News As Obamacare goes into effect, new criticisms leveled

[Galteeth]

On a further note, when i was dealing with the medicaid system in new jersey, i was encouraged by workers there to give certain answers that were technically fraudelent, as the system is so messed up, this is apparently business as usual. I had to be very careful to answer questions in a way so as that i was not committing fraud, but still giving the "right" answers.
As i said, I got completely screwed by the whole thing (I knew it was a mistake, and I had moral issues with government health care, my dad sort of pressured me into it), and I got no help but wound up owing a hospital $75,000.

EDIT: The reason for this is, at least the jersey system, the rules makes no sense. Literally.

 

[Galteeth]

Here is an article that expands on the new fraud provisions.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/jun/18/na-stopping-the-medicare-fraud-gusher/news-opinion-commentary/

 

[WhoWee]

Here is an article that expands on the new fraud provisions.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/jun/18/na-stopping-the-medicare-fraud-gusher/news-opinion-commentary/

I'd like to see the (isolated to this topic) CBO analysis of total cost of enforcement versus actual fraud recovery moving forward.

 

[Galteeth]

I'd like to see the (isolated to this topic) CBO analysis of total cost of enforcement versus actual fraud recovery moving forward.

I would think those who were actually committing fraud would cover their tracks. It seems like it would be easier to prosecute cases where fraud wasn't the intent, especially since their doesn't seem to be a need for the government to prove intent to commit fraud. In other words, people who weren't intending to commit fraud would show their records and such, whereas those whose intent to commit fraud would likely create fraudelent records.

 

[WhoWee]

I would think those who were actually committing fraud would cover their tracks. It seems like it would be easier to prosecute cases where fraud wasn't the intent, especially since their doesn't seem to be a need for the government to prove intent to commit fraud. In other words, people who weren't intending to commit fraud would show their records and such, whereas those whose intent to commit fraud would likely create fraudelent records.

How much money can be "saved" by massively increasing the size and scope of the IRS - if the limitation you described is accurate?

 

[nismaratwork]

It sounds as though you support any actions the Republicans take in the House now - given the people spoke quite clearly last November?

No, but I don't pretend that I didn't play my part in our government. To be fair, most of what HAS been done was accomplished by the lame-duckers. It seems that neither party can survive their own majority, and the american people can't stomach them. I haven't been pleased with my government in many ways, but I choose to live here. Support, and vote are different... I support some republican positions, and detest others. I never claim to be somehow involved only in what I see as victories however; politics is the winning AND losing.

Again, this issue was raised by you, and then you ran from it when it was turned on the people in this thread. You can and have argued that your civic responsibility doesn't involve reading legislation... this makes me ask:

1.) When someone tells you that they HAVE read it... how will you know?
2.) Did the sources you use for info individually read it?
3.) Wasn't it adorable when Boehner cried again today?
4.) Was it MORE adorable when Boehner quoted The Bill of Rights; mistaking it for the constitution?

Maybe the trick is not to ACT as though you know and understand the contents of 2300 pages? I'm curious, if our congressmen spent their careers reading legislation, they'd have very little time for debate or any other action.

Galteeth: You'd think killers would too, but that's the nutty thing about criminals!

 

[WhoWee]

Again, this issue was raised by you, and then you ran from it when it was turned on the people in this thread. You can and have argued that your civic responsibility doesn't involve reading legislation... this makes me ask:

1.) When someone tells you that they HAVE read it... how will you know?
2.) Did the sources you use for info individually read it?
3.) Wasn't it adorable when Boehner cried again today?
4.) Was it MORE adorable when Boehner quoted The Bill of Rights; mistaking it for the constitution?

Maybe the trick is not to ACT as though you know and understand the contents of 2300 pages? I'm curious, if our congressmen spent their careers reading legislation, they'd have very little time for debate or any other action.

Galteeth: You'd think killers would too, but that's the nutty thing about criminals!

I don't believe I ran from it(?) - did you read this post number 28?

"I'll go back to my post that started our exchange - because the legislation was rushed through Congress (there was no time to read the Bill) - the specificity of these rules was not known.

Further, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid, and President Obama did not explain in great detail how complicated the subsidies and fines would be - nor did they stress that a major expansion of the size and scope of the IRS would be required to oversee healthcare reform. "

I didn't see Boehner cry today (might have??) but I did hear him say that he wants smaller Bills and will make sure members have 3 days to read the proposed legislation. This tells me that (not reading it) is a problem.

 

[Marioqwe]

How long does it take to read 2300 pages?

 

[nismaratwork]

I don't believe I ran from it(?) - did you read this post number 28?

"I'll go back to my post that started our exchange - because the legislation was rushed through Congress (there was no time to read the Bill) - the specificity of these rules was not known.

Further, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid, and President Obama did not explain in great detail how complicated the subsidies and fines would be - nor did they stress that a major expansion of the size and scope of the IRS would be required to oversee healthcare reform. "

I didn't see Boehner cry today (might have??) but I did hear him say that he wants smaller Bills and will make sure members have 3 days to read the proposed legislation. This tells me that (not reading it) is a problem.

Boehner... wiped his nose with a damned handkerchief... I kid you not. First Pelosi, now him... I feel ill. I don't know about 3 days to read legislation however... he did say it, but that means the congressman and aides together... no one would do that alone.

Marioqwe: It's about the length of a modern "world building" fantasy trilogy, but with many terms of art and other legalese. I would liken reading bills and law to reading a manual instead of a novel... I find the former takes longer if comprehension and attention are a factor.

 

[WhoWee]

How long does it take to read 2300 pages?

Probably less time than it took to write 2,300 pages?

 

[nismaratwork]

Probably less time than it took to write 2,300 pages?

Hmmmm... I wonder... how many people really had a hand in writing those pages? If many aides per congressperson are involved, then really we're talking about a LOOOOOOT of hours actually worked. If the work of hundreds of hours of writing and drafting legislation has to be read by only the politician in charge of those aides... ouch.

So, yeah, less time to read than write, but it doesn't necessarily help.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't know about 3 days to read legislation however... he did say it, but that means the congressman and aides together... no one would do that alone.

You make a good point - perhaps that should be the standard - no Bills longer than a Congressperson and their aides can read AND comprehend in 3 days - sound fair?

 

[nismaratwork]

You make a good point - perhaps that should be the standard - no Bills longer than a Congressperson and his aides can read AND comprehend in 3 days - sound fair?

If it can work legally and functionally, I don't see why not. A lot of the language in these bills is the result of re-writes and needless legal verbiage. I'll say this, on a gut level I like that idea.

 

[Hepth]

How long does it take to read 2300 pages?

I actually wondered this as well. Average reading speed for an adult with good comprehension is about 200 words per minute. The Am.In Senate version of HR3590 had 328,000 words. Thats over 27 hours of continuous reading, ad 200 wpm.

Obviously some sections can PROBABLY be skimmed, though some would most likely be read more slowly.

Thats a lot of reading to expect someone to do, even in 3 days. (9 hours of your day reading)

 

[mugaliens]

As Obamacare goes into effect, new measures are afoot to repeal it in its entirety.

 

[nismaratwork]

As Obamacare goes into effect, new measures are afoot to repeal it in its entirety.

Yes... measures which have no hope of passage in the senate. We all know this, yet the people's time is being wasted for the sake of posturing in 2012.

 

[WhoWee]

Yes... measures which have no hope of passage in the senate. We all know this, yet the people's time is being wasted for the sake of posturing in 2012.

Would it really be a terrible thing if this Congress does nothing except undo waste and otherwise perpetually increasing deficits? Do we really need any new programs and spending?

 

[Al68]

4.) Was it MORE adorable when Boehner quoted The Bill of Rights; mistaking it for the constitution?

What do you mean? The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution, so what "mistake" are you referring to?

 

[Al68]

Would it really be a terrible thing if this Congress does nothing except undo waste and otherwise perpetually increasing deficits? Do we really need any new programs and spending?

The reality is that Democrats and the President will be the ones demanding things from the Republican congress, not the other way around. Starting with their demand that the U.S. debt ceiling be raised as a matter of course, as if it were merely symbolic and not subject to debate or doesn't require the consent of a majority of congress. If Boehner were to just adjourn congress now, to reconvene in a year, Democrats would scream bloody murder.

Of course that alone would eliminate the deficit. Hmmm.

 

[Galteeth]

The thing with reading bills is, it often takes longer then reading other kind of documents, because many long bills amend previous bills subtly, i.e., replace word "x" with word "y" in paragraph seven of page 8, etc.

WhoWe, have you heard of the "Read the bills" act?
http://www.downsizedc.org/read-the-laws

 

[nismaratwork]

Would it really be a terrible thing if this Congress does nothing except undo waste and otherwise perpetually increasing deficits? Do we really need any new programs and spending?

I can't honestly say that I know the answer to that, but it seems like a waste of the people's time. If the bill is going to die, I can accept (if not like) that, but to spend 2 years undoing one bill?... I think people who elected congressmen to legislate would be very angry.

Still, I'm not answering your fundamental question, and I don't know that I know enough to do so.

Al68: Sorry, I worded that in a manner that would only be sensible to people familiar with the gaff. He read the opening of the BoR as though it were the opening to the constitution as a whole. You can't substitute amendments for preamble, but you're right and I was unclear.

 

[WhoWee]

WhoWe, have you heard of the "Read the bills" act?
http://www.downsizedc.org/read-the-laws

Thanks

 

[WhoWee]

Is it possible the House finally read the Bill? Three Democrats voted with the Republicans in the House to repeal the legislation 245 - 189.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-vote-health-care-repeal-bill-today/story?id=12648281

"House Passes Bill Repealing Health Care Law
Republicans Say Bill Sends a Strong Message, Urge Debate in Senate"

It passed with a margin of 220 - 215. That means the repeal won by a greater margin than the passage - correct?

 

[nismaratwork]

Is it possible the House finally read the Bill? Three Democrats voted with the Republicans in the House to repeal the legislation 245 - 189.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-vote-health-care-repeal-bill-today/story?id=12648281

"House Passes Bill Repealing Health Care Law
Republicans Say Bill Sends a Strong Message, Urge Debate in Senate"

It passed with a margin of 220 - 215. That means the repeal won by a greater margin than the passage - correct?

What did you expect? It's a new house... sadly for some, the senate remains intractable on the issue.

 

[WhoWee]

What did you expect? It's a new house... sadly for some, the senate remains intractable on the issue.

Some things never seem to change. This doesn't seem to be the civil and toned-down rhetoric President Obama requested?

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/0...-accuses-republicans-of-nazi-big-lie-on-heal/

 

[nismaratwork]

Some things never seem to change. This doesn't seem to be the civil and toned-down rhetoric President Obama requested?

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/0...-accuses-republicans-of-nazi-big-lie-on-heal/

Well, the problem of course is that this has made 2 things painfully clear:

1.) Sarah Palin is a narcissist, and an idiot, but she's not the devil or a killer.
2.) You can begin change with a lie, but at some point people have to buy into it... and Loughner is too obviously insane to allow for blame to be taken seriously.

The issue of rhetoric is very real, it just doesn't have anything to do with the reasons it's been raised... thus cynicism, thus failure of the attempt. That doesn't mean however, that hypocrisy of the sources aside, changing the dialogue from faux-psychopath to merely "angry" would be wise. I think, of all the commentary on this issue, the most salient and on-target has been Jon Stewart's; he makes a good case for a change in the environment so that the truly crazy people no longer seem like a kind of norm.

 

[WhoWee]

Well, the problem of course is that this has made 2 things painfully clear:

1.) Sarah Palin is a narcissist, and an idiot, but she's not the devil or a killer.
2.) You can begin change with a lie, but at some point people have to buy into it... and Loughner is too obviously insane to allow for blame to be taken seriously.

The issue of rhetoric is very real, it just doesn't have anything to do with the reasons it's been raised... thus cynicism, thus failure of the attempt. That doesn't mean however, that hypocrisy of the sources aside, changing the dialogue from faux-psychopath to merely "angry" would be wise. I think, of all the commentary on this issue, the most salient and on-target has been Jon Stewart's; he makes a good case for a change in the environment so that the truly crazy people no longer seem like a kind of norm.

These comments were made on the House floor before the vote on healthcare repeal.

 

[nismaratwork]

These comments were made on the House floor before the vote on healthcare repeal.

...? And? Because politicians are the BEST of us?! Ha!

edit: Politicians say things to and about each that, if a private citizen were to act in the same manner, would result in fines, civil suits, and even jail for terroristic threats, libel, and slander!

 

[mheslep]

Some things never seem to change. This doesn't seem to be the civil and toned-down rhetoric President Obama requested?

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/0...-accuses-republicans-of-nazi-big-lie-on-heal/

Rep. Steven Cohen: "just like Goebbels, [...] The Germans said enough about the Jews and people believed it -- and you had the Holocaust" What an ***.

 

[nismaratwork]

Rep. Steven Cohen: "just like Goebbels, [...] The Germans said enough about the Jews and people believed it -- and you had the Holocaust" What an ***.

WOW. I'd say more about what I think of this... "man"... making any such comparison, but I don't want to get banned.