Vanity

vanity | 3/28/2010 | Vanity

[Semperfiwife]

Section 1553 in the Health Care Bill

[Semperfiwife]

I have been reading through the 2700 plus pages of the Senate Reconciliation Bill signed by Obama. I was shocked to read Section 1553 - Prohibition against discrimination on assisted suicide. Section 1553 establishes the Office of Civil Rights of the Depart of Health And Human Services to receive complaints. So if a physician refuses to KILL you, you can sue. Turns the Hippocratic Oath on its head. Since Section 1563 The Sense of the Senate promoting fiscal responsibility says this act will increase the surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund , now it makes perfect sense.

[mlocher]

Thanks for the heads up. Would it be possible for your to post the actual words of Section 1553?

[davetex]

“The Sense of the Senate promoting fiscal responsibility says this act will increase the SURPLUS in the Social Security Trust Fund , now it makes perfect sense.”

Surplus, what surplus, there is no surplus. WTH?

[RedMDer]

I now live in alter world. Up is down, etc.

THROW THEM OUT!

[icwhatudo]

12 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Federal Government, and any
13 State or local government or health care provider that re14
ceives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or under
15 an amendment made by this Act) or any health plan cre16
ated under this Act (or under an amendment made by this
17 Act), may not subject an individual or institutional health
18 care entity to discrimination on the basis that the entity
19 does not provide any health care item or service furnished
20 for the purpose of causing, or for the purpose of assisting
21 in causing, the death of any individual, such as by assisted
22 suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.

---

The way I read it, it forbids the government from discriminating against health providers that DON’T do assisted suicides.

Seems like a good thing to me based on my interpretation.

[elazarus]

Here is the text of 1553:

Sec. 1553. Prohibition against discrimination on assisted suicide. Prevents the Federal government, and any State or local government or health care provider that receives Federal financial assistance from subjecting any individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the entity does not provide assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.

I hope this helps.

[RedMDer]

Death Panels.

[mlocher]

Thanks, it helps immensely. If I read this correctly (I am not a lawyer), a doctor cannot turn down a request for assisted suicide if he or his employer is accepting some form of federal, state or local dollars for healthcare. I would assume this includes Medicare.

If this is true, I can see a lot of doctors who would stop taking medicare patients -- thereby having our Seniors clammoring for a public option for those over the age of 65.

[Eagles6]

It does seem to say that they cannot be discriminated for not providing suicide, euthenasia and mercy killings which seems to imply that they are to be the norm.

I'd venture to guess that there's other language in the bill for funding and other such for those entities.

[mlocher]

Thanks for the data. I read it differently. I like your interpretation better.

[MindBender26]

You have it backwards. It prohibits discrimination against those who do NOT provide euthanasia.

[RedMDer]

Exactly. That’s my thinking too.

[Ezekiel]

What version is what these days, number 7?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3590:

That one (no. 7) has "only" 906 pages.

What is says on page 666...

H. R. 3590—666

‘‘(10) GRANT.—The term ‘grant’ includes a contract, cooperative agreement, or other mechanism for providing financial assistance.
‘‘(11) GUARDIANSHIP.—The term ‘guardianship’ means—
‘‘(A) the process by which a State court determines that an adult individual lacks capacity to make decisions about self-care or property, and appoints another individual or entity known as a guardian, as a conservator, or by a similar term, as a surrogate decisionmaker;
‘‘(B) the manner in which the court-appointed surrogate decisionmaker carries out duties to the individual and the court; or
‘‘(C) the manner in which the court exercises oversight of the surrogate decisionmaker.

Kind of like

1325 didomi {did'-o-mee}

a prolonged form of a primary verb (which is used as an altern.
in most of the tenses); TDNT - 2:166,166; v

AV - give 365, grant 10, put 5, show 4, deliver 2, make 2, misc 25; 413

1) to give
2) to give something to someone
2a) of one's own accord to give one something, to his advantage
2a1) to bestow a gift
2b) to grant, give to one asking, let have
2c) to supply, furnish, necessary things
2d) to give over, deliver
2d1) to reach out, extend, present
2d2) of a writing
2d3) to give over to one's care, intrust, commit
2d3a) something to be administered
2d3b) to give or commit to some one something to be
religiously observed
2e) to give what is due or obligatory, to pay: wages or reward
2f) to furnish, endue
3) to give
3a) to cause, profuse, give forth from one's self
3a1) to give, hand out lots
3b) to appoint to an office
3c) to cause to come forth, i.e. as the sea, death and Hell are said
to give up the dead who have been engulfed or received by them
3c) to give one to someone as his own
3c1) as an object of his saving care
3c2) to give one to someone, to follow him as a leader and master
3c3) to give one to someone to care for his interests
3c4) to give one to someone to whom he already belonged, to return
4) to grant or permit one
4a) to commission

As in

Revelation 13:15-18

15 And he had power to give [1325] life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive [1325] a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

Handy way to remember the page number.

[rlmorel]

Grr. See, this is the crap that just pisses me off and irritates me to no end.

THEY DON’T WANT ANYONE TO READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS.

Americans are prevented from being able to engage in informed debate and decision making because the DAMNED legalese and doublespeak our legislators engage in completely and totally obfuscates the salient point of the legislation.

Here are two examples from HR3200. I know this is long, but it illustrates the point: they don't WANT us to be able to understand this crap.

I had a discussion with someone who said I had my facts wrong when I stated that you would indeed have to give up your choice of plan and covering doctor with this legislation. So I began reading this part of the bill, and I just want to make sure I have my analysis correct before I see him again...can anyone look at this with a critical eye and let me know if I have my debunking of Obama's debunking correct before I go back for round two?

(Underlined text is the relevant part of the bill, bolded italicized and underlined text are my interpretation...sorry for the difficulty reading, I don't know how to change the color of the text to make distinguish them better)

STANDARDS FOR QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV- ERAGEDEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov- erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 (Y1 IS THE DAY THE BILL BECOMES LAW) if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first ef- fective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1. (THIS MEANS YOU HAVE TO BE ENROLLED IN YOUR PRIVATE PLAN BEFORE THE LEGISLATION BECOMES LAW)

(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS. Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be- fore the first day of Y1. (THIS MEANS THE PRIVATE INSURER CANNOT CHANGE BENEFITS OR PREMIUMS IT OFFERS BEGINNING ON THE DAY THE LEGISLATION BECOMES LAW.)

RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner. (THIS IS HOW THEY DEAL WITH VARIATION OF PREMIUMS-IT IS CLASSIC DOUBLESPEAK)

(b) GRACE PERIODFOR CURRENT EMPLOYMENT- DHEALTHPLANS.—

(1) GRACEPERIOD.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year pe- riod beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same require- ments as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121. (FIVE YEARS FROM Y1 WHICH IS DEFINED AS THE DATE THE LEGISLATION BECOMES LAW, ALL PLANS WILL HAVE TO OFFER EXACTLY THE SAME BENEFITS AS ALL OTHER PARTICPANTS IN THE "EXCHANGE" TO BE ALLOWED TO EXIST AT ALL. FURTHERMORE, PARTICIPANTS IN THE "EXCHANGE" WILL HAVE TO OFFER THE SAME BENEFITS AS THE TOTALITY OF THE "PUBLIC OPTION" TO BE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE "EXCHANGE". THEY WILL BE FREE TO OFFER MORE BENEFITS, IF THEY WISH, BUT NONE OF THEM WILL, SINCE THEY ARE GOING TO BE "COMPETING" AGAINST A PUBLIC OPTION THAT IS GOING TO OFFER THE SAME THING AT A FAR CHEAPER RATE.)

HERE IS EXAMPLE #2:

I was trying to figure out what is going to happen with physician compensation because I heard from a physician that all specialties, brain surgeons and dermatologists, will be paid the same. So, I tried to look through it, and in the process stumbled across how they plan to reduce both payment AND availability of imaging resources (such as CT, MR, etc.)

This is pissing me off, and really, it is beginning to make me burn. Look at how this thing is written. I copied the section below right out of the document. Look further down for my explanation if you are interested.

*************************************** *************************************** SEC. 1147. PAYMENT FOR IMAGING SERVICES.
10 (a) ADJUSTMENT IN PRACTICE EXPENSE TO RE11
FLECT HIGHER PRESUMED UTILIZATION.—Section 1848 2 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w) is amend13 ed—
14 (1) in subsection (b)(4)—
15 (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘sub16
paragraph (A)’’ and inserting ‘‘this paragraph’’;
17 and
18 (B) by adding at the end the following new
19 subparagraph:
20 ‘‘(C) ADJUSTMENT IN PRACTICE EXPENSE
21 TO REFLECT HIGHER PRESUMED UTILIZA22
TION.—In computing the number of practice
23 expense relative value units under subsection
24 (c)(2)(C)(ii) with respect to advanced diagnostic
25 imaging services (as defined in section
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00273 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS 274

•HR 3200 IH
1 1834(e)(1)(B)), the Secretary shall adjust such
2 number of units so it reflects a 75 percent
3 (rather than 50 percent) presumed rate of utili4
zation of imaging equipment.’’; and
5 (2) in subsection (c)(2)(B)(v)(II), by inserting
6 ‘‘AND OTHER PROVISIONS’’ after ‘‘OPD PAYMENT
7 CAP’’.
8 (b) ADJUSTMENT IN TECHNICAL COMPONENT ‘‘DIS9
COUNT’’ ON SINGLE-SESSION IMAGING TO CONSECUTIVE
10 BODY PARTS.—Section 1848(b)(4) of such Act is further
11 amended by adding at the end the following new subpara12
graph:
13 ‘‘(D) ADJUSTMENT IN TECHNICAL COMPO14
NENT DISCOUNT ON SINGLE-SESSION IMAGING
15 INVOLVING CONSECUTIVE BODY PARTS.—The
16 Secretary shall increase the reduction in ex17
penditures attributable to the multiple proce18
dure payment reduction applicable to the tech19
nical component for imaging under the final
20 rule published by the Secretary in the Federal
21 Register on November 21, 2005 (part 405 of
22 title 42, Code of Federal Regulations) from 25
23 percent to 50 percent.’’.
24 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Except as otherwise pro25
vided, this section, and the amendments made by this sec-
VerDate Nov 24 2008 03:06 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00274 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
275 •HR 3200 IH
1 tion, shall apply to services furnished on or after January
2 1,
*************************************** ***************************************

The following two paragraphs below show what the BULL$HIT above boils down to in normal english, and what it actually MEANS. This just steams me.

“SEC. 1147. PAYMENT FOR IMAGING SERVICES. ADJUSTMENT IN PRACTICE EXPENSE TO REFLECT HIGHER PRESUMED UTILIZATION In computing the number of practice expense relative value units under subsection the Secretary shall adjust such number of units so it reflects a 75 percent (rather than 50 percent) presumed rate of utilization of imaging equipment.”

(I am no expert on this, but downloading a Powerpoint Presentation, and looking around at various critiques of the way practice expense is calculated, INCREASING the presumed rate of utilization drives DOWN the amount of money you get paid. I am a genius. I assumed that, but figured I better check it out...) END RESULT: LESS MONEY FOR IMAGING, FEWER SERVICES OFFERED.

“Section 1848 ADJUSTMENT IN TECHNICAL COMPONENT DISCOUNT ON SINGLE-SESSION IMAGING INVOLVING CONSECUTIVE BODY PARTS. The Secretary shall increase the reduction in expenditures attributable to the multiple procedure payment reduction applicable to the technical component for imaging from 25 percent to 50 percent.”

(What this means is that from now on, if you do a CT of the Abdomen AND a CT of the pelvis without moving the patient, you now get paid 50% less rather than 25% less. This is huge, and just one example of how they are going to cut billions of dollars a year in costs. The scumbags will say with a straight face that they aren’t rationing, but if you don’t get paid for the service, you either don’t do the service, or you go broke) END RESULT: LESS MONEY FOR IMAGING, FEWER SERVICES OFFERED.

According to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (at this link: http://www.aapsonline.org/ this is an organization that advocates for physicians, not like the AMA which is advocating for liberalism) these sections above up to a reduction of 4.3 billion dollars a year in money to be paid for imaging. If someone interprets that some different way, please let me know...but if you bring in 45 million more people and reduce the money you pay...gee whiz, what is the end result?

Now, I wasn’t born yesterday, and I know why they are doing this, but this is our healthcare we are talking about, and they have deliberately tried to bury as much of it in incomprehensible legalese as they can get it. It made me madder and madder as I tried to go through it.

THEY DON’T WANT ANYONE TO READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS.

[This Just In]

We appreciate your commitment to reading this bill, and keeping us informed.

Section 1553 will no doubt cause many physicians to leave their private practices. We’ll be left with a majority of quacks if this unconstitutional bill isn’t struck down.

[rlmorel]

Note that for the purposes of illustration, this was text from HR3200...not the current bill whatever the HELL that is.

[Lockbar]

The most appropriate photo I could find on short notice:

[Semperfiwife]

Written before the day it ran red, obviously.

[Semperfiwife]

Then why does the same section establish the Office of Civil Rights of the DHS to receive complaints???

[bobby.223]

post of the month, period. thanx.