It appears basso's behavior in threads has recently been regressing to the level of a 5-year old, which is a bit unusual, given the fact he claims to be in his 50's, and well below the D&D median mental age (which is about 9 years old) and his usual custom (an obnxoious 13 year old). I wonder what is causing this.
I suspect that having his beloved Cheney out of office plays a part. Couple that with McCain-Palin's defeat and the usual seasonal affective disorder of November in NYC. In addition, as the near permanent wars drag on, there is always his kids will take his views to heart, but not be chickenhawks, and enlist to fight Aghans, Iraqis, Pakis or God knows who. Quite depressing overall for the Basso I would think.
The panel that set up the mammogram guidelines is an independent panel that doesn't set government policy. The HHS Secretary isn't overruling them as they aren't policy. http://health.usnews.com/articles/h...ce-member-defends-mammography-guidelines.html [rquoter]THURSDAY, Nov. 19 (HealthDay News) -- Responding to the uproar over revised mammogram recommendations unveiled earlier this week, a member of the independent task force that crafted the recommendations defended them Thursday, saying they were based on the most current, accurate information available. ... On Wednesday, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius responded to the controversy that followed the release of the task force recommendations on Monday. She said the USPSTF does "not set federal policy and they don't determine what services are covered by the federal government." [/rquoter] Now can you show me where in the bill that came out of the house that the task force mentioned will be empowered to determine what is what isn't covered?
They determine what is and is not covered; and routinely prescribe a maximum payout amount (e.g. lifetime cap of $2MM). Complaints regarding theoretical "rationing" in any proposed reform are consequently somewhat daft.
No, they determine what coverage they will offer in a policy at a given rate. You decide if it's a policy and rate you want. The ability to choose a policy means you determine what kind of coverage you have, not the insurance company. The insurance company offers and provides the coverage, it doesn't impose it. If there is a $2MM payout cap, that's something you voluntarily agreed to when you signed the policy. What's daft is not comprehending the difference between a coverage policy agreed to voluntarily by the provider and patient, and a health care mandate imposed on the citizenry by force.
Chioce, as you describe it, is a complete misnomer. My employer offers one carrier. Alternative options outside my employer's plans are fiscal suicide. Even if that were not the case, choice is still non-existant. What's daft is pretending they are at all different, my friend. Except that one covers everyone and is not seeking a profit. Again, this has been stated many times before. Here is the thread I pulled this data from.
I took a look at the link and I will agree it sets a floor for what is covered but in regards to this becoming a death panel empowered to ration it says nothing about that. What it appears to be saying is that the recommendations of that task force is the minimum that must be covered. Under your own argument regarding insurance plans you can always purchase an insurance plan that exceeds that floor.
You seem to be mixing up two separate arguments. One is an argument regarding death panels which what has been presented as a panel that would deny necessary coverage leading to death. The second is an argument regarding what is and what isn't required to be covered by insurance. I will agree with you on the second argument that different insurance plans provide different amounts of coverage so you can adjust the premium you pay based on uponw what type of coverage you ask for. The evidence you have presented that the Health Care Reform Act HR3590 does specifiy a minimum requirements to what needs to be covered. Not being an expert on health insurance I presume that currently states have minimum requirement for health insurance so you wouldn't have health insurance that covers virtually nothing. This bill appears to provide a national standard. Now I can see how this could be a problem if there are health insurance plans with cheaper premiums that cover less than the minimum specified in the bill those plans would no longer be legal. That said I presume that most state laws currently have their own minimum which may not be that different than what is in this bill so this might not be a big deal. The second argument regarding a death panel. That would be one that sets a maximum on what is covered and beyond that nothing is covered. Now the floor and the ceiling of coverage could be the same so theoretically you could say that this bill creates a death panel if no health insurer were willing to offer anything more than the minimum but that is unlikely since in the interests of competition health insurers are likely to offer plans that exceed the minimum in varying degrees. Nothing about what you have cited indicates that the US Preventive Task Force is empowered to become a Death Panel since all its doing is setting a minimum but even under this bill has no legal power to determine individual coverage or maximum limits on coverage.
Beautiful, vibrant, articulate, optimistic. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lwzZ_VYYC_k&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lwzZ_VYYC_k&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> She's fantastic.
Thanks Commodore. Appreciate it. Studying her as a person, I'm trying to find something not to like about her. And I really can't. She reminds me of a place I'd rather be. I think it's because in the end, I'd rather be country. (but take your hands off my rock & roll fool) I have a feeling that country people from all over the world would probably find something charming about her too.
And yet I see her a liar, medium to low intelligence person who can't string two sentences together, with zero intellectual curiosity, who is a crazy religious fanatic that believes witches and evil spirits are a threat to her, who divides the nation, and believes some parts of the country are more American than other parts of the country.
Faced with a debate he is (badly) losing, Commodore utilizes the standard republican apologist gameplan and changes subjects.
The haters will keep on hating. But who cares what they think anyway. Sarah Palin is a rock star. Here are a couple of links to more pictures of her book tour. Anyone who is inclined to be offended by pictures like this that do not smack of cultural elitism should avert your eyes. Sarah Palin Book tour Pictures #1 Sarah Palin Book tour Pictures #2
