Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

H.R. 3350


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> H.R. 3350 Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
H.R. 3350 - 11/15/2013 6:26:57 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline 		A Republican sponsor bill to circumvent the Affordable Care Act, H.R. 3350 is to keep the same problems this nation has experienced for decades for ANOTHER full year. The bill pass the House of Representatives (big surprise, right?), but that 39 Democrats also supported the bill. The bill's 200 words is short enough that conservatives on here might not only read it but understand it. Unfortunately, without knowledge of the ACA, the information of the bill is somewhat limited.

What the bill allows, if it passes the Senate and White House (doubtful on both accounts), is health insurance companies that had a policy open and in place on Jan 1, 2013, to stay in effect until Jan 1, 2015. That's right, the insurance companies can keep those with existing conditions out, cost more for women and basically pull the same stupid crap as before. The bill, like its sponsors, really doesn't do anything productive for the nation on healthcare and coverage. Its basically Republicans trying to score political points however and where ever they can. Just like the 43 failed attempts to kill the ACA and bring the nation down with it, this measure will also fail.

Nov. 30th, according to the President is when Americans can once more look at healthcare.gov at the plans for their state and decide which one is best for them. And as I said before, I believe the President may push back the 'Jan 1. 2014' requirement by a month or two to give people time to study the material.

Update:

For some reason CM doesn't like the link directly to the House of Representative's for the bill. So here it is below (with spaces):
http://thomas. loc .gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:h.r.3350:

< Message edited by joether -- 11/15/2013 6:28:58 PM >
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: H.R. 3350 - 11/16/2013 1:09:10 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		yeah, you're not biased or anything.....

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: H.R. 3350 - 11/16/2013 5:53:43 AM   
Yachtie


Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
What the bill allows, if it passes the Senate and White House (doubtful on both accounts), is health insurance companies that had a policy open and in place on Jan 1, 2013, to stay in effect until Jan 1, 2015.



"If you like your policy, you can keep it. Period." - Obama

Heh!



_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: H.R. 3350 - 11/16/2013 7:00:21 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
What the bill allows, if it passes the Senate and White House (doubtful on both accounts), is health insurance companies that had a policy open and in place on Jan 1, 2013, to stay in effect until Jan 1, 2015.



"If you like your policy, you can keep it. Period." - Obama

Heh!

This bill would allow the insurance companies to keep selling those plans to new customers. Which is not something the President promised. It is simply a give away to the insurance companies and an attempt to keep people from entering ACA compliant policies.

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: H.R. 3350 - 11/16/2013 7:41:14 AM   
MsMJAY


Posts: 515
Joined: 3/17/2013
Status: offline 		What I don't understand is why don't the Republicans produce their own healthcare plan? If they are so against the ACA; instead of putting so much effort into trying to repeal it or passing legislation to get around it, simply come up with their own plan. If its a better plan it should pass without a problem. They have the resources and they have the time; so where is their healthcare plan?

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: H.R. 3350 - 11/16/2013 9:20:00 AM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline 		The Republican issue isn't against the plan, it's against the Kenyan who passed it into law.
They'd be cool with with this if it was Romneycare not Obamacare.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to MsMJAY)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: H.R. 3350 - 11/16/2013 2:40:44 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

What I don't understand is why don't the Republicans produce their own healthcare plan? If they are so against the ACA; instead of putting so much effort into trying to repeal it or passing legislation to get around it, simply come up with their own plan. If its a better plan it should pass without a problem. They have the resources and they have the time; so where is their healthcare plan?

The ACA is the republican plan. It was written by, amongst others, the Heritage Foundation and parts of it were proposed by Republicans back when Clinton proposed a single payer program in the 90's.

The problem now appears to be the melanin content of the President's skin.

(in reply to MsMJAY)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: H.R. 3350 - 11/16/2013 4:21:24 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY
What I don't understand is why don't the Republicans produce their own healthcare plan? If they are so against the ACA; instead of putting so much effort into trying to repeal it or passing legislation to get around it, simply come up with their own plan. If its a better plan it should pass without a problem. They have the resources and they have the time; so where is their healthcare plan?

The ACA is the republican plan. It was written by, amongst others, the Heritage Foundation and parts of it were proposed by Republicans back when Clinton proposed a single payer program in the 90's.
The problem now appears to be the melanin content of the President's skin.


"The ACA is the republican plan. It was written by ... Heritage Foundation and parts of it were proposed..."

So, Obamacare is the republican plan, but only parts of it were proposed. Which parts weren't proposed that were in their plan, Ken?

Don't forget that there were tax exemptions for businesses and for employees for money spent on qualified medical care expenses. That in the ACA, Ken? Doesn't that differentiate Obamacare from the the HEART Act of 1993?

As proof that politics is more important than governance to Democrats, the Federal Government was, in effect, shut down to preserve subsidies for Federal employees' health care. The whole "shut down" could have been avoided if they had passed the CR passed by the House on 30 Sep (and, yes, the GOP is every bit as guilty of playing politics rather than governing, too).

I admit there are an awful lot of similarities between the ACA and the HEART Act of 1993. But, there were differences in the incentives to purchase insurance. That is a huge difference.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: H.R. 3350 - 11/16/2013 6:57:53 PM   
MsMJAY


Posts: 515
Joined: 3/17/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

The Republican issue isn't against the plan, it's against the Kenyan who passed it into law.
They'd be cool with with this if it was Romneycare not Obamacare.


Yes, I am well aware that this was the Republicans' plan until the socialist, communist, atheist, Kenyan, Muslim decided to use it. Then it suddenly became an evil socialist attempt to takeover the country by the black dictator.

However; if they are going to oppose their own plan, they could at least offer an alternative. But they can't because they don't have an alternative. Their sole strategy has been to obstruct any work the President has attempted. So much so that their own party has began to implode.

I (even being a bleeding heart liberal) do not believe that the demise of the Republican party will be a positive thing for this country. As frustrating as the 2 party system may be, we actually do need both sides of the political spectrum in our government in order to maintain at least a semblance of balance.

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: H.R. 3350 - 11/16/2013 8:21:18 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY
What I don't understand is why don't the Republicans produce their own healthcare plan? If they are so against the ACA; instead of putting so much effort into trying to repeal it or passing legislation to get around it, simply come up with their own plan. If its a better plan it should pass without a problem. They have the resources and they have the time; so where is their healthcare plan?

The ACA is the republican plan. It was written by, amongst others, the Heritage Foundation and parts of it were proposed by Republicans back when Clinton proposed a single payer program in the 90's.
The problem now appears to be the melanin content of the President's skin.


"The ACA is the republican plan. It was written by ... Heritage Foundation and parts of it were proposed..."

So, Obamacare is the republican plan, but only parts of it were proposed. Which parts weren't proposed that were in their plan, Ken?

Don't forget that there were tax exemptions for businesses and for employees for money spent on qualified medical care expenses. That in the ACA, Ken? Doesn't that differentiate Obamacare from the the HEART Act of 1993?

As proof that politics is more important than governance to Democrats, the Federal Government was, in effect, shut down to preserve subsidies for Federal employees' health care. The whole "shut down" could have been avoided if they had passed the CR passed by the House on 30 Sep (and, yes, the GOP is every bit as guilty of playing politics rather than governing, too).

I admit there are an awful lot of similarities between the ACA and the HEART Act of 1993. But, there were differences in the incentives to purchase insurance. That is a huge difference.



It is also worth repeating that most republicans had turned against this plan before George Bush was in office.

People that are trying to insinuate that this had anything to do with racism are just
a) lying
b) political shills
c) uniformed.

Pick as many answers as you'd like.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: H.R. 3350 - 11/16/2013 8:28:51 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY
What I don't understand is why don't the Republicans produce their own healthcare plan? If they are so against the ACA; instead of putting so much effort into trying to repeal it or passing legislation to get around it, simply come up with their own plan. If its a better plan it should pass without a problem. They have the resources and they have the time; so where is their healthcare plan?

The ACA is the republican plan. It was written by, amongst others, the Heritage Foundation and parts of it were proposed by Republicans back when Clinton proposed a single payer program in the 90's.
The problem now appears to be the melanin content of the President's skin.


"The ACA is the republican plan. It was written by ... Heritage Foundation and parts of it were proposed..."

So, Obamacare is the republican plan, but only parts of it were proposed. Which parts weren't proposed that were in their plan, Ken?

The individual mandate was part of the Republican counter proposal to the Clinton single payer plan. The exchanges and the various insurance regulation changes, except IIRC the stay on parents plan till age 26 one, were proposed by the Heritage Foundation and adopted by Romney.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: H.R. 3350 - 11/16/2013 8:33:34 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY
What I don't understand is why don't the Republicans produce their own healthcare plan? If they are so against the ACA; instead of putting so much effort into trying to repeal it or passing legislation to get around it, simply come up with their own plan. If its a better plan it should pass without a problem. They have the resources and they have the time; so where is their healthcare plan?

The ACA is the republican plan. It was written by, amongst others, the Heritage Foundation and parts of it were proposed by Republicans back when Clinton proposed a single payer program in the 90's.
The problem now appears to be the melanin content of the President's skin.

"The ACA is the republican plan. It was written by ... Heritage Foundation and parts of it were proposed..."
So, Obamacare is the republican plan, but only parts of it were proposed. Which parts weren't proposed that were in their plan, Ken?

The individual mandate was part of the Republican counter proposal to the Clinton single payer plan. The exchanges and the various insurance regulation changes, except IIRC the stay on parents plan till age 26 one, were proposed by the Heritage Foundation and adopted by Romney.


So, just the carry a child until 26 was in the HEART Act of 1993? Is that your story?


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: H.R. 3350 - 11/16/2013 8:35:36 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
It is also worth repeating that most republicans had turned against this plan before George Bush was in office.

People that are trying to insinuate that this had anything to do with racism are just
a) lying
b) political shills
c) uniformed.

Pick as many answers as you'd like.

Funny how it was passed by Romney well after W was appointed President. Funny how the Heritage Foundation trumpeted their involvement in that well after W was appointed. The W admin even gave Mass. a bunch of waivers to implement the law. So which Republicans had come to oppose the idea?

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04/12/463097/romneycare-6/

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: H.R. 3350 - 11/16/2013 8:57:30 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
The W admin even gave Mass. a bunch of waivers to implement the law.


A bunch of waivers?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-06-22-obama-romney-health-care-Massachusetts_n.htm
    Another irony: Massachusetts' precedent-setting expansion of coverage was prompted by George W. Bush's administration, which made that a condition for giving the state increased flexibility to use federal Medicaid funds. That money helped the state avoid the need for higher taxes.


So, Bush allowed MA to use Federal Medicaid funds towards Romneycare conditional to Romneycare increasing expansion of coverage? That almost sounds like a "block grant" sort of thing, doesn't it?



_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: H.R. 3350 - 11/16/2013 9:31:36 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
It is also worth repeating that most republicans had turned against this plan before George Bush was in office.

People that are trying to insinuate that this had anything to do with racism are just
a) lying
b) political shills
c) uniformed.

Pick as many answers as you'd like.

Funny how it was passed by Romney well after W was appointed President. Funny how the Heritage Foundation trumpeted their involvement in that well after W was appointed. The W admin even gave Mass. a bunch of waivers to implement the law. So which Republicans had come to oppose the idea?

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04/12/463097/romneycare-6/



It may have escaped your attention - but you really can't say he passed it - when he vetoed it.

The fact that he thereafter signed the bill is irrelevent; as it was passed with the overturn of his veto.


As for a first stab at understand how republicans have evolved I'd suggest:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/02/07/the-tortuous-conservative-history-of-the-individual-mandate/

There have also been good essays on the same topic over at heritage, cato, American Thinker and others.


< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 11/16/2013 9:36:35 PM >

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: H.R. 3350 - 11/16/2013 10:25:16 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
The W admin even gave Mass. a bunch of waivers to implement the law.


A bunch of waivers?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-06-22-obama-romney-health-care-Massachusetts_n.htm
    Another irony: Massachusetts' precedent-setting expansion of coverage was prompted by George W. Bush's administration, which made that a condition for giving the state increased flexibility to use federal Medicaid funds. That money helped the state avoid the need for higher taxes.


So, Bush allowed MA to use Federal Medicaid funds towards Romneycare conditional to Romneycare increasing expansion of coverage? That almost sounds like a "block grant" sort of thing, doesn't it?



It required a waiver of the Medicaid rules. Maybe you should consult a dictionary. There was also a waiver of some Medicare advantage rules and some labor law stuff as well IIRC.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: H.R. 3350 - 11/16/2013 10:28:54 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
It is also worth repeating that most republicans had turned against this plan before George Bush was in office.

People that are trying to insinuate that this had anything to do with racism are just
a) lying
b) political shills
c) uniformed.

Pick as many answers as you'd like.

Funny how it was passed by Romney well after W was appointed President. Funny how the Heritage Foundation trumpeted their involvement in that well after W was appointed. The W admin even gave Mass. a bunch of waivers to implement the law. So which Republicans had come to oppose the idea?

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04/12/463097/romneycare-6/



It may have escaped your attention - but you really can't say he passed it - when he vetoed it.

The fact that he thereafter signed the bill is irrelevent; as it was passed with the overturn of his veto.

He vetoed a couple of parts. He did not veto the whole thing. He proposed most of it.

As to the Forbes bullshit, special pleading to make the gullible ignore the evidence.

The Heritage Foundation was quite proud of the individual mandate part of Romneycare back in 2003, 3 years after W was appointed, which the link I gave showed. Which puts the lie to your claim.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: H.R. 3350 - 11/17/2013 12:34:49 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		From the Wiki:

The Massachusetts health care insurance reform law, St. 2006, c.58,[1][2] informally referred to as Romneycare, and officially entitled 'An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care,' is a state law enacted in 2006, signed into law by then-governor Mitt Romney. Romneycare was changed significantly by major amendments in 2008, 2010 and 2012, after Romney left office. It has now effectively been repealed, both indirectly by the effects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and directly by the 2012 amendment, which replaced RomneyCare's market orientation (which is similar to PPACA's market orientation) with rigid state-mandated price controls on health care.


Regarding what Romney signed:

On April 12, 2006, Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation.[22] Romney vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.[23] Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.[24] The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.[25]



So, no massachusetts healthcare (which aca is (loosely) based on - has virtually nothing in common with what Romney signed.
Rather, massachusetts democrats used it as a stalking horse to replace it with the solution they provieded.


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: H.R. 3350 - 11/17/2013 6:18:35 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
It required a waiver of the Medicaid rules. Maybe you should consult a dictionary. There was also a waiver of some Medicare advantage rules and some labor law stuff as well IIRC.


So, what's the dictionary for? The definition of "a bunch of," or the definition of "block grant?"




_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: H.R. 3350 - 11/17/2013 7:19:32 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Regarding what Romney signed:

On April 12, 2006, Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation.[22] Romney vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.[23] Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.[24] The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.[25]



So, no massachusetts healthcare (which aca is (loosely) based on - has virtually nothing in common with what Romney signed.
Rather, massachusetts democrats used it as a stalking horse to replace it with the solution they provieded.



Romney signed:
Individual mandate
insurance exchanges
A ban on pre existing conditions
A ban on rescission for honest mistakes
And a bunch of other insurance regs that are in the ACA

IOW he signed a bill that is effectively the ACA despite your lies. That is why the lying sack of shit tried to pretend he had never been Governor of Mass. during last years campaign.

Are you done simply making shit up?

To recap:
It is a fact that Republicans proposed almost everything in the ACA, including all major provisions except for allowing children to stay on the parents insurance till age 26.
It is a fact that well after W was appointed President Republicans still embraced the plan and the Heritage Foundation was quite pleased when Mass. enacted the plan in 2003.
It is a fact that Republicans only changed their minds en masse on what would become the ACA when President Obama proposed actually passing such a law. Since it is odd that a plan backed by Republicans for over a decade and shown to be reasonably effective in Mass. would be rejected by the people who could reasonably take credit for it their must be some other reason for their sudden and completely explicable hatred of it.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> H.R. 3350 Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.098