Holy fucked up healthcare reform Batman!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mmm skyscraper]

Obama Legacy Might Be Hampering Health Care Reform

AP - April 1, 2217 - More than two centuries after St. Barack Obama the First proclaimed that he would be the last president to deal with health care reform, the High Panel of Experts is debating whether such proclamations should be taken literally. Before St. Barack's Ascension, he told a "joint session" of the Old American Congress (what today would be a plenary gathering of both members of the High Panel of Experts and the Total Planners Commission) that he would settle the issue of collective medical provision for all time. "I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last."

As we all know from our pre-pubescent data downloads, he was wildly successful, ending discussion of such issues for generations. Now that might be changing.

The problem, according to a minority of experts and members of the Suk guild, is that changes in diet, lifestyle and, of course, the radiation fallout from the Gamma Epsilon Implosion, have created new conditions that a centuries-old health care system is ill-eqipped to deal with. The fact, for instance, that some 30 percent of the population now have foreheads the same length and breadth of their torsos or that members of this transcranial community no longer consumes traditional foodstuffs is just one development the Old American Congress could not have foreseen. "Look, the Transcrans, don't even move anymore," argues Dr. Noonian Sung a reformer on the TPC. "It's all telekinesis with them. They don't even need to get out of their hover chairs to get their protein slushy goo drinks. Why is it heresy to suggest we need to adjust to new realities?"

Fortunately, notes Roy Batty of the Thomas Friedman Foundation for Efficient Decision Making, the Transcranials are largely self-sufficient and autonomous, asking little of the Hive while contributing a great deal. Batty even goes so far as to argue that by telekinetically turning the giant turbines that power our cities, Transcrans should even be exempt from mandatory consultation with Life Termination Panels at the age of 50 like most citizens.

One can't say the same about the Zombies. The health care needs of the differently-animated community are profound. Their diet of brains is not only expensive, but sustaining a steady supply of brain matter arouses political resentments among the sewer lurker community which has been assigned the job for years. At-home visits to Zombie families by feeder-nurse practitioners are costly and time consuming. "Yes, sure, it's all still covered by Medicare, but that's not really the point," says a Third Privy Actuary for the Second Tier Citizens of Zone Beta who declined to give his name. "The current system is just grotesquely inefficient. Look I light my candles to The One before I go to bed every night like everybody else. But let us remember the sacred texts. St. Obama said he was a "pragmatist" and that he just wanted to go with what works. If he were corporeal here on Terra Prime today, he would agree."

The General Secretary of the Plenary Session is less convinced. When asked for comment, Dr. Stepford replied that St. Obama said what he said and the time for bickering is over. He then asked this reporter for the names and domicile cube numbers of anyone who has suggested otherwise. He says they will be harvested for brains and protein goo immediately.

[Sean]

I've been noticing something on a much more obvious level in recent months regarding this health care debate. Typically on a lot of news shows and such, you hear a point, then a counter-point, maybe a moderate opinion to balance them out, and all have their own spin with their own evidence - cherry-picked evidence of course - to support their respective positions. But this debate has been amazing to me in that the opposition from Republicans in particular doesn't seem to even try going beyond "Nuh-uh. Obama's lying. He wants to kill your Grandmother with his death panels. He wants to insure illegal immigrants." But literally no one I've seen or heard argue these points has ever provided a single shred of evidence or proof to back up their claims. Not one!

I was listening to a conservative talk show host this morning, Dennis Prager, and his entire retort to the speech was "does anyone really believe what Obama said last night?" No points about erroneous figures given by Obama, or excerpts from proposed legislation that would counter Obama's points, not even any anecdotal evidence to counter the content of the speech. This is what I seem to hear the most. "Obama's lying". But it's never accompanied by any real explanation of what the supposed truth is. We're just supposed to take their word for it for some reason.

And of course there was Joe Wilson who shouts out "you lie" to Obama during last night's speech, but I haven't heard him explain what that lie is, or what the truth might be.

Or Betsy McCaughey, the guest on the Daily Show who tried with all her might for a really long time to show us exactly where these "death panels" are supposedly outlined in the healthcare legislation. Of course nothing she referenced actually said what she claimed it did.

And even earlier this morning, I threw on the news and flipped from CNN to MSNBC, to FOX. On CNN, they were talking about the speech, resulting polls about attitudes towards reform, Joe Wilson, etc. MSNBC was focusing a bit more heavily on Joe Wilson, but they too were focused on the content of the speech and reactions to it. FOX news was doing an exposé on ACORN (incidentally, the story about it from CNN here. My favorite quote: "The conservative filmmakers unsuccessfully attempted similar ruses at the group's offices in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Los Angeles, California, and New York, Levenson said").

And let's not forget Palin spouting her "death panel" claims repeatedly - although in her case we just know to expect random, made up stories. From her "bridge to nowhere", to "palling around with terrorists", to her chastising the news media for "makin' stuff up", to these "death panels", it seems to have become a habit for her to say whatever she thinks might destroy her opponents regardless of pesky things like "reality".

And lastly, people like our own Mongoose and people who I see writing in comment sections of articles are all following the same exact formula. Leveling accusation after accusation, but not worrying about ever having to provide any real evidence or facts to back up the claims.

So is it just me waking up to it, or is the amount of flat out, blatant lying getting more common? Didn't people at least used to bury their lies within misleading, cherry-picked facts? Sure, they were facts that they spun to high heaven, but at least they tried. No one even seems to be trying on this one. It's just a free-for-all, where anyone can say anything they want without having to prove it. It's frightening.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

YEAH!

Everyone just needs a good SPANKING!

& they like it.



I mean, are they lying or just using the wrong choice of words? Some dot connections are invisible or something.

[kagenaki koe]

in Olbermann's opinion, it's all about stupidity (you might need to ffd to 8:56):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#32790023

[the mongoose]

Originally Posted by jOHN rODRIGUEZ

I mean, are they lying or just using the wrong choice of words?

Many of the finer details are in this wonderfully accurate synopsis:

Immigration will affect and be affected by the health reform legislation being crafted in the U.S. House and Senate. There are around 12 million uninsured immigrants. Their presence means every provision designed to extend health coverage to those without insurance will potentially expand taxpayers’ costs by billions of dollars. Many immigrant households have children who are automatically eligible for government health care, even if their parents are here illegally.

Bear in mind, Government agencies and nonprofits often look only at income levels and similar qualifiers when enrolling new beneficiaries in public programs like Medicaid and SCHIP. They often overlook immigration status, even though that could disqualify someone from program participation.

Health reform legislation, particularly H.R. 3200, contains a number of provisions that open the door to taxpayer funding of immigrants’ health care. That’s for illegal aliens, legal aliens who are supposed to rely on their sponsor for financial assistance their first five years here, and certain immigrants who sponsor other immigrants.

In brief:

* Despite nominally barring illegal immigrants from receiving a health-insurance subsidy, an amendment to require that applicants be screened for eligibility — as are all other welfare recipients — was rejected on a party-line vote.

* Even legal immigrants whose sponsors are supposed to provide them financial support would be eligible for taxpayer-funded subsidies.

* Certain legal immigrants who qualify for premium subsidies or expanded Medicaid would also be able to sponsor new immigrants, whom they would have to pledge to support.

* Illegal immigrants would be exempt from the legal mandate to have health insurance, but they’d still receive taxpayer-funded medical services at health clinics and hospitals required to serve all those presenting with medical emergencies.

Taxpayer-Funded Premium Subsidy

H.R. 3200’s Title II of Division A relates to coverage. It creates a government agency to regulate health insurance. Individuals and employers will have to go through its “exchange” arm for government-approved health insurance, it will run the “public option,” and it will operate a graduated subsidy program.

Section 242(a) defines who’s eligible and for how many credits to receive a premium subsidy. The bill apparently qualifies all lawful permanent residents, regardless of their sponsor’s pledged responsibility or the required five-year bar from most means-tested programs. Sec. 242(d) excludes receipt of these payments from counting as welfare. Taxpayers will subsidize households earning up to 400 percent of the poverty level.

Thus, Section 242 generously subsidizes the foreign-born well into the middle class (up to about $88,000 a year income for a family of four). The money doesn’t count as welfare payment, which might potentially risk deportation as a public charge or jeopardize one’s ability to sponsor other immigrants. And the credits are available to sponsored legal immigrants and foreign-born sponsors themselves. The Senate Finance Committee’s health-care reform outline indicates that the bill will subsidize insurance costs for people earning up to three times the poverty income level.

The public charge doctrine is a longstanding U.S policy dating to colonial times. It’s supposed to protect the country from importing people who would become a burden on society. Would-be immigrants are denied visas on public charge grounds, but very few immigrants are deported for this reason any more. The 1996 welfare and immigration reforms strengthened public charge doctrine. Immigrant sponsors must now sign a legally enforceable affidavit of support. They must earn at least 125 percent of the poverty level. And their household income is deemed available to the immigrant applying for federal means-tested programs.

Because H.R. 3200’s provisions suspend welfare reform’s requirements, they weaken public charge doctrine. It creates a situation where sponsors of immigrants and the immigrants themselves can collect taxpayer dollars for health coverage, when immigration policy would require that they be self-reliant.

Section 246 states illegal aliens are excluded from receiving federal payments under the Affordable Credits subsidy. But there’s nothing requiring screening of affordable credit recipients, such as through the SAVE system. Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) offered an amendment in the Ways and Means Committee to correct that, but it was defeated along party lines. Senate legislation omits the same eligibility verification requirements that would ensure only lawful immigrants and U.S. citizens benefit under these programs.

Medicaid and SCHIP

Title VII under Division B of H.R. 3200 expands Medicaid eligibility to those earning one-third above the official poverty level. Thus, the minimum income required of immigrant sponsors, at 125 percent, will fall below the sponsors’ eligibility for taxpayer-funded health care for the poor, at 133 percent. The HELP bill (from the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee) expands Medicaid eligibility to 50 percent above the official poverty rate. That leaves an even larger gap, enabling immigrant sponsors poor enough to be on Medicaid to still bring in — with a promise to support — additional immigrants from abroad. Again, this aspect of the legislation undermines public charge doctrine.

Section 1702 of H.R. 3200 explicitly prohibits states, which administer Medicaid and SCHIP, from making further determinations about new enrollees’ Medicaid eligibility. One such provision requires states to presume someone’s eligibility. In other words, these provisions amount to“enroll first, don’t ask questions later.”

In the Energy and Commerce Committee markup, Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) offered an amendment to correct this. The Deal amendment would require a check of the eligibility, on immigration and citizenship status, of those being signed up for Medicaid. It would apply the same verification standards and use the existing verification system that’s in the Medicaid statute. This taxpayer protection lost on a largely party-line vote by a single vote. Senate legislation similarly omits any eligibility verification requirements.

Mandate Exemption

The Senate Finance Committee outline, like the HELP and House bills, mandates that individuals must carry health insurance or face a fine. The Finance outline says illegal aliens will be exempt from the individual mandate. This means Americans and legal immigrants must have health coverage or else pay a fine. But illegal aliens escape both the mandate and any fine for being uninsured. It appears that illegal aliens would be free riders, of sorts. They’d still receive taxpayer-funded medical services at health clinics and hospitals required to serve all those presenting with medical emergencies. Yet illegal aliens would be free from any responsibility or sanction that other people would bear.

Essentially, these bills expand government health coverage and taxpayer-funded subsidies for government-controlled private insurance and the public option. They make it easy to enroll new people in government-run health programs with what amounts to built-in willful ignorance about characteristics that would exclude them from qualifying, such as being here on temporary visas, still being under sponsorship, or being an illegal alien. And the bills make no provision at all for ensuring that only lawful U.S. residents and U.S. citizens benefit from these trillion-dollar health programs.

In short, the health reform plans on the table will create new incentives for illegal immigration.They’ll reward illegal aliens by giving them health care at no expense to them. And they’ll further weaken the important public charge doctrine that long served our national immigration policy so well.


Whew....so glad someone else said it.

[kagenaki koe]

Originally Posted by the mongoose

In short, the health reform plans on the table will create new incentives for illegal immigration.They’ll reward illegal aliens by giving them health care at no expense to them.

these illegal aliens want to be in the US because they can't get healthcare from their own countries?

it bears mentioning again, MEXICO AND CUBA BOTH HAVE FREE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE. so your fear of the US government extending US healthcare to those countries is retarculous (retarded + ridiculous). why would countries with universal healthcare want US healthcare that costs twice as much as what they get for FREE (if they stay in their countries)?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by the mongoose

Bear in mind, Government agencies and nonprofits often look only at income levels and similar qualifiers when enrolling new beneficiaries in public programs like Medicaid and SCHIP. They often overlook immigration status, even though that could disqualify someone from program participation.

So then let's find ways to be more thorough in our screening, but why should this prohibit us from reforming health care?

Originally Posted by the mongoose

* Despite nominally barring illegal immigrants from receiving a health-insurance subsidy, an amendment to require that applicants be screened for eligibility — as are all other welfare recipients — was rejected on a party-line vote.

How can someone be "nominally barred"? There really are no shades of gray with the word "barred". Either you're barred, or you're not. My guess is the author threw in the word "nominally" in a weak attempt to soften his admission that his entire argument is based on flawed reasoning. And of course if you're already on board with his thinking, then it would be very easy to just breeze on past this statement without a second thought.

Originally Posted by the mongoose

* Even legal immigrants whose sponsors are supposed to provide them financial support would be eligible for taxpayer-funded subsidies.

I'll just focus on the illegal immigrants.

Originally Posted by the mongoose

* Illegal immigrants would be exempt from the legal mandate to have health insurance, but they’d still receive taxpayer-funded medical services at health clinics and hospitals required to serve all those presenting with medical emergencies.

So then you think we shouldn't help someone with a medical emergency based on their immigration status? Some illegal immigrant comes into the ER with a severed hand from working on some farm in California, and we should just tell them they're on their own?

Originally Posted by the mongoose

Section 246 states illegal aliens are excluded from receiving federal payments under the Affordable Credits subsidy. But there’s nothing requiring screening of affordable credit recipients, such as through the SAVE system. Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) offered an amendment in the Ways and Means Committee to correct that, but it was defeated along party lines. Senate legislation omits the same eligibility verification requirements that would ensure only lawful immigrants and U.S. citizens benefit under these programs.

I want to look into this more, because what he proposed in his amendment, on first glance, seems pretty reasonable. I'm curious to see why it didn't pass.

Originally Posted by the mongoose

Medicaid and SCHIP

This was, again, all about the logistics regarding legal immigrants, so I'll skip ahead.

Originally Posted by the mongoose

The Senate Finance Committee outline, like the HELP and House bills, mandates that individuals must carry health insurance or face a fine. The Finance outline says illegal aliens will be exempt from the individual mandate. This means Americans and legal immigrants must have health coverage or else pay a fine. But illegal aliens escape both the mandate and any fine for being uninsured. It appears that illegal aliens would be free riders, of sorts. They’d still receive taxpayer-funded medical services at health clinics and hospitals required to serve all those presenting with medical emergencies. Yet illegal aliens would be free from any responsibility or sanction that other people would bear.

This is bizarre logic to me. Illegals are, according to this author, "barred" from receiving health-insurance subsidies, and yet he wants them to be fined if they don't have health insurance? In my opinion, we should not be fining them for not having something that we're making unattainable to them in the first place.

Originally Posted by the mongoose

In short, the health reform plans on the table will create new incentives for illegal immigration.They’ll reward illegal aliens by giving them health care at no expense to them. And they’ll further weaken the important public charge doctrine that long served our national immigration policy so well.

Whew....so glad someone else said it.

As was pointed out earlier by kagenaki koe, I doubt they're coming here for the awesome health care. Are there kinks in the legislation that need to be worked out? Absolutely. Is that reason to rabidly oppose the goal of reforming health care? Absolutely not.

[Sean]

Protect insurance companies!

And I wanted to take a moment to put in perspective what the views of some of those who oppose health care reform are. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) showed his caring, understanding side when faced with a situation posed by a woman named Patricia Churchill at a "public square" forum who has a relative suffering through stomach tumors:

CHURCHILL: I have a very close relative, a woman in her early forties, who did have a wonderful, high-paying job, owns her own home and is a real contributing member of society. She lost her job. Just a couple of weeks ago, she found out that she has tumors in her belly and that she needs an operation. Her doctors told her that they are growing and that she needs to get this operation quickly. She has no insurance. I'm just wondering gentlemen, we can talk about (?) ideas, and we can talk theory all we want to, but this person is a very close member of my family, she's ill, and she has no way to have this operation. So I'm asking you, what would you do if this were your close relative - your niece, your aunt, your sister, or whatever - and she was in this situation now. What would your solution be, and how would you be involved in helping her?

CANTOR: First of all I guess I would ask what the situation is in terms of income eligibility and the existing programs that are out there. Because if we look at the uninsured that are out there right now, there is probably 23, 24% of the uninsured that is already eligible for an existing government program [...] Beyond that, I know that there are programs, there are charitable organizations, there are hospitals here who do provide charity care if there’s an instance of indigency and the individual is not eligible for existing programs that there can be some cooperative effort. No one in this country, given who we are, should be sitting without an option to be addressed.

Charity. That's the dependable solution to someone who's uninsured that's facing a life-threatening situation and maybe $100,000+ in medical bills. Go get charity. And of course, Churchill summed it up best when later asked if she found Cantor's answer helpful: “it was helpful in a sense, but of course nowhere near as helpful as having this healthcare reform bill passed so that we could know that she could definitely go and get taken care of.”

[the mongoose]

I think this country needs Immigration and Health Reform......I'm not anti Reform, I just don't like a lot of the things they were planning in this 1018 page piece of legislation.

I think that the 5 year wait for naturalization should be reduced to a 2 year probationary citizen status (sort of like paying "out of state tuition" at a school....for their taxes etc). America drops all the shitty fees and fines and citizenship Exam in favor of a quarterly family checkup to assess integration and compliance. 8 little checkups over a 2 year period and extra taxes isn't that bad, and unless they commit a severe crime or something they can stay.

[Sean]

Interesting report from the Congressional Budget Office that claims the Democratic health care bill that includes the public option would actually reduce the deficit in it's first ten years. That would be the same health care plan that Republicans falsely represent in the following question on their ridiculous census questionnaire: "Do you oppose the Obama-Pelosi health care takeover plan that would bring Washington bureaucrats between doctors and patients, ration medical treatment and deny critical care while skyrocketing the national debt?" How strange that they would lie.