Health care reform rollout timetable
Wonk alert! Official summaries and timelines for the rollout of health care reform are now posted on the Democratic Policy site. Presumably these do not yet include the changes made by the reconciliation bill now under debate.
One of the more striking highlights of this list: Each and every item on the list is a benefit to most Americans, which translates to an increase in disposable income or opportunity. It's going to be tough for Republicans to take this list to their constituents and threaten to repeal it.
2010 Provisions
Calendar year 2010
- Tax credit assistanceSmall businesses are eligible for a 35% tax credit; non-profits may receive up to a 25% credit.
- Medicare Part D "donut hole" begins to close. Seniors receive a $250 rebate for prescription expenses in excess of $2,830.00.
- Adoption Credit Increases adoption credit by $1,000, makes it refundable, and extends the credit through the 2011 tax year
- Health students' assistance - Expands student loan programs, scholarships and loan repayments for medical services students, also allows exclusions from gross incomes for health professionals serving in underserved areas.
March 23, 2010
- Federal grants to states to implement consumer assistance for complaints
April 1, 2010
- Medicaid - Allows states to opt to cover parents and childless adults up to 133% of the Federal Poverty Level and receive federal funds under the current (strengthened) formulas.
June 21, 2010
- High Risk Pools open for uninsured people. It's my understanding that unlike current state high risk pools, the costs on these will be subsidized and calculated as a national pool, spreading costs and risks across a wider group.
- Federal assistance for early retirees - helps companies continue insurance for employees age 55-64
July 1, 2010
- The John Boehner Tanning Tax - 10% tax on amounts paid for indoor tanning services
September 23, 2010
- Rescissions - Policies may not be rescinded when people get sick. This applies to all new and existing policies, whether through an employer or individual.
- Lifetime Limits - All lifetime limits on policies are eliminated.
- Annual Limits - All group and individual plans will have tight restrictions on annual benefit limits. There will be no annual benefit limits once the exchange comes online 1/1/2014.
- Preventative - 100% coverage for preventative health services.
- Improved claims appeal process.
October 1, 2010
- Community Health Centers Funding to strengthen existing community health centers and begin new ones in all 50 states.
- Primary Care Workforce expansion via additional funding for scholarships and student loans.
There are other 2010 changes targeted toward very specific situations. The ones listed above affect everyone, or the medical profession overall.
Joe Scarborough is calling it the biggest tax increase ever. That's his claim to fame for fighting against it for republicans.
Let's let the dust settle and see what Ameicans think of it. I'm thinking they're not going to want anyone to take any of it away from them.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Entitlement expansion has usually been opposed at first, but the benefits get taken for granted and viciously protected by the public.
That is the problem. We have an incredibly complex and expensive system of entitlements, but nobody ever has the political will or power to manage to cut them back when necessary.
Entitlements carry certain political hazards and costs that are almost never accounted for when passed through.
certainly are viciously protected.
There would have to be a threat to corporate welfare for it to be protected. As far as I can tell, both sides are quick to buy corporate support.
... in your personal timeline? You're a time-traveler who kind of skipped over all those retreats at luxury resorts, fleets of corporate jets, office remodels, and lavish bonuses on the taxpayer's dime under TARP?
I'm not sure what your point of disagreement is...
... is upon being reminded of corporate welfare entitlements, your remark isn't clear.
Is there NOT corporate welfare in your view? Is a bunch of angry voters not a threat? Did we all just imagine the banks getting our money, and I'm really richer than Croesus?
The US government is based on corporate welfare now, rather than the consent of the governed.
If forced to choose between voters and big business, our politicians will choose big business because the parties are entrenched and as long as the business-government cartel is maintained, the votes will follow.
There is no threat to corporate welfare because politicians won't dare threaten it, no matter what voters say.
ever-expanding police state
corporate personhood
never ending wars
unlimited lobbying
THOSE ARE ENTITLEMENTS!
Living healthy
living with dignity
those fit right in with LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS
Some stuff you can't make up!
In Texas we will secede to keep federal hands off our Medicare and Veteran's TriCare. This power grab at such a huge portion of our economy is cause to take up brick in defense of our muzzled grandmas.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Tell it to the judge
I heard one of your state's republican reps speak this morning and I swear, with a comment like this one, you should run for office. You can write just like that guy spoke when he spoke of the United States and Israel. He was seriously talking about the relationship of the two countries with a hit and miss point, one after the other.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
A Liberal in Texas is one who advocates giving someone a trial before they hang them.
Texans are like that.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Keep "federal hands" off of Texas' "Medicare and Veteran's TriCare"?!?!? THESE ARE FEDERAL PROGRAMS.
Short answer, yes he is joking and making fun of the mentality of some if not a lot of people.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
paying the export taxes we charge for the oil and gas you
people in the upper 49 will be paying through the nose for.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
They muzzle them before they kill them?
gets to have muzzles down heah, boy. We second that amendment.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
I would chip in for straitjackets for some of them.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Sec of Defense Gates says, "No negative effects of the Healthcare Bill for TriCare users."
and go ahead and secede... and we'll take back all the bases in San Antonio, All the Army Forts, the Johnson Space Center, and tons of other federal facilities, and you can then join Mexico.
So Long, sucker... don't let the door hit you on the way out !
An old retired fart.
I don't know if you or your Governor has given this much thought other that talking about it.
If you Secede from the USA, there will be no federal programs other that what your new country would give you. There will be no Military bases or federal offices in your new country.
I think your personal better option would be to be on the same plane with Rush, Glen Beck and the RNC to Costa Rica. I hear that there is a collection taking place to pay for the plane fair. So you may want to see about this real soon before your time would run out.
you'll have to leave those GOVERMENT-RUN PROGRAMS in the good ol' US of A, buddy. (snark)
“The greatest evildoers are those who don’t remember because they have never given thought to the matter, and, without remembrance, nothing can hold them back,”
Hey, it's Texas---don't you mean "musketed grandmas"?
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=...
“The greatest evildoers are those who don’t remember because they have never given thought to the matter, and, without remembrance, nothing can hold them back,”
After being reelected less than 6 months before, he said it was to be with his family because two of his boys are ill. One has Aspersers and I forget what the other has. Noble cause. Only he didn't stay home.
He went to work for MSNBC.
Now, what I'm getting at is this, med ins and two boys with pre existing conditions. It was going to bankrupt him. So he had to go to work,just for the insurance. And now that he has his whole family on the msnbc plan, he can assail others who are in the same situation.
I wish someone would ask him what he would do if he didn't have that job or if he didn't have med ins. What would he do if he couldn't get hc for his boys?
Real azzhole that guy.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
He did talk about how god awful expensive COBRA is but I don't recall his solution to that. Notice all the people on tv who are poo pooing this plan are people with plenty of money and insurance. Anytime a republican politician rips into the bill, someone should ask them, Why can't I have the same insurance plan as you have?
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
As much as I would like to see a good health care plan like this, because God knows my family needs it, what worries me more it what it's going to do to the national debt. All the money being handed out is borrowed money, add it to the $12 trillion in debt.
Too many people think the national debt is a mystical expanding number that will never come home to roost, that it will never really cause us problems.
Too many people are in for the worst lesson of their lives, there will come a day in the next 5 years when this program and others that borrow from other countries will end, the printing press will cease to hold it's magic, and we will have a reckoning.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
If we were so hot on fiscal conservativism, why not a single payer plan, funded by a modest tax increase?
Oh yeah, that "fiscal conservativism" shit only kicks in with "entitlement programs".... not the military or any of the other large holes we pour money into.
This was about satisfying a campaign promise for "reform". It doesn't really increase the tax burden as much as the talking heads are saying, but definitely doesn't help as much as the Obama administration is saying it will. Private insurance is the problem, not the solution.
those slobs should have tried to come up with a real plan, they should have given real bipartisan support in the effort. But this new health care law is going to cost us, to rest the White House's coat on a CBO report which does not account for all that is happening economically today is fool hardy IMO.
The GAO generates the financial reports for the US each year, it has long warned us about the unsustainable debt and long term fiscal obligations we have. This new law isn't helping.
Check out the debt clock, all of these areas covered can be backed up by the GAO http://www.gao.gov/financial.html The reason the numbers don't look so bad is because things like medicare is an off budget item, the reports state that.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
. . . then why is the rate for 30 year Treasury Bonds only about four and a half percent?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Because then the Insurance Companies would lose profits...because they wouldn't exist. Silly rabbit, the government is for corporations.
it is a tax increase. worse the benefits decrease over five years starting in 2014.
employers are essentially better off with all part-time workers.
Some stuff you can't make up!
.
vote for any Democrat if I come down with any diseases again. Are pear mutations and spinal dissonance covered?
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Growing a third pear definitely not good. You should get that looked at ricky. By someone other than yourself.
You get free care at the emergency room, dontcha know?
I just heard that one of the amendments the republicans are going to try to add to the bill is an amendment that will deny ED drugs to sex offenders. They are going to make democrats vote on amendments which they hope to use to embarrass the dems with in future political campaigns.
I don't recall any republicans complaining when insurance companies decided to cover ED drugs for men.
The republicans are making something as serious as healthcare into a freakin' game. I don't think they give a damn about the health of the public because if they did, they would have done something about it during the almost eight years that they ruled the roost. Ironically their claim to fame was sending thousands to be killed and injured in a war that was based on a lie.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Yup. And even a lot of Republic voters will see that these freaks are insane and care nothing about the base. These people will see that they are being used. Not all of them but enough of them.
For the Republicans, it's all just a big game called, "Do Whatever It Takes to Get Back in Power."
Public good? Acting in the interests of the nation? Nah! Just pure naked desire for power.
So many good things to repeal . . .
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
A few examples please . . .
The ban on drug reimportation, the ban on medicare drug price bargaining and the individual mandate.
but i don't believe the mandate will be going away. if the GOP overreaches, and their judges on the SCOTUS rule it unconstitutional, the natural fall back position is medicare for all.
acronym that celebrates their hollow past preserving the union?
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
This bill is crafted with the final goal being a standardized universal health care delivery system for all people. If the Dems had the political power to go after the health industries and get a public, single-payer system, it would have.
Since it didn't, it created a system that incrementally pushes everyone onto the government set up regulated insurance markets that can maintain somewhat unalienable coverage. The insurance companies needed to paid off so they got the mandate.
That is evidence enough to me to think that, if the mandate is blocked, the solution proposed would just be increased taxation (pushed down a few years of course) and increased subsidies to high-risk individuals.
Single payer/public option/Medicare buy-in are goals many people agree with. But this plan doesn't have even the seedling of a public option to build on. Aside from Sen. Sanders health clinics, this bill is a doubling down on for-profit health care and is clearly aimed at strengthening the for-profit system as the primary vehicle for delivering health care.
Single payer, non-profit, health care seems 180 degrees from there.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
is that a kool-aid mustache I see on your upper lip Brad?
You remember the movie "Sicko"? That movie was about insured people not being able to keep up with their premiums and deductibles.
Now we are all insured, privately, and will not be able to keep up with our premiums or deductibles because they reformed insurance, not health care.
A progressive's summary of this disastrous bill.
http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files/2010/0...
I hate this bill and have expressed as much in these comments.
All I am saying in the comment you quoted is that we should expect to see greater taxes and subsidies to offset the adverse selection problems of insurance companies if the mandate is blocked, not a public or single payer option.
That is not an endorsement of the bill.
As the President said:
Only problem is, it may not be in the bill. Or it's in there with a giant loophole. Not to fear, we are told, HHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius will issue regulations to fix this.
Unless, of course, the insurance carriers sue. Who knows? The amibiguity could be resolved by 2014.
Oh, and that donut hole doesn't close till 2020.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Come on Fiver, there are a lot of things wrong with this bill. Is it better than nothing. I think so. Is it better than talking about what should be in it but never getting in it because they could never get the votes? I think so. It will soon be time to start fixing what is wrong with it.It will never be what we all want though- at least not now. Maybe some day there will be single payer.
Nope! Not everyone will get the pony they want but they will most likely somewhere down the line at least get a pony.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
.
we won't have to wait for that.
These weren't broken campaign promises, these were pluses the Democrats were touting as recently as yesterday though I note karoli removed it from his list this morning.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
I know, I just wanted to point it out.
I really don't think it is. There is really nothing to handle overall health care spending, and so I don't think that this is sustainable.
If you look at Europe, they are barely able to maintain their health care spending because they have control over the pricing of health care services. Their doctors and hospitals make half of what ours do.
Major steps had to be made to the supply of health care, not to the supply of health care insurance, to make this a good bill.
That didn't happen.
Don't go telling us it is not all about who handles the paperwork. That ruins all the vitriol.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Because when you maintain the insurance carriers' immunity from consequential damages, it helps to put a fig leaf on it. God forbid if we were actually allowed to sue the vampires for all the harm they cause.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Hey folks...lots of informed people here. I'm a music teacher on 1099 (independent contractor) and have no health insurance. Can somebody explain/provide links for " Preventative - 100% coverage for preventative health services." This would be huge for me, as I haven't had a physical in years either. Is this for real? If so, what steps to do I need to take to get myself enrolled? I know that advice isn't the purpose of this thread but I was hoping somebody could steer me in the right direction or provide some info. THANKS!!!
You might call your local representative, hopefully he or she is a democrat. Maybe they could help you.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
benefits are for medicare doctor vists. But I am a Texan and will soon not have to worry about any of this.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
...and probly won't be able to help.
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
Are you doubting the Great Orange Boehner? He said they definitely did not.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Call a local heath center/clinic or whatever they may call it in your area. Ask them the same question you asked here. And /or do what POP said. The info is out there and should be easy to find. If you can't find it come back here and ask again. We will find it for you.
"and should be easy to find"
DUDE!!! (the bill is like 2700 pages) if you don't count the entire U.S. code that must be referred to.
(It'll take weeks to get an answer!)
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
But only hours if you ate it and have access to laxatives.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
this bill has very little to do with preventative healthcare...
("sickcare bill" is a better word for it.)
(my advice for preventative healthcare)? ...is learn how to take care of yourself!
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
In fact, the low penalty to the mandate and the requirement that insurance companies cover anyone despite prior existing conditions, I would say this system would lead people away from preventative care.
You think people would rather get sick and have to deal with that rather than try to prevent getting sick? Do you think they will say, What the hell? Why take care of myself when I can just be a pig and the govt will take care of me if I get sick? You might not be giving people enough credit for their decisions.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Yes I do.
They smoke, drink, eat McDonalds, any number of activities that jeopardize their health for the slightest modicum of enjoyment.
Lifestyle choices is as much a problem for this nation in terms of health care spending than lack of access.
The difference between you and me, apparently, is that you think people who behave in such ways are just being stupid, where as I am not so quick to judge the merits of lifestyle choices.
superior people. I am so glad I waited to allow it to reveal itself, instead of outing it for a concern troll. Where is Petey Wheatstraw when we need him?
What?
.
No, they're not.
Access to affordable healthcare (mind the word "affordable") affects most people, even if they don't know it yet. Most people don't know their insurance will drop them on the floor if they get really sick, whether by Big Mac overdose or whether by garden variety sickness.
We still treat lung cancer and mouth cancer, even though a lot of those cases are caused by people smoking and chewing tobacco -- I don't see people saying that we should eliminate smoking rather than having to deal with paying for cancer treatments (although cutting down on smoking ain't a bad idea).
Most of the people against this semi-turd bill from the right persuasion seem to be on about civil liberties and independence, which incidentally, telling people what not to eat to be able to get healthcare more or less contradicts.
Preventative medical care can stave off some of the worst outcomes, but we don't really see as much merit in funding it for one reason or another. Go figure.
Growing tobacco should be illegal. Then we'll talk about personal choices. 'Kay?
I don't deny that more use of preventative care would be great for health care spending, and I think that it is a good idea for people to pursue preventative care.
My point, however, is that studies have shown that increased access to preventative care does not correlate all that strongly to increased use of preventative care.
Lack of preventative health care traces more to people choosing other activities and expenditures rather than preventative care.
What studies?
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_res...
This points out a little, and I am looking for more.
Typically, however, when people are given cheaper health care, they either overuse it, killing efficiency by costing more with negligible improvement of results, or they use the same amount and push the savings over to something else.
The point is that you cannot manage preventive care, the behavior associated with it is far too complex.
NEJM has a different take on that:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/...
... and they say that it depends on the illness primarily. In some cases it's very effective, some cases, not so much. This is all from a cost/benefit standpoint.
From the humanist standpoint, better to prevent a disease than have to put someone through treatment.
... the same study that showed putting brakes in a car didn't correlate to people using them, so Toyota figured they didn't actually need brakes?
Or not having the money to cover preventative care. Just sayin'...
to buy an expensive insurance policy...
I will not be able to afford to buy my organic food and herbs...!!!
It will make it harder for me to take care of myself!
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
So you should have no objection to a single payer system, where it's just paid for by tax monies, and you don't have to pay any money for it directly (and definitely far below whatever you are paying now, slightly north of medicare taxation rates at the present)?
Not having healh care coverage in one way or another burdens society/the system, because when you become catastrophically ill, it distributes the cost among every else (as we do right now with unpaid ER visits).
My gripe is that forced money for *for profit* insurance companies is bunk when the federales can do it for less money and with more efficiency, without dropping people on the floor along the way.
...if we used war money to pay for it.
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
I'm fine with it one way or the other, but I'd suggest sending that in as a suggestion to your congresscritter.
(I'm a conscientious objector, by the way.)
...me too!
(on the healthcare issue) ...and illegal, unfounded wars
mandates to buy something or kill someone who did nothing (Is against my religion)
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
I was referring to the military (registered as a Conscientious Objector on the Selective Service form).
I also don't like the idea of being pushed into buying anything. My objection to the arguments on the thread are those that say:
1) We can "opt out" of society's requirements.
2) Preventative healthcare doesn't work.
3) Private insurance can somehow fix the problem.
Most of these are no-brainers, but I've explained my stance on them elsewhere in this discussion.
For number 2, preventive health care works.
It helps provide better health outcomes.
The issue is not full of no-brainers, however:
1. Preventive care is not a universal good. Preventive care can often be overused, resulting in lowered efficiency and higher costs. One cannot say that we will improve the system by providing preventive care because the system is far too complex and many parts of the system can suffer from preventive care provision.
2. Preventive care is more closely tied to psychological factors than it is to price. First off, people predisposed to using preventive care likely have access to it already and will begin to overuse it. People not predisposed to preventive care will not use it more, but will simply pass savings from price drops on to other (likely unhealthy) pursuits. Secondly, people are far more likely to pursue preventive care when they feel they have a constant goal for their health care. This means that price is not particularly important, but consistent medical oversight is.
If you want preventive care rates to rise, you have to address far more factors than just price constraints.
Or at least make that 30% available to cover more people.
I call BS... name one study. You can't just pull statistics out of your hindquarters.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3764055
Here is one old study that shows that preventive care utilization is determined by access to a constant provider and not price factors.
It is far, far more likely that the community health centers of Bernie Sanders will promote preventive care than any reform to health insurance.
FQHCs are great tools.
But health insurance is a freaking intellectually bankrupt concept in the first place. You're going to need medical care at some point in your life, so it's just a crapshoot as to *how much*. And putting that in the hands of people who would rather not pay out in favor of making the parasite class (investors) a little richer ... that smacks of disaster.
Which is what we're seeing now in companies like Cigna and Aetna. Love of money always trumps love of people in companies, that's the whole basis for capitalism.
Most people I know, including myself, have good health care plans. Almost all of them, including myself, only see a doctor when we get sick...and then only if we're really really sick. Why? Its usually pointless and costs $30 copay (and pay out the wazoo if I need any medicine or treatment, which I've never been seriously sick enough to shell out the cash for).
However, I'm glad others can now afford the same useless coverage. I'm sure people who regularly get sick or have serious health concerns will find it useful; and I mean that sincerely, good for the uninsured and elderly, this seems like an upgrade for them. Maybe someday I will find it useful as well...but hopefully I won't need it. Oh, I guess that goes to my original point, or Brad P's rather: I won't want it until i need it.
liberty flakes every morning. With milque and toast it is a part
of a healthy breakfast.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
liberty flakes...(sounds yummy)
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
in pre 9/ll thinking/lingo.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
... don't call it French Toast. It's pain perdu, 'lost bread,' a method developed for using up those last bits of stale bread, which is part of the garde manger philosophy.
Have at it.
Who are you and what have you done with Ricky?
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
freedom to choose, are we?
That's the only thing I worry about with this new bill, er law
Freedom to choose?
So, we can choose not to fund the military? Or medicare? We can choose not to serve the military (apart from religious or CO exemptions) when we reach selective service age?
Societies don't work that way. If you want in, you're in all the way. They tax you as a fine for not having insurance.
Personally, I like the single payer methodology -- everyone pays, no fines or anything, but at least we're not forced into subsidizing an industry that profits by denying people medical care...
. . . like refusing to allow our tax dollars to go for reproductive health care. But I guess only conservative morality counts.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
How we live our lives, meaning the vices that we have, how we eat, etc.
But there isn't any talk of taking that stuff away. It's still not illegal to not be a Christian, not speak English (though I'm sure they're trying to get that one put in somehow), not eat healthy foods, etc, etc.
One of the issues which has been explored was *why* people eat fast food ... and it doesn't always have to do with "they just like it better". Eating healthier is more expensive -- notice that anything made with crummy and/or unhealthy ingredients seems to be a tier cheaper than "health" foods. God forbid you have a wheat germ allergy or anything like that, specialty foods are even more expensive.
the job, I found out that it's cheaper to eat fast food than to buy/cook it yourself.
Most people that eat junk are tapped out busted.
a box of Kraft Mac & Cheese don't cost much!
But seriously, our tax dollars go towards subsidizing crappy food like corn syrup, GM crops, dairy on steroids, pesticided veggies, . . the list goes on.
. . . and I'm pretty sure it includes that box of Mac & Cheese. Is there anything recognizable as food in there?
Can't complain too much though. I'm pretty sure that Mac & Cheese and Ramen Noodles have gotten more kids through college than Sallie Mae.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
that for so long, plus you don't have to run any appliances to add to the utility bill if you buy the 99 cent specials.
Try feeding and housing 3 kids on on one (low) income, you'll see.
Takes you just as long to cook mac & cheese from scratch as it does to make the blue box version.
You STILL gotta boil water, and you still have to put a cheese-like substance on it. So why not buy pasta, and a block of real cheese?
I beg to differ...a proposed law in N.Y. state
"No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food for consumption by customers of such restaurant, including food prepared to be consumed on the premises of such restaurant or off of such premises," the bill, A. 10129 , states in part.
The legislation, which Assemblyman Felix Ortiz , D-Brooklyn, introduced on March 5, would fine restaurants $1,000 for each violation.
http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/local_news/ne...
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
laughing at Mr. Ortiz.
We've *proposed* laws far stupider than that. There's always some nut job out there who gets elected who wants to do some stupid thing or other. We'll talk if that crap ever gets signed into law.
Then again, you could have a state run by mormons outlawing miscarriages. Now *that* would be twilight-zoney. </snark>
If they find something you may not be insurable for years.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
If I ever have to go to the doctor...
(I will plead the 5th!)
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
you. Talk is cheap, isn't it?
You folks are a huge help...thanks again
In other words, when will women be forced to purchase separate abortion insurance?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
which is a sure sign they are in need of abortion services (unless they followed Louis the Gomert's advice and ate the bill. n which case it may be gas.)
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Gomerts Pile
Oh goody, if I get sick and Michigan opts into this I might get health care while I sell all my assets including my home. So I can live under a bridge, if I survive the treatment and the superbugs prevalent in hospitals here, which will get you if nothing else does.
Oh goody.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
That's the best we can do? Medi*caid* buy in? Seriously?
If we were going to go that route, why the hell didn't we just allow universal Medicare buy in, or even better, single payer?
The majority of the bill seems to try (and mostly fail) at doing the same thing that enacting a single payer system would have done. Fail.
I hope there's a better one.
So, if you pay $500 a month on perscriptions (which is not uncommon) you'll get a "rebate" of $250? I'm just curious about this rebate, how do you get it exactly, and what about the rest of the amount over
$2,830?
A $1,000 credit (I'm sorry, what's up with credits?) on adoptions? Yeah, that would have made a big difference on the $30,000. I paid to all the different U.S. agencies when I adopted my son.
Recission, unless something was passed that I'm unaware of (which is entirely possible) recissions are still allowed, it's just you have the "opportunity" to be heard by an independent panel. I read this in the bill prior to the day it was passed, so I don't think it's changed.
Step in the right direction? Just a teeny weeny baby step. The dem.'s are acting like they just won the Super Bowl, World Series, NBA championship, found a cure for cancer and the secret to eternal life.
Give me a break.
Yes. Thanks for pointing out more troubling details. The political victory for the Democrats became more important than the substance of the bill a long time ago.
My family has ties to the dem. party from many years past. But this, "the best we can do", turns my stomach. People like to say we progresives (I've always thought I was conservative, but that's another story) aren't being realistic.
But, with historic majorities and the will of the "sane" people behind them this is what they trotted out and tout as the second coming.
The leadership and the President never wanted anything better, so this is what we got.
Its the best they can do while still forking over huge sums of tax-payer money to the Insurance Industry. Meanwhile, we can all sit back and bask in the glory of the Democratic Victory! Just think how bad things would be (politically) if this didn't pass! Some Republicans might get elected (or not) and then, and then, and then!!!!
legal "illegal" spying, war criminals would run free, mercenaries would still be paid 400% of what our troops make, we'd still be in Iraq, we'd set up permanent bases in Afghanistan, Gitmo would stay open....
not that!!
keep you from going tits-up broke if you get really sick or injured, that will always be in the picture.
So long as my girlfriend can afford to get her tits up, that's all the health care we need right now.
Yeah, it would be hard for Republicans to campaign against the new health care law IF they told the truth. But they don't tell the truth. It will be interesting to see which lies they come up with between now and Nov.
We have already seen the lie that YOUR taxes will be raised -- the biggest increase in HISTORY. We have seen your grandma will be put to death. We have seen many, many others. What will be the next lie?
Face it -- Republicans cannot run on the truth.
Neither can the Democrats.
The TRUTH is absolutely NOT in the Washington DC lexicon.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
True Dat!
When is the Democracy Reform Bill timetable rolling out?
The truth in Washington is what YOU want it to be.
“The greatest evildoers are those who don’t remember because they have never given thought to the matter, and, without remembrance, nothing can hold them back,”
Thank you so much!!
I'm a little deficient in the lingo.
of adopting a child, it's been increased with this legislation.
Leave it to the IRS to explain it in a sentence or two.
http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc607.html
I'm sure you can't post everything, but when can older children be added back onto their parents' health plan?
Comments are closed on this entry