Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Introduced Legislation

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
StormyKnight View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 July 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2980
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote StormyKnight Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Introduced Legislation
    Posted: 25 October 2009 at 10:22am

Here's some recently introduced Republican-based legislation.  Seems like Ron Paul is at it again trying to put himself in the forefront of the Republican Party again.  In my opinion, he's a Libertarian-in-sheep's clothing.  Just wanted to get some remarks to pass along to the friend that sent this to me.  He's interested in what the 'paintball kids' have to say.  He thinks its funny I spend so much time on a paintball forum.

 
H.R. 2629, the Coercion is Not Health Care Act, stops government from taking even more of our money and railroading us into its health care scheme by preventing any individual or agency in the federal government from requiring anyone to purchase health insurance.  H.R. 2629 also prohibits conditioning the receipt of any government benefit or participation in any government program on the purchase or maintenance of health insurance.

H.R. 1495, the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act of 2009, allows all Americans to pay their health care bills through the method that suits them best by providing all Americans with a tax credit for 100% of health care expenses (fully refundable against both income and payroll taxes), allowing individuals to roll over unused amounts in cafeteria plans and Flexible Savings Accounts (FSA), providing a tax credit for premiums for a high-deductible insurance policy connected with a Health Savings Account (HSA) and allowing seniors to use funds in an HSA to pay for a medigap policy, as well as making all medical expenses tax deductible by repealing the 7.5% threshold for the deduction of medical expenses.

H.R. 1498, the Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act of 2009, addresses rising medical malpractice costs by providing a tax credit for negative outcomes insurance purchased prior to medical treatment and by preventing medical malpractice awards obtained through binding arbitration from being taxed.


H.R. 2630, the Protect Patients and Physicians Privacy Act, allows patients and physicians to opt-out of any government-mandated or -funded system of electronic health care records and repeals the federal law creating an “unique patient identifier.”  It also denies the use of federal funds to advance the use of standard unique health identifiers in any federal, state, or private health care plan.

H.R. 3394, the Freedom of Health Speech Act, requires the FTC to actually prove health care claims are false before preventing those claims from being made, and H.R. 3395, the Health Freedom Act, ends the FDA’s attempts to censure truthful health claims.
Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9819
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 October 2009 at 10:31am
At first glance, I don't have too big a problem with any of them.  But, I get accused of Libertarian leanings on a regular basis.
Back to Top
StormyKnight View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 July 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2980
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote StormyKnight Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 October 2009 at 10:42am
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

At first glance, I don't have too big a problem with any of them.  But, I get accused of Libertarian leanings on a regular basis.
I've changed over from Republican to Libertarian.  George Bush ruined the party for me.  I just can't bring myself to vote Republican anymore.  Voting Libertarian is the next best option for me.  (Another thing that irritates my friend.  According to him, I'm responsible for Obama being in office because I didn't vote for McCain.)  LOL
Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 October 2009 at 12:29pm
H.R. 1498 is something this nation desperately needs.

The rest I'm lukewarm on.  Can't see anything I would object to, but I can't see anything that will pass either.
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
__sneaky__ View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Voted 2010 Most Improved Forumer

Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: Uncertain
Status: Offline
Points: 5286
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote __sneaky__ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 October 2009 at 12:39pm
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

At first glance, I don't have too big a problem with any of them.  But, I admit to Libertarian leanings on a regular basis.
Back to Top
choopie911 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Commie Canuck

Joined: 01 June 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 30745
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote choopie911 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 October 2009 at 4:10pm
What really bugs me is that now the right is opposing net neutrality, almost as if it's because Obama is for it (surprise)

Glen Beck is now calling net neutrality a "socialist plot"
Back to Top
Rofl_Mao View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
request denied

Joined: 27 October 2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3192
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rofl_Mao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 October 2009 at 4:52pm
I don't get why more people aren't Libertarian. I think its a great idea to have everybody do what ever they want as long as its not hurting others.
Back to Top
StormyKnight View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 July 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2980
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote StormyKnight Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 October 2009 at 5:32pm
Originally posted by Rofl_Mao Rofl_Mao wrote:

I don't get why more people aren't Libertarian. I think its a great idea to have everybody do what ever they want as long as its not hurting others.
Exactly.  QFT
Back to Top
__sneaky__ View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Voted 2010 Most Improved Forumer

Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: Uncertain
Status: Offline
Points: 5286
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote __sneaky__ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 October 2009 at 5:33pm
Originally posted by Rofl_Mao Rofl_Mao wrote:

I don't get why more people aren't Libertarian. I think its a great idea to have everybody do what ever they want as long as its not hurting others.
I wish this wasn't Rofl_Mao... And it kind of kills me to say this, but.... This.
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 October 2009 at 8:38pm
Originally posted by choopie911 choopie911 wrote:

What really bugs me is that now the right is opposing net neutrality, almost as if it's because Obama is for it (surprise)

Glen Beck is now calling net neutrality a "socialist plot"
 
I really don't understand opposing net neutrality, but then again, I'm not exactly an expert on the subject either.
 
As for the bills in the OP, can't argue with any of them.
Back to Top
mod98commando View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4423
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mod98commando Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 October 2009 at 12:31am
Originally posted by stratoaxe stratoaxe wrote:

Originally posted by choopie911 choopie911 wrote:

What really bugs me is that now the right is opposing net neutrality, almost as if it's because Obama is for it (surprise)

Glen Beck is now calling net neutrality a "socialist plot"
 
I really don't understand opposing net neutrality, but then again, I'm not exactly an expert on the subject either.
 
As for the bills in the OP, can't argue with any of them.


I have to agree on the bills in the OP. Doesn't sound like any of them are bad to me.

As for net neutrality, I'm not sure which way to go on that. I'm not sure I see a reason to be against it really. If the people using a lot of bandwidth are actually making it difficult for service providers to deliver a reliable, fast connection to others on the network then I can see a tiered or QoS system helping to balance things out. Otherwise, just leave it how it is.
oreomann33: Everybody invades Poland
Rofl_Mao: And everyone eats turkey
Me: But only if they're hungary
Mack: Yeah but hungary people go russian through their food and end up with greece on everyth
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 October 2009 at 4:03pm
Originally posted by Rofl_Mao Rofl_Mao wrote:

I don't get why more people aren't Libertarian. I think its a great idea to have everybody do what ever they want as long as its not hurting others.
 
Because it is a fanciful ideology that has no chance of success in the real world?  Sure, it's fun to sit around the camp-fire, smoke some pot, and discuss libertarian ideals, but then the real world comes crashing in.
 
 

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Rofl_Mao View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
request denied

Joined: 27 October 2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3192
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rofl_Mao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 October 2009 at 4:07pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Originally posted by Rofl_Mao Rofl_Mao wrote:

I don't get why more people aren't Libertarian. I think its a great idea to have everybody do what ever they want as long as its not hurting others.
 
Because it is a fanciful ideology that has no chance of success in the real world?  Sure, it's fun to sit around the camp-fire, smoke some pot, and discuss libertarian ideals, but then the real world comes crashing in.
 
 


Kind of like Communism or Socialism? Sounds good but can never work properly.


Edited by Rofl_Mao - 26 October 2009 at 4:07pm
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 October 2009 at 4:22pm
Originally posted by StormyKnight StormyKnight wrote:

H.R. 2629, the Coercion is Not Health Care Act, stops government from taking even more of our money and railroading us into its health care scheme by preventing any individual or agency in the federal government from requiring anyone to purchase health insurance.  H.R. 2629 also prohibits conditioning the receipt of any government benefit or participation in any government program on the purchase or maintenance of health insurance.

 
Lame grandstanding, like most of the stuff Ron Paul does.  Passing a law - that can be undone by Congress - that Congress can't pass a law they haven't passed yet?  If this passed it would simply require a health reform bill to add a section titled "the Ron Paul thing is revoked."  This is a waste of taxpayer time and money.
 
Also randomly dumb.  Why single out healthcare?  Why don't we go ahead and pass a "law" that government can't take our money for fruit fly research, art support, welfare programs, or whatever other thing Congressman X doesn't like?
 
Lame, lame, and dumb.  And wasteful.

Quote H.R. 1495, the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act of 2009, allows all Americans to pay their health care bills through the method that suits them best by providing all Americans with a tax credit for 100% of health care expenses (fully refundable against both income and payroll taxes), allowing individuals to roll over unused amounts in cafeteria plans and Flexible Savings Accounts (FSA), providing a tax credit for premiums for a high-deductible insurance policy connected with a Health Savings Account (HSA) and allowing seniors to use funds in an HSA to pay for a medigap policy, as well as making all medical expenses tax deductible by repealing the 7.5% threshold for the deduction of medical expenses.
 
This is reasonably good.  But Ron Paul isn't always clear on the interaction between taxation and the marketplace.  This would simplify, but it wouldn't actually make healthcare more affordable.  Not by one dime.
 
But it won't do much.  People would still go broke from illness.  That's a lot of effort for very minor revisions (taxing employer-paid premiums would have more of the effect he is looking for). 

Quote
H.R. 1498, the Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act of 2009, addresses rising medical malpractice costs by providing a tax credit for negative outcomes insurance purchased prior to medical treatment and by preventing medical malpractice awards obtained through binding arbitration from being taxed.
 
Extra-lame.  Ron Paul should know better.  The "zomg medical malpractice lawsuits is running up the costs" is such crap.  Total AMA and insurance co manufactured scare hype.  There are plenty of studies showing that the total cost of all malpractice litigation is less than 2% of US healthcare costs - that's ALL malpractice litigation, not just the "frivolous" stuff.
 
And malpractice litigation is NOT "unnecessary" - and why is that?  Why, because we don't have socialized medicine, that's why.  We rely on litigation to allocate costs to the malfeasor.  That's the way our system works.  Picking on medical malpractice claims is inconsistent with how the rest of the legal system works.
 
AND AND - anybody notice how this squib was written?  The way to address rising costs of MEDICAL MALPRACTICE is to address medical malpractice LITIGATION?  Wouldn't a better way be to actually address the MEDICAL MALPRACTICE?
 
Let's see...  Lots of malpractice suits are (alledgedly) running up costs...  whatever should we do...  ... ...  Oh, I know - let's not work on reducing malpractice, but instead work on reducing the lawsuits!  BRILLIANT!
 
I forget the actual numbers, but there is consistent data that the majority of malpractice is committed by a minority of caregivers.  Kind of the old 80/20 rule.  But thanks to AMA policies, hospital shush rules, insurance company fears, and other ignoble motivations, malpracticing doctors are hardly ever defrocked (or whatever).  Instead, the lawsuits are fought and the doctors go on to malpractice some more.
 
Talk about shooting the messenger.  Jeez.
 
So - lame lame lame.


Quote H.R. 2630, the Protect Patients and Physicians Privacy Act, allows patients and physicians to opt-out of any government-mandated or -funded system of electronic health care records and repeals the federal law creating an “unique patient identifier.”  It also denies the use of federal funds to advance the use of standard unique health identifiers in any federal, state, or private health care plan.
 
This is so dumb it hurts.
 
It is frankly embarassing that medical records are still on paper.  Allowing that to continue is obscenely wasteful.  Going fully digital is one of the few things that everybody agrees will save money and save lives.  So of course Ron Paul opposes it.
 


Quote H.R. 3394, the Freedom of Health Speech Act, requires the FTC to actually prove health care claims are false before preventing those claims from being made, and H.R. 3395, the Health Freedom Act, ends the FDA’s attempts to censure truthful health claims.
 
In other words, BRING ON THE LIES!
 
This is a tricky interplay between free speech issues and what are basically "truth in advertising" concepts.  I am troubled by the FTC's activities here, but also troubled by the implications of this bill.
 
 
Short version:  More Ron Paul grandstanding that wastes taxpayer money, which is really all he does anymore.
 
 

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Shub View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
I don’t have one either. Is that good???

Joined: 11 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Shub Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 October 2009 at 4:49pm
Originally posted by mod98commando mod98commando wrote:


Originally posted by stratoaxe stratoaxe wrote:

Originally posted by choopie911 choopie911 wrote:

What really bugs me is that now the right is opposing net neutrality, almost as if it's because Obama is for it (surprise) Glen Beck is now calling net neutrality a "socialist plot"

 

I really don't understand opposing net neutrality, but then again, I'm not exactly an expert on the subject either.

 

As for the bills in the OP, can't argue with any of them.
I have to agree on the bills in the OP. Doesn't sound like any of them are bad to me. As for net neutrality, I'm not sure which way to go on that. I'm not sure I see a reason to be against it really. If the people using a lot of bandwidth are actually making it difficult for service providers to deliver a reliable, fast connection to others on the network then I can see a tiered or QoS system helping to balance things out. Otherwise, just leave it how it is.


Net neutrality doesn't mean that network operators can't throttle bandwidth to protect the greater network and maintain their connections. Neutrality means that networks cannot do deep-packet inspection, and throttle, modify or block certain types of internet traffic.

For instance...Verizon is a telephone company, but they also sell DSL internet service. What if they decided that people using Skype was eating into their long distance revenue, so they decided to delay VOIP packets as they traveled the internet, making Skype's call quality so bad that people decided to continue using their long distance landlines, or perhaps a Verizon Wireless cellphone.

You could make the same argument by changing Verizon to Comcast, and VOIP to streaming video. The tele-coms that run most residential internet plans have a long history of making boat loads of money by charging for premium services, extra features on phone plans, lots of upsales in cable TV plans, Pay-Per-view, etc.

To the tele-coms, Net neutrality means that they are nothing more than a common carrier, and their customers can use cheap or free internet services in place of their high profit packaged plans and features.

Edited by Shub - 26 October 2009 at 4:54pm
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 October 2009 at 8:06pm
Originally posted by Rofl_Mao Rofl_Mao wrote:

Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Originally posted by Rofl_Mao Rofl_Mao wrote:

I don't get why more people aren't Libertarian. I think its a great idea to have everybody do what ever they want as long as its not hurting others.
 
Because it is a fanciful ideology that has no chance of success in the real world?  Sure, it's fun to sit around the camp-fire, smoke some pot, and discuss libertarian ideals, but then the real world comes crashing in.
 
 


Kind of like Communism or Socialism? Sounds good but can never work properly.
 
Pretty much - at least for communism.  "Socialism" is a label put on many things, some of which work just fine in reality.  Kind of a broader term.
 

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9819
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 October 2009 at 8:08pm
^^^I was going to say "Kind of like being a liberal?"  Big smile
Back to Top
Rofl_Mao View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
request denied

Joined: 27 October 2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3192
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rofl_Mao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 October 2009 at 9:43pm
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

^^^I was going to say "Kind of like being a liberal?"  Big smile


This too. LOL


Edited by Rofl_Mao - 26 October 2009 at 9:43pm
Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 October 2009 at 10:39pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Let's see...  Lots of malpractice suits are (alledgedly) running up costs...  whatever should we do...  ... ...  Oh, I know - let's not work on reducing malpractice, but instead work on reducing the lawsuits!  BRILLIANT!
 
I forget the actual numbers, but there is consistent data that the majority of malpractice is committed by a minority of caregivers.  Kind of the old 80/20 rule.  But thanks to AMA policies, hospital shush rules, insurance company fears, and other ignoble motivations, malpracticing doctors are hardly ever defrocked (or whatever).  Instead, the lawsuits are fought and the doctors go on to malpractice some more.
 
Talk about shooting the messenger.  Jeez.
 
So - lame lame lame.
 
Short version:  More Ron Paul grandstanding that wastes taxpayer money, which is really all he does anymore.
 


That completely ignores the cost of malpractice insurance for the many doctors who aren't sued for malpractice, or who don't have massive damages to pay in court.  The problem isn't the damages from the real malpractice suits, it's the increased cost of doing business for everyone caused by their existence.

Also, until we train a lot more doctors, we're going to be facing those malpracticing doctors -- demand is just too high to get rid of them.  Granted, this isn't a strong argument to actually keep them around, just a statement of how our economy works.

I wasn't aware that Ron Paul was actually good for anything, he is a politician after all.
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 October 2009 at 3:28am
Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:

Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Let's see...  Lots of malpractice suits are (alledgedly) running up costs...  whatever should we do...  ... ...  Oh, I know - let's not work on reducing malpractice, but instead work on reducing the lawsuits!  BRILLIANT!
 
 


That completely ignores the cost of malpractice insurance for the many doctors who aren't sued for malpractice, or who don't have massive damages to pay in court. 
 
No, it doesn't.  That is specifically included.  Moreover, those costs are to the physicians, and are largely not passed on to the end users.  In other words, the cost of malpractice litigation is not that big (<2%) and is mostly borne by physicians, who by and large have quite handsome earnings, AND who by and large are the ones who could make it stop, by coming down hard on the incompetents in their own ranks instead of covering it up.
 
Quote The problem isn't the damages from the real malpractice suits, it's the increased cost of doing business for everyone caused by their existence.
 
Which is tiny.  TINY.  Healthcare companies spend far more suing each other than they do defending/paying malpractice claims.
 
No matter how you cut it, malpractice litigation is not a major component of healthcare costs in the US.  It just isn't.

Quote Also, until we train a lot more doctors, we're going to be facing those malpracticing doctors -- demand is just too high to get rid of them.  Granted, this isn't a strong argument to actually keep them around, just a statement of how our economy works.
 
No.  It is not market-place pressures.  Medicine is not a free market.  Medical licenses are not decided by the market, nor are physician hirings or placements.  And if it WERE a free market with informed consumers, people would stay home and take their chances with cancer rather than go to the doctor who cuts off the wrong leg.
 
If there are economic pressures in play, it is the desire of medical practices to keep earning money off a bad doctor, even at the expense of his maltreated patients.
 

 

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.189 seconds.