Obama Health-Care Reform Act Ruled Unconstitutional(edited)

Boo Radley · Apr 5, 2011

Amazed said:
You did NOT just quote something the Admin wrote as proof....

lmao.

Continue on the page;

“If we’re going to close the primary-care physician gap, we need to graduate twice as many family physicians as we are now graduating,” she said.

“The legislation does several things to move the needle that way,” Heim explained

(snip)

On the upside, if health-care reform can generate more new primary-care practices, it will actually help stimulate local economies, Heim suggested.

News Headlines

Like me that one argues it wasn't enough but a step in the right direction.

The legislation also attempts to increase the attractiveness of primary care practice by providing bonuses to primary care physicians. Much smaller amounts of funds would be allocated for enhancing teaching of primary care in medical schools and residencies – this is the only strategy to establish an adequate primary care infrastructure.

Read more: How to Expand Primary Care - Health Care Cost Monitor

•Encouraging primary care doctors: The law offers incentives to increase the number of primary care physicians, nurses and physicians assistants, especially in underserved areas. It also provides increased support to rural healthcare providers, who often face obstacles to serving their communities.

What is changing already as the healthcare reform law is implemented? | NETWORK

Again, all you have to do is look. :coffeepap

The Prof · Apr 5, 2011

here's your incentive: Senate passes 1-year doc fix - The Hill's Healthwatch

anthony i wanna waiver weiner eats too much BREAD

LOL!

The Prof · Apr 5, 2011

Boo Radley said:
none of you have present (sic) any evidence at all.

but THOMAS BARTHOLD did

barthold BAKES bread

did you open the LINK?

i know A-B-C doesn't quite meet WHITE HOUSE standards

but...

LOL!

Boo Radley · Apr 5, 2011

I'm still witing for evidence. Anytime. :coffeepap

Gill · Apr 5, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Fact: More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread eaters.

Fact: Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests.

Fact: More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.

Fact: Newborn babies can choke on bread.

If you can't reason, you might conclude the following:

No sale of bread to minors.
No advertising of bread within 1000 feet of a school.
A 300 percent federal tax on all bread to pay for all the societal ills we might associate with bread.
No animal or human images, nor any primary colors (which may appeal to children) may be used to promote bread usage.
A $4.2 zillion fine on the three biggest bread manufacturers. Please send this e-mail on to everyone you know who cares about this crucial issue.

The ability to reason goes beyond facts, and no facts do not speak for themselves, and your conclusion, no matter what it is, is not equal to fact. It is telling that you don't understand this.

OMG... I can't believe you actually posted this tripe...

Boo Radley · Apr 5, 2011

Gill said:
OMG... I can't believe you actually posted this tripe...

I can't believe you don't understand. But there you go. :coffeepap

Gill · Apr 5, 2011

Boo Radley said:
I can't believe you don't understand. But there you go. :coffeepap

No, I understand that you continue your practice of throwing straw men against the wall and hoping some stick.

They don't.

Boo Radley · Apr 5, 2011

Gill said:
No, I understand that you continue your practice of throwing straw men against the wall and hoping some stick.

They don't.

Aparently you don't understand. You still have offered no evidence that any freedoms will be lost, and you still don't understand the nature reasoning plays here. Facts do not speak for themselves. We have to determine what a set of facts mean.

Gill · Apr 5, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Aparently you don't understand. You still have offered no evidence that any freedoms will be lost, and you still don't understand the nature reasoning plays here. Facts do not speak for themselves. We have to determine what a set of facts mean.

I'll make a deal with you.... show where I claimed that freedoms will be lost and I'll do my best to find some.

Good luck.

Boo Radley · Apr 5, 2011

Gill said:
I'll make a deal with you.... show where I claimed that freedoms will be lost and I'll do my best to find some.

Good luck.

My bad. Got you confused with Amazed. Seemed like the same discussion to me. facts are building blocks, support, but you reasoning to know what to do with the facts. You after to add up what they mean. I've tried to demonstrate that to you. We rarely have clear cut issues, and too often many people misread the facts and read wrong conclusions. When crime rates went down after the Brady Bill for example, too many were quick to conclude that the bill was the reason for it. Suchy was unlikely. Other do the same thing concerning right to carry laws. Both lack reasoning skills. Their facts are wrong, but their reasoning is flawed.

Amazed · Apr 5, 2011

Apparently you have everybody confused with everybody....you said we don't lose any freedoms, you said that there are "incentives"....I asked you to prove both...but given your source...surely if I posted something from FOX you'd take it as Gospel?

Boo Radley said:
My bad. Got you confused with Amazed. Seemed like the same discussion to me. facts are building blocks, support, but you reasoning to know what to do with the facts. You after to add up what they mean. I've tried to demonstrate that to you. We rarely have clear cut issues, and too often many people misread the facts and read wrong conclusions. When crime rates went down after the Brady Bill for example, too many were quick to conclude that the bill was the reason for it. Suchy was unlikely. Other do the same thing concerning right to carry laws. Both lack reasoning skills. Their facts are wrong, but their reasoning is flawed.

Boo Radley · Apr 5, 2011

Amazed said:
Apparently you have everybody confused with everybody....you said we don't lose any freedoms, you said that there are "incentives"....I asked you to prove both...but given your source...surely if I posted something from FOX you'd take it as Gospel?

The affrimative claim is that we lose freedoms. I don't have to prove the negative. Your side has to prove freedoms are lsot.

On my affirmative claim, I gave appropriate evidence. That's one up on you. :coffeepap

The Prof · Apr 5, 2011

Boo Radley said:
I'm still witing for evidence

it's not evidence, silly

it's the INTERNAL REVENUE

Buy Insurance or Go to Jail? - The Note

Boo Radley · Apr 5, 2011

The Prof said:
it's not evidence, silly

You're right. That's not evidence. :coffeepap

The Prof · Apr 5, 2011

Boo Radley said:
We have to determine what a set of facts mean.

LOL!

you have to determine what 3/4 of a tril in new taxes, according to cbo, means?

what an idiot

obama, i mean

Amazed · Apr 5, 2011

You gave the White House white wash

Sorry....

Chew on this for a bit, I don't expect you to be able to discuss a word of it

SEC. 202. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term `grandfathered health insurance coverage' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-

(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED- Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.

dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.

(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS- Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

(3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES- The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner.

Boo Radley said:
The affrimative claim is that we lose freedoms. I don't have to prove the negative. Your side has to prove freedoms are lsot.

On my affirmative claim, I gave appropriate evidence. That's one up on you. :coffeepap

Boo Radley · Apr 5, 2011

Amazed said:
You gave the White House white wash

Sorry....

Chew on this for a bit, I don't expect you to be able to discuss a word of it

SEC. 202. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term `grandfathered health insurance coverage' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-

(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED- Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.

dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.

(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS- Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

(3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES- The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner.

I actually gave more than that, 6 different links total, and suggested you could do your own search.

And yes, I read the above. Now, yuse your reasonng skills and tell me what you THINK it means.

(BTW, you could have linked it.)

For your reading:

Private Insurance Not Outlawed | FactCheck.org

Amazed · Apr 5, 2011

I fully understand you not wanting to engage on what it says.....I've done more reserach on this than you can even imagine...and no, I didn't think you could discuss what the Bill actually says

Boo Radley said:
I actually gave more than that, 6 different links total, and suggested you could do your own search.

And yes, I read the above. Now, yuse your reasonng skills and tell me what you THINK it means.

(BTW, you could have linked it.)

For your reading:

Private Insurance Not Outlawed | FactCheck.org

Boo Radley · Apr 5, 2011

Amazed said:
I fully understand you not wanting to engage on what it says.....I've done more reserach on this than you can even imagine...and no, I didn't think you could discuss what the Bill actually says

Look, jr, I'm more than willing to discuss, but you have to actually start a discussion. A cut and paste is not a discussion. Start discussing by answering my question. I suspect you're misread it.

Amazed · Apr 5, 2011

LOL.....I posted the Law, you posted articles that tell you what to think about the Law...and now you're cross

You aren't capable Boo....it's ok.....

Boo Radley said:
Look, jr, I'm more than willing to discuss, but you have to actually start a discussion. A cut and paste is not a discussion. Start discussing by answering my question. I suspect you're misread it.

Boo Radley · Apr 5, 2011

Amazed said:
LOL.....I posted the Law, you posted articles that tell you what to think about the Law...and now you're cross

You aren't capable Boo....it's ok.....

Yes, you posted the law. Answer the question. That is what discussion is. Again, I don't think you understand what you posted. But I can't know for sure until you answer. Step up, shows your reasoning.

Amazed · Apr 5, 2011

You don't get this do you?

The answer to the question can begin with that portion of the Law...because that portion leads to the ultimate answer you seek.

Now, you may dance around it all day..but you are looking foolish as you do.

Boo Radley said:
Yes, you posted the law. Answer the question. That is what discussion is. Again, I don't think you understand what you posted. But I can't know for sure until you answer. Step up, shows your reasoning.

Boo Radley · Apr 5, 2011

Amazed said:
You don't get this do you?

The answer to the question can begin with that portion of the Law...because that portion leads to the ultimate answer you seek.

Now, you may dance around it all day..but you are looking foolish as you do.

The only person dancing is you. You've been asked a question and you refuse to answer, showing you really don't want to discuss anything. you must be very unsire of yourself.

The Prof · Apr 5, 2011

obamacare---3/4 of a trillion in new taxes, half T cuts to medicare while expanding it, quarter T burden on bankrupt states, docs fleeing depsite the quarter T fix offbudget, the double counting of another quarter T, er traffic and costs increase, more than a thousand i-wanna-waivers already approved...

why do so many want OUT?

why does hhs keep letting em GO?

obamacare's a LOSER which is why barack hussein and no self respecting forums member can talk about it anymore

but WE can, the patriotic opposition

and we WILL

endlessly

party on, peeps

tryreading · Apr 5, 2011

ptif219 said:
That is true and government health care will not stop it they will just raise taxes

I don't know what might stop it, but my point was there is astronomical waste and fraud in the private medical system that exists now. You seemed to say that that would be more of an issue with a public insurance system. I don't know. Yes, there is always waste in a government bureaucracy, but the current system is so expensive that it may be unsustainable at some point. For a lot of people, it already is.

Obama Health-Care Reform Act Ruled Unconstitutional(edited)

Steve