I don't think it's "women" that need to get a grip, it's you.

If a woman who is breast feeding does not express the milk regularly, her supply dries up. Most women don't have the luxury of staying at home for the 6+ months of breast feeding time that a baby needs. Breast feeding for at least 6 months is shown to have lifelong health benefits for the baby - and new studies are showing that this also holds true for the mother.

Breast feeding is good for the nation. If companies don't want to provide even the smallest, simplest things to their employees when it's shown that doing so is good for EVERYBODY (or do you think the health of your community has no impact on you?), do we really WANT them to be doing business with us?

A country that refuses to care for its citizens is "weak and pathetic."

seriously? What is wrong with women having an unpaid private area to express their breast milk? As an OLDER, SINGLE, WOMAN who has NEVER HAD and NEVER INTENDED to have children, I think that it is about TIME that this has come to a head.

What kind of woman are you anyway that doesn't care about the safety and comfort of other women? Why should women have to go in the disgusting bathroom, sit on a toilet, and express their breast milk? This is NOT a shameful behaviour or a sexual act---(by the way, LB, you don't have any supporting information to that fact, and are just being an a**hole, besides, all you have to do is go into the bathroom to do it if you really feel the need to handle your dick at work, nobody needs a clean and quiet area to masturbate)---breastfeeding is natural, needed, and proven to be healthy for both mother and child.

So, smokers need smoke breaks (and every smoker I've ever worked with defended their breaks to the death), but women who take a break to pump are weakening the nation?

OK.

Tony D-373561

Troll.

Karen's supporting my position: lesbianism is the way to go.

I am glad to see that people will now have a choice about assisted suicide or euthanasia. I have seen so many people suffer so bad and the end and beg for death and doctors were unable to help them.

abstinence only education is not to like

one thing to make abstinence prominent or the lead...but ONLY?! human nature being human nature

that is not accepting reality.

wonder what group insisted THAT should be in there....somehow doubt that was Dems who required that.

Ido

The taxes are primarily on the incomes of the upper 2% of wage earners. If you don't make $250,000 or more a year, you won't be affected.

abstinence only education is not to like

one thing to make abstinence prominent or the lead...but ONLY?!

Did you read the entire paragraph? Do you dispute that abstinence is the ONLY way to avoid pregnancy and STDs? Sure there are other methods but abstinence is the only guaranteed 100% effective method. Just like the only way to ensure you never die in an airplane crash is never to ride in an airplane.

Whats not to like to like with these provisions.

Doesn't matter what the provisions are. The conservatives want Obama to fail and will be against ANY plan or idea he has.

I can't believe anyone in their right mind would be against a woman expressing milk at work. Seriously? What kind of cave are you living in. I breastfed two babies, expressed milk at work. It took about 3-5 minutes two times a day for three months. That's only 6-10 minutes a day, and although I didn't have to, I would just stay an extra 6-10 minutes each day at work. Smokers take a lot more time on their breaks, or what about chatty workers who chat with their friends at work for 10-20 minutes a day, but I never hear anyone complain about those types of workers! I dislike many government regulations too, and honestly, allowing women to pump shouldn't even be a regulation, managers should be ethical enough to know to allow it due to it's many, many great healthy benefits. Unfortunately, it seems like there are women who don't have managers as knowledgeable or concerned about their employees' welfare as mine have been.

There's lots not to like here. And this is just 10 things that are required. 1. Postpartum Depression: There's already been studies. Why waste more money? 2. Abstinence Education: Why is any money spent on this? Does it really cost money for a teacher to say "the only way to make sure you don't get pregnant, gets std's, and other sex related conditions is not to have sex?" 3. Power Driven Wheel-chairs: Rent 'em all? Talk about increasing costs! It might make sense if someone isn't expected to live long, but it's not easy to see that this could increase costs by 1,000 times. Just go to your rent-a-center and rent your furniture. After 6 months to a year you'd have owned it outright. 4. Oral Healthcare: Already done! 5. May or may not be feasible, depends on situation. 6. Ridiculous amount of paperwork required for this, and to what end? 7. Too broad and probably unnecessary in a lot of cases. If the physician sees the need for a 6 month check up then it is already being done. 8. Diabetes? A total waste of money! Five people die in a car wreck and all the bodies have to go to a coroner to determine whether they had diabetes? 9. Duplication of what is already being done. 10. Can't argue with this. May not be government's job, but since they have a ton of regulations, might as well have this one.

Reprinted from RIGHTWING KAISER HEALTH NEWS!?!??!?

Gee I wondered why it read kinda funny weird not funny haha.

Must be that rightwing aftertaste along with a judicious amount of OUT OF CONTEXT JOURNALISM.

And I use that word loosely....

sam adams

Doesn't matter what the provisions are. The conservatives want Obama to fail and will be against ANY plan or idea he has.

Yeah yeah we know. And Democrats just wanted Bush to fail so they were against any plan or idea he had....until Obama could take credit for the end results anyway.

NOBODY wants this country to fail. We ARE the country. If that's your entire argument against conservatives, you've been brainwashed and haven't been checking up on facts yourself.

Obama claiming businesses couldn't succeed without gov't is like a recyling plan that puts the recyclables in the same truck with the trash. Gov't couldn't do ANYTHING without the capital produced by businesses generating tax revenue and payroll. The fact that he made a long speech to clarify that we were definitely right in thinking that's what his logic was is astounding.

#11 - Empty pantries for the working poor (especially minorities).

Blacks and Hispanics are disproportionally the working poor, the group of people who will -- by far -- be most negatively impacted financially by the law. As employers supply insurance to those who they haven't previously covered, they will reduce going wages to make up for the cost of the insurance. The working poor (disproportionally minorities) will end up making significantly less money meaning there will be less money for them to put food in their already bare pantries. They'll be starving, but at least they'll be able to take care of that pesky rash! For companies unable to reduce wages because they pay minimum wage, they will be forced to raise prices. The rich shop at Sachs, the poor (disproportionally minorities) shop at the Dollar Store. Guess which store will be forced to raise their prices. It will be the store where the poor shop (disproportionally minorities), meaning -- again -- that the poor (disproportionally minorities) will have less food in their already bare pantries because of price inflation. Question: If you know consequences are going to happen, can you really call them "unintended"?

Add to that the fact that the leading driver of income mobility for the poor (disproportionally minorities) is the creation of small businesses. Those businesses' success -- even mild success -- pull the poor (disproportionally minorities) out of poverty. By adding major additional costs to small business creation and growth, far fewer poor (disproportionally minorities) will be able to afford to start businesses -- while the rich will still be able to -- again meaning the poor (disproportionally minorities) will have their path out of poverty essentially cut off. Again, the working poor (disproportionally minorities) get screwed by the foreseeable consequences of this law. In this case it even makes it easier for the rich to get ahead as their own small businesses will face less competition. It actually exacerbates class caste.

Thanks ObamaCare!

Well it'll certainly keep the people from scamming a wheelchair and then selling it. Unless they fake it well enough to get one of the one's on the list.

Have you ever seen those commercials on TV where companies are telling seniors to call them to see if they qualify for a $7,000 scooter? I've talked to 65 year olds who have no problem getting around and yet these scooter manufacturers want to qualify them for a free scooter through medicare.

This is a excellent provision. It is good for people to finally start to hear about more of the positive provision of the Health Care Act.

Maybe you should try to manage being mobility challenged for a while, to find out it is not a fun way to live. It's NOT a choice

Agree. My disabled wife has a very supportive motorized "scooter." It is heavy duty and will not tip over - unlike some that i have seen that are actually less helpful and dangerous (my wife's cousin was in one that fell over when she was simply making a turn).

Jean and Bill, the law doesn't prevent you from getting these devices. what it does do is keep people who don't need them from getting Medicare to pay for one and then turning around and selling it. if you really need one, what's the problem with having it as a long term rental- or buying it yourself?

Renting will cost more. My mother just bought hers so this won't affect her per se but when my father was doing the research, as to whether to purchase or rent, it was less expensive to buy.

Lynn...Bingo!...that's why this was written into the bill, so that the medical equipment companies can make more money in the long run. Pelosi and Reid didn't right the PPACA, the health insurance and medical industry did. And just like Medicare, it will be buried in unfunded liabilities in no time.

not sure there is a big racket for "scamming" a wheelchair and selling it

a doctor or PT needs to certify you physically need durable medical equipment for Medicare before you can get it (even a cane).

thinking of the very disabled, permantly in wheelchairs...I wasn't sure what their wording meant but I HOPE such people with CP and spina bifida muscular dystrophy, etc....and all those conditions DO NOT HAVE TO RENT> I do know that each person has to adapt chairs to specific needs...all different kinds of chairs

I hope that it does not get in the way of people's needs. To someone in a wheelchair that item is almost like an extension of their body. (such as how my glasses are...I cannot see a thing without them)

Why is it a good thing when Obama supports abstinence education, however, if a Republican supports such a curriculum, it's demonized like some archaic, religious program?

It's not a good thing. Aabstinence-only education is terrible. It's ineffective (states with Abstinence-Only education have the highest rate of unwed mothers and teen pregnancies) and it's ridiculous.

As a Family and Consumer Science teacher, I'm supposed to teach my children how to feed, clothe, change, play with, and care for the baby, but I'm not allowed to teach them how to not have the baby in the first place, because that falls under Health/PE curriculum.

It may have been a trade-off for other things in the bill. I'm still disappointed.

I agree eelo. Case in point, MS now has a teen pregnancy rate that is 60% higher than the national average. Abstinence only education just doesn't work with hormonally driven teens period.

Cryin,

What this program teaches in in addition to sex education - that 'abstinence' is the only 100% way to keep from getting pregnant. My point is that the right-wing of the GOP constantly throws it's pro-life/abstinence only programs out there as something 'evil' the Democratic party doesn't believe in - yet, here we are, providing funding for a program that the GOP has claimed as their foster-child. Meanwhile, why did the GOP held congress/president let this expire if 'abstinence only' is such a great program?

I'm not saying it either good or bad - just interesting that it was expired under the GOP and reinstated under a Democrat.

Crying shame

Why is it a good thing when Obama supports abstinence education, however, if a Republican supports such a curriculum, it's demonized like some archaic, religious program?

So... now you're blathering that for Obama to have compromised, accepted and included a provision that conservatives argued for, means he now "supports" the idea. It' s called compromise.

Do any of you people actually understand anything about how legislation, even in it's purest and most civic sense even works?

Are you folks so immune to civics education that all your 'knowledge' is gleaned from Fox, People or the New York Post?

The 'wisdom of the American People'? What a friggin' joke.

I would bet that the "abstinence only" provision is a GOP amendment.

I think the biggest problem with abstinence only education, because honestly everything they teach is correct (it is the only 100% way to prevent all of those things), is that for decades parents have been using Sex Ed as a way to avoid having those conversations with their kids. If they don't have anyone out there giving them any information, they may not even know that what they are doing IS sex. The ultimate responsibility of teaching these things falls to the parents. My daughter is only 11, and I believe in waiting until marriage for sex. That said, she is her own person and I am raising her to make her own decisions (even if I don't agree with them). So over the years I have gradually given her more and more information. If she asks a question, I answer it fully, without hesitation. Sex is not something to be embarrassed about or ashamed of. I hope that my openness will allow her to be open and honest with me in return. Of course, I don't live in an abstinence only state. I live in the Pacific Northwest. We probably have one of the most informative sexual educations in the country. But I would rather my child get the information from me first.

It was a trade off. Obama does not support it, he decided that it was worth the compromise to get the bill passed.

Differences in philosophy in politics:

Democrat=Teach abstinance-only. The only 100% effective method.

Republican=Only teach abstinence. Ignore real life situations.

It's a shame you weren't in the classroom when my school first started sex-ed. Prime material for stand-up comedy.

dragonmaster

Troll

How much funding does it take to teach abstinence-only? "Hey kids, don't f**k. Class dismissed". Also, the only way to be 100% sure of not getting injured in an automobile collision is to never go near a car. Brilliant.

A national debt pushing to $16 trillion. Why should we be paying for this kind of education in the first place?

By the way, its not the only 100% sure way of not getting knocked up. There are medical proceedures that are 100% effective.

The question ones needs to ask themselves is, when is Obamacare going to make them a mandate to protect the profits of the insurance companies or to control polulation growth?

I didnt know about these details either. I wish they would do more of these snippets. I am curious, however so many need to be educated. If they keep it brief, like this, even the narrow-minded may read a few points.

abstinence is "the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems."

Not even remotely true. No one has ever gotten pregnant, got sexually transmitted diseases, or other associated health problems from: masturbation, mutual masturbation, porn, or sex toys used properly. Also, oral sex, anal sex, and bestiality have no risk of pregnancy, though they do have some disease and health risks.

By all means, lets teach all the advantages of abstinence: no health risks, no pregnancy risks, no legal risks, no embarrassments, approved by all religious groups. But we should also teach about the proper use of contraceptives - it won't harm those who stay abstinent to know about it (they just won't use that knowledge), but it is vitally important information for those who refuse to remain abstinent.

what happened

The question ones needs to ask themselves is, when is Obamacare going to make them a mandate to protect the profits of the insurance companies or to control polulation growth?

really? you think the baby-raping insurance companies need their profits protected? well guess what, they got it. this bill guarantees them the right to make a 15% profit. which, by the way, is the normal standard built-in profit margin usually guaranteed to anyone who contracts for a service with the federal government. but it does bring their profit margin down from the 30+% that they've been gouging us out of for decades

sorry, I must amend slightly. that 15% profit is for large-group plans. for small group and individual they can get 20% profit. any amount over these must be refunded to the buyer (usually the employer rather than the employee)

maga...you're trying to make sense out of political nonsense. Politicians are a walking bundle of contradictions.

I exist because of abstinance-only education. 35+ years ago, my mom was taught 'good Catholic girls don't do that'. So she had to rely on rumors from friends for information. One of those rumors was that you can't get pregnant your first time. Nine months later, there I was. Push abstinance all you want, but teach contraceptive and disease prevention too. My sisters and I were given information, and all three of us were married before having kids.

Good things.... like the 21 new taxes?

Or how about waiting for some bureaucrat to approve your doctor's visit...

HAS ANY OF YOU ACTUALLY READ THE DOCUMENT? No? Because it's 2000 pages long.

Try this one

The insurance company has "14 days after the date of receipt of the request for prior authorization, but in no event later than 3 business
days after the date of receipt of information that is reasonably necessary to make such
determination".

What if the insurance doesn't make it's deadline? You assume your claim has been denied. An insurance can buy themselves more time by asking for more information as well. That adds more days on your wait.

Uhmm... that's not new. Insurance companies have been using that tactic to delay payment for decades. Not only do they send the "request for missing information" out to buy more time, but they send it to the patient instead of the doctor's office; they are hoping the patient misplaces the request letter or forgets to tell the doctor so they can run into the statute of limitations for disbursement.

I completely agree with Angie1994 in KY. People need to get up and walk, not ride around in motorized carts and chairs. Many of the people I see wheeling around are slowly losing whatever ability to walk they still had by riding everywhere.

And comprehensive sex education is a good idea also. It should include abstinence. And, it should be taught in senior centers, since it seems a lot of retirement age people didn't get the message about venereal disease.

What about patients who cannot use their arms--or don't have any--how do you propose that they get around? Mobility impaired and armless---a little difficult to move a wheelchair.

Clearly, Angie 1994, you have not even a basic understanding of Medicare rules regarding wheelchairs. Medicare WILL NOT pay even the minimal amount they will choke out for a wheelchair that is so shoddy that it will not last more than a couple of years with only inside use and, generally speaking,no more than a year if used both in and out f the house UNLESS THE PATIENT AND THEIR PHYSICIAN SWEAR THAT THEY MUST HAVE IT TO MOVE ABOUT IN THEIR HOME.

You say you work in rehab. I suspect you are, at best, a CNA, and judging from your attitude not one I would want caring for anyone I loved.....or didn't.

But what I really want to know is will this put an end to those annoying "Scooter Store" commercials?

I agree that anyone who can walk should do so as much as possible. I seldom go anywhere as I can't stay on my feet for more than 5 minutes, but I certainly wouldn't use one around the house. BUT -- what the heck is a "rehabilitative wheelchair? Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Motorized wheelchairs usally aren't approved until the patient reaches a point where they have a near complete inability to walk. Saying that everyone just needs to walk more doesn't work when they flat out can't. As for regular wheelchairs, the assumption is being made that the patient has the strength to roll the wheels themselves. If they do not have someone with them 24/7, a regular wheelchair wouldn't do them any good.

abstinence first can be understood but abstinence only is foolish. If you must make abstinence very prominent but the CONDOM must be pushed if sex does happen

will set teens up for disease, has already proven that in states with that teen pregnancy is UP

fools

clearly this was put in there to comprimise or please the far Right prolifers.

Public health is a science, statistical analysis can show which methods of preventing different diseases and conditions actually work in the population at large

IT has been proven that abstinence ONLY education Does not work

which makes sense.

Here's the full text:

As a condition of Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, orders for durable medical equipment must include physician documentation that a face-to-face encounter with the patient has been made during the 6 month period preceding the written order. The face-to-face can be made by the physician; a nurse practitioner or clinical nurse specialist working in collaboration with the physician; a certified nurse-midwife; or a physician assistant under the supervision of the physician. The face-to-face encounter can be made through the use of teleheath.

That works for me.Tele med-skype -via a cell phone lap top-many of us have these devices, if a serious look touch, assessment is needed,they have mobile Drs too.Use our resouces wisely including technology

Cecilia Padfield I am sorry you had to pay of pocket for your husband's wheelchair because of the need for verification. Sadly, some like your husband has to pay the price for those that scam the system, get one and sells it. I wish there was some kind of tracking system in place to deter this and have people have to reimburse the government.

I am glad you were able to donate them to places that rents them.

but this provision should speed up the process, because Medicare will no longer be footing the huge bill for the outright purchase of this equipment. if items are now rental just like other large DME (durable medical equipment) items, they should become as easy to have delivered as a hospital bed. and most families then end up selling or donating these chairs anyway after their loved one passes. this should give better access at a better price

Perhaps one Republican has a replacement plan. However, why isn't the entire party taking up any of these replacement plans? I don't hear Boehner or Cantor or anyone else talking about concrete replacement plans. It's "we must repeal".

This is only 10 of the items...

If you read through the whole document, you'll be suprised and stunned to find, many intrusive and Government-directed instances of "mandatory fun" that most Americans will find to be disagreeable.

On the other hand, if you happen to be a sedentary fat ass who is 70 lbs. overweight (with an associated BMI), Type II diabetes & a smoker with poor eating habits...you're gonna LOVE the AHCA! Now, the rest of healthy America will be funding your lifestyle - since you have personally-generated pre-existing conditions!

Thank you once again Mr. President, for making yet another specialized class of Americans, who live their unhealthy lifestyle at the expense of the rest of us, with no personal responsibility required on their part.

Oh, and anyone who thinks that soaking the upper 2% of income earners (which is quite anti-American by the way) will be enough to pay for this mistake - you are quite mistaken. Stand by for a tax increase for all Americans who earn a wage above 40K/yr.

And no, I'm not a 2%-er.

RICO

So all this affordable healthcare that's going to let more people have access to doctors is going to mean you have to wait longer to see a doc? Yeah, what a shame. How selfish of the sick and uninsured (snort).

I agree that the sick and uninsured should be taken care of...but not this way.

I'm a Repulican, and here's my plan:

My understanding is that the whole reason for turning the American health care system into disarray was for the uninsured, those with pre-existing conditions and those who cannot afford insurance (I believe the number at the outset was 30-ish million) - got it.

1. Leave the other 320-ish million Americans alone (don't increase taxes on ANYONE, and pass a law to allow the purchase of insurance across State lines (competition).

2. Draw those 30-ish million into Medicaid; at the same time tell every country that we give BILLIONS of dollars to every year that their payments are to be decreased by 10%, from now on.

3. Of the 30 million who are smokers, overweight & sedentary, require them to stop smoking, eat healthier and lose weight (a check up every 6 months). If they don't, 10% of the income will be taken by the IRS (now that the IRS is in the business of policing the population).

By the way, if this AHCA is sooooo dreamy, why doesn't it include the Legislative Branch, the Judicial Branch or the Executive Branch of our Government?

Done. Next problem...

RICO

The ADA would cost almost nothing to implement if businesses had incorporated the needed changes into routine upkeep and repair over the more than twenty years that compliance has been required. They have had more than enough time to spread any costs out over a very long period as well as using them for a tax break here and there along the way.

Don't expect anyone who is covered by the ADA to feel any sympathy for businesses that have had almost a quarter of a century to make changes to make them compliant who are now crying foul.

My office is a converted house in the historic district. It was built sometime in the late 1800's or early 1900's. It was converted into a dental office in the 60's. It did not have a wheelchair ramp. My landlord recently added one, even though we were "grandfathered in", and weren't required to do so. No maintentance has been required, as our front entrance is a concrete porch, and requires minimal maintenance. It took 2 months and cost about $6,000, because building inspectors couldn't agree on the possible interpretations of regulations regarding the construction of the handrail. For 2 months, we had a ramp with no handrail, posing a danger to our patients, thanks to confusion over ADA regs.

$6000 is a lot of money to a small business.

I have a feeling, Sandy....there's more to your story. The handrail section in ADA, is not that mysterious. I think you've missed some facts here. But hey...you gotta get kudo's for maintaining the repbub 'blame game'....nicely done, there!

Tell that to the building inspectors. The first 2 plans were approved by one inspector and subsequently rejected by another, after holes had been dug for the posts. We finally got approval when the landlord insisted that BOTH meet with him and the contractor, at the same time, and come to an agreement on what exactly was required, before any more work was started and stopped.

The ramp would have cost about the same, regardless of how long it took to get the plans approved. It's still not small potatoes to most small businessowners, which is the point I'm trying to make. But hey....keep on making accusations you have no way of substantiating. Nicely done, yourself.

And now Sandy your boss can help more clients protecting YOUR job. Your boss will get more patients that will bring in more $$ than what it cost for the railing. And the landlord will have a space that can be used by more potential clients down the road. Win win for both in the end.

What is your beef with the disabled? I'm asking as the wife of a disabled veteran. The provisions of ADA are pretty darn important to him and additionally they ensure my sons have access to education so they have a chance of living independently and NOT on public assistance when they grow up.

I'm the boss. He's the landlord. I have no problem with the disabled. You're making assumptions on both fronts. In fact, it disturbs me that our town's post office isn't handicapped-acessible, and that the sidewalk in front of my office (town maintained) has no ramp, despite my landlord's suggestion that it should when the town rebuilt it prior to my arrival. I travel to nursing homes to care for patients who would have difficulty getting to my office, despite the ramp, and I often do so on my days off. I am merely pointing out that the expenses of making buildings handicapped-acessible are not nearly so negligent as Retired RN and ItsMeeee seem to think. It's always easy to say "It doesn't cost that much" when you're not the one writing the check.

BTW, we still saw disabled patients. We carried their wheelchairs up the stairs ourselves. So, no, this doesn't protect my job, except to the extent that it protects my back.

I believe the point is to provide a clearer picture of the toll of diabetes on the American public.

Yoshi-1, often the cause of death is listed as something immediate, such as kidney failure, peripheral vascular disease, and so on, and whether the person had diabetes is not noted. So, deaths where diabetes was the contributing factor get underreported. This is an easy thing to add and doesn't cost anything--just a checkbox on a death certificate.

Why do we need to intrude into anybody's medical conditions to know why they died? That is an invasion of privacy.

Well, then Jean, we should just do away with cause of death completely, right? Let's no longer put on a murder victims death certificate that the cause of death was homicide, you know, because it's really nobody's business anyway.

Diabetes causes a lot of different complications, so I suspect the reason for that provision is to gather medical information on dangerous and fatal complications of diabetes, to see if there is a way to improve care, thus improve the lifespan and quality of life for diabetes patients.

The first step in solving a problem is defining exactly what the problem is.

Actually, this provision will be very important to my mother. She is still upset 30 years later that my grandfathers death certificate says he died of heart failure instead of diabetes (they wouldn't change it at her request). The doctors were actually amazed he lived as long as he did and cited his strong heart for the reason, but diabetes weakened it over time and so that is what got put on the death certificate.

On a side note, having the correct cause of death listed would be of value to family historians, both for genealogy curiosity and to track medical family history, so that future generations can know their risk (a family history of diabetes, like breast cancer, raises your own risk).

Actually it is saying that a health care entity that WON'T provide euthanasia, assisted suicide or mercy killing can't be forced to provide it by having their funding withheld. It is poorly worded double negative.

I had to re-read that paragraph three times. It is confusing but yea, you're right Sam.

sambrowno

What it is actually saying is that the government now sanctions euthanasia, assisted suicide, and mercy killings so the cost factors for Obamacare will be reduced.

Its raising the moral high ground to a new level or an excuse for health care providers to make a buck by providing the supplies one needs to carry out euthanasia, assisted suicide, and mercy killings.

But it will be good for the economy. Just think of all the new business and jobs its going to create. Companies and business that specialize in mercy killing and suicides. I can see some of their ads already. "We've so good at what we do, it will take your breath away." or "Money tight, no problem, Obamacare covers it."

That is absolutely not what it is saying, what happened. Slow down. Sound out every word and then put it together.

The fed gov cannot discriminate against any entity that will not provide euthanasia. Thus if an institution will not perform euthanasia (which one will?!) then the fed gov can't discriminate against them.

This is not an issue of opinion, it is reading comprehension. Just read it and comprehend.

Read it again, it says the opposite. It is included because we do have a few places that allow assisted suicide. I believe Oregon does, but I may be wrong.

sambrowno

You just refuse to understand the point. Under Obamacare the decision for this is taken out of the hands of the individual and placed in the hands of a government and an insurance representative to make that decision for the individual or their family.

Your doctor just informs you that you have liver cancer and with treatments you could live a quality life up to an additional 5 years, but if you don't get treatment you will die in 6 months.

Your doctor summits a report to Obamacare and it comes back with a refusal for treatment because the cost of the treatments aren't worth keeping you alive for another 5 years. You're going to die anyway so why waste the money keeping you alive.

Of course, in those five years you could see your first grandchild being born, or a host of other great things that could happen like them finding a cure for liver cancer, but at the time you you follow the Obamacare recommendation that you end your life because they aren't going to pay for the medicine that kills the pain.

I'm glad you support this for as sure as hell, I don't. I know that we can create a national health care plan that takes the federal government out of protecting the profits of an insurance company once and for all.

whathappened, that's a complete fantasy. That's not it at all.

I think you'll learn that this is a provision to protect hospitals that refuse to allow abortion.

What happened. "obamacare" makes no decision on medical care. Thats between you, your doctor and your insurance company JUST LIKE IT IS NOW. The only "death panels" are the medical directors of Aetna, Cigna, United Health, Anthem, etc and they have been in existence for decades. Those companies all also happen to be opponents of "obamacare" and buddy buddy with the republicants.

Now go take your meds and go to sleep , the adults are discussing important things here that you DONT even come close to understanding or being able to read.

You just refuse to understand the point. Under Obamacare the decision for this is taken out of the hands of the individual and placed in the hands of a government and an insurance representative to make that decision for the individual or their family.

Your doctor just informs you that you have liver cancer and with treatments you could live a quality life up to an additional 5 years, but if you don't get treatment you will die in 6 months. Your doctor summits a report to Obamacare and it comes back with a refusal for treatment because the cost of the treatments aren't worth keeping you alive for another 5 years. You're going to die anyway so why waste the money keeping you alive.

Your paranoia is getting WAAY out of hand! In the first place, the PP/ACA doesn't govern what treatments your doctor gives, your doctor doesn't have to ask permission from the Government to start any treatment (unlike the old way, where your doctor had to get permission from the insurance company before starting treatment...)

Lets analyze the statement:
"Forbids the federal government or anyone receiving federal health funds"
(prevents the Feds or insurers or others that receive Fed health funds)
"from discriminating against any health care entity"
(going against hospitals, clinics, doctors, etc.)
"that won't provide an item or service furnished for the purpose of causing … the death of any individual, such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing."
(health care entities that will NOT provide for euthanasia or mercy killing)

In other words, the Feds or any group getting Federal healthcare money cannot discriminate against those who refuse to participate in "mercy killing". Most if not all hospitals refuse to participate in "mercy killing" for ethical, religious, or marketing reasons, the ACA act honors that and bans any discrimination against them.

Sounds like another right-wing moonbat gets it exactly opposite, once again.

I know for a fact that a major health insurance provider has "qualifications" on who they will treat for what conditions. A man at 70 year of age was told by them that his leukemia was "not worth treating for someone his age" and the provider refused to provide treatment. Needless to say, the man died. Death panels? We already have them. I work for a major 10,000+ employee company and I pay almost 13,000 a year for my health coverage (that's my payment for the plna, does not cover any co-pays). My wife had an outpatient vaginal hysterectomy and despite being covered by her own health plan, we paid almost 10,000 of "uncovered" costs, and this was an outpatient procedure with a 1 night stay in an outpatient facility. Let me say that one of the real drivers for outsourcing was the benefits, the leading reason being health insurance, of covering employees in the US. I make good money, but my company is paying 20-40% of my salary in benefits, even with me paying what I pay for coverage. Something had/has to be done, of course the Act is not perfect and has flaws. I've seen what Republicans are "offering" (there is no official position, though I've seen and read some of the alternatives) and the only thing I see that would help is tort reform (that would be limits on malpractice suits).

poetic justice

If you think having an insurance and government representative help in making the decision on what medical services and treatment you will receive based on how much its going to cost Obamacare isn't intrusive, then you are sadly mistaken.

When the realities of Obamacare punch you in the face, you will be squealing like a stuck pig. But its okay, for you will have until 2024 to practice your oink, oinks because the full range of Obamacare benefits don't mature until that date.

I already have an insurance company that I have to constantly "work" on to get the care I need for the treatment of cancer. I am close to the maximum my insurance will pay, after that guess what? I will have to look to you the taxpayer to fund my care or die. Wouldn't you rather my very financially healthy insurance company cover me?

sambrowno

No, I wouldn't. I would rather you get all the life saving treatments you need based on your ability to pay. I would rather see a national health care program be created after the successful nonprofit health care organizations models which provide excellent health care services and treatments whose fees are based on a person ability to pay determined by their income.

Health care should never be about proving a profit for an insurance company. It should be about providing health care services and treatments to people in need. And the only way you can do that is by putting the insurance companies in their proper place of providing supplemental services to the people who who have the need of their services.

We will never have a national health care program that works as long as the health insurance companies are calling the shots. They aren't in business to provide health care services or treatments, they are in business to make a profit.

On the other hand, nonprofit health care organization are in business to provide health care services and treatments. They've been doing it for decades in this country, so they must be doing something right.

Unlike the insurance companies, they didn't create the health care crisis in this country, but their model is the solution to the health care crisis.

"I would rather you get all the life saving treatments you need based on your ability to pay."

What does that mean, based on ability to pay? NO ONE can afford to pay for as much as some of these treatments cost. I think the phrasing must be wrong.

Medical care based on what a patient can pay??? Can you hear my voice go up very high in incredulity? You have got to be kidding.

what happened, please get out of your echo chamber because it is clear that you don't get it.

Healthcare, as it stands right now, is already rationed...BY YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY. THEY make your health care decisions for you. THEY, not you and not your doctor decide what medications you take, even though the medication they think you should take IS THE WRONG MEDICATION AND DOESN'T WORK. But you're stuck because they will not cover the medication that actually works for you, you can't afford to pay $130 a month out of pocket on your own for it, and you make too much to qualifiy for assistance to help pay for this.

So don't sit there and spout your rhetoric and regurgitate all those falsehoods that have been disproven time and time again. Until you have walked in my shoes, please stop talking out of your @$$.

Well, teaching abstinence as we all know has never been taught by anyone anyplace.

This goes to show you how out of touch the Congress members who created Obamacare are with main street America.

DUH! Abstinence is already being taught in homes, schools and churchs all across this country. Whether or not a person decides to practice it is another matter that the government will never be able to control unless they fix individials at birth.

Is that going to be yet another Obamacare mandate to keep Obamacare cost down; your kids will be fixed at birth so the won't have the natural urge for sex?

That is where Obamacare is leadiing this country.

I don't see where this says that abstinence only is all that will be taught in sex ed, but it will be included as part of the curriculum.

Oh, I fell for it. What happened is a troll. I keep reading this stuff and it is just so wrong...not even close to accurate. Every statement just so far off, then I realized I fell for it. Troll got me again.

Teaching abstinence is a positve but I don't the the we need Federal funds to do it. Also "abstinence only" education has proven to be ineffective.

So you actually believe what you are saying? Wow. There I go. I almost bit again.

what happened, you are powerfully under-informed, and all that infotainment you have been getting from Faux 'News' is frying your brain. please, seek out medical attention before you implode

Who will make that decision? The person's family or a government representative along with an health insurance representative?

Obamcare takes that decision out of the families hands doesn't it. Life or death is now going to be based on the health insurance profits and the governments need to protect them.

In time, others besides the family may have to make that decision if you have people who think the way my poor mother did, that she wanted her daughter to live, even senseless. Families are too emotionally invested sometimes to make that decision, and my sympathies are with them. Having to make them for my mother was heartbreaking. I ended up making her a no-code based on my knowledge of my mother's personality. She was a formidable woman who would not have taken well to becoming helpless, and she would never have returned to consciousness. But never think it was easy to do that. I just could not make the decision to disconnect her oxygen; it was a lead weight on my heart. The doctor finally told me they would remove it and if she could not breath on her own they would put it back on. When the oxygen was removed, Mamma continued to breathe until she stopped a week later at which time the DNR was in effect.

It is almost sinful to tie up a a bed for someone who can no longer think and has no hope of recovery, nor any quality of life. There are so many who might still be able to live quality lives who need those resources.

Why cherry-pick a few problematic areas and pretend the whole thing needs to be discarded due to easily fixable problems?

Regulation is the major function of Government. Regulations are put in place to solve problems, not to harass or increase costs. For example: Air pollution was causing breathing problems, illness, and even fatalities to people with breathing disorders. Solution was air pollution regulations that dramatically reduced air pollution.

In this case, the problems were: Insurers denying expensive health care, causing suffering and death. Insurers putting annual or lifetime "caps" on coverage, again causing suffering and death. Medical costs not covered by insurers leading to financial hardship or bankruptcy. People with "pre-existing conditions" unable to obtain insurance, sometimes after loosing their job (and employer provided coverage) or after their old insurer dropped their policy. Children with birth defects being denied medical coverage due to "pre-existing conditions" (absurd, but it was happening) People without health insurance relying on expensive emergency room care, unable to pay, and the costs being transferred to paying or insured patients.

The PP/ACA solves all of those problems through regulation.

Now some regulations may need to be changed, improved, simplified, or in rare cases obsolete regulations removed. But it is sheer madness to expect wholesale ending of regulations, all of which were put in place to solve various problems.

CM 69- Bravo! well said!

Really CM69?

Did you know the bill includes taxes on charity hospitals that currently cover for these issues preventing the "Suffering and death " you claim. Hospitals and free clinics like these are supported by people like me and provide health care in a significantly less costly manner than obama care. In non-charity hospitals death is prevented by law if no other care is available through free health care and medicare for those that can't pay. Do you begrudge the extra dollar or two we pay on our insurance to cover hospital costs in a much more efficient manner than obama care?

Do you Really think 2000 pages of new laws is really going to provide a net benefit to people who use health care or to the business those people work for?

Do you think the loss of freedom is worth it?

Do you think a bill crafted in secret will benefit the country?

My insurance has already gone up from this bill. My wife is forced to pay for medicare as well because she is on disability even though the other insurance was adequate. People are asking my very small business for additional paperwork because of this bill. It has so many hidden things put in by obama's cronies that we will be feeling the pain of these for years to come as the provisions kick in. Do you not think there was a reason that most of these will not kick in till after the next congressional cycle in 2014?

This was really bad legislation, for the american people, scrap it and use a better approach

CJ

We know some things about the cost. Its going to add an additional $1 trillion/year to the national debt. For profit health insurance companies can levy a tax on you and they have the power to determine what that tax will be.

We know that Obamacare mandates that you pay a tax to an insurance company and get an insurance policy in return, but it doesn't mandate that those insurance companies pay for your health care services and treatment.

We know that Obamacare says that the insurance companies can't deny you a policy, but it doesn't prevent the insurance company from charging so much for the policy that you can't afford to buy it.

We know that insurance companies can make a profit of 12% from Obamacare which is an increase of 5 to 8% above what they are making now.

How did you people miss the fact that this bill is an almost exact copy of the plan that Bush formulated but ran out of time to get passed? Of course, he was too busy making our military get themselves killed and then channeling enough to make a huge dent in the national debt toward replacing the daub and wattle shacks they knocked down looking for nonexistent WMD's with bright,shiny new actual buildings.

We know that Obamacare mandates that you pay a tax to an insurance company and get an insurance policy in return, but it doesn't mandate that those insurance companies pay for your health care services and treatment.

Not even close to right. The only ones paying a "tax" are those who can afford insurance, but refuse to buy it, and that "tax" goes to the Government, not any insurance company. Moreover, the PP/ACA does indeed mandate that insurers pay for your health care services, and unlike what it used to be, the insurers can no longer put an annual or lifetime cap on the amount they have to pay, or drop you altogether, if you get an expensive illness. Nor can they deny you coverage due to a "pre-existing condition".

We know that Obamacare says that the insurance companies can't deny you a policy, but it doesn't prevent the insurance company from charging so much for the policy that you can't afford to buy it.

Some states like California actually regulate the premiums insurers can charge, which limits rate increases. More importantly, with insurance exchanges and no more "pre-existing conditions" bans, you can change your insurer any time you want - good old capitalist competition should help hold down prices. More importantly, the PP/ACA requires that insurers spend at least 80% of the premiums they collect on providing health care or refund the difference. Why would they charge extra high premiums and risk loosing customers if they had to refund the difference anyway? (BTW, I know someone who has already received a rebate for that reason)

People who still can't afford the premiums can get subsidies, or health insurance through the Government run MedicAid program.

BTW, the reason Republicans are so eager to have health insurance sold across state lines is to get around Local and State insurance regulations, like the laws in California. Their plan would allow insurers to move to states with little or no regulation, then sell to customers in other states while ignoring those state laws. Shows that the Republicans love the Rich and Powerful companies even more than they love "States Rights".

Say TeaBaggers; next time you run into Sister Sarah, could you please pass on that we still have been unable to locate her Death Panels in the Affordable Care Act that was passed by Congress, signed into law by the President, and recently upheld by the Supreme Court. Perhaps they're hiding with those WMD's that Iraq had.

Maybe if you could read an understand you would find them? My money says no way have you looked over the entire health care deal? They are in there, but you have to read the bill with an open mind. And you seem to be a typical liberal. No interest in truth or even facts.

well rusty, have you read the 'entire health care deal'? I think you are confusing 'reading with an open mind' with 'reading things into it that aren't there'. there is a difference. but I am aware that the conservative 'news' service has already spoon-fed you what they have decided they want you to think about this whole issue. a typical conservative, no interest in truths or even facts

@rusty-jarhead: my bad; perhaps you could lend me your handy-dandy "Faux News Reality Goggles" so I could see the light.

@what happened -

A single repug in the senate voted for the ACA troll, misinformed?