dayman

This is true. The only scenario where it might get rehashed is if it were totally destroyed by SCOTUS and Obama won the White House and (somehow) the house as well. Then we can go ahead and start over... ...or we can move forward. Implement it, fix what doesn't work, change things that need to be changed...the issue of healthcare is a clear example of the GOP being simply "the party of 'no'."

I posted a road map for you to use to begin to educate yourself on some basic questions you seem to have (what is the fine? etc)...and you think I'm trying to fool you. I'm not trying to trick or fool you. I was actually trying to help you. Yes 3rdnlng I'm sorry but if you want to discuss this sort thing intelligently you will have to do some reading. It's ok though I'm sure you would survive it. As for the specific assertion I made regarding the enrollment periods I literally posted the section for you to read. If you don't understand what you are reading then read it again. If you don't understand what agencies do then wiki it. I can't sit here and just preach to you on every little thing... EDIT: Just realized btw I gave you the exact citation you need to find the info on the penalty as well. I've actually gone out of my way to HELP you answer these questions you have. To say I'm trying to dodge or confuse issues is retarded. I get it...it's too long and complicated for you. Same for me honestly. So here I am, helping you...sharing resources I have access to that help filter the content of the Act and make is usable... and what do you do? Nothing...you B word at me for helping you....call me a liar and fool...

3rdling what in God's name do you have that you would call "specifics?" Your forumla is as follows: 1. Make crazy uneducated vague/general attacking assertion, 2. Demand those you are talking with to produce an "answer" by rules you don't follow yourself. Troll in rare form. DC Tom not sure you've been reading the same thing I've been typing...idk what to tell ya...

LOL. GO DC TOM! Address costs! Let's see you do it! Go...do it! Woo...it's soo easy! If only Romney were in charge the costs would be all fixed!!! Wooo!

I talked earlier about my take on addressing costs and how no piece of legislation will do it. My thoughts are a mere page or two back as to how costs will hopefully come down as the industry reforms itself. Either way the GOP put forth no intelligent thoughts on any of this...it's all just "no, no, no." The PPACA does address costs in some measure where it can as well as fraud...how successful those particular parts of the bill will be is up for interpretation. The costs issue in particular is not something that is reasonable to ask be fixed with a magic document produced by either party.

If your stance is "nobody will do it" then fine. We'll see. Most health insurance professionals I speak with agree....it will in fact push most people into the market which is key to the success of the overall scheme. You think everyone will just say **** it when told they have to and shown new avenues to doing so? That's fine. I don't. Will some? Sure...and those people will have problems just like they do now. End of that discussion really. Good luck to ya w/ that.

How can the same people who say "the Bill doesn't address COST!!!" say what you said in that last paragraph? As for Romney repealing it...we'll see about that he's got to pull of the election first and I doubt he can. The SCOTUS threat is obviously real though. Nobody denies that. In some instances it outlines new things to be developed in other areas it is very clear. Same as many other pieces of legislation. I guess we could always so "oh well healthcare as is, is bankrupting the country but it's too complicated to reform so let's just do nothing"...I probably wouldn't vote for that but maybe others would idk...

It's not "God knows what" though. Yes it's a fat bill. It's complicated reform. Is it too big? Absolutely. But lets move on from the fact that large pieces of complicated legislation reforming an industry that is almost 20% of our GDP as a nation in a way that is politically possible is complicated. Of course it is. That's just life. And of course there are a TON of things yet to be hashed out. The Bill is designed to set a very loose framework outlining the reform. In some areas it's more concrete than in others. Now the relevant agencies will get to work promulgating rules and so on...SAME AS ALWAYS. This is just how it goes. This is what agencies do. They "work things out" most of the time not Congress that is just the reality of modern America. Whether or not this is desirable is another discussion all together ... but it is the way government works. As for the hypothetical you put forth, that just isn't going to happen. Assuming for sake of argument though that the Act would destroy us all and lead to the ruin of the country I would not be "so enthused" about the Bill, lol. If that answers you question. Anyway I've taken on the defender role here but it's not like I AM Obama. Just a reminder, I see it as progress. I see its repeal as backwards. I see a lot of misinformation and propaganda around it and I just want to encourage people to not parrot the totally ridiculous things they hear without some sense of...well...knowledge. These views seem (to me) to be perfectly fine, as are other reasonable views that disagree with them...but go ahead PPP make me an insane person if you want. I can deal with it.

You do realize that while people who otherwise cannot qualify at the time will be pushed into the market...so will everyone else that is currently uninsured...you get this? Healthy uninsured...becoming insured. Also when you say go on the government dole do you mean enter the exchange?

LOL are you trying to troll me? As I said right away "lock out period" is a term I used. The relevant portions address the enrollment periods and the bottom line is a (very) basic understanding of government and administrative law is necessary to get the idea that all the specific rules and enforcement of the scheme are yet to be formed. As is with almost every large bill passed by Congress. Like it or not we live in an administrative state. This issue is alluded to in the section I quoted and as you saw the companies themselves will have control subject to rules promulgated by the secretary.

Trying to confuse the issue by showing where the sections that address issues we are talking about are? Are you insane? Why not say what you really mean. He's bothering me by helping me see where to go to read about things I pretend to care about, and that sucks b/c I'd rather just talk out of my ass and say nothing works.

As a response to someone asserting that the absolute basic system provided no way for insurance companies to not go out of business. Think about that for a minute. If you say something like that...burden is on YOU to at least know what you are talking about.

LOL facade? If you want to look around for answers I pasted some resources I use to make it more manageable. Feel free to use them or not! I could care less. Search around for the word "penalty" would also be my advice that's what they call it in the Bill. Actually a quick search shows it to be in subsection C of 26 USCS § 5000A...so go ahead and google that. You are welcome.

If you want to dig into Title 1 more this may help...bellow is some basic info directing you to certain sections in Title 1 you may want to look at (which as I said is where most of the issues people talk about are) • Sec. 2701. Fair health insurance premiums, limiting rating to age, geographic area, individual or family unit, and tobacco use. (Health insurance issuers for individual and small group market. Also insurers of large groups if offered through exchange.) • Sec. 2702. Guaranteed availability of coverage. (Former sec. 2011). (Health insurance issuers offering individual and group coverage.) • Sec. 2703. Guaranteed renewability of coverage. (former sec 2012) (Health insurance issuers offering individual and group coverage.) • Sec. 2704. (former sec. 2701) Prohibition of preexisting condition exclusions or other discrimination based on health status. (Group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage.) • Sec. 2705. (former sec. 2702) Prohibiting discrimination against individual participants and beneficiaries based on health status. (Group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage.) • Sec. 2706. Non-discrimination in health care. This section both prohibits discrimination by insurers against providers operating within their scope of practice and against individuals in violation of section 1558, which prohibits retaliatory action against employees who complain about actions their employers take in violation of the reform act ( group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage.) • Sec. 2707. Comprehensive health insurance coverage. Requires insurance issuers in the individual and small group market to provide essential benefits under sec. 1302(a) and group health plans to comply with the cost sharing requirements of sec. 1302(a). • Sec. 2708. Prohibition on excessive waiting periods (over 90 days). (Group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage.) • Sec. 2709, Coverage for individuals participating in approved clinical trials (group plans and insurers in the group and individual market) • Sec. 2709. (Formerly 2733). Disclosure of information by health insurance issuers. • Sec. 2711. No lifetime or annual limits (group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage, more permissive rules for self-insured and large group plans.) • Sec. 2712. Prohibition on rescissions. (Group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage. • Sec. 2713. Coverage of preventive health services. (Group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage.) • Sec. 2714. Extension of dependent coverage. (Group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage.) • Sec. 2715. Development and utilization of uniform explanation of coverage documents and standardized definitions. (Secretary to develop standards. To be applied by health insurance issuers and sponsors of self-insured plans. • Sec. 2715A. Reporting of additional information. • Sec. 2716. Prohibition of discrimination based on salary. (Plan sponsors of group health plans other than self-insured plans.) • Sec. 2717. Ensuring the quality of care. (Group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage.) • Sec. 2718. Bringing down the cost of health care coverage. (minimum loss ratios) (Health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance coverage. Does not apply to self-insured plans.) • Sec. 2719. Internal and external appeals processes. (Group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage.) • Sec. 2719A Patient Protections. • Sec. 2722. (Formerly 2721). Exclusion of certain plans (i.e. governmental plans) • Sec. 2723. (Formerly 2722). Enforcement provisions. • Sec. 2724. (Formerly 2723). Preemption, state flexibility, construction. • Sec. 2725. (Formerly 2704) Drive through delivery. (Group health plan and health insurance issuer offering group and individual coverage.) • Sec. 2726. (Formerly 2705). Mental health parity (group health plan and health insurance issuer offering group and individual coverage.) • Sec. 2727. (Formerly 2706). Reconstructive surgery following mastectomies. (Group health plan and health insurance issuer offering group and individual coverage.) • Sec. 2728. (Formerly 2707). Coverage of dependent students during medically-necessary leave of absence. (Group health plan and health insurance issuer offering group and individual coverage.) • Sec. 2731 (Formerly 2711). Section rewritten as a limitation on guaranteed coverage based on network or financial capacity and transferred to 2702 • Sec. 2732. (Formerly 2712). Guaranteed renewability of coverage in small group market. (revised and transferred to section 2703)

Actually next time you say something retarded like "the Bill doesn't even address ____" and the Bill actually does...just admit you are a jackass. It's fine if you want to talk about things you don't know anything about (and admittedly are boring things that are hard to understand)...just know that when you say "it doesn't work b/c of _____" and there's something in there that addresses "_____"...that it's actually on YOU and not the rest of the world to follow up with more. You can still attack things feel free...but you can do so with at least some basic understanding I don't think that is too much to ask. Well a lot of the reform all works together. The basic outline of the Bill is as follows if it would help you look through it: • Title I, Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans (health insurance reforms) • Title II, Role of Public Programs (Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program) • Title III, Improving the Quality and Efficiency of Health Care (Medicare amendments, primarily to encourage quality and control cost, but including some benefit enhancements and provider payment reductions) • Title IV, Prevention of Chronic Disease and Improving Public Health (reducing barriers to clinical preventive care and encouraging wellness programs) • Title V, Health Care Workforce (additional support for educating and training health care workers and for community health centers) • Title VI, Transparency and Program Integrity (fraud and abuse and conflict of interest disclosure provisions as well as provision for outcomes research) • Title VII, Improving Access to Innovative Therapies (provision for the approval of biosimilars (generic biologics) and the expansion of the affordable medicines program) • Title VIII, the CLASS Act (a national voluntary insurance program for purchasing community living assistance services and support) • Title IX, Revenue Provisions • Title X, Strengthening Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans (the manager's amendment...should read rest of bill w/ this in hand) The "lockout period" once again is just the way I described it so don't fixate on that language...certain insurers controlling their own enrollment...so it's not like some scarlet letter is pinned to you and nobody will touch you for X-amount of time. More importantly to note is this entire concept is still a few years away and there's going to be regulations and private business decisions that continue to shape this concept. Point is under the reform you can absolutely still **** yourself if you choose to be irresponsible. (once again btw the majority of the hot button issues are all in Title 1)

Ok well dig away let me know what ya find I'm interested as well. I'm not trying to fool anyone here. Also just know that if you do go poking around into this bill you have to read the entire thing with Title X in hand (which was added as an amendment but not incorporated...as many of the provisions that appear in the bill are eliminated or substantially changed by Title X). Provisions of the PPACA were also further amended by the reconciliation act. So I'm not saying it's an easy task but ultimately what you are looking at can be found in Title 1 read w/ Title X/reconciliation act in hand....all while browsing regulations.gov and the CFR for proposed and existing rules further addressing the enrollment periods. (In other words your best bet is to find a scholarly synopsis and then check back to the raw material to confirm/better understand what the synopsis says).

zeitgeist from what I saw of the first one is pure sensationalism although it did bring a lot of people basic awareness that there is sure thing a Fed

Actually shouldn't the burden first be on those who make baseless claims that certain obvious things are not given thought in the bill? Am I here to fact check you and just field wild questions and go do research for you? Am I here to educate you? There is a clause that references what will occur. Also the current crop of preexisting injuries we are dealing with are to be dealt with in a variety of ways including the creation of high-risk pools and all this has a 90-day after enactment to 2014ish window...the issue of the abuse you all fixate on is separate from dealing with the current crop...the hypothetical incidents of abuse (which can't occur for years..that's why they are hypothetical at this point) will have problems when they suffer medical bills w/ no insurance same as they do now.

1. Abortion: Pro-death 2. Gay Marriage: The state of Texas should recognize my Massachusetts marriage to my tree 3. Prayers in school: Student led speech about things I like may be permissible... 4. Death Penalty: More death and victims should do it game of thrones style 5. Guns: in every house 6. Health Care: Scientology 7. War on drugs: keep the prisons packed 8. Taxes: tax everyone but me 9. Immigration: optional compliance 10. Illegal Immigrants: pro-death 11. Free trade: i like coffee 12. Military Spending: probably need more stuff all the time... 13. Foreign Policy: comply or die earth

If you choose not to buy, you are penalized by getting locked out for a period of time. You cannot simply choose to stay out despite the mandate and then take advantage of the preexisting injury deal at your leisure. Insurance companies are not worried about what you describe bankrupting them. It's just not one of the issues that is concerning everyone. Of course that isn't what I'm saying. Ok well first off I haven't read the damn thing. But that was the way it was explained to me by someone who worked with the creation of it (directly with members of congress and the white house) and who I know is qualified to speak on it (although certainly is not the God of all things related to the Bill). Anyway I did go ahead and tool around looking for somewhere in there I could reference. Obviously you can pick apart the specifics of what I said before but the idea is insurance companies still have some control over their enrollment. ‘‘SEC. 2702 ø42 U.S.C. 300gg–1¿. GUARANTEED AVAILABILITY OF COVERAGE. ‘‘(a) GUARANTEED ISSUANCE OF COVERAGE IN THE INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP MARKET.—Subject to subsections (b) through (e), eachhealth insurance issuer that offers health insurance coverage in the individual or group market in a State must accept every employer and individual in the State that applies for such coverage. ‘‘(b) ENROLLMENT.— ‘‘(1) RESTRICTION.—A health insurance issuer described in subsection (a) may restrict enrollment in coverage described in such subsection to open or special enrollment periods. ‘‘(2) ESTABLISHMENT.—A health insurance issuer described in subsection (a) shall, in accordance with the regulations promulgated under paragraph (3), establish special enrollment periods for qualifying events (under section 603 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). ‘‘(3) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall promulgate regulations with respect to enrollment periods under paragraphs (1) and (2). The plaintiff and the spill incident. The plaintiff, a 79-year-old grandmother named Stella Liebeck, was not driving, nor was the vehicle moving when the injury occurred. While the car was stopped, Mrs. Liebeck, who was sitting in the passenger seat, tried to hold the coffee cup between her knees as she removed the lid. The cup tipped over, spilling the contents into her lap. The injury. Mrs. Liebeck’s injury was anything but trivial. The scalding-hot coffee caused third-degree burns over 16% of her body, including her genital area. She had to be hospitalized for eight days. She required extensive skin grafts and was permanently scarred. She was disabled for a period of two years. During the ensuing trial, Mrs. Liebeck’s physician testified that her injury was one of the worst cases of scalding he’d ever seen. The coffee. At the time, McDonalds’ corporate specifications explicitly called for coffee to be served at a temperature between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit. An expert witness testified that liquids at this temperature will cause third degree burns of human skin in two to seven seconds. (Coffee served at home is typically 135 to 140 degrees.) McDonalds’ culpability. During discovery, McDonald’s was required to produce corporate documents of similar cases. More than 700(!) claims had been made against McDonald’s, and many of the victims had suffered third-degree burns similar to Mrs. Liebeck’s. Yet the company had refused to change its policy, supposedly because a consultant had recommended the high temperature as a way to maintain optimum taste. Some have speculated that the real reason for the high temperature was to slow down consumption of the coffee, reducing the demand for free refills. Greed? Despite the pain caused by her injury, and the lengthy and expensive treatments she required, Mrs. Liebeck originally offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. The corporation offered her a mere $800, so the case went to trial. The settlement. The jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages to Mrs. Liebeck, which was reduced to $160,000 because the jury felt that only 80% of the fault lay with McDonald’s, and 20% with her. They also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages, essentially as punishment of McDonald’s for its callous treatment of Mrs. Liebeck, and its years of ignoring hundreds of similar injuries. This amount was held to be reasonable given that it represented only two days’ worth of McDonalds’ revenue from coffee sales alone. The trial judge reduced the punitive damages, however, to $480,000. After further negotiation, Mrs. Liebeck ultimately received $640,000. When the first assertion is so broad and based w/ no "logic" of it's own how do you expect me to combat it with reasoned analysis? "The way the bill is written" will put insurance companies out of business? ok...

Well what is so unfair about that? And that McDonald's case is basically the face of propaganda for tort-reform.

Have good lawyers, pick a good jury, have an orderly presentation of evidence and clear experts. That's all you can do.

wise words from 3rdlng of all posters

If you choose not to buy, you are penalized by getting locked out for a period of time. You cannot simply choose to stay out despite the mandate and then take advantage of the preexisting injury deal at your leisure. Insurance companies are not worried about what you describe bankrupting them. It's just not one of the issues that is concerning everyone.

If everyone has a policy they aren't worried about it. Fact. And it's Mr. Dumbass. Pronounced due-moss.