2014 i thought
That part takes effect in october
---------- Post added at 06:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:35 PM ----------
Also for the “Repeal it” crowd, keep in mind that the rules that were on your side that made it so hard to pass this are now against you. In order to repeal it you would need 60 Senators, a majority in the House, and a Republican President.
Fuck i thought it was right away and i heard 90 days somewhere. Source?
nvrmind.Found a source
97_B18b1, you’re fucking with me now, right?..
thats your response? awesome…
This is incoherent! If you’re really want me to take you seriously as an intelligent human being who may have an educated opinion on the subject, try to write like you actually passed 5th grade. Not only that, but you don’t seem to even understand what you’re talking about and are merely throwing out half-baked ideas you may remember from a History channel show.
“This is incoherent! If you’re really want me…”
ooo so youre attacking my grammar. As ive stated before. When i tpe on the internet i type quickly and use just basic internet slang that neone can understand. There is no way you couldnt unerstand what i typed. And yes i do understand what im talking about, i find it strange that i am explaining to you what the enumerated powers are. You just threw three of them at me not stating what point you were trying to prove to begin with.
Well - thanks for the props, guys.
I just read something else about a VAT… (convoluted logic follows)
Well, Europe runs them to finance their governments, and as such apply the tax to everything that’s sold in Europe. However, anything imported to America has their VAT’s refunded by the government, which is kosher under WTO rules.
Conversely, the US with its income tax can’t give any portion of those taxes paid by a company back to them for exporting products to Europe, because that would constitute an illegal “subsidy”. What’s ironic is that American goods in Europe then have the VAT added to it, making it taxed twice; while anything sold in the US is effectively only taxed by the State or local governments (if they have sales taxes). So - our stuff is taxed twice, theirs is only taxed by the States. Seems fair, doesn’t it?
And for those that don’t think tort reform isn’t an issue regarding defensive medicine, well I can tell you it is. And I’ll back it up with more than just a “well this guy got sued” narrative.
We see ~12 thousand each year presenting with spinal cord injuries in the US. It is considered “standard of care” to treat spinal cord injury is with steroids (the idea is to reduce swelling at the injury, and perhaps save some nerves). However, there are many studies that suggest steroids aren’t helpful with spinal cord injury, with some recovery of one or two levels at best (meaning a slightly less severe of an injury - meaningful with neck injuries where they might have more finger strength/arm strength, but less so with lower back).
(For reference: http://www.trauma.org/index.php/main/article/394/)
And yet, because the outcome is so devastating (paralysis), we persist in giving steroids, just because it’s “standard of care”, and noone wants to risk a lawsuit for “not doing everything to prevent paralysis”. Notice in the reference that the first study they list with a negative result - meaning no benefit - was in 1984, yet almost three decades later, we’re still using steroids.
As for the cost, the medications themselves are relatively cheap. Unfortunately, it’s the complications - mostly infections - that’s the problem, and the source of a significant amount of “unnecessary” cost.
And from another source: (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/793582-treatment) (The bolded sections are mine)
•The use of high-dose methylprednisolone in nonpenetrating acute spinal cord injury had become the standard of care in North America. Nesathurai and Shanker revisited these studies and questioned the validity of the results. These authors cited concerns about the statistical analysis, randomization, and clinical endpoints used in the study. Even if the benefits of steroid therapy are valid, the clinical gains are questionable. Other reports have cited flaws in the study designs, trial conduct, and final presentation of the data. The risks of steroid therapy are not inconsequential. An increased incidence of infection and avascular necrosis has been documented.
•A number of professional organizations have therefore revised their recommendations pertaining to steroid therapy in spinal cord injury (SCI). The Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians is no longer recommending high-dose methylprednisolone as the standard of care. The Congress of Neurological Surgeons has stated that steroid therapy “should only be undertaken with the knowledge that the evidence suggesting harmful side effects is more consistent than any suggestion of clinical benefit.” The American College of Surgeons has modified their Advanced Trauma Life Support guidelines to state that methylprednisolone is “a recommended treatment” rather than “the recommended treatment.”
•In a recent survey conducted by Eck and colleagues, 90.5% of spine surgeons surveyed used steroids in spinal cord injury (SCI), but only 24% believed that they were of any clinical benefit. Note that the authors discovered that approximately 7% of spine surgeons do not recommend or use steroids at all in acute spinal cord injury. The authors reported that most centers were following the NASCIS II trial protocol.
•Overall, the benefit from steroids is considered modest at best, but for patients with complete or incomplete quadriplegia, a small improvement in motor strength in one or more muscles can provide important functional gains.
•The administration of steroids remains an institutional and physician preference in spinal cord injury. Nevertheless, the administration of high-dose steroids within 8 hours of injury for all patients with acute SCI is practiced by most physicians.
So, sorry for the long post, but you get the idea. In short, because steroids might be helpful to a few patients, everyone gets them - despite the risks - because not giving them places a doctor at risk for a lawsuit for not following “standard of care”.
to beat a dead horse about the right to privacy, but no man explaines it better than judge andrew napolitano, and he just happened to do so a few days ago and it was sublime. Noone could explain the constitution better than this man.
Yay… so much for “if you have health care from your employer nothing is going to change, but it will get less expensive and you’ll get a raise”.
Yeah I am sure I will be giving out raises as a result of this scam. LMAO!
That reminds me, what happen to the laser like focus on jobs?
The Republicans are voting against everything to do with jobs and calling it another stimulus
Oh wait, the republicans are voting against everything in general. Shocker.
So now my healthcare benefits count as income? That is what I took from the “report the value of your healthcare plan on your W2”.
benefits are already taxed
-“If you like your current health care, you get to keep it.”
Um, I guess not, at least not if you are a retiree, with some companies that are preparing for over $1billion in increased costs.
-“this bill will create more jobs”
True, we will need another 16,000+ IRS agents to police the mandated purchase of health care. While in the private sector, it looks as if companies might soon be laying more people off do to increased costs.
Will this cover golden showers?
I know the PGA plan does
Not on healthcare, unless of course you are a business owner.
Buffalo News Sunday march 28th had an article about how healthcare reform will affect everyone.
One thing it says is that if you can’t get affordable coverage you won’t be penalized. Ummm, ok, does the IRS decide what you can afford?
Acknowledging it would be a highly unpopular move, White House economic adviser Paul Volcker said yesterday the United States should consider imposing a “value added tax” similar to those charged in Europe to help get the deficit under control.
A VAT is a national sales tax that, like state and city sales taxes, would be collected by retailers.
Volcker, at the New-York Historical Society, told a panel on the global financial crisis that Congress might also have to consider new taxes on carbon and energy.
So can we all admit that the whole, “this is going to save money and not cost the middle class anything” is a complete lie yet?