Why do people often vote against their own interests?

[PostmodernProphet]

Well, it's not so much an assumption as it's WHAT I READ, as such on page 32 of the resolution regarding membership. Observe:

(5) PARTICIPATION.—The membership of the
24 Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall at least
25 reflect providers, consumer representatives, employ-
1 ers, labor, health insurance issuers, experts in health
2 care financing and delivery, experts in racial and
3 ethnic disparities, experts in care for those with dis4
abilities, representatives of relevant governmental
5 agencies. and at least one practicing physician or
6 other health professional and an expert on children’s
7 health and shall represent a balance among various
8 sectors of the health care system so that no single
9 sector unduly influences the recommendations of
10 such Committee.

Unlike you, I just don't stop reading at what I like. And also unlike you, I understand that this is INCLUSIVE towards the final outcome, NOT separate

ah, so by having one member on a 25 person committee charged with adding requirements to the policies everyone must offer we can guarantee the competitiveness of free enterprise......it amazes me how the liberal mind works.....

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Well, it's not so much an assumption as it's WHAT I READ, as such on page 32 of the resolution regarding membership. Observe:

(5) PARTICIPATION.—The membership of the
24 Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall at least
25 reflect providers, consumer representatives, employ-
1 ers, labor, health insurance issuers, experts in health
2 care financing and delivery, experts in racial and
3 ethnic disparities, experts in care for those with dis4
abilities, representatives of relevant governmental
5 agencies. and at least one practicing physician or
6 other health professional and an expert on children’s
7 health and shall represent a balance among various
8 sectors of the health care system so that no single
9 sector unduly influences the recommendations of
10 such Committee.
Unlike you, I just don't stop reading at what I like. And also unlike you, I understand that this is INCLUSIVE towards the final outcome, NOT separate

ah, so by having one member on a 25 person committee charged with adding requirements to the policies everyone must offer we can guarantee the competitiveness of free enterprise......it amazes me how the liberal mind works.....

READ, bunky, READ! There's nothing in the language that states 'One of Each'. In fact, each profession and field noted is referred to IN THE PLURAL.

Your statement is a-typical of the lies and distortions that can be heard/read from the WND, NewsMax, Newsbusters, Limbaugh, Crowley, Beck, Hannity, Levin, Maulkin, etc. You've made statements that were factually proven untrue when the actual document in question was examined. Flustered, you now desperately try to insert your beliefs...but as the record shows, that dog of yours just won't fly.

I don't expect you to admit you were wrong....that's just not in you. So you'll pull your usual tricks and tactics to lie, deny, dodge, insult, etc. As I've always told you before, the FACTS and the chronological posts will ALWAYS be a neocon parrots undoing. So continue your insipid stubborness and flail away, bunky...there's no sense continuing with this is you can't muster the cojones to admit error despite the glaring evidence against you. See you on another topic.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
This is what YOU highlighted

(a) IN GENERAL.—A qualified health benefits plan
17 shall provide coverage that at least meets the benefit
18 standards adopted under section 124 for the essential ben19
efits package described in section 122 for the plan year
20 involved.

Subsequently:

SEC. 124. PROCESS FOR ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDA4
TIONS; ADOPTION OF BENEFIT STANDARDS.
5 (a) PROCESS FOR ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDA6
TIONS.—

3 (3) REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may not
4 adopt any benefit standards for an essential benefits
5 package or for level of cost-sharing that are incon6
sistent with the requirements for such a package or
7 level under sections 122 and 123(b)(5).

Section 123 is PART OF THE WHOLE PROPOSAL. It is an INTEGRAL part, that outlines part of the FINAL DECISION MAKING PROCESS.

SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
12 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—
13 (1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a pri14
vate-public advisory committee which shall be a
15 panel of medical and other experts to be known as
16 the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to rec17
ommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced,
18 and premium plans.

Now understand, you can't just excerpt bits and parts of this or any House Resolution...as each layer compliments and effects each other. This is why there is so much wrangling before the final proposal is put forth. My point stands....your assertion does NOT stand up to scrutiny, as the very resolution itself provides measures to counteract that which you fear.

first of all, I didn't highlight anything, I quoted section 121, which was the statement that no insurance policy may be sold which does not meet the minimum requirements of the government plan.....those minimum requirements are spelled out in section 122.....section 123 provides a method of adding more requirements.....section 124, which you just quoted states that no standards may be set which do not meet with the requirements of BOTH 122 and 123.....my assertion is clearly true....

Your assertion is nonsense, because all one has to do is READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY to know that the language in each subsequent section does NOT just "add more requirements", but provides safeguards and procedures that PREVENT what you originally alluded to. What you believe will happen is NOT what is stated in the sections of resolution.

You can stubbornly repeat yourself ad nauseum, but careful examination of the material does NOT condone your biased interpretation. And I suspect that is EXACTLY what you will do. So I leave you to the predictable last word.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Your assertion is nonsense, because all one has to do is READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY to know that the language in each subsequent section does NOT just "add more requirements", but provides safeguards and procedures that PREVENT what you originally alluded to. What you believe will happen is NOT what is stated in the sections of resolution.

You can stubbornly repeat yourself ad nauseum, but careful examination of the material does NOT condone your biased interpretation. And I suspect that is EXACTLY what you will do. So I leave you to the predictable last word.

How else do you interpret the clause which states the Secretary may not adopt standards which are inconsistent with the requirements of section 122?.....

these are the requirements of section 122

EC. 122. ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED.

(a) In General- In this division, the term ‘essential benefits package’ means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 124 to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security, that-- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(1) provides payment for the items and services described in subsection (b) in accordance with generally accepted standards of medical or other appropriate clinical or professional practice; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(2) limits cost-sharing for such covered health care items and services in accordance with such benefit standards, consistent with subsection (c); CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(3) does not impose any annual or lifetime limit on the coverage of covered health care items and services; CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(4) complies with section 115(a) (relating to network adequacy); and CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(5) is equivalent, as certified by Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, to the average prevailing employer-sponsored coverage. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(b) Minimum Services Tto Be Covered- TSubject to subsection (d), the items and services described in this subsection are the following: CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(1) Hospitalization. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services, including emergency department services. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician’s or a health professional’s delivery of care in institutional settings, physician offices, patients’ homes or place of residence, or other settings, as appropriate. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(5) Prescription drugs. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatments. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(8) Preventive services, including those services recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services and those vaccines recommended for use by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(9) Maternity care. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(10) Well baby and well child care; treatment of a congenital or developmental deformity, disease, or injury; and oral health, vision, and hearing services, equipment, and supplies at least for children under 21 years of age. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(c) Requirements Relating to Cost-sharing and Minimum Actuarial Value- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(1) NO COST-SHARING FOR PREVENTIVE SERVICES- There shall be no cost-sharing under the essential benefits package for preventive items and services (as specified under the benefit standards), including well baby and well child care. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(2) ANNUAL LIMITATION- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(A) ANNUAL LIMITATION- The cost-sharing incurred under the essential benefits package with respect to an individual (or family) for a year does not exceed the applicable level specified in subparagraph (B). CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(B) APPLICABLE LEVEL- The applicable level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (United States city average) applicable to such year. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(C) USE OF COPAYMENTS- In establishing cost-sharing levels for basic, enhanced, and premium plans under this subsection, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent possible, use only copayments and not coinsurance. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(3) MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(A) IN GENERAL- The cost-sharing under the essential benefits package shall be designed to provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 70 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package described in subparagraph (B). CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(B) REFERENCE BENEFITS PACKAGE DESCRIBED- The reference benefits package described in this subparagraph is the essential benefits package if there were no cost-sharing imposed. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(d) Abortion Coverage Prohibited as Part of Minimum Benefits Package- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(1) PROHIBITION OF REQUIRED COVERAGE- The Health Benefits Advisory Committee may not recommend under section 123(b) and the Secretary may not adopt in standards under section 124(b), the services described in paragraph (4)(A) or (4)(B) as part of the essential benefits package and the Commissioner may not require such services for qualified health benefits plans to participate in the Health Insurance Exchange. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(2) VOLUNTARY CHOICE OF COVERAGE BY PLAN- In the case of a qualified health benefits plan, the plan is not required (or prohibited) under this Act from providing coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A) or (4)(B) and the QHBP offering entity shall determine whether such coverage is provided. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(3) COVERAGE UNDER PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION- The public health insurance option shall provide coverage for services described in paragraph (4)(B). Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A). CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(4) ABORTION SERVICES- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(A) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS PROHIBITED- The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(B) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED- The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(e) Stand-alone Coverage- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(1) NO APPLICATION TO ADULT COVERAGE- Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as requiring an individual who is 21 years of age or older to be provided stand-alone dental-only or vision-only coverage. CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(2) TREATMENT OF COMBINED COVERAGE- The combination of stand-alone coverage described in paragraph (1) and a qualified health benefits plan without coverage of such oral and vision services shall be treated as satisfying the essential benefits package under this division.

 

[NOVA]

Its amazing to watch TC change the debate so quickly, without missing a beat, after hes been pwned on a point..jumping to some innocuous, irrelevant point as if IT is the contention he was making all along....quite a talent for a clown.
And then Mott the Jester, who don't have a clue what its all about, claims the opposite.....

 

[Taichiliberal]

Its amazing to watch TC change the debate so quickly, without missing a beat, after hes been pwned on a point..jumping to some innocuous, irrelevant point as if IT is the contention he was making all along....quite a talent for a clown.
And then Mott the Jester, who don't have a clue what its all about, claims the opposite.....

No stupid, no one changed the topic...it was I that put forth the very quotes verbatim that provide the FACTS that the Post Modern Fool wants to "interpret" by trying to isolate on section from another. If you can't keep up, get an adult to explain it to you.

 

[Taichiliberal]

How else do you interpret the clause which states the Secretary may not adopt standards which are inconsistent with the requirements of section 122?.....

these are the requirements of section 122

Because the full statement from #124 is The Secretary may not
4 adopt any benefit standards for an essential benefits
5 package or for level of cost-sharing that are incon6
sistent with the requirements for such a package or
7 level under sections 122 and 123

And as I showed from section #123

IN GENERAL.—There is established a pri14
vate-public advisory committee which shall be a
15 panel of medical and other experts to be known as
16 the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to rec17
ommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced,
18 and premium plans.


And then there's the little tidbit at the beginning of Section #122, which reads:
In General- In this division, the term ‘essential benefits package’ means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 124 to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security

Bottom line: Section 122 is NOT ironclad separate onto itself, as you would like everyone to believe. It's application is determined by a panel that includes reps from the insurance agencies....and since what is being put forth in #122 is NOT anything that your insurance companies offers to their clients, all the hoop-la is over making said companies LIVE UP to their intention of providing adequate health insurance to their paying customers from a competitive source...and not weasel out and take their money whenever possible.

You do realize that the proposals in HR3200 were with the blessing of the GOP, don't you? Perhaps they realize something that you don't (or won't).

 

[PostmodernProphet]

You do realize that the proposals in HR3200 were with the blessing of the GOP, don't you? Perhaps they realize something that you don't (or won't).

?????...they may have given it last rites, but I don't think you can say they "blessed" it......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Because the full statement from #124 is The Secretary may not
4 adopt any benefit standards for an essential benefits
5 package or for level of cost-sharing that are incon6
sistent with the requirements for such a package or
7 level under sections 122 and 123

And as I showed from section #123

IN GENERAL.—There is established a pri14
vate-public advisory committee which shall be a
15 panel of medical and other experts to be known as
16 the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to rec17
ommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced,
18 and premium plans.


And then there's the little tidbit at the beginning of Section #122, which reads:
In General- In this division, the term ‘essential benefits package’ means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 124 to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security

Bottom line: Section 122 is NOT ironclad separate onto itself, as you would like everyone to believe. It's application is determined by a panel that includes reps from the insurance agencies....and since what is being put forth in #122 is NOT anything that your insurance companies offers to their clients, all the hoop-la is over making said companies LIVE UP to their intention of providing adequate health insurance to their paying customers from a competitive source...and not weasel out and take their money whenever possible.

it's amazing how long you can dance around an issue.....I made my point, I proved my point, I skewered you on my point and roasted you over an open fire.....

 

[Mott the Hoople]

it's amazing how long you can dance around an issue.....I made my point, I proved my point, I skewered you on my point and roasted you over an open fire.....

Looks to me like Taichi pwned you.....again.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Looks to me like Taichi pwned you.....again.

I can't imagine why....unless it's because you just want to be able to say those words without actually looking at the posts.....are you denying Section 122 sets forth the minimum requirements of insurance policies?.....if so, why?.....

 

[DamnYankee]

Mott's using a lot of sarcasm today.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You do realize that the proposals in HR3200 were with the blessing of the GOP, don't you? Perhaps they realize something that you don't (or won't).

?????...they may have given it last rites, but I don't think you can say they "blessed" it......

I'm not talking about the Senate. I'm talking about the final resolution here......as you pointed out, it was passed throught the House. If you did your homework, you'd know that was done with GOP input and approval.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Because the full statement from #124 is The Secretary may not
4 adopt any benefit standards for an essential benefits
5 package or for level of cost-sharing that are incon6
sistent with the requirements for such a package or
7 level under sections 122 and 123

And as I showed from section #123

IN GENERAL.—There is established a pri14
vate-public advisory committee which shall be a
15 panel of medical and other experts to be known as
16 the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to rec17
ommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced,
18 and premium plans.


And then there's the little tidbit at the beginning of Section #122, which reads:
In General- In this division, the term ‘essential benefits package’ means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 124 to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security

Bottom line: Section 122 is NOT ironclad separate onto itself, as you would like everyone to believe. It's application is determined by a panel that includes reps from the insurance agencies....and since what is being put forth in #122 is NOT anything that your insurance companies offers to their clients, all the hoop-la is over making said companies LIVE UP to their intention of providing adequate health insurance to their paying customers from a competitive source...and not weasel out and take their money whenever possible.

it's amazing how long you can dance around an issue.....I made my point, I proved my point, I skewered you on my point and roasted you over an open fire.....

Translation: you got schooled and you can't BS your way around the FACTS and how the information is laid out that disproves your assertions and claims. So you just resort to a generalized insipid stubborness.

You've got nothing, bunky.....I addressed EXACTLY what you referred to...and there is no way you can logically maintain your stance unless you just IGNORE what is written and HOW it is written.

Say goodnight gracie....shows over for you.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople
Looks to me like Taichi pwned you.....again.

I can't imagine why....unless it's because you just want to be able to say those words without actually looking at the posts.....are you denying Section 122 sets forth the minimum requirements of insurance policies?.....if so, why?.....

Stop imagining, stop being stubborn and deal with the FACTS:

Bottom line: Section 122 is NOT ironclad separate onto itself, as you would like everyone to believe. It's application is determined by a panel that includes reps from the insurance agencies....and since what is being put forth in #122 is NOT anything that your insurance companies offers to their clients, all the hoop-la is over making said companies LIVE UP to their intention of providing adequate health insurance to their paying customers from a competitive source...and not weasel out and take their money whenever possible.