this time in our state. This kind of cut threatens the quality and availability of health care for some of the state’s most needy citizens.

Last year this same proposal was rammed through the House without allowing physicians groups a chance to testify in opposition. That development lead to approximately 1,000 physicians gathering at the Capitol steps to voice their strong opposition to the idea. The Michigan Senate defeated that version of the physician tax by a vote of 32 to 4.

MOA continues to speak out against the tax increase and the proposed additional cut in provider reimbursement. It is not clear what the future holds for either program, so please check the MOA website for later developments.

Dr. John Crisler

03-22-2010, 05:44 AM

If the 3% cut in reimbursement is passed, and this applies not only to physician services (E and M codes) but also to drugs infused or injected in the office, with the Medicare reimbursement based upon ASP (average sales price) plus 6%, then I as a rheumatologist will not be able to care for patients in my office who need infusion treatments. And realistically as a solo practitioner I can not purchase in bulk therefore pay a higher amount for these drugs–essentially getting ASP plus 2-3%. I would need to send these patients to the hospital inconveniencing the patient, decreasing my ability to monitor the patient, and at an extremely higher cost since it’s given in the hospital. Even the proposed SGR cut by medicare of 21% excludes infusible drugs. And those physicians like myself nearing retirement age may be forced to close our practices. I am born and raised in Michigan, have been in Warren for the past 32 years (29 in the same office), past chairman of the board of the Michigan Chapter of the Arthritis Foundation, and current president of the Michigan Rheumatism Society. These are tough times for all and I can appreciate the gravity of the economic climate, but to tax us in this way significantly limits patients’ access to needed treatment.

Dr. John Crisler

03-22-2010, 05:47 AM

...no suggestion of a special tax on lawyers, is there?!

And they mnake their entire income from the court system WE all pay for!

Gee, Madam Socialist Governor, too much trial lawyer money flowing into Democrat coffers to make the lawyers pay "their fair share"?

As Obama demonizes doctors...

Dr. John Crisler

03-22-2010, 05:48 AM

may19th2001

03-22-2010, 05:51 AM

Wow! That Tax sounds like a mess hopefully the law does not get passed.

I love the way the Obama administration demonizes physicians.

In Michigan the Dems tried like hell to push through a special 3% tax on all our doctors. Just the doctors (not lawyers, even though they make their livings through a court system we pay for). On our GROSS (like our ridiculous business tax--on gross, whether you made a profit or not).

Of course, politicians are lawyers, so they aren't going to do anything but promote their incomes. Trial lawyer money made sure Obama couldn't find one word of tort reform in 2,200 pages.

I asked my medical students how many of them would be moving to other states to practice if that special tax went through (after we paid to educate them). All 12 of them raised their hands.

This week our socialist Governor announced this Saturday will be "Meatout Day", in support of her radical PETA supporters. Our beef industry is wondering what they did to be attacked.

The Democrats have shown over and over again they absolutely hate business. The problems with our economy will only grow when those who have never tried to run a business are in charge of all business.

Dr. John Crisler

03-22-2010, 05:51 AM

No kidding. Chris Matthews should have been fired immediately when he said it was his "job" to make sure that Obama is successful. What a frigging Dolt!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbOVWwSZIDMYes, we have to take everything Matthews says in the light he is there to promote the Democrats. Not a "newsman".

Matthews has suggested he will run for publiic office--as a Democrat. Just what we need: another politician who has no idea how the world works.

Dr. John Crisler

03-22-2010, 05:52 AM

Dr. John Crisler

03-22-2010, 05:57 AM

Local judge wrote this about the Obamacare bill

Subject: : Judge Kithil of Marble Falls , TX - HB3200 highlighted pages most egregious

JUDGE KITHIL wrote:

"I have reviewed selected sections of the bill, and find
it unbelievable that our Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a bill loaded with so many wrong-headed elements."

"Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible
for the financial mess of both Social Security and Medicare programs."

"I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons.

To start with, it is estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees will be required to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. ."

JUDGE KITHIL continued: "Other problems I have with
this bill include:

** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance
to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.

** Page 58 and 59: The government will have
real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.

** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by
the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).

** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this
section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)

** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same
regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.

** Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration
care according to the patient's age.

** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a
prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.

** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates
advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counceling.)

** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify
which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on:

"Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not
apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick 'fix' to make the plan financially sound for their future."

Honorable David Kithil
Marble Falls , TexasHow many Americans know these things to be true?

(that is a rhetorical question, because) Why doesn't the media inform the Public of these things?

The Liberal Media is America's greatest traitor. A trillion dollar per year propaganda machine for the Democrats.

Ask yourself: IF the media truly investigated Obama, AND reported the facts, would he be President?

(another rhetorical question)

Dr. John Crisler

03-22-2010, 06:00 AM

The Constitution does not allow the government to force citizens to buy ANYTHING. Attorneys General of states all over the country will launch lawsuits against the Federal Government, HOPEFULLY jamming this nonsense up until the Republicans can come to power and straighten it out for us.

may19th2001

03-22-2010, 06:05 AM

He would not be President no solid proof of where he was born.
Also with how the medical system may be changing I wonder what will become of medicine, how will patients get the level of care they need with what he wants.
It may sound good to some FREE MEDICINE but not to others, taxes are going to be increased who knows what will happen if Obama gets what he wants.

How many Americans know these things to be true?

(that is a rhetorical question, because) Why doesn't the media inform the Public of these things?

The Liberal Media is America's greatest traitor. A trillion dollar per year propaganda machine for the Democrats.

Ask yourself: IF the media truly investigated Obama, AND reported the facts, would he be President?

(another rhetorical question)

Mark

03-22-2010, 08:49 AM

Not difficult at all ... unless you're looking for a logical inference ...

You already stated your opinion, now support rather than merely repeat it like a bumper sticker.

Dadnatron

03-22-2010, 09:29 AM

Truthfully this is what happens when you play games as a Congressman.

Republicans pulled Reconciliation crap several times while in power. Why would you have any issues when Democrats now do it? Republicans pulled Deem and Pass several times while in power. Why would you have any issues when Democrats do it now?
This is the idiocy which pervades our Congress. They think 'We have the power... lets use it! and screw the moral base.' However, they forget they WON'T be in power for long. There is ALWAYS a shift back and forth. And it is mainly because they keep going MORE AND MORE extreme when they finally get the power. From WAR to HEALTHCARE... in 8 years. Neither of which was truly beneficial to America the COUNTRY! They keep grabbing power for the Government but then they lose THEIR power, and the 'otherside' then gets to wield what was taken from the American people in a completely different way than intended. If the Republicans hadn't pulled this shady voting crap, it would have been harder for the Democrats to do it NOW! Bunch of fricken idiots... all of them.

I despise big parts of this bill. But there are parts which should have been done by the Republicans many years ago.

Dropping insured people because they become ill is ridiculous and goes completely against the principle of insurance in the first place.

However, this BILL has been touted as going "AGAINST INSURANCE FOR THE PEOPLE" and yet, the bill is over 2500 pages long. There is so much more in this bill which should NEVER be in an American Bill. The real issue is that it sets us up to fail completely as a medical system. Advances are based upon outcome. They are funded based upon profit. How much new research do you see coming out of England and Canada? The research you see is basically, How can we 'make due' with what we have more easily. When the Government funds research, it is often epidemiological research which basically just explains... "Yep... people are sick because they are fat and lazy."Its Lilly and Pfizer who say... "I am going to do something to fix this problem because I can turn a profit when I do."

There will be incredible rationing... and maybe... truthfully... that is a good thing. While Anti-American, maybe everyone DOES need access to 'good healthcare' but what will occur is that only those with SIGNIFICANT means will have access to GREAT healthcare. Sure... the Government will pay for your insulin... but they aren't going to be paying for your amputation because you won't quit eating brownies and ice cream. And the thing is, that NOW, you can do it yourself. But in the future, such a huge part of the population will become completely dependant upon the Government, they won't even understand WHY they don't have something, it will just 'be because' and there will be no recourse.

The one good point will be that at least I won't be blamed for all the problems anymore. We will go 'cash' basis for anyone. Up front... on the barrelhead. Otherwise, go see the public healthcare provider. I am sure he will be glad to take care of you... in about a month.

seekonk

03-22-2010, 10:38 AM

I'm self-employed. I pay for my family's insurance out of pocket. I'm also forced to pay "self-employment" tax into medicare etc. I still struggled to pay thousands of dollars in hospital bills last year. So now I'm going to be taxed so other people can get free care?

It is not free care. I have preexisting conditions, like most guys on this forum. Now I will actually be able to buy my own health care, despite my preexisting conditions, if I lose my job. Health care that cannot be canceled on me, or capped at an insufficient limit, despite my paying for it, when I get too sick. How is this free care? It is just putting the meaning back into the word insurance.

Do you have children?

I don't, yet my taxes go toward educating yours. It is natural to resent this kind of thing, and I certainly do resent paying for others' children's education, not to mention other people's wars. But how is this worse?

seekonk

03-22-2010, 11:06 AM

The Constitution does not allow the government to force citizens to buy ANYTHING. Attorneys General of states all over the country will launch lawsuits against the Federal Government, ...

I don't know if they really have a case. States already force people to buy car insurance.

Dadnatron

03-22-2010, 11:11 AM

It is not free care. I have preexisting conditions, like most guys on this forum. Now I will actually be able to buy my own health care if I lose my job despite my preexisting conditions. Health care that cannot be canceled on me, or capped at an insufficient limit, despite my paying for it, when I get too sick. How is this free care? It is just putting the meaning back into the word insurance.

Do you have children?

I don't, yet my taxes go toward educating yours. It is natural to resent this kind of thing, and I certainly do resent paying for others' children's education, not to mention other people's wars. But how is this worse?

Seekonk...

I agree and understand your point. I do have a question, and this is NOT to be abrasive or antagonistic in anyway.

WHAT is your perception for insurance?

What is 'insurance' for? Is it merely 'prepaid shared cost healthcare'? Or is it truly insurance against a future calamity or need outside of your ability to immediately pay?

The reason I ask is that I continually see people talk about 'insurance' as if it were merely 'prepaid' healthcare. If this is the case, then we need to change the NAME from insurance to something else. Then it would NOT be so problematic for me, anyway. The semantics really DO mean alot here.

Am I buying a product based upon RISK OF FUTURE NEED or am I buying a product for KNOWN AND EXPECTED healthcare? These are two completely different things... and should be CHARGED AS SUCH!

Buying Life Insurance of $1M to be paid no matter what basically says that the 'cost' to the buyer MUST EXCEED the cost of paying out the terms upon death. THIS is the same as 'prepaid healthcare' in which people know they are going to use the service (pre-existing conditions) vs someone who has no known issue and will likely NOT need the 'insurance' especially on a daily basis.

This is NOT a strike against pre-existing conditions, which are a HUGE problem and I recognize that people have problems. However, insurance is NOT insurance in these cases. It is merely a person wanting to pay a little to get alot more.

seekonk

03-22-2010, 11:32 AM

This is NOT a strike against pre-existing conditions, which are a HUGE problem and I recognize that people have problems. However, insurance is NOT insurance in these cases. It is merely a person wanting to pay a little to get a lot more.

I think any useful insurance scheme should provide protection against risk of future need. It is the nature of any such insurance scheme that a lot of people pay in a little more than they get out and a few unfortunate people get a lot more out than they pay in. There is nothing wrong with that - that is what insurance means. I don't think people really want to "pay a little to get a lot more". I think they would rather be healthy.

In any case, most people don't start their working life with preexisting conditions. They start out healthy and pay their insurance in good faith with the expectation of being protected in case of future calamity. Of course, as many currently find out too late, with the current system they really are not protected, since the insurer can drop them willy-nilly and they find that they have become "uninsurable". So for many the current system is really more along the lines of the prepaid healthcare model you mention, which is useless as insurance and should not be called such.

Dadnatron

03-22-2010, 11:54 AM

I think any useful insurance scheme should provide protection against risk of future need. It is the nature of any such insurance scheme that a lot of people pay in a little more than they get out and a few unfortunate people get a lot more out than they pay in. There is nothing wrong with that - that is what insurance means. I don't think people really want to "pay a little to get a lot more". I think they would rather be healthy.

In any case, most people don't start their working life with preexisting conditions. They start out healthy and pay their insurance in good faith with the expectation of being protected in case of future calamity. Of course, as many currently find out too late, with the current system they really are not protected, since the insurer can drop them willy-nilly and they find that they have become "uninsurable". So for many the current system is really more along the lines of the prepaid healthcare model you mention, which is useless as insurance and should not be called such.

I agree with the dropping... and I agree that something needs to be done for people with preexisting conditions. I think portability is the best thing however. That way, if you pay 'Anthem' from age 20-50 and don't use it then move to another employer and need insurance, the people you PAID and didn't USE will be responsible for you if you do. That way, there would be NO issue with pre-existing conditions. They didn't exist before you began paying for your insurance.

BUT I disagree with the thought that people don't want to get out more than they put in. Insurance by nature is INSURING against possible future need. That is why you have hurricane/flood/etc. insurance. It means there is a liklihood, but the amount is unknown. The 'risk' is there and shared among many. But if you KNOW you are going to have a hurricane hit and lose your home, what sense is there to provide 'insurance' on something you know there will be an absolute LOSS? Who would put 'their' money up for risk with a 100% knowledge of payout?

This is the issue with pre-existing conditions and I truthfully have no real idea how to fix it. But I appreciate your thoughts on the matter and the civil discussion.

cpeil2

03-22-2010, 12:31 PM

The one good point will be that at least I won't be blamed for all the problems anymore. We will go 'cash' basis for anyone. Up front... on the barrelhead. Otherwise, go see the public healthcare provider. I am sure he will be glad to take care of you... in about a month.

And I think that's a good thing. It's stupid that it is illegal in Canada to obtain health care privately. And even though it is illegal, it is widely done. Even in the UK, with it's nationalized health care system, private care and supplemental health insurance is available to people with the means to pay for it.

If you go to cash basis, you will be able to eliminate the infrastructure you have for dealing with third party payers, making it possible for you to lower fees and maintain, or maybe even increase your personal income.

cpeil2

03-22-2010, 12:44 PM

That way, if you pay 'Anthem' from age 20-50 and don't use it then move to another employer and need insurance, the people you PAID and didn't USE will be responsible for you if you do. That way, there would be NO issue with pre-existing conditions. They didn't exist before you began paying for your insurance.

Nice idea in theory. Unfortunately, throughout their lifetimes, most people have had health insurance through multiple carriers. I imagine that, over the course of my work life, between job changes, and employers switching carriers, I have been insured by 8 or 10 different carriers.

Dadnatron

03-22-2010, 12:51 PM

Nice idea in theory. Unfortunately, throughout their lifetimes, most people have had health insurance through multiple carriers. I imagine that, over the course of my work life, between job changes, and employers switching carriers, I have been insured by 8 or 10 different carriers.

What I am saying is that you keep the insurance you had at the beginning, regardless of insurer unless YOU decide to switch. Your employer simply pays the 'old' insurer. Of course there is an issue with discounts and type of coverage etc between employees, but that is better than simply requiring everyone to take people at whim.

As it is written, it is cheaper to pay the 2.5% yearly penalty on your LACK of insurance and buy it whenever you have a real problem (given that you can't be turned down for preexisting condition) than it is to purchase and maintain insurance. How many people pay MORE than 2.5% of their salary for insurance NOW?

It is cheaper to drop ALL insurance until you have something big then just go buy it. Wonderful bill... just wonderful... less than 12 hours old, and will already require a major fix!

joe143

03-22-2010, 01:25 PM

And I think that's a good thing. It's stupid that it is illegal in Canada to obtain health care privately. And even though it is illegal, it is widely done. Even in the UK, with it's nationalized health care system, private care and supplemental health insurance is available to people with the means to pay for it.

If you go to cash basis, you will be able to eliminate the infrastructure you have for dealing with third party payers, making it possible for you to lower fees and maintain, or maybe even increase your personal income.

Thats what scares me the most about this healthcare overhaul. What happens when Big Gov decides no more private insurance only government "approved" insurance. We are not there yet and I really hope it never comes to that.

LowT

03-22-2010, 02:32 PM

It is not free care. I have preexisting conditions, like most guys on this forum. Now I will actually be able to buy my own health care, despite my preexisting conditions, if I lose my job. Health care that cannot be canceled on me, or capped at an insufficient limit, despite my paying for it, when I get too sick. How is this free care? It is just putting the meaning back into the word insurance.

Do you have children?

I don't, yet my taxes go toward educating yours. It is natural to resent this kind of thing, and I certainly do resent paying for others' children's education, not to mention other people's wars. But how is this worse?

First of all, I don't have kids and pay the same taxes you do. I don't support the war either.

If you read the bill you will see that they are going to FORCE everyone to buy insurance. That's about as legal as the government forcing everyone to buy a Honda or get all the breakfast food at Walmart.

In addition, this is going to be enforced by the IRS...as if they needed more power.

If you look at the bill you'll see that for those people that make below a certain income their forced insurance purchase will be "subsidized" hmmm...from my taxes and your taxes no doubt which will of course increase.

You state:
I have preexisting conditions, like most guys on this forum. Now I will actually be able to buy my own health care, despite my preexisting conditions,

How is this fair?

If you have cancer and require half a million dollars of treatment, and you are able to buy "insurance" for $500 per month (or whatever) after diagnosis...who pays for your treatment?

Either the insurance company does, which will ultimate bankrupt them without government subsidy (our taxes) or they do go bankrupt at which point their members will be forced into government plans (the end goal).

Either way, taxes go up, care goes down.

Insurance is a numbers game. The company uses actuaries to crunch numbers all year long to determine the risk profile and stay above water.

If a business is forced to accept a $500,000 loss for a few thousands dollars of payment...what will happen?

Look at what you said:

if I lose my job. Health care that cannot be canceled on me, or capped at an insufficient limit, despite my paying for it, when I get too sick. How is this free care? It is just putting the meaning back into the word insurance

Health care does not equal insurance any more than your collision insurance on your car pays for your oil changes.

This plan is going to lower the quality of care and raise taxes. No one is getting anything. It's just a government power grab with lipstick on it.

You think this bill will pay for your TRT? Hah, in a few years TRT could be against the "standard of care" outlined in the bill and docs will be forbidden from prescribing it.

No one is getting help from this bill.

Bulldog

03-22-2010, 03:28 PM

First of all, I don't have kids and pay the same taxes you do. I don't support the war either.

If you read the bill you will see that they are going to FORCE everyone to buy insurance. That's about as legal as the government forcing everyone to buy a Honda or get all the breakfast food at Walmart.

In addition, this is going to be enforced by the IRS...as if they needed more power.

If you look at the bill you'll see that for those people that make below a certain income their forced insurance purchase will be "subsidized" hmmm...from my taxes and your taxes no doubt which will of course increase.

You state:

How is this fair?

If you have cancer and require half a million dollars of treatment, and you are able to buy "insurance" for $500 per month (or whatever) after diagnosis...who pays for your treatment?

Either the insurance company does, which will ultimate bankrupt them without government subsidy (our taxes) or they do go bankrupt at which point their members will be forced into government plans (the end goal).

Either way, taxes go up, care goes down.

Insurance is a numbers game. The company uses actuaries to crunch numbers all year long to determine the risk profile and stay above water.

If a business is forced to accept a $500,000 loss for a few thousands dollars of payment...what will happen?

Look at what you said:

Health care does not equal insurance any more than your collision insurance on your car pays for your oil changes.

This plan is going to lower the quality of care and raise taxes. No one is getting anything. It's just a government power grab with lipstick on it.

You think this bill will pay for your TRT? Hah, in a few years TRT could be against the "standard of care" outlined in the bill and docs will be forbidden from prescribing it.

No one is getting help from this bill.

If it ever comes to that I will be very tempted to treat myself now that I have seen the benefits of TRT.

LowT

03-22-2010, 03:39 PM

If it ever comes to that I will be very tempted to treat myself now that I have seen the benefits of TRT.

But how would you get your meds?

The offshore ordering has been shut down in many countries and if they started prosecuting people...

Bulldog

03-22-2010, 04:04 PM

I agree with the dropping... and I agree that something needs to be done for people with preexisting conditions. I think portability is the best thing however. That way, if you pay 'Anthem' from age 20-50 and don't use it then move to another employer and need insurance, the people you PAID and didn't USE will be responsible for you if you do. That way, there would be NO issue with pre-existing conditions. They didn't exist before you began paying for your insurance.

BUT I disagree with the thought that people don't want to get out more than they put in. Insurance by nature is INSURING against possible future need. That is why you have hurricane/flood/etc. insurance. It means there is a liklihood, but the amount is unknown. The 'risk' is there and shared among many. But if you KNOW you are going to have a hurricane hit and lose your home, what sense is there to provide 'insurance' on something you know there will be an absolute LOSS? Who would put 'their' money up for risk with a 100% knowledge of payout?

This is the issue with pre-existing conditions and I truthfully have no real idea how to fix it. But I appreciate your thoughts on the matter and the civil discussion.

When the company I work for switched from BCBS to a new insurance company the new company did not have any exclusions for pre-existing conditions. Everyone was covered immediately regardless of their medical history.

This just proves that we don't need the government to dictate that there be no pre-existing conditions exclusions. Let the free market dictate that. When businesses learn of some insurance companies like the one we now use not excluding for pre-existing conditions, then they will start to switch to those insurance companies which would force the others to match their coverage for pre-existing conditions, or lose business.

I'm getting more and more pissed off each day watching those jackasses in DC ruin our country. I will be voting every incumbent out of office. I hope everyone else will do the same. We must send them a very clear message.....that we will not buy what they are selling any more.

LowT

03-22-2010, 04:22 PM

When the company I work for switched from BCBS to a new insurance company the new company did not have any exclusions for pre-existing conditions. Everyone was covered immediately regardless of their medical history.

This just proves that we don't need the government to dictate that there be no pre-existing conditions exclusions. Let the free market dictate that. When businesses learn of some insurance companies like the one we now use not excluding for pre-existing conditions, then they will start to switch to those insurance companies which would force the others to match their coverage for pre-existing conditions, or lose business.

I'm getting more and more pissed off each day watching those jackasses in DC ruin our country. I will be voting every incumbent out of office. I hope everyone else will do the same. We must send them a very clear message.....that we will not buy what they are selling any more.

That's because you're under a group plan. I can tell you as a self-employed person that the employer pays for the group based on their medical treatment/history.

If I have 10 employees and they are all young and healthy I will pay less to cover them than I will to cover 10 employees with serious health histories.

You can't be refused under group coverage but your employer pays for it. That cost is passed on to consumers, business and employees. That's free market.

When the government mandates everyone be covered...the only people left to absorb the cost are the taxpayers, not through commerce but through taxation.

Bulldog

03-22-2010, 04:27 PM

That's because you're under a group plan. I can tell you as a self-employed person that the employer pays for the group based on their medical treatment/history.

If I have 10 employees and they are all young and healthy I will pay less to cover them than I will to cover 10 employees with serious health histories.

You can't be refused under group coverage but your employer pays for it. That cost is passed on to consumers, business and employees. That's free market.

When the government mandates everyone be covered...the only people left to absorb the cost are the taxpayers, not through commerce but through taxation.

They had no idea what my medical history was when our company was given the price for the premiums. We did not have to answer any medical questionnaires or anything like that. Unless they were getting information from my old insurance company or my doctors, which would be illegal.

Bulldog

03-22-2010, 04:29 PM

But how would you get your meds?

The offshore ordering has been shut down in many countries and if they started prosecuting people...

Not sure. Hopefully I will never have to figure that out.

crazycrew

03-22-2010, 04:33 PM

But how would you get your meds?

The offshore ordering has been shut down in many countries and if they started prosecuting people...
Move to a border town or where ever or what ever it takes to be healthy.

I know many like me, were basically subhuman before our treatments began and I for one will not under any circumstance allow myself to feel that bad again.

LowT

03-22-2010, 04:36 PM

They had no idea what my medical history was when our company was given the price for the premiums. We did not have to answer any medical questionnaires or anything like that. Unless they were getting information from my old insurance company or my doctors, which would be illegal.

I assume you work for a fairly large company then?

Bulldog

03-22-2010, 04:52 PM

I assume you work for a fairly large company then?

50 employees.

joe143

03-22-2010, 06:18 PM

Hah, in a few years TRT could be against the "standard of care" outlined in the bill and docs will be forbidden from prescribing it.

I don't see that ever happening. Not with all the money thats being poured into TRT/HRT.

Right now we have two big pharma companies producing two big products: Androgel and Testim.

In the pipeline there is another gel, an underarm application, possibly a nasal spray, and still possibly androxal.

I think the testosterone market was valued somewheres around 1 Billion. I'm not sure if that USA or worldwide. TRT won't go away.

What may happen is the top thought leaders will be run out due to restrictions and we will be stuck with less knowledgeable doctors. It will be harder to find doctors that understand estrogen, HPTA suppression, HCG usage. I pray this does not happen.

Hypogonadism is a recognized disease and I honestly believe each year it becomes more recognized. Not only because more men seem to be dealing with it but also study after study keeps coming out showing the real benefits of TRT.

This is all just my opinion and I could be horribly wrong.

cpeil2

03-22-2010, 06:45 PM

I don't see that ever happening. Not with all the money thats being poured into TRT/HRT.

Right now we have two big pharma companies producing two big products: Androgel and Testim.

In the pipeline there is another gel, an underarm application, possibly a nasal spray, and still possibly androxal.

I think the testosterone market was valued somewheres around 1 Billion. I'm not sure if that USA or worldwide. TRT won't go away.

What may happen is the top thought leaders will be run out due to restrictions and we will be stuck with less knowledgeable doctors. It will be harder to find doctors that understand estrogen, HPTA suppression, HCG usage. I pray this does not happen.

Hypogonadism is a recognized disease and I honestly believe each year it becomes more recognized. Not only because more men seem to be dealing with it but also study after study keeps coming out showing the real benefits of TRT.

This is all just my opinion and I could be horribly wrong.

But most of the thought leaders have cash-basis practices. You will see, as you do now, "less knowledgeable" doctors practicing in HMOs and such.

Dadnatron

03-22-2010, 06:51 PM

But most of the thought leaders have cash-basis practices. You will see, as you do now, "less knowledgeable" doctors practicing in HMOs and such.

Yep... you can pay for your crappy Government subsidized IRS madated healthcare.....

.

.

.

.

.THEN... when you want treated well... you can come pay me cash.

That should go over really well.

cpeil2

03-22-2010, 07:22 PM

.THEN... when you want treated well... you can come pay me cash.

That should go over really well.

I would hope it would be a sustainable business model, but, maybe not.

It is really amazing how much healthcare financing has changed in a few decades. I remember a story my mom told me. Shortly after my oldest brother was born, he needed surgery. They paid a deposit, the surgery was done, the hospital issued them a payment booklet and they made monthly payments until it was paid for. It took them a couple of years.

When I was a kid, most everybody had health insurance, but it was called "hospitalization" insurance. All it covered was hospital treatment. Everything else was pay-as-you-go.

I think it all changed in the 1970's when the HMO concept really caught hold. That's when health insurance became synonymous with pre-paid healthcare.

crazycrew

03-22-2010, 07:36 PM

Yep... you can pay for your crappy Government subsidized IRS madated healthcare.....

.THEN... when you want treated well... you can come pay me cash.

That should go over really well.

Would you accept a couple of chickens and a smoked ham for barter?

Mark

03-22-2010, 09:36 PM

Regarding pre-existing conditions there is health status insurance as a possible solution.

Dr. John Crisler

03-23-2010, 09:39 AM

Yep... you can pay for your crappy Government subsidized IRS madated healthcare.....

.

.

.

.

.THEN... when you want treated well... you can come pay me cash.

That should go over really well.Just like everywhere else socialized medicine has been imposed.

THIS is the actual reality of the situation.

cpeil2

03-23-2010, 11:59 AM

Regarding pre-existing conditions there is health status insurance as a possible solution.

Unfortunately it doesn't exist except in the minds of a few Cato Institute theoreticians.

JanSz

03-23-2010, 01:27 PM

Would you accept a couple of chickens and a smoked ham for barter?

Nothing is made anymore in USA.

Do they still raise chicken in USA or they are made in China?

,,,,,

JRA

03-23-2010, 01:32 PM

Nothing is made anymore in USA.

Do they still raise chicken in USA or they are made in China?

,,,,,

Your right even the president is imported.:biggrin:

JanSz

03-23-2010, 02:26 PM

Your right even the president is imported.:biggrin:

I have no argumet, it is hard to argue with facts.

..

cpeil2

03-23-2010, 03:06 PM

I have no argumet, it is hard to argue with facts.

..

We've heard from the tenthers and the birthers. When will the truthers chime in?

JanSz

03-23-2010, 03:24 PM

We've heard from the tenthers and the birthers. When will the truthers chime in?

It is not a fool moon, but I will check.

Let me see:

========================================
The Tenther movement is used to describe a political ideology and a social movement in the United States which espouses that many actions of the United States government are unconstitutional.[1][2] Adherents invoke the concept that the states share sovereignty with the federal government and with the people by citing the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as the basis for their legal and ideological beliefs:
“ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
========================================

Birther
A racist sore loser who can't deal with having a black president so they make up absurd conspiracy theories about Barack Obama's birth certificate.
========================================
9/11 Truth movement
Some of the organizations state that there is evidence that individuals within the United States government may have been either responsible for or knowingly complicit in the September 11 attacks.

/

Dadnatron

03-23-2010, 09:50 PM

Would you accept a couple of chickens and a smoked ham for barter?

yes... Yes I would...

crazycrew

03-23-2010, 10:04 PM

Would you accept a couple of chickens and a smoked ham for barter?

yes... Yes I would...

That's good because I truely believe that in the not to distant future there will be an enormous rise in bartering for goods and services

Dadnatron

03-23-2010, 10:06 PM

That's good because I truely believe that in the not to distant future there will be an enormous rise in bartering for goods and services

I agree... there will be alot of 'friends' helping 'friends'... the fact that they didn't know each other before a mutual need and 'agreement' was made will be inconsequential.

BTW... any 'friends' out there willing to 'help' me with a new deck and patio? I am certainly 'willing' to help out with your brain and spine.

crazycrew

03-23-2010, 10:26 PM

I had a girl friend years ago that called me I a spineless fool; does that qualify? :laugh:

crazycrew

03-25-2010, 08:10 PM

Below is a list of new boards and commissions created in the bill.

1. Grant program for consumer assistance offices (Section 1002, p. 37)
2. Grant program for states to monitor premium increases (Section 1003, p. 42)
3. Committee to review administrative simplification standards (Section 1104, p. 71)
4. Demonstration program for state wellness programs (Section 1201, p. 93)
5. Grant program to establish state Exchanges (Section 1311(a), p. 130)
6. State American Health Benefit Exchanges (Section 1311(b), p. 131)
7. Exchange grants to establish consumer navigator programs (Section 1311(i), p. 150)
8. Grant program for state cooperatives (Section 1322, p. 169)
9. Advisory board for state cooperatives (Section 1322(b)(3), p. 173)
10. Private purchasing council for state cooperatives (Section 1322(d), p. 177)
11. State basic health plan programs (Section 1331, p. 201)
12. State-based reinsurance program (Section 1341, p. 226)
13. Program of risk corridors for individual and small group markets (Section 1342, p. 233)
14. Program to determine eligibility for Exchange participation (Section 1411, p. 267)
15. Program for advance determination of tax credit eligibility (Section 1412, p. 288)
16. Grant program to implement health IT enrollment standards (Section 1561, p. 370)
17. Federal Coordinated Health Care Office for dual eligible beneficiaries (Section 2602, p. 512)
18. Medicaid quality measurement program (Section 2701, p. 518)
19. Medicaid health home program for people with chronic conditions, and grants for planning same (Section 2703, p. 524)
20. Medicaid demonstration project to evaluate bundled payments (Section 2704, p. 532)
21. Medicaid demonstration project for global payment system (Section 2705, p. 536)
22. Medicaid demonstration project for accountable care organizations (Section 2706, p. 538)
23. Medicaid demonstration project for emergency psychiatric care (Section 2707, p. 540)
24. Grant program for delivery of services to individuals with postpartum depression (Section 2952(b), p. 591)
25. State allotments for grants to promote personal responsibility education programs (Section 2953, p. 596)
26. Medicare value-based purchasing program (Section 3001(a), p. 613)
27. Medicare value-based purchasing demonstration program for critical access hospitals (Section 3001(b), p. 637)
28. Medicare value-based purchasing program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 3006(a), p. 666)
29. Medicare value-based purchasing program for home health agencies (Section 3006(b), p. 668)
30. Interagency Working Group on Health Care Quality (Section 3012, p. 688)
31. Grant program to develop health care quality measures (Section 3013, p. 693)
32. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 3021, p. 712)
33. Medicare shared savings program (Section 3022, p. 728)
34. Medicare pilot program on payment bundling (Section 3023, p. 739)
35. Independence at home medical practice demonstration program (Section 3024, p. 752)
36. Program for use of patient safety organizations to reduce hospital readmission rates (Section 3025(b), p. 775)
37. Community-based care transitions program (Section 3026, p. 776)
38. Demonstration project for payment of complex diagnostic laboratory tests (Section 3113, p. 800)
39. Medicare hospice concurrent care demonstration project (Section 3140, p. 850)
40. Independent Payment Advisory Board (Section 3403, p. 982)
41. Consumer Advisory Council for Independent Payment Advisory Board (Section 3403, p. 1027)
42. Grant program for technical assistance to providers implementing health quality practices (Section 3501, p. 1043)
43. Grant program to establish interdisciplinary health teams (Section 3502, p. 1048)
44. Grant program to implement medication therapy management (Section 3503, p. 1055)
45. Grant program to support emergency care pilot programs (Section 3504, p. 1061)
46. Grant program to promote universal access to trauma services (Section 3505(b), p. 1081)
47. Grant program to develop and promote shared decision-making aids (Section 3506, p. 1088)
48. Grant program to support implementation of shared decision-making (Section 3506, p. 1091)
49. Grant program to integrate quality improvement in clinical education (Section 3508, p. 1095)
50. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health (Section 3509(a), p. 1098)
51. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(b), p. 1102)
52. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(e), p. 1105)
53. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(f), p. 1106)
54. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(g), p. 1109)
55. National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council (Section 4001, p. 1114)
56. Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health (Section 4001(f), p. 1117)
57. Prevention and Public Health Fund (Section 4002, p. 1121)
58. Community Preventive Services Task Force (Section 4003(b), p. 1126)
59. Grant program to support school-based health centers (Section 4101, p. 1135)
60. Grant program to promote research-based dental caries disease management (Section 4102, p. 1147)
61. Grant program for States to prevent chronic disease in Medicaid beneficiaries (Section 4108, p. 1174)
62. Community transformation grants (Section 4201, p. 1182)
63. Grant program to provide public health interventions (Section 4202, p. 1188)
64. Demonstration program of grants to improve child immunization rates (Section 4204(b), p. 1200)
65. Pilot program for risk-factor assessments provided through community health centers (Section 4206, p. 1215)
66. Grant program to increase epidemiology and laboratory capacity (Section 4304, p. 1233)
67. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 4305, p. 1238)
68. National Health Care Workforce Commission (Section 5101, p. 1256)
69. Grant program to plan health care workforce development activities (Section 5102(c), p. 1275)
70. Grant program to implement health care workforce development activities (Section 5102(d), p. 1279)
71. Pediatric specialty loan repayment program (Section 5203, p. 1295)
72. Public Health Workforce Loan Repayment Program (Section 5204, p. 1300)
73. Allied Health Loan Forgiveness Program (Section 5205, p. 1305)
74. Grant program to provide mid-career training for health professionals (Section 5206, p. 1307)
75. Grant program to fund nurse-managed health clinics (Section 5208, p. 1310)
76. Grant program to support primary care training programs (Section 5301, p. 1315)
77. Grant program to fund training for direct care workers (Section 5302, p. 1322)
78. Grant program to develop dental training programs (Section 5303, p. 1325)
79. Demonstration program to increase access to dental health care in underserved communities (Section 5304, p. 1331)
80. Grant program to promote geriatric education centers (Section 5305, p. 1334)

crazycrew

03-25-2010, 08:10 PM

page 2

81. Grant program to promote health professionals entering geriatrics (Section 5305, p. 1339)
82. Grant program to promote training in mental and behavioral health (Section 5306, p. 1344)
83. Grant program to promote nurse retention programs (Section 5309, p. 1354)
84. Student loan forgiveness for nursing school faculty (Section 5311(b), p. 1360)
85. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors and outcomes (Section 5313, p. 1364)
86. Public Health Sciences Track for medical students (Section 5315, p. 1372)
87. Primary Care Extension Program to educate providers (Section 5405, p. 1404)
88. Grant program for demonstration projects to address health workforce shortage needs (Section 5507, p. 1442)
89. Grant program for demonstration projects to develop training programs for home health aides (Section 5507, p. 1447)
90. Grant program to establish new primary care residency programs (Section 5508(a), p. 1458)
91. Program of payments to teaching health centers that sponsor medical residency training (Section 5508(c), p. 1462)
92. Graduate nurse education demonstration program (Section 5509, p. 1472)
93. Grant program to establish demonstration projects for community-based mental health settings (Section 5604, p. 1486)
94. Commission on Key National Indicators (Section 5605, p. 1489)
95. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 6102, p. 1554)
96. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 6103(a)(3), p. 1561)
97. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 6103(b)(3), p. 1568)
98. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 6112, p. 1589)
99. Demonstration projects for nursing facilities involved in the culture change movement (Section 6114, p. 1597)
100. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Section 6301, p. 1619)
101. Standing methodology committee for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Section 6301, p. 1629)
102. Board of Governors for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Section 6301, p. 1638)
103. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (Section 6301(e), p. 1656)
104. Elder Justice Coordinating Council (Section 6703, p. 1773)
105. Advisory Board on Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation (Section 6703, p. 1776)
106. Grant program to create elder abuse forensic centers (Section 6703, p. 1783)
107. Grant program to promote continuing education for long-term care staffers (Section 6703, p. 1787)
108. Grant program to improve management practices and training (Section 6703, p. 1788)
109. Grant program to subsidize costs of electronic health records (Section 6703, p. 1791)
110. Grant program to promote adult protective services (Section 6703, p. 1796)
111. Grant program to conduct elder abuse detection and prevention (Section 6703, p. 1798)
112. Grant program to support long-term care ombudsmen (Section 6703, p. 1800)
113. National Training Institute for long-term care surveyors (Section 6703, p. 1806)
114. Grant program to fund State surveys of long-term care residences (Section 6703, p. 1809)
115. CLASS Independence Fund (Section 8002, p. 1926)
116. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 8002, p. 1927)
117. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 8002, p. 1931)
118. Personal Care Attendants Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 8002(c), p. 1938)
119. Multi-state health plans offered by Office of Personnel Management (Section 10104(p), p. 2086)
120. Advisory board for multi-state health plans (Section 10104(p), p. 2094)
121. Pregnancy Assistance Fund (Section 10212, p. 2164)
122. Value-based purchasing program for ambulatory surgical centers (Section 10301, p. 2176)
123. Demonstration project for payment adjustments to home health services (Section 10315, p. 2200)
124. Pilot program for care of individuals in environmental emergency declaration areas (Section 10323, p. 2223)
125. Grant program to screen at-risk individuals for environmental health conditions (Section 10323(b), p. 2231)
126. Pilot programs to implement value-based purchasing (Section 10326, p. 2242)
127. Grant program to support community-based collaborative care networks (Section 10333, p. 2265)
128. Centers for Disease Control Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
129. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
130. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
131. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
132. Food and Drug Administration Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
133. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
134. Grant program to promote small business wellness programs (Section 10408, p. 2285)
135. Cures Acceleration Network (Section 10409, p. 2289)
136. Cures Acceleration Network Review Board (Section 10409, p. 2291)
137. Grant program for Cures Acceleration Network (Section 10409, p. 2297)
138. Grant program to promote centers of excellence for depression (Section 10410, p. 2304)
139. Advisory committee for young women’s breast health awareness education campaign (Section 10413, p. 2322)
140. Grant program to provide assistance to provide information to young women with breast cancer (Section 10413, p. 2326)
141. Interagency Access to Health Care in Alaska Task Force (Section 10501, p. 2329)
142. Grant program to train nurse practitioners as primary care providers (Section 10501(e), p. 2332)
143. Grant program for community-based diabetes prevention (Section 10501(g), p. 2337)
144. Grant program for providers who treat a high percentage of medically underserved populations (Section 10501(k), p. 2343)
145. Grant program to recruit students to practice in underserved communities (Section 10501(l), p. 2344)
146. Community Health Center Fund (Section 10503, p. 2355)
147. Demonstration project to provide access to health care for the uninsured at reduced fees (Section 10504, p. 2357)
148. Demonstration program to explore alternatives to tort litigation (Section 10607, p. 2369)
149. Indian Health demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (S. 1790, Section 112, p. 24)*
150. Office of Indian Men’s Health (S. 1790, Section 136, p. 71)*
151. Indian Country modular component facilities demonstration program (S. 1790, Section 146, p. 108)*
152. Indian mobile health stations demonstration program (S. 1790, Section 147, p. 111)*
153. Office of Direct Service Tribes (S. 1790, Section 172, p. 151)*
154. Indian Health Service mental health technician training program (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 173)*
155. Indian Health Service program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 192)*
156. Indian Health Service program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 194)*
157. Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 204)*
158. Indian youth life skills demonstration project (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 220)*
159. Indian Health Service Director of HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment (S. 1790, Section 199B, p. 258)*

*Section 10221, page 2173 of H.R. 3590 deems that S. 1790 shall be deemed as passed with certain amendments

Bulldog

06-28-2010, 11:03 AM

Just a reminder how crappy this health care reform is.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR03590:@@@L&summ2=m&

Title IX: Revenue Provisions - Subtitle A: Revenue Offset Provisions - (Sec. 9001, as modified by section 10901) Amends the Internal Revenue Code to impose an excise tax of 40% of the excess benefit from certain high cost employer-sponsored health coverage. Deems any amount which exceeds payment of $8,500 for an employee self-only coverage plan and $23,000 for employees with other than self-only coverage (family plans) as an excess benefit. Increases such amounts for certain retirees and employees who are engaged in high-risk professions (e.g., law enforcement officers, emergency medical first responders, or longshore workers). Imposes a penalty on employers and coverage providers for failure to calculate the proper amount of an excess benefit.

(Sec. 9002) Requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer-sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employee's gross income (excluding the value of contributions to flexible spending arrangements).

(Sec. 9003) Restricts payments from health savings accounts, medical savings accounts, and health flexible spending arrangements for medications to prescription drugs or insulin.

(Sec. 9004) Increases to 20% the penalty for distributions from a health savings account or Archer medical savings account not used for qualified medical expenses.

(Sec. 9005, as modified by section 10902) Limits annual salary reduction contributions by an employee to a health flexible spending arrangement under a cafeteria plan to $2,500. Allows an annual inflation adjustment to such amount after 2011.

(Sec. 9006) Expands reporting requirements for payments of $600 or more to corporations (other than tax-exempt corporations).

(Sec. 9007, as modified by section 10903) Requires tax-exempt charitable hospitals to: (1) conduct a community health needs assessment every two years; (2) adopt a written financial assistance policy for patients who require financial assistance for hospital care; and (3) refrain from taking extraordinary collection actions against a patient until the hospital has made reasonable efforts to determine whether the patient is eligible for financial assistance. Imposes a penalty tax on hospitals who fail to comply with the requirements of this Act.

Requires the Secretary of the Treasury to report to Congress on information with respect to private tax-exempt, taxable, and government-owned hospitals regarding levels of charity care provided, bad debt expenses, unreimbursed costs, and costs for community benefit activities.

(Sec. 9008) Imposes an annual fee on the branded prescription drug sales exceeding $5 million of manufacturers and importers of such drugs beginning in 2010. Requires the HHS, VA, and DOD Secretaries to report to the Secretary of the Treasury on the total branded prescription drug sales within government programs within their departments.

(Sec. 9009, as modified by section 10904) Imposes an annual fee on the gross sales receipts exceeding $5 million of manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices beginning in 2011.

(Sec. 9010, as modified by section 10905) Imposes on any entity that provides health insurance for any United States health risk an annual fee beginning in 2011. Defines "United States health risk" as the health risk of an individual who is a U.S. citizen or resident or is located in the United States with respect to the period the individual is so located. Exempts entities whose net premiums written are not more than $25 million. Requires all entities subject to such fee to report to the Secretary of the Treasury on their net written premiums and imposes a penalty for failure to report.

(Sec. 9011) Requires the VA Secretary to study and report to Congress by December 31, 2012, on the effect of fees assessed by this Act on the cost of medical care provided to veterans and on veterans' access to medical devices and branded prescription drugs.

(Sec. 9012) Eliminates the tax deduction for expenses for determining the subsidy for employers who maintain prescription drug plans for Medicare Part D eligible retirees.

(Sec. 9013) Increases the adjusted gross income threshold for claiming the itemized deduction for medical expenses from 7.5% to 10% beginning after 2012. Retains the 7.5% threshold through 2016 for individual taxpayers who have attained age 65 before the close of an applicable taxable year.

(Sec. 9014) Imposes a limitation after December 31, 2012, of $500,000 on the deductibility of remuneration paid to officers, directors, employees, and service providers of health insurance issuers who derive at least 25% of their gross premiums from providing health insurance coverage that meets the minimum essential coverage requirements established by this Act.

(Sec. 9015, as modified by section 10906) Increases after December 31, 2012, the hospital insurance tax rate by .9% for individual taxpayers earning over $200,000 ($250,000 for married couples filing joint tax returns).

(Sec. 9016) Requires Blue Cross or Blue Shield organizations or other nonprofit organizations that provide health insurance to reimburse at least 85% of the cost of clinical services provided to their enrollees to be eligible for special tax benefits currently provided to such organizations.