Ok, I've heard from a couple of people, and I haven't heard on the news and can't find anything (am I just not using the right keywords?).....WHAT in the %*#! is this I'm hearing about the government literally passing a bill "under the table" that will allow the government to tell us, the FREE American people, when we can or cannot go to a doctor and/or get a prescription if it's needed????? I've heard that cards will be issued and if we so much as go to a doctor, the government will know when, where, what time, your medical record as well as what prescription (if any) you get. WHAT THE HELL??????? I thought the United States stood for FREEDOM! Where is our freedom going? I think the US is on a fast track to becoming the "lowest" and "poorest" country in the world. Anyway, can anyone shed some light on this "bill" telling us when we can or cannot see a doctor?????

chemtrails

I still remember when America was free. The newer generations will, having no memory of this, accept the new socialistic regulations as the norm. Anger will turn to helpless resignation and reluctant acceptance. PLEASE tell me I'm wrong! I would love to be wrong about this!

Cheryl Gaer-Barlow said:

> The newer generations will, having no memory of this, accept the new socialistic regulations as the norm.

I know! I still can't believe the harm FDR did to this country with his socialistic "New Deal". And then to think Ike, who had been a good Republican, expanded socialism even further by wasting federal tax dollars to build frivolous Interstate Highways all across the country that we are still paying to maintain. Just outrageous.

Obviously TK does not have insurance because most insurance companies already restrict access to doctors, procedures and drugs.

Keep buying Guns!!! And boats TOO!!!

Obviously TK does not have insurance because most insurance companies already restrict access to doctors, procedures and drugs.

That's pretty presumptuous of you, Amorette, to assume that I don't have insurance. As if it's any of YOUR business, but yes, I DO have insurance, and not only that, I am pretty knowledgeable when it comes to most insurance.
It's also pretty presumptuous of you to literally imply (and in not so many words) that I (and others from other posts you have made in the past) am "beneath" you and your IQ. Apparently, you need some lessons in etiquette.
That said, can anyone answer my original posted question about this alleged bill? I did not ask for anyone to question whether or not I have insurance.

TK: Who is "the government"? How is a bill "literally" passed "under the table"? How does a bill become a law?

Do I need to post the little kids video from the 1970's explaining the process again?

OMG--HOW HARD IS IT TO JUST ANSWER A SIMPLE QUESTION???
I AM SIMPLY LOOKING FOR FOUNDED INFORMATION REGARDING THIS ISSUE, RATHER THAN JUST A COUPLE OF PEOPLE SAYING THEY HEARD IT.

TK said:

> I'm hearing about the government literally passing a bill "under the table" that will allow the government to tell us, the FREE American people, when we can or cannot go to a doctor and/or get a prescription if it's needed?????

Use some common sense. If it doesn't sound true, then it probably is not true, don't you think?

If you want to dig through the bills, knock yourself out:

http://www.house.gov/

http://www.senate.gov/

Otherwise, just ask one of your local representatives or your health care provider about it, or keep an eye on the news.

the government literally passing a bill "under the table" that will allow the government to tell us...., when we can or cannot go to a doctor and/or get a prescription if it's needed?????

I'm not sure about when we can go to a doctor but as far as where and "Passing It Under The Table" you might find this interesting reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ted_States

They tried this game in '92-'94 when Hillary-Care was making the rounds but when people saw how bad it was they wisely told Hillary and the rest of the Democratic Party to stuff it. However they've been slowly putting parts of it into practice ever since under the guise of "For The People" or "For The Children" whichever floats your boat.

Watch for the black helicopters!

Are the couple of people who've told you this also the ones who put the tin on their roofs and won't have internet because the government is spying on them through their computers?

Seriously, whenever anyone attempts to spread some bizarre rumor through me I ask point blank where they heard it and where is the proof. If you haven't been able to verify it anywhere then I'd go with it's more bunk.

As for Amorette, she is right in that insurance companies already limit our health care options in numerous ways. While our premiums go up our options for quality care are going down.

tk

Actually it appears at least three times hidden in the new "spend our ass into the third world bill"

I'm sure you can also appreciate the fact that Tom Daschle suggested to do hide it this way in his last book "Critical: What We Can Do About The Health Care Crisis"
I'm paraphasing here- but he said the only way to get socialistic medicine in America was to hide it in some giant bill. We will never see it coming.
Obviously they took his advice.

Actually yours is a great question, but it's pretty hard to find Independant thinking on this forum. Subjects run pretty hard to party lines, and people like to jump on it.

I did like how you told some people to shove off.

We are being stuffed by both sides of the political machine.
Some people call it "change." It's not. Just new people holding the same old bloody knife. Only now they want to hang trillions of dollars on it to hide the blade.

It appears to be a provision of the stimulus bill just agreed upon by Congress and likely to go under Obama's pen very soon. It's about $87 billion in additional funds for the Medicaid program, which provides health care to low income workers. But the House and Senate differ on the formula to be used in distributing the money (this would be the prattle about the government deciding how to dole it out), a dispute that pits states against one another rather than Republicans against Democrats.

I would suggest searching Medicaid and stimulus bill. But don't search "socialized medicine," because who knows where that will lead you .

http://www.nytimes.com/20...=permalink (this story is about the earlier version of the stimulus bill, so everything there might not be in the current version)

You're right. It is controversial. Dems say that it will be a huge setback on the road towards real healthcare reform (the current changes are temporary) and that it doesn't do enough. Repubs say that it's the first step to "socialized medicine." The major talking point here that causes fear in the American heart (so it is very eagerly used as a political tactic) is that the government will be rationing services.

According to Harper's Magazine (yes, a liberal rag): All health-care systems, no matter how wealthy, require some form of (rationing), because advances in technology always outpace the ability to pay for them. But there are (at least) two ways to decide who gets what in a health-care system. One of them is to let the market sort it out: those with the most money get the most care. The other is through triage: society seeks to determine, within a given budget, the most effective treatment for the greatest number of people.

fun facts:
- Private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third of every health care dollar
- In 2000, the average annual premium for health care for a family was $6,438. In 2008, it was $12,680.

I don't claim to have any idea of what the right thing to do is here. I just wanted to help you figure out what was going on.

I doubt that this part of the bill was intentionally swept under the table. I think the reason many of us didn't know about it is because there are millions of projects that Congress is trying to direct monies toward and the people whom most of us rely on to get us information about this . . . well, more than 17,000 journalists lost their jobs last year and the beginning of this year (along with so many industries hurting right now).

OMG--HOW HARD IS IT TO JUST ANSWER A SIMPLE QUESTION???
I AM SIMPLY LOOKING FOR FOUNDED INFORMATION REGARDING THIS ISSUE, RATHER THAN JUST A COUPLE OF PEOPLE SAYING THEY HEARD IT.

And you ripped on Amorette for insulting your intelligence, TK? You dropped an 'OMG' in all-caps, for goodness sake. Yeesh.

Methinks if you had added 12 more question marks to the end of your original questions, you would have gotten the answer(s) you were seeking. MAYBE????????????? Maybe?

Perhaps if you had done a little research before you started a new thread on the topic, you could have spared yourself the frustration of being thought of as a chemtrail-huffing wing nut.

After all, I heard somewhere that Barack Hussein bin Laden Obama was an America-hatin' Muzzlim ...

I should correct my last message to say that 17,000 news media employees, not just reporters, lost their jobs. Sorry.

http://www.washingtontime...e-forever/

Kyle, David, Tracy and Frank-
Thank you for being serious, unlike some on here, and answering straight up.
I feel for my 3 year old---unfortunately, things look pretty grim and I hate to see what her future is going to be like some day.

Must buy more guns!!! Is there any ammo left in town?

thank you for being serious

The answer you were looking for was "hillarycare is going to crush us all under the iron fist of totalitarianism and the illuminati"?

Wow.

Anyways, appropos of nothing, have you had your kids vaccinated?

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (edited 2/12/2009).]

TK said:

> "Thank you for being serious, unlike some on here, and answering straight up." ... "I feel for my 3 year old---unfortunately, things look pretty grim and I hate to see what her future is going to be like some day."

If you read the Washington Times article you will notice it is not news, but an op-ed piece written by an employee of a right wing conservative "think tank" that has been attempting for over 15 years to get government out of health care and let private industry run wild with it instead.

Now wouldn't that be a great idea. Just like privatizing social security.

The New York Times link is a news article, not an opinionated editorial, and seems to provide a more reasonable overview of the issues.

http://www.nytimes.com/20...ealth.html

In the entire scheme of things, I don't see what in that proposed bill (in regards to health care) is going to harm your 3 year old. In fact, if your family fell on hard times, it seems to me as if you and she would benefit from the very items you are lamenting.

TK - I feel for your 3 year old, too. Probably not for the same reason you do, though.

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (edited 2/12/2009).]

TK,

I have no idea how much interest you have in the inter-workings of this country. But I can tell you one thing, the more you read and learn about how the system might really be functioning as opposed to the "patriotic" sentimentality we are programmed for, e.g. "I pledge allegiance to the flag...", you are bound to become upset and unhappy with the status quo. When you encounter the average "I'm not political." person, most times it is NOT because they are stupid, its because they can sense what a downer it would be to actually be informed. Whether or not this particular bill is being passed "under the table" I do not know. But if so, it wouldn't be the first by a long shot. (Example, the 1913 Federal Reserve Act passed out of session during the Christmas holiday by a few senators.) Obama is a new face on the same game. Although to some people out there, he is like the second coming. Our two-party system is on a collision course with bankruptcy. The govt has effectively turned Bear-Sterns, AIG, GM, etc. into the living-dead, zombie corporations that will feed on any wealth you had until we chop their heads off or we become slaves. Yet election after pathetic election we keep this system chugging along by voting Dem/GOP. What I am trying to say, is this "under the table" tactic should surprise no-one and enrage everyone. You already seem to have a good grasp on what is happening. And It is scary. "Civil War: Round 2, free the DEBT-slaves"

I heard a quote from the movie Swing Vote which most certainly got it from somewhere else.
"All great civilizations on earth have followed a cycle of Bondage, Liberty, Abundance, Complacency, Apathy, and back to Bondage.

I get the feeling that for us, the sun is setting on Complacency.

Regards.

I heard from a few people that Bigfoot is sneaking into town at night and stealing babies. He's doing it under the table, of course. Can anyone out there verify this.

You shouldn't be self-conscious about your feet.

Someone yesterday told me she feared we would get "Socialistic Systems" in this country and that she would never take part. I suggested she get her 3 kids out of public school right now, send back her mom's social security check, quit driving on the roads, and make sure she does not allow the government to protect her in any way.

[This message has been edited by Donna Kingsley Coffeen (edited 2/12/2009).]

We have less to fear from socialism than corporate domination.

I suggested she get her 3 kids out of public school right now

In many districts, probably a good suggestion.

send back her mom's social security check

and instead demand a bigger check based on her many years contributions with the compounding interest she should have gotten instead of a gummint IOU.

quit driving on the roads

Cars are for those who don't care about the planet.

make sure she does not allow the government to protect her in any way.

Because it won't.

Geez, Rick. What a nasty slam against your local police force. Our men and women in blue, all government employees, risk and occassionaly give their lives for our protection. The same can be said for our fine military soldiers. Is that really what you meant to say?

The New York Times link is a news article, not an opinionated editorial

In the NYT, there is no such distinction. Editorial through and through.

I think it's funny though that you attack an editorial about a controversial healthcare regulatory clause of the "stimulus" as biased, and then refute it with an NYT article that neglects to even mention it. Talking about carrying Obamabus Caesar's water.

The other day Fox News asked Jon Tester about the provision. His response...

"The language will be fixed if it's in there"

That inspires confidence, doesn't it? Has anyone read this thing? Get out the vaseline.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 2/12/2009).]

"Obamabus Caesar?"

That's a stretch, even for you, Rick.

> All health-care systems, no matter how wealthy, require
> some form of (rationing), because advances in technology
> always outpace the ability to pay for them.

Agreed. The current one rations healthcare by (a) making it too expensive for some people to afford, (b) allowing insurance companies to disqualify applicants because they have pre-existing conditions, and (c) allowing lawyers to drive the cost of the system into multiples of its actual base cost while removing the terrible fear of personal responsibility from our citizens.

Personally, though I lean strongly libertarian, on the issues of education and medical care, I'm strongly in favor of the idea that a strong nation requires educated, healthy people just to begin with... and any nation that doesn't see to these needs is bound to find itself sliding backwards compared to those that do.

Just my opinion, of course.

I watched an interesting doc on the Canadian Health care system. A couple of great points...1) no matter what the problem is, people will get the best possible treatment available because there is no haggling with the insurance companies over what is covered and what isn't. 2) Becuase of that there is no need for the disgustingly huge bureaucracy that exists in hospital billing departments. A Canadian hospital of equal size to a US hospital can run on 15 people in their billing dept. vs. over 500 for a US hospital. 3) Saved the employers in Canada billions of dollars not having to provide health care for their employees. Imagine if Ford or GM didn't have to pay for health care for their employees...they might even be competitive again.

The drawbacks were it took longer for people to see the doctor for checkups (not emergencies), and the gov. gave the hospitals a budget for the year which sometimes ran out if a large epidemic swept through town.

Now, I understand if you work in a medical billing office, or if you work for an insurance company why you would be opposed to a socialized health care system...but other than that you would have to be a real wing nut not understand the advantages to such a system.

Rick Kuchynka said:

> In the NYT, there is no such distinction. Editorial through and through.

That's ridiculous. There are obviously differences between news stories and editorials. The New York Times also clearly indicates which articles are which, and who wrote them.

However, given what you just stated as a basis of belief, then I can only assume this is an editorial too:

http://www.nytimes.com/20...3crash.htm

Rick Kuchynka said:

> I think it's funny though that you attack an editorial about a controversial healthcare regulatory clause of the "stimulus" as biased, and then refute it with an NYT article that neglects to even mention it.

The Washington Times article was biased, intendedly so. It was an editorial written by an an employee of a one-sided think tank. Nothing more.

The New York Times article was a non-biased news story that provided an overview of proposed health care provisions included in the then proposed stimulus bill, and seemed to me to be fairly level in reporting a news worthy item while balancing both sides.

I can't even begin to imagine what you meant by your statement that the article neglected to even mention "it", when the article was about "it" -- other than to assume you didn't bother to read "it".

Sorry if my knack for runons makes "it" confusing
I think it's funny though that you attack an editorial about a controversial healthcare regulatory clause of the "stimulus" as biased, and then refute it with an NYT article that neglects to even mention it.

"It" would refer to the controversial healthcare regulatory clause that's discussed at length in the Washington Times piece. It's summed up fairly well by the beginning couple of paragraphs in the article...

The "stimulus" establishes a new government body to assess Americans' health care and to make sure drugs and treatments "that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed." That's how House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) described it. The words have changed, but the effect stays the same. Where is the outrage?

The predecessor of this new bureaucracy operates in the United Kingdom. The British National Health Service (NHS), revered by fans of government health care, has a body that compares and assesses drugs and treatments. It's called the National Institute for Health and Clinical Effectiveness (not-too-aptly nicknamed NICE). It became infamous for denying cancer patients new drugs that had proven to be effective. They were deemed medically effective - but not cost-effective.

Now please show me where in your NYT article this particular provision is even mentioned. Ignoring the whole debate over whether good or bad...Are you saying the provision doesn't exist? I'm pretty sure it does, although with the haze from the smoke-filled rooms, it's tough to know what'll end up in the final cut of sausage.

The way news is most often editorialized is by omission. Your article pretends to be a summary of the turd-sandwich's health-related components, yet neglects to mention the most controversial ones. It is no more relevant than an editorial. IMO it's worse, because it pretends to be impartial when it isn't. And since this is the NYT, we'd have to assume it as left-wing.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 2/13/2009).]

I think I found what's really at issue for most people here. If you don't like reading U.S. code: it essentially says that they will give money to complete a clinical effectiveness research project of some treatments.

This is the text of the stimulus bill section:

For an additional amount for `Healthcare Research and Quality' to carry out titles III and IX of the Public Health Service Act, part A of title XI of the Social Security Act, and section 1013 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, $700,000,000 for comparative clinical effectiveness research, which shall remain available through September 30, 2010: Provided, That of the amount appropriated in this paragraph, $400,000,000 shall be transferred to the Office of the Director of the National Institutes of Health (`Office of the Director') to conduct or support comparative clinical effectiveness research under section 301 and title IV of the Public Health Service Act: Provided further, That funds transferred to the Office of the Director may be transferred to the Institutes and Centers of the National Institutes of Health and to the Common Fund established under section 402A(c)(1) of the Public Health Service Act: Provided further, That this transfer authority is in addition to any other transfer authority available to the National Institutes of Health: Provided further, That within the amount available in this paragraph for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, not more than 1 percent shall be made available for additional full-time equivalents.

In addition, $400,000,000 shall be available for comparative clinical effectiveness research to be allocated at the discretion of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (`Secretary') and shall remain available through September 30, 2010: Provided, That the funding appropriated in this paragraph shall be used to accelerate the development and dissemination of research assessing the comparative clinical effectiveness of health care treatments and strategies, including through efforts that: (1) conduct, support, or synthesize research that compares the clinical outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of items, services, and procedures that are used to prevent, diagnose, or treat diseases, disorders, and other health conditions and (2) encourage the development and use of clinical registries, clinical data networks, and other forms of electronic health data that can be used to generate or obtain outcomes data: Provided further, That the Secretary shall enter into a contract with the Institute of Medicine, for which no more than $1,500,000 shall be made available from funds provided in this paragraph, to produce and submit a report to the Congress and the Secretary by not later than June 30, 2009 that includes recommendations on the national priorities for comparative clinical effectiveness research to be conducted or supported with the funds provided in this paragraph and that considers input from stakeholders: Provided further, That the Secretary shall consider any recommendations of the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Clinical Effectiveness Research established by section 802 of this Act and any recommendations included in the Institute of Medicine report pursuant to the preceding proviso in designating activities to receive funds provided in this paragraph and may make grants and contracts with appropriate entities, which may include agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services and other governmental agencies, as well as private sector entities, that have demonstrated experience and capacity to achieve the goals of comparative clinical effectiveness research: Provided further, That the Secretary shall publish information on grants and contracts awarded with the funds provided under this heading within a reasonable time of the obligation of funds for such grants and contracts and shall disseminate research findings from such grants and contracts to clinicians, patients, and the general public, as appropriate: Provided further, That, to the extent feasible, the Secretary shall ensure that the recipients of the funds provided by this paragraph offer an opportunity for public comment on the research: Provided further, That the Secretary shall provide the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and the Committee on Finance of the Senate with an annual report on the research conducted or supported through the funds provided under this heading.

This is what others have been talking about and the Washington Times editorial refers to. As far as I can tell it doesn't mean that they will be saying which treatments can be used because they are more (cost?) effective.

But, it certainly could give drug companies a big worry, if Congress decided that the next step would be requiring drugs to be effective (a very relative term -- does it mean work well or cost less?).

This story is about an act, sponsored by Baucus last year (it didn't make it), that does the same thing (it is not the same law though, be careful). It's still pretty technical, but it's certainly better than reading the U.S. Code.

http://formularyjournal.m...ail/547002

Rick: Would you like another grape soda?

The "summed up fairly well" Washington Times article was written by a biased group pushing a very specific agenda. It is tainted.

If I desired to base my opinions upon one-sided views, I could have just as easily tuned into Rush Limbaugh, who I trust about as far as I can throw him (and given his size, I don't think I can throw him very far.)

Obama hasn't even been President for 1 month for God's sake, yet the incessant FUD and whining from the right wing has already become unbearable.

If you cared so damn much about this country, then why didn't you stand up and say something about George W. Bush over the last 8 years?

I don't know exactly what is in the final 1,000+ page bill, but come on, do you think there's a bunch of evil Democrats, hiding behind closed doors trying to figure out how to screw the average American citizen even more than Bush and Cheney, the Republicans in congress, and their rich buddies have done already?

Obama has inherited a giant mess, not created by him, and is attempting to do his best to rectify it. Meanwhile, the Republicans are acting like a bunch of big fat buttheads.

Webmaster. Rick DID stand up and say something about Bush the last four years.....constantly defending his policies from torture to the Iraq War. Of course his defense was often "Clinton did it first". I'm sure Rick is from the "History will prove Dubya's greatness" school of thought.

What you said was...

The New York Times link is a news article, not an opinionated editorial, and seems to provide a more reasonable overview of the issues.

Since when did a "more reasonable overview" involve not mentioning the most controversial stuff?

Everyone has their Koolaid. Some get theirs from Rush, others from the NYT. You'd be better served trying to address the actual points in the article you attack, rather than leaning solely on the right-wing cooties defense.

I've disagreed with Bush on here quite a few times. I opposed last year's stimulus because it wasn't going to work, just like this one won't. The original bailout I wasn't sure about until it became obvious it was becoming just another political grease engine.

Mostly it's just fun to see the new guy out-Bush Bush on so many fronts, and watch the masses spontaneously convert.

http://www.liveleak.com/e/ceb_1232521477

I don't know exactly what is in the final 1,000+ page bill, but come on, do you think there's a bunch of evil Democrats, hiding behind closed doors trying to figure out how to screw the average American citizen even more than Bush and Cheney, the Republicans in congress, and their rich buddies have done already?

The sad thing is, I doubt most of the people voting on it know what's in it either. This is one of those precedent setting moments in history. Normal rules of order, of open amendment, of transparency, of committee process... have all been thrown under the bus. All essentially to ram through a Democrat welfare-state wish list under the guise of helping the economy. All the procedural protections Democrats promised have been thrown under a bus. There may come a day they regret doing things this way. But it's all theirs now. They didn't listen to anyone but themselves.

Rick DID stand up and say something about Bush the last four years.....constantly defending his policies from torture

Easy there, Bob. Assuming that were the case, you'd still have to give me credit for supporting Obama's position even before you did.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 2/13/2009).]

Mostly it's just fun to see the new guy out-Bush Bush on so many fronts

Some examples please... otherwise I think Levi will need to take you to task for the dreaded sin of hyperbole.

There's plenty.

How about putting Rahm (the left's Karl Rove) in charge of the Census. Could you imagine the banshee screams if Bush had tried something like that? Should counting the people really be politicized on that level?