dayman

Clearly man on man is detestable. Clearly woman on woman is awesome so long as neither woman is butch. -Leviticus

Since you are correcting me I've noticed that a number of posters (not just you) don't understand the word is "emboldened." Just a small point to make sure I'm being a sufficient jackass in this response. As for your last point...there's some validity in that but you have to understand the enrollment periods are still subject to company control. If you choose to remain uninsured despite everything and you develop diabetes...yes at a later point you will most likely be able to receive a policy that includes helping manage your diabetes. But it's not going repay you for costs you incurred while you were not insured. As for B-Man and the tea party...lol As for 3rdnlng...do some looking around and educate yourself there's stuff everywhere. I'm not doing homework for you. I already know that mandate being toothless is not a big concern. If you insist it is, then you provide all these links you fixate on. Or just go ahead and refute the facts I have given whatever...point is I'm not making stuff up and never have been. Also I even went back and saw you edit some post accusing me of quoting you but changing the text in the quote! LOL...sorry dude...I don't know what your weird little mind does but that never happened.

The act does some significant reworking of both medicare and medicade (a big part of why it's so large). Of course it doesn't touch SS that has nothing to do with it and that's untouchable politically anyway (by anyone).

Yes 3rdnlng I make stuff up. I make this all up. The projections from a story I saw on the news so no there is no link. Had over 30M newly insured as a result of the mandate and somewhere right below 20M still uninsured. The actuaries for the insurance companies are fine with that and say they can comply with the guarantee issue under those circumstances. You can look around if you would like and produce evidence that the mandate WON'T WORK! But what you will find is in places like Massachusetts it has compelled over 400,000 people into the market reducing the share of uninsured individuals in the market to 1.9%. You can also see Switzerland and the Netherlands who have also achieved near universal coverage through the mandate. The mandate get's people into the market. There are a million reasons you can be unhappy with the ACA but the fact that everyone is just going to say "!@#$ off Obama" and not buy health insurance for themselves when it is made easier and mandated and penalized is not one of them.

I get it. "The mandate won't work." That's your take. Congratulations on that. The bottom line is all projections show the law would flush the market with over 30 Million newly insured people. Of course there will still be some people uninsured, no ****. The point is you help the market out so it can comply with the guarantee issue. The projections show that is the case. I'm sorry if you can't wrap your head around this. Whoo....don't you belong at a town hall meeting screaming your lungs off while dressed like a revolutionary soldier? IT'S ABOUT MAAAHHHH FREEEDDDOOOOOMMM!!! AND I HATE WHAT I SEE AS "INTELLECTUAL!"

Most of this bill is about reforming many of the entitlements you speak of, and then yes also regulating the healthcare industry, allocating more funds for fraud detection etc... You act as though it is creating a whole new entitlement...this bill has been framed as more than it is to be honest. As is well documented if you don't want to take responsibility for yourself and you are willing to shift the costs to the rest of us if/when the time comes then you suffer a tax penalty and you are free to continue to risk personal bankruptcy and all the other wonderful things that go with freedom from health insurance... ...very politically-charged, overblown dramatic take on the situation....that's my take anyway.

Why is it so bad for the country and freedom? Why do you really think this? You do realize there is nothing all that new in this Bill right? There is nothing radical. Nothing not kicked around before.

If by state the obvious you mean state what you want to state. The GOP method described there was "maybe we'll do almost nothing and pass a token easy small change here and there...but maybe we'll just do nothing."

LOL c'mon man. C'mon now.

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).