![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Well then...
Senator Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, finally signs on to the health care reform measure.
Of course, they basically had to bribe him with tens of millions of federal Medicaid funds for his state, and limit abortion funding in newly created insurance exchanges in order to get his vote. In some ways, he's just as fucking slimy as Lieberman.
But this gives the Democrats 60 votes. (Assuming that Lieberman doesn't cut and run on them. Again.) Cue the wingnuts heads exploding in 5... 4... 3... 2...
Of course, they basically had to bribe him with tens of millions of federal Medicaid funds for his state, and limit abortion funding in newly created insurance exchanges in order to get his vote. In some ways, he's just as fucking slimy as Lieberman.
But this gives the Democrats 60 votes. (Assuming that Lieberman doesn't cut and run on them. Again.) Cue the wingnuts heads exploding in 5... 4... 3... 2...
no subject
http://community.livejournal.com/liberal_talk/161720.html
no subject
Yeah, hopefully, this will lead to the health care reforms that need to be done, and this bill won't be the beginning and the end of it. I'm also hopeful that Lieberman will lose his next election.
no subject
I thought we had enough angry, anti-social, bought-and-paid-for political communists who SWEAR they're independant of thought. And then turn around a suck up to some sort idiotic political agenda?
Do ya'll get a check from the DNC or something? If they're paying, Hell, I'll sign up.
no subject
And I'm not a political communist either. Funny, though, the same sort of commentary was made about Social Security when it was being created (that it was socialist, that it would bankrupt the country, etc.)
I am just a little pissed at Lieberman, though. He was for a public option, oh wait, now he's against it. He was for expanding Medicare coverage, now he's against it. So I won't be a bit surprised if he pulls some other shitheadedness in the days to come.
no subject
YOU'RE assuming the bill the legislature is trying to pass isn't a COMPLETE nightmare. Now, I'm no fan of Leibermann, and far from defending him from anything. But denouncing him for calling a turd a turd, well...
This is the same body of men who have to vote DOWN an automatic pay raise every year. And if you don't think the bill that contained that law wasn't titled "The Law to Save Puppies.", you haven't been paying attention. ;)
They can call it "Expanding Medicare coverage" and CUT coverage for seniors and disabled people. They've done it before.
And once they "EXPAND our PUBLIC option", just watch all of our best doctors go overseas. It happened everywhere else they did this same thing. History teaches, but we're too arrogant to think we are subject to it.
Let's let the IRS run Healthcare! YAAY!
no subject
So you have a bill that one side wanted nothing to do with... not wanted a few parts out of, wanted nothing. So a lot of options to get it to pass were completely out the window. Then you have parts that are shaved off to appease others.
So yeah, it very well could be a huge pile of shit.
It also could be the start of comprehensive health care reform.
As for "watching our best doctors go overseas".... really? Where are they going to go? England, France, Germany... they already have expanded health care that covers everybody. In fact, a bunch of the bullshit that the Republicans say would happen, in fact, hasn't happened in countries that have done the same things. You know, the whole "If Stephen Hawking were reliant on NHS, he'd be dead" nonsense.... yeah, plans like Canada's and the UK's and so forth aren't perfect.
But they're also not having to worry about, say, their health insurance provider cutting hundreds of thousands of customers in order to meet profit goals (http://www.examiner.com/x-8543-SF-Health-News-Examiner~y2009m12d4-Aetna-to-jack-prices-dump-600000plus-customers-in-profit-grab). You see that guy posting above you...
So yeah... the current legislation isn't perfect. But neither is letting health insurance providers jack up costs in order to meet profit margins.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Did you know that currently, under Medicaid laws, the government can force the sale of participants private property, or legacies (including property) in order to settle one's debt to the Medicaid office? This debt never expires, and is the only debt legally allowed to pursue subsequent generations for payment after the death of the principle?
You have this FAITH in our government to care for it's people, when history shows time and time again, it has never done anything of the sort.
You are TRUSTING our government. Something I will NEVER do again.
no subject
I can find no reference to this either on the web or in US Code. Where do you get that Medicare debt will not be waived in the case of insolvent estates just like every other debt?
no subject
I will note, that these are Medicaid laws, not Medicare.
Apparently, the justification for these draconian rules was that the Medicaid program was voluntary. But, given that it was either sign up or bear the financial burdens without assistance, it's a blind-man's choice.
no subject
http://www.iowa-estates.com/AAPWAConfOutline.pdf
It details Estate Recovery laws that States may follow to recover liens placed on property in pursuance of Medicaid debt.
no subject
Those are individual court rulings and not US Code or even Medicaid rules. In fact 42 USC 1396p(a)(2)(A) specificly states that if a spouse of the deceased is living in the house it can't be sold out from under them to pay Medicaid.
I'd have to dig into the cases quoted in the PDF that you linked to find out why the court felt that 42 USC 1396p(a)(2)(A) did not apply to those situations - but that is by no means the rule.
Medicaid can get repaid from estate just like every other debt but once the estate is insolvent it can't go after the decedents or spouse for payment without convincing a judge to let them.