Straight Talk About Obamacare

[Gatefan1976]

But you will have Iphones, great Internet access and cable...............

[SGalisa]

sorry this posting went on endlessly, but *some* of it might be important?

If you want to know what the ACA really says, the full text with explanations is found here.

yes, that link was helpful and pretty much what I saw in some of the original AHCA bill.

BTW, just an FYI-- most of my comments are generic based and not intentionally directed at you--
SF_and_Coffee .. it's just that you seem to be the only person replying to this stuff so far..

...what you're reading about some kind of tracking of everyone's personal diet (and I'm afraid to even ask what you mean by "medical patches") is purest fantasy. I've been to the Natural News website in the past, and frankly 90% of what I've read there regarding the healthcare act -- and an awful lot of other things -- bears about as much relation or resemblance to reality as does Kim Kardashian to Joan of Arc. It's paranoia-mongering, plain and simple.

Not fantasy. Go to the direct sources, if any links are provided within any news site(s). This will verify if something is true or not.

As for medicinal patches being dispensed, try going to ask(dot)com's web search for "medicine+dispensing". Lots of stuff in there that come from other sources that are NOT Natural News articles. Even the weather(dot)com site had a few advertisements about such patches. There are patches to control smoking; dispense medicine (especially for the elderly) as long as the person wearing it applies it to their skin -- the medicine releases automatically whenever.. and there is also BIOtech research being done with Verichip ID and other ID systems in tracking its use for medical dispensing
(see
www(dot)facebook(dot)com/pages/VeriChip-Corp/110461862310056 ). The technology might be years away, but it is in development, and is NOT fantasy. Also try checking the medical research links directly at
www(dot)positiveidcorp(dot)com/

QUOTE---"PositiveID develops unique medical devices and biological detection systems focused primarily on diabetes management, rapid medical testing and airborne bio-threat detection. Its wholly-owned subsidiary, MicroFluidic Systems or MFS, is focused on the development of microfluidic systems for the automated preparation of and performance of biological assays."

Okay, wait, wait. The ACA ...is NOT going to be setting standards for medical care to any greater degree (if at all) than those standards are already being set by insurers themselves.

Latest (googled, bing, ask(dot)com search engines) News is that the insurance industries will be increasing their premiums (again!) to adjust in covering the costs for those who will be getting FREE health care (google the news for it), as noted by our amended USA gov't document. Toss out the old, bring in the new, and adjust accordingly.

Anyway, In the original AHCA document, it was discovered by those who read it and posted the information into the news (which was later verified by going into the actual document), that the AHCA bill not only amended an overhaul of the entire health care industry, but it also included amendments to other portions of the US Code. As best as my memory can provide, until I read the actual bill itself again (!) deeper, a partial listing of the other NON-health items are mentioned within the AHCA. The whole news debate that started all of this included questioning *WHY* are these other items being listed as being amended within a "HEALTH CARE" Act (Law), when they might only indirectly affect one's health to begin with.

Here is what the public is being fed up front and center--
"General Health care" - dietary intakes, prescriptions, financial provisions thereof

This is what was listed in other parts of the very same Health ACT/bill---
..education -- school systems in compliance with regulations being applied (enforcement of medical vaccines, etc. for students)
..housing (affordable and property taxes--what does this have to do with the Health care bill? Home Care for the elderly maybe? Assisted living?)
..Management of properties and care thereof (enters--the EPA!)
..transportation (reducing carbon footprint! keeping the air/land/water environments healthy)
..utilities *use of electric, gas, alternative solar/wind energy sources
..water -- how much (control) use of in and around home and property (watering outside grass, trees, garden, cleaning vehicles, power washing buildings), etc.

The ACA (and please don't call it "Obamacare" as that has been applied far too often as derogatory name for it and as such its use is not at all conducive to constructive discussion) is NOT going to be setting standards for medical care to any greater degree (if at all) than those standards are already being set by insurers themselves.

The entire ACT itself goes deeper by involving other gov't agencies (EPA being near the top of the list, which they'd have to be, if they are going to regulate the production of waste products and how to properly dispose of them, rather than having people flush everything down their toilets and the rest of us finding our water infested with traces of unwanted or toxic medical by-products!).
It's hinted between the fine printed Section numbers (refer to each sub-sub-sub.. paragraph changes).

I think that's why some of the news/radio/Tv media people stopped calling the bill a "HEALTH" bill and nicknamed it "Obamacare" -- because it mildly translates as a LAW bill of how and what Obama's Care system for the general public. More emphasis went into the "Health" title, because that is what the law-makers titled the ACT (law) as. So, it's not erroneous to refer to the entire ACT as Obama's Care system (his generalized *Care and well-being for everyone,* or "Obamacare") when the total comprehension of what exists within the bill is given under light of that total reference. Morphing the phrase together into a shorter nickname may end up sounding like a slur; but in its underlying essence, the bill is about President Obama's vision and his Administration's version of what the current health system needs to be overhauled into--so in that sense, it *is* appropriately conducive to constructive discussion.

Oh, also, hmmm.. what is the title of this (gw) topic? "...Obamacare" (in general)
I'm going to guess that it is otherwise more popularly known as---
*Obama's Care system for everything* written into the AHCA Law/bill.
So, referring to it as such now and then is not off-topic, but part of the entire conversation?


As for going to the gov't's web site(s), that's helpful to a point, when reading the (entire) (LAW)bill # itself--- actually, that in itself is not entirely very helpful, because one needs to read the entire US Code to totally understand *what* is being amended where (change this paragraph to read.. that). The actual details are in the FINE print (sub-sub-sub-sub-sub,etc. paragraphs.. that are embedded deeply between all of the other titles being amended in this particular ACT/bill. That is why compliance courses are taught all over the USA (and the world).

When the whole debates began over what was in the actual Health bill, there was an effort then, by our own gov't, to recommend educating the general public on these finer issues, but apparently no one paid much attention, because most people were hoping the issue would get dropped -- until now.

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

btw, I just clicked on one of the links at the provided PDF. Does anyone here understand what the following is referring to?
under the titled item labeled as--
'Title IX. Revenue Provisions'
"SEC. 1408. ELIMINATION OF UNINTENDED APPLICATION OF CELLULOSIC
BIOFUEL PRODUCER CREDIT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 40(b)(6)(E) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new
clause:
‘‘(iii) EXCLUSION OF UNPROCESSED FUELS..." and on and on it goes..

Are those the cellulose packaging around the actual pills (or medicines) being produced..? portions of the meds that do not vanish in the garbage dumps, which eventually seep into our aquafers, and toxic wastes produced thereof to make these things in the manufacturing industry plants that end up back into our drinking water, etc, because of poor disposal procedures.. And again-- enter the EPA for control thereof.
Our planet really does need to gain better controls against the waste products being tossed into the drinking water streams, etc. So, I'm all for whatever the EPA can do within reason to help make and keep us all healthy.

[Nolamom]

to my knowledge there has never been a bill passed through both houses of Congress that hasn't had all sorts of things tacked onto it. The Biofuel credit elimination (think ethanol) sounds like a big tack-on to me. However, it can be inferred to relate to the carbon-footprint part of things.

[SF_and_Coffee]

Sorry, but Mike Adams (the guy who runs Natural News) is one of the biggest quacks, crackpots and conspiracy nuts currently walking the planet. At least 90% of what's on his website is fantasy. I don't know what his problem is with science or with evidence-based medicine, but he's a loon. And I say this as someone who is a big supporter of natural health (witness my own story about getting off anticoagulant meds). This guy gives natural healthcare a bad reputation.

The stuff about utilities, energy, fuel, property, ect. including the cellulosic thing looks to me like the remnants of some unrelated riders attached to the bill. Didn't they teach you about that in civics class? I remember a huge discussion about it in mine back when I was in school, because all of us -- even the teacher -- agreed that it was kind of dumb. But Congress does that all the time to get stuff passed -- they'll attach a rider about one thing to a bill that's about something else. It's stupid, and I wish they wouldn't do it, but apparently it's been standard operating procedure for eons. None of this is anything having to do with healthcare, though.

As for "Obama's Care System"... no. For one thing, Obama didn't write this bill. It originated the way they all do, in a committee of Congress members. This particular plan actually originated several administrations ago. Roughly 80% or more of what's in there was originally proposed by Republican presidents and Republican members of Congress as far back as the 1970s. It's the Affordable Care Act. What's wrong with just calling it by its actual name? Seeking to rename something in order to discuss it is generally a sign of a dishonest approach to discussion. I'd hate to see this conversation devolve into that.

Oh, and the Positive ID thing? You did notice that it was related to medical assays, right? It's a system for processing lab tests. It isn't some kind of tracking chip or anything. It's laboratory equipment used to test samples -- you know, blood, urine, etc.? This is a prime example of why you really can't trust the conspiracy theorists.

Anyway, I'm done with this discussion if we're going off into conspiracy land. Bottom line, nothing in the ACA is going to adversely affect natural medicine, we're not all going to be chipped and tracked, I personally have very little patience for the idea that modern allopathic medicine cannot co-exist peacefully with nature-based treatments (I'm a huge believer in science, and if a natural remedy or treatment is shown scientifically to work, I will use it enthusiastically and I do, but stuff that's labeled "natural" is not automatically better than anything else) and conspiracy theories are a complete waste of time.

[Nolamom]

That's something I've noticed a lot of - people misunderstanding 1. the process of introducing and passing a bill; 2. terminology used. These two basic problems that seem to be rampant among the general public allow those with an agenda to spread reasonable-sounding garbage. As a result, a degree of hysteria emerges. I noted on FB several re-posts of faulty information that people were accepting as fact. There's too little fact-checking going on in the masses.

[SF_and_Coffee]

That's something I've noticed a lot of - people misunderstanding 1. the process of introducing and passing a bill; 2. terminology used. These two basic problems that seem to be rampant among the general public allow those with an agenda to spread reasonable-sounding garbage. As a result, a degree of hysteria emerges. I noted on FB several re-posts of faulty information that people were accepting as fact. There's too little fact-checking going on in the masses.

I've been seeing the same thing. I think that's what scares me sometimes... so few people seem to have really gotten a grounding in the way our government functions and also there appears to be a real gap in comprehension of the language involved. I'm not exactly sure where the problem arises, but if we as a general populace can't get it together and learn to properly understand what's going on, we're in for big problems down the road. Not that we aren't already seeing them begin to manifest in some areas.

[SGalisa]

to my knowledge there has never been a bill passed through both houses of Congress that hasn't had all sorts of things tacked onto it. The Biofuel credit elimination (think ethanol) sounds like a big tack-on to me. However, it can be inferred to relate to the carbon-footprint part of things.

That's probably about right--relating it to carbon fuels (ethanol), which is another topic in itself! Mild translation, EPA did get its digs in for sticking a non-health issue item into an update of the "HEALTH CARE Act."

What's wrong with just calling it by its actual name? Seeking to rename something in order to discuss it is generally a sign of a dishonest approach to discussion. I'd hate to see this conversation devolve into that.

If (generic) you want to write it out or copy/paste it's *full* official name out every time, it's mentioned, well, that's up to you.
I like the shorter acronym and personally would prefer to write that instead, but not everyone knows what the AHCA or ACA means. They instantly understand what "ObamaCare" translates to -- oh, that's that "Health Care" bill everyone is talking about... (like duh)..

As for "Obama's Care System"... no. For one thing, Obama didn't write this bill. It originated the way they all do, in a committee of Congress members. This particular plan actually originated several administrations ago. Roughly 80% or more of what's in there was originally proposed by Republican presidents and Republican members of Congress as far back as the 1970s. It's the Affordable Care Act.

Well, that's a matter of interpretation. Since the AHCA bill has been highly recommended by President Obama's right-hand Nancy Pelosi and a few others way up there under President Obama's Administration during his first 2 years in office, this is now Obama's *baby* so-to-speak; because it (the bill) is being (supposedly being) passed into actual enforcement during his term in office. He is (or seems to be) proud of it, too. So is President Obama's wife, Michelle.

Sorry, but Mike Adams (the guy who runs Natural News) is one of the biggest quacks, crackpots and conspiracy nuts currently walking the planet. At least 90% of what's on his website is fantasy.

Oh, and the Positive ID thing? You did notice that it was related to medical assays, right? It's a system for processing lab tests. It isn't some kind of tracking chip or anything. It's laboratory equipment used to test samples -- you know, blood, urine, etc.? This is a prime example of why you really can't trust the conspiracy theorists.

I'm not suggesting for you personally to read the articles, but to the general public (other readers) to *not* leave any stone unturned. IF possible, Learn what is written in / at all angles. I work with gov't documents every day, and personally, I find the outrage over some of EPA's changes in their regulations sometimes a bit disturbing. For the moment, there is no conspiracy going on (none that I can see/read within each regulated change, and that includes some of the questionable GHG ruling.. aka 40 CFR Part 98), until maybe someone high up on the ladder probably snaps and goes off the deep end. Are the companies being regulated learning by trial and error -- yes. Is that EPA's fault? or the fault of the agencies involved in the AHCA bill? No. If something seriously bad happens, they'll most likely learn from their own mistakes that perhaps one regulation was definitely a bad idea (for example, establishing "healthy" standards for adding GM pesticides into various crops which have now created *superbugs*).

*sigh* ..I merely mentioned Natural News (NN), because they were among the first news outlets to bring these health articles to light. NN is not the end all to everything. *sigh*
Therefore, focusing on what Natural News means to some people (as plain fantasy) does not explain nor answer the other media outlets occasionally writing articles with their attention turning now and then to the future of medical technologies
(which *MAY* eventually include RFID tracking of medical treatments, etc.). The problem is getting the bar code/tracking and other *dispensing* systems from (generic) your medical file into you--the person's own body--so it will always be permanently attached and never get lost.
(Nano-technologies? aka Star Trek, Farscape stories.. =)

Reuters and The Wall Street Journal are (supposedly reliable) reputable web sites and not Natural News. So, either the Wall Street Journal's authors have gone astray into limbo / conspiracy land or there is more truth out there that is being ignored. I'm only listing the below articles as examples of the more *reliable* reputation web sites about these sorts of things. In spoiler brackets...

Spoiler:

((links below are broken. Please remove B L A N K spaces in beginning of web address to access article/link for complete details))

"Should Every Patient Have a Unique ID Number for All Medical Records?"
By Michael F. Collins, "Yes: It Means Better Care"
By Deborah C. Peel, "No: Privacy Would Suffer"
January 23, 2012
http : // online .wsj. com/article/SB10001424052970204124204577154661814932978.html


"VeriTeQ Acquisition Corporation's VeriChip Technology Is the Original Universal Patient Identifier to Address National Need for Rapid, Accurate Access to Critical Patient Data"
posted to Reuters--Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:30am EST
http : // www .reuters. com/article/2012/01/25/idUS120140+25-Jan-2012+BW20120125


I believe this technology could be processed and enforced within my own lifetime. Technologies are growing in leaps and bounds! When and How such a system may or will be applied is still unknown. Biotechnology research is nothing new-NEW, since animals (dogs and cats) are currently being tracked with RFID chips (GPS) and given technie things to track their health progress while recovering during injuries or surgery.

The goal is to eventually do the same with humans, and see what else can be included under the umbrella of one techie device -- biologically friendly or not. Not everyone will be able to have such an implant inserted, because of allergies to the materials composed of within these devices, but research is still on-going on finding ways to work around that, from what I've read elsewhere on the internet.

That's something I've noticed a lot of - people misunderstanding 1. the process of introducing and passing a bill; 2. terminology used. These two basic problems that seem to be rampant among the general public allow those with an agenda to spread reasonable-sounding garbage. As a result, a degree of hysteria emerges...

The media is supposed to be an informative place to help guide people into what's news. However, I've noticed certain media sites seem to focus on scare-mongering just to see what kind(s) of reactions might result..

For example----Remember the 1938 (timeline?) "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast?
Some people actually thought there was a real invasion by alien space creatures about to attack the entire eastern USA sea-board. Millions drove west from the NYC metro locations and congested up traffic so bad, that *that* made major news headlines for 3 solid days. Anxiety and emotional tensions were so high that I'm sure there was more than just traffic back-ups on every roadway going westward.

Perhaps that is what the current media sites are purposely stirring up, just to get reactions and higher reading numbers into their web sites. IDK. But time will tell where the end results into all of these areas will be going.

[SF_and_Coffee]

Again... nobody's going to be barcoding people's bodies. Natural News is a bad example of an information source. The ACA is no more Obama's baby than anyone else's, and has its roots in Republican ideas as well as Democratic ones -- a fact I wish more people would bear in mind, given all the anti-Obama, anti-Democrat, anti-liberal rhetoric I've heard all over the internet and airwaves in relation to this topic.

[Goose]

It's the Affordable Care Act. What's wrong with just calling it by its actual name?

Obamacare sounds a lot scarier than Affordable Care Act. It's hard to scare people with affordable care.

[DigiFluid]

Something I came across late yesterday, a point-by-point breakdown of PPACA. Begin quote:



What people call "Obamacare" is actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, people were calling it "Obamacare" before everyone even hammered out what it would be. It's a term mostly used by people who don't like the PPACA, and it's become popularized in part because PPACA is a really long and awkward name, even when you turn it into an acronym like that.

Anyway, the PPACA made a bunch of new rules regarding health care, with the purpose of making health care more affordable for everyone. Opponents of the PPACA, on the other hand, feel that the rules it makes take away too many freedoms and force people (both individuals and businesses) to do things they shouldn't have to.

So what does it do? Well, here is everything, in the order of when it goes into effect (because some of it happens later than other parts of it):

Already in effect:

• It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices)
• It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less)
• It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( Citation: Page 665, sec. 1181 )
• It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. ( Citation: Page 499, sec. 4205 )
• It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered "pre-existing conditions" can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them.
• It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.
• It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( Citation: Page 923, sec. 5000B )
• It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won't get any more coverage because they have hit a "lifetime limit". Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can't tell that person that he's used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won't cover him any more. They can't do this for lifetime spending, and they're limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )
• Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26.
• No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19.
• Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans.
• People in a "Medicare Gap" get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend.
• Insurers can't just drop customers once they get sick. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2712 )
• Insurers have to tell customers what they're spending money on. (Instead of just "administrative fee", they have to be more specific).
• Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they're turned down.
• New ways to stop fraud are created.
• Medicare extends to smaller hospitals.
• Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.
• Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly.
• A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it: http://www.healthcare.gov/ ).
• A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness.
• A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they're not price-gouging customers.
• A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn't paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover.
• Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms.

8/1/2012

• Any health plans sold after this date must provide preventative care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge.

1/1/2013

• If you make over $200,000 a year, your taxes go up a tiny bit (0.9%). Edit: To address those who take issue with the word "tiny", a change of 0.9% is relatively tiny. Any look at how taxes have fluctuated over the years will reveal that a change of less than one percent is miniscule, especially when we're talking about people in the top 5% of earners.

1/1/2014
This is when a lot of the really big changes happen.

• No more "pre-existing conditions". At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history.
• If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee. This is the "mandate" that people are talking about. Basically, it's a trade-off for the "pre-existing conditions" bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can't just wait to buy insurance until you get sick. Otherwise no one would buy insurance until they needed it. You can opt not to get insurance, but you'll have to pay the fee instead, unless of course you're not buying insurance because you just can't afford it.
  Insurers now can't do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )
• Make it so more poor people can get Medicaid by making the low-income cut-off higher.
• Small businesses get some tax credits for two years.
• Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty.
• Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers.
• Cut some Medicare spending
• Place a $2500 limit on tax-free spending on FSAs (accounts for medical spending). Basically, people using these accounts now have to pay taxes on any money over $2500 they put into them.
• Establish health insurance exchanges and rebates for the lower and middle-class, basically making it so they have an easier time getting affordable medical coverage.
• Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won't be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen.
• A new tax on pharmaceutical companies.
• A new tax on the purchase of medical devices.
• A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they'll get taxed.
• The amount you can deduct from your taxes for medical expenses increases.

1/1/2015

• Doctors' pay will be determined by the quality of their care, not how many people they treat. Edit: a_real_MD addresses questions regarding this one in far more detail and with far more expertise than I can offer in this post. If you're looking for a more in-depth explanation of this one (as many of you are), I highly recommend you give his post a read.

1/1/2017

• If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPACA, they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers).

2018

• All health care plans must now cover preventative care (not just the new ones).
• A new tax on "Cadillac" health care plans (more expensive plans for rich people who want fancier coverage).

2020

• The elimination of the "Medicare gap"

Now I don't know what all of that means, and certainly not all of it has as many citations as I'd like. But the vast, vast majority of it seems terrific.

[Nolamom]

Digi - that is truly an excellent post. Extremely informative. Thank you for taking the time to put it all together.

[SoulReaver]

[*]If you make over $200,000 a year, your taxes go up a tiny bit (0.9%).

scandalous! that's nothing short of Communism

(God bless America etc.)

[lordofseas]

1/1/2017

• If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPACA, they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers).

I would put this a bit earlier.

[SF_and_Coffee]

Digi, great job in finding and posting that! Thank you!