WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, MS. SLAUGHTER?
My name is Aja Brooks, I am a Native American, and I implore you on behalf of my of my 2,500 MySpace, Facebook, and MyYearbook friends to uphold the Constitution: permitting the gov.t to waste more tax dollars on expanding federal prisons when the cost of housing state prisoners costs taxpayers $84,180,000,000, and by the federal funding of abortion and adoption services that were previously privately funded, is a sure recipe for tyranny and NO HEALTH CARE!
The state of GA's budget deficit exists from half of the money being appropriated for abortion pending, due to the health care bill!! Abortion is extraneous to the bill, and to think that you can spit on our Constitution and the people who pay you to represent us disgusts me!!
WE CAN'T DO HEALTH CARE REFORM AS A PRISON EXPANSION SYSTEM !! Add the $30 billion+ in abortion over the next 10 years and adoption services, which is extraneous to reconciliation AND you are not paying for legislation as you go, YOU ARE JUST misappropriating!
OUR LOBBY IS TRYING TO STOP YOU FROM FORCING US TO PAY FOR HEALTH CARE THROUGH THE STATE BUDGET'S DEFICIT, THE FEDERAL LAW OF NOT CARRYING A DEFICIT OVER TO THE NEXT YEAR....
Complaint filed against Rangel: http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AVUUGGGbcuQuZGRya3NyYmZfNDI3ZnR4amczZjM&hl=en
PAGES 1-50 OF THE RECON BILL/YOU CAN'T USE RECON. ON ABORTION: http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AVUUGGGbcuQuZGRya3NyYmZfNTA0a3pnNThmZGY&hl=en
PAGES 50-100 OF THE RECON BILL: YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE THE PROGRAM READY, SO YOU CAN'T TAX US FOR SOMETHING IN 2010 THAT WE'RE NOT EVEN GETTING CARE FOR YET!!http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AVUUGGGbcuQuZGRya3NyYmZfNTE2Z2s3cWNta2M&hl=en
"ABC Nightly News" just said that our state prison population has come down 5,000.So that everyone is in the loop, I have filed a complaint against Rangel :
Committee Members
111th Congress
Democrats
Republicans
Zoe Lofgren,
Chair, CaliforniaJo Bonner,
Ranking Republican Member, AlabamaBen Chandler, Kentucky Mike Conaway, Texas G.K. Butterfield, North Carolina Charles Dent, Pennsylvania Kathy Castor, Florida Gregg Harper, Mississippi
Peter Welch, Vermont Michael McCaul, Texas
May this stand as a complaint against Congressman Rangel 3-15-2010:I am very discouraged by the seeming lack of bipartisanship on H.R. 3590. From the Democrats, I believe that it was a conflict of interest to entrust Rangel to compose H.R. 3590 as the Ways and Means Committee Chairman. He tailored the legislation his way, to benefit his various Caucuses and Committees, not for the benefit of uninsured Americans or those who can not care for themselves as special needs persons!!From the Republicans, their lack of commitment to communicate with the American people on this legislation, on the areas of concern in the legislation that they did not write. (Even though we agree that abortion is egregious misappropriation - a private expense not a public matter of health which usurps half of GA's budget for the cost appropriated for health care this year though this isn't even passed yet...) I feel that Republican leaders are using this to harvest donations early and to springboard themselves politically for the 2010 election. I'm not impressed with this bill; by far, H.R. 3590 is worse than H.R. 3200, H.R. 1200, and H.R. 3962, which is why it has met such opposition from both parties, and despite the glaring immorality and billions in cost, it is as if Republicans and Democrats alike are afraid to tell Obama "NAY", no matter that this bill needs serious revision.I had contacted Speaker Pelosi before the Summit, and I told her that I would sift through this bill, and I would suggest that we table it until it is revised. That doesn't mean that we "start over" or that we stop until the election comes up for 2010: we can pass measurable reform without misappropriation, but NOT by passing H.R. 3590 as written. My suggestion would be to combine H.R. 3400 with H.R. 3962 to meet fairly between the two parties. With H.R. 3200 and H.R. 1200 cut in half, we should strike the mandate clause in 1200, or there won't be competition - just higher taxes! Then take up S. 1679 instead of H.R. 3590, as S. 1679 lays forth the provisions for chronic care for the general reform measures in H.R. 3200 and 1200. Harkin did a great job addressing those issues, and I'm tired of it not getting the consideration that it deserves.
More thoughts on H.R. 3590:
NO REFORM AS WRITTEN, CANCELLING THE CARE FOR SPECIAL NEEDS, AND AT THE PRICE OF THE BLOOD OF THE UNBORN !!What the problems are, what we can do to fix these problems, not just keep throwing our tax dollars into an abyss, known as the prison system! (read below to see if your insurance plan is directly concerned, or indirectly how you're concerned by higher taxes to expand prisons, for the government to control the prescription pill market, and no care for special needs people who will be restricted from MEDICARE!!)
H.R. 3590 CONCERNS AND FURTHER PROPOSED REVISIONS:
Are military insurance programs affected, and if so, what rules would they have to abide by and how would this translate to premiums/costs? Right now, some county jails pay for ALL services, and some jails, you have to pay to see the doctor. Why is this important? We have a huge and growing prison population, from federal prisons, to state and county jails which costs taxpayers $60,000 per inmate per year to house people for mandatory minimum drug offenses, instead of getting them into outreach programs like TEEN CHALLENGE (with 50 yrs. of peer counseling, more intensive than voluntary A.A. or N.A. programs) http://www.teenchallenge.com/, or halfway houses where they work to pay for their housing/treatment.
THE FEDERAL PRISON POPULATION: A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS - http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_federalprisonpop.pdfIn anticipation of Congressional consideration of revisions to federal sentencing policy, thefollowing analysis provides an overview of the current federal prison population and sentencingtrends of recent years. Overall, this analysis demonstrates that the federal prison population hasreached record levels, that a high proportion of prisoners are non-violent drug offenders, and thatracial disparities in sentencing and the proportion of lower-level drug offenders are increasing.Recent testimony by the Department of Justice before the United States Sentencing Commissionhas stated that “approximately two-thirds of all federal prisoners are in prison for violent crimesor had a prior criminal record before being incarcerated.”1 As seen below, conflating thosepersons convicted of a violent crime – only 13% of federal prisoners – with those having a priorrecord, including low-level drug crimes, distorts the portrait of the current prison population andthe implications for sentencing reform. Overall, nearly three-fourths (72.1%) of federalprisoners are serving time for a non-violent offense and have no history of violence
TREATING DRUG ABUSE IS COST-EFFECTIVE TO RELIEVING OUR BURDENED SYSTEM OF THROWING TAX DOLLARS INTO AN ABYSS WE NEVER SEE AGAIN!!
Recommendations· Congress should undertake a comprehensive assessment of the structure and goals of federalsentencing policy, with a particular emphasis on the effects of mandatory sentencing, theproportionality of drug offender sentencing, and the impact of the growth of long-termincarceration on the federal prison system.· Congress should implement modifications to the federal sentencing guidelines that directlyaddress the growing number of non-violent offenders in the federal prison system.· Congress should take into consideration the abundance of research indicating the costeffectivenessof treatment for drug abuse rather than incarceration and introduce legislationthat provides ample use of alternatives to incarceration, as is the case in many states.· Congress should adopt the recommendations of the United States Sentencing Commissionand remove the 100:1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine.
If imprisonment was working, then why are we seeing repeat offenders who have access to prescription meds in prison, but not the counseling??WE NEED TO CHANGE THE LAWS, AS WE'RE SPENDING TOO MUCH MONEY ON PROCESSING AND HOUSING INDIVIDUALS, INSTEAD OF GETTING THEM QUICKLY IN FRONT OF JUDGE WITHIN 90 DAYS, AND ORDERING TREATMENT PROGRAMS AS THE PUNISHMENT. MAKE THE PUNISHMENT FIT THE OFFENSE, AND SAVE OUR TAX DOLLARS!!I DON'T AGREE WITH OBAMA SPENDING MORE MONEY ON THIS:
Obama Seeks Big Increase In Federal Prison Spending
Thursday, February 4th, 2010 6:23 amAs some states close prisons and divert more offenders to probation and treatment programs, the federal government is proposing to increase detention operations dramatically, says USA Today. The Obama administration’s 2011 budget proposal calls for a $527.5 million infusion for the federal Bureau of Prisons and judicial security. The boost would bring the U.S. prison budget to $6.8 billion.
Nearly half of new funding is proposed to accommodate the administration’s plan to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and move some of the terror suspects to an Illinois prison. The Justice Department projects that federal prisons, which now hold 213,000 offenders, will hold 7,000 more by 2011. Justice would hire 652 more prison guards and fill 1,200 vacant detention positions, far more than the combined 448 new agents planned for the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and U.S. Marshals Service. Assistant Attorney General Lee Lofthus says the increased prison system funding does not reflect a de-emphasis of national security, only that the Bureau of Prisons “needs the bed space.”
Link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-03-prison-budget_N.htm
SEC. 3012. INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP ON HEALTH CARE QUALITY.(a) In General- The President shall convene a working group to be known as the Interagency Working Group on Health Care Quality (referred to in this section as the ‘Working Group’).
(b) Goals- The goals of the Working Group shall be to achieve the following:
(1) Collaboration, cooperation, and consultation between Federal departments and agencies with respect to developing and disseminating strategies, goals, models, and timetables that are consistent with the national priorities identified under section 399HH(a)(2) of the Public Health Service Act (as added by section 3011).
(2) Avoidance of inefficient duplication of quality improvement efforts and resources, where practicable, and a streamlined process for quality reporting and compliance requirements.
(c) Composition-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Working Group shall be composed of senior level representatives of--
(A) the Department of Health and Human Services;
(C) the National Institutes of Health;
(E) the Food and Drug Administration;
(F) the Health Resources and Services Administration;
(G) the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality;
(K) the Department of Commerce;
(L) the Office of Management and Budget;
(M) the United States Coast Guard;
(N) the Federal Bureau of Prisons;
(O) the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration;
(P) the Federal Trade Commission;
(T) the Department of Defense;
(U) the Department of Education;
(2) CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR-
(d) Report to Congress- Not later than December 31, 2010, and annually thereafter, the Working Group shall submit to the relevant Committees of Congress, and make public on an Internet website, a report describing the progress and recommendations of the Working Group in meeting the goals described in subsection (b).
SEC. 3139. PAYMENT FOR BIOSIMILAR BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS.
(a) In General- Section 1847A of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-3a) is amended--
A biosimilar product, like Risperidone instead of (Risperdal). Like generic psychotropic drugs that have lots of side effects. I took this in 2005, I gained weight, I wanted to sleep 12 hours of the day, I was constipated, the back of my legs would cramp up, and my face would twitch. I took it for 4 months, and then I weaned myself off, taking it when I was only really stressed at night, 2mg.*This was the care that the state of GA provided me after being exposed to some toxic illegal drugs. At that time in 2005, you only had to visit the Psychologist once a month. I saw a lot of people come in and out of the Henry County Health Department like it was a pill mill. I went back to this place for group counseling in 2008, and they had done a lot to clean up the place from being a pill mill for prescription drugs, but even the group counselor told us that they couldn't require group, though they felt that counseling is an integral part. I haven't been on any medication since 2005, I found out that I had a hormonal imbalance and a low thyroid, something that the state didn't test me for when I went to Columbus, GA. We've got to stop pushing pills, thinking that's the end all be all of mental health care.
SEC. 3140. MEDICARE HOSPICE CONCURRENT CARE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this section referred to as the ‘Secretary’) shall establish a Medicare Hospice Concurrent Care demonstration program at participating hospice programs under which Medicare beneficiaries are furnished, during the same period, hospice care and any other items or services covered under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) from funds otherwise paid under such title to such hospice programs.
(b) Independent Evaluation and Reports-
(1) INDEPENDENT EVALUATION- The Secretary shall provide for the conduct of an independent evaluation of the demonstration program under this section. Such independent evaluation shall determine whether the demonstration program has improved patient care, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness for Medicare beneficiaries participating in the demonstration program.
(c) Budget Neutrality- With respect to the 3-year period of the demonstration program under this section, the Secretary shall ensure that the aggregate expenditures under title XVIII for such period shall not exceed the aggregate expenditures that would have been expended under such title if the demonstration program under this section had not been implemented.
Does this mean that after 3 years of Hospice Care that funding is terminated? Isn't this decision best left up to the family and whether or not a person has SSI benefits? Shouldn't people be able to pick where they want to receive hospice care, not a short list approved by the government??
(b) Report- Not later than 9 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report containing the results of the study conducted under subsection (a), together with recommendations for such legislation and administrative action as the Secretary determines appropriate.
Reports need to be done every 90 days, so we can make adjustments and really analyze costs, EVERY HOSPITAL AND EVERY FACILITY!! Otherwise, you have no accountability for reform!!! You can create jobs and put people to work, don't burden the Secretary with such a large task when this needs to be delegated.
Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Part C
SEC. 3201. MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PAYMENT.
This whole section is about amending the tax codes for fairness and setting standards for care. I think this gives too much power to the Secretary to make all of these determinations, creates more red tape that slows things down, and instead of a system of checks and balances, it places the Secretary in charge of it all. I don't like the way the entire section is worded, or how it determines price costs with no provisions for proper reporting systems quarterly. This would put the Secretary in a position that could be exploited by the bribes of other insurance companies. Right now, they have to compete with each other, but under the duties required of the Secretary, they will have to bribe the Secretary, and I don't see these tax revisions as bringing the type of reform of getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse just because you're going to hold the Secretary solely responsible.
SEC. 3202. BENEFIT PROTECTION AND SIMPLIFICATION.
(a) Limitation on Variation of Cost Sharing for Certain Benefits-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 1852(a)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-22(a)(1)(B)) is amended--
(A) in clause (i), by inserting ‘, subject to clause (iii),’ after ‘and B or’; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new clauses:
‘(iii) LIMITATION ON VARIATION OF COST SHARING FOR CERTAIN BENEFITS- Subject to clause (v), cost-sharing for services described in clause (iv) shall not exceed the cost-sharing required for those services under parts A and B.
I know that DMSO cures cancer, but it isn't available in the U.S. but in Mexico, because it can't be patented. Also, lab rats with cancer injected with Vitamin D on the tumors had the tumors disappear! I just don't like making people who are sick with cancer cash cows for insurance companies for the government by giving them chemo as the only option, and they're sick enough just to prolong their life miserably, but not well enough from something purported as curative treatment with all of those terrible side effects.
SEC. 3204. SIMPLIFICATION OF ANNUAL BENEFICIARY ELECTION PERIODS.
(a) Annual 45-day Period for Disenrollment From MA Plans To Elect To Receive Benefits Under the Original Medicare Fee-for-service Program-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 1851(e)(2)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-1(e)(2)(C)) is amended to read as follows:
The amending of this section will allow the Secretary too much power to price fix drugs and decide what is available under this plan, and even other insurance plans if the mandate clause in H.R. 1200 isn't struck. This is greed, this isn't holding insurance companies accountable, this is the government using the Medicare program to control the prescription drug market through it.
SEC. 3205. EXTENSION FOR SPECIALIZED MA PLANS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS INDIVIDUALS.
(a) Extension of SNP Authority- Section 1859(f)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-28(f)(1)), as amended by section 164(a) of the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-275), is amended by striking ‘2011’ and inserting ‘2014’.
If you're restricting the enrollment of special needs persons into this program that they are now covered under an umbrella, what is your program for special needs people if they're restricted from enrolling??
PLEASE CONTACT ME ABOUT THESE CONCERNS/I WILL BE IN TOUCH WITH FURTHER REVISIONS THROUGHOUT THIS WEEK. IT TAKES ME 2 WEEKS TO EMAIL THE ENTIRE HOUSE, SO I WILL JUST CONCENTRATE ON Y'ALL, AS THE SENATE HAS A COPY OF THIS ALREADY. I WILL BE SURE TO SEND RANGEL A COPY OF MY COMPLAINT.
CREATIVE INNOVATIONS
Aja Brooks - Creative Director
(Art production/website hours for chat)
Production hours:
9AM-3PM EST MON.-THURS.
1.678.727.2540 text or email:
creativeinnovations27@gmail.com
VIEW ART WORK AND SLIDESHOWS:
http://www.myspace.com/creativeinnovations27
http://artid.com/PHOENIX_ART
http://artid.com/members/phoenix_art
http://www.google.com/profiles/creativeinnovations27
SEE MY PROFILES/POSTS:
http://www.myyearbook.com/oijvblackribbon
http://twitter.com/OIJVblackribbon
http://twitter.com/Creative_Innov
TO READ "THE SYNTHESIS", my own publications in honor of the "CHEROKEE
PHOENIX" go here:
http://hubpages.com/profile/thePHOENIX2010On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:33 AM, CREATIVE INNOVATIONS <creativeinnovations27@gmail.com> wrote:3 OBJECTIONS TO OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE BILL: NO FUNDING FOR SPECIAL NEEDS, BUT WE CAN EXPAND PRISONS AND CONTROL GENERIC Rx market!! --- this is not right...What the problems are , what we can do to fix these problems, not just keep throwing our tax dollars into an abyss, known as the prison system! (read below to see if your insurance plan is directly concerned, or indirectly how you're concerned by higher taxes to expand prisons, for the government to control the prescription pill market, and no care for special needs people who will be restricted from MEDICARE!!)
H.R. 3590 CONCERNS AND FURTHER PROPOSED REVISIONS:
Are military insurance programs affected, and if so, what rules would they have to abide by and how would this translate to premiums/costs? Right now, some county jails pay for ALL services, and some jails, you have to pay to see the doctor. Why is this important? We have a huge and growing prison population, from federal prisons, to state and county jails which costs taxpayers $60,000 per inmate per year to house people for mandatory minimum drug offenses, instead of getting them into outreach programs like TEEN CHALLENGE (with 50 yrs. of peer counseling, more intensive than voluntary A.A. or N.A. programs) http://www.teenchallenge.com/, or halfway houses where they work to pay for their housing/treatment.
THE FEDERAL PRISON POPULATION: A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS - http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_federalprisonpop.pdfIn anticipation of Congressional consideration of revisions to federal sentencing policy, thefollowing analysis provides an overview of the current federal prison population and sentencingtrends of recent years. Overall, this analysis demonstrates that the federal prison population hasreached record levels, that a high proportion of prisoners are non-violent drug offenders, and thatracial disparities in sentencing and the proportion of lower-level drug offenders are increasing.Recent testimony by the Department of Justice before the United States Sentencing Commissionhas stated that “approximately two-thirds of all federal prisoners are in prison for violent crimesor had a prior criminal record before being incarcerated.”1 As seen below, conflating thosepersons convicted of a violent crime – only 13% of federal prisoners – with those having a priorrecord, including low-level drug crimes, distorts the portrait of the current prison population andthe implications for sentencing reform. Overall, nearly three-fourths (72.1%) of federalprisoners are serving time for a non-violent offense and have no history of violence
TREATING DRUG ABUSE IS COST-EFFECTIVE TO RELIEVING OUR BURDEN SYSTEM OF THROWING TAX DOLLARS INTO AN ABYSS WE NEVER SEE AGAIN!!
Recommendations· Congress should undertake a comprehensive assessment of the structure and goals of federalsentencing policy, with a particular emphasis on the effects of mandatory sentencing, theproportionality of drug offender sentencing, and the impact of the growth of long-termincarceration on the federal prison system.· Congress should implement modifications to the federal sentencing guidelines that directlyaddress the growing number of non-violent offenders in the federal prison system.· Congress should take into consideration the abundance of research indicating the costeffectivenessof treatment for drug abuse rather than incarceration and introduce legislationthat provides ample use of alternatives to incarceration, as is the case in many states.· Congress should adopt the recommendations of the United States Sentencing Commissionand remove the 100:1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine.
If imprisonment was working, then why are we seeing repeat offenders who have access to prescription meds in prison, but not the counseling??WE NEED TO CHANGE THE LAWS, AS WE'RE SPENDING TOO MUCH MONEY ON PROCESSING AND HOUSING INDIVIDUALS, INSTEAD OF GETTING THEM QUICKLY IN FRONT OF JUDGE WITHIN 90 DAYS, AND ORDERING TREATMENT PROGRAMS AS THE PUNISHMENT. MAKE THE PUNISHMENT FIT THE OFFENSE, AND SAVE OUR TAX DOLLARS!!I DON'T AGREE WITH OBAMA SPENDING MORE MONEY ON THIS:
Obama Seeks Big Increase In Federal Prison Spending
Thursday, February 4th, 2010 6:23 amAs some states close prisons and divert more offenders to probation and treatment programs, the federal government is proposing to increase detention operations dramatically, says USA Today. The Obama administration’s 2011 budget proposal calls for a $527.5 million infusion for the federal Bureau of Prisons and judicial security. The boost would bring the U.S. prison budget to $6.8 billion.
Nearly half of new funding is proposed to accommodate the administration’s plan to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and move some of the terror suspects to an Illinois prison. The Justice Department projects that federal prisons, which now hold 213,000 offenders, will hold 7,000 more by 2011. Justice would hire 652 more prison guards and fill 1,200 vacant detention positions, far more than the combined 448 new agents planned for the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and U.S. Marshals Service. Assistant Attorney General Lee Lofthus says the increased prison system funding does not reflect a de-emphasis of national security, only that the Bureau of Prisons “needs the bed space.”
Link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-03-prison-budget_N.htm
SEC. 3012. INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP ON HEALTH CARE QUALITY.(a) In General- The President shall convene a working group to be known as the Interagency Working Group on Health Care Quality (referred to in this section as the ‘Working Group’).
(b) Goals- The goals of the Working Group shall be to achieve the following:
(1) Collaboration, cooperation, and consultation between Federal departments and agencies with respect to developing and disseminating strategies, goals, models, and timetables that are consistent with the national priorities identified under section 399HH(a)(2) of the Public Health Service Act (as added by section 3011).
(2) Avoidance of inefficient duplication of quality improvement efforts and resources, where practicable, and a streamlined process for quality reporting and compliance requirements.
(c) Composition-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Working Group shall be composed of senior level representatives of--
(A) the Department of Health and Human Services;
(C) the National Institutes of Health;
(E) the Food and Drug Administration;
(F) the Health Resources and Services Administration;
(G) the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality;
(K) the Department of Commerce;
(L) the Office of Management and Budget;
(M) the United States Coast Guard;
(N) the Federal Bureau of Prisons;
(O) the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration;
(P) the Federal Trade Commission;
(T) the Department of Defense;
(U) the Department of Education;
(2) CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR-
(d) Report to Congress- Not later than December 31, 2010, and annually thereafter, the Working Group shall submit to the relevant Committees of Congress, and make public on an Internet website, a report describing the progress and recommendations of the Working Group in meeting the goals described in subsection (b).
SEC. 3139. PAYMENT FOR BIOSIMILAR BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS.
(a) In General- Section 1847A of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-3a) is amended--
A biosimilar product, like Risperidone instead of (Risperdal). Like generic psychotropic drugs that have lots of side effects. I took this in 2005, I gained weight, I wanted to sleep 12 hours of the day, I was constipated, the back of my legs would cramp up, and my face would twitch. I took it for 4 months, and then I weaned myself off, taking it when I was only really stressed at night, 2mg.*This was the care that the state of GA provided me after being exposed to some toxic illegal drugs. At that time in 2005, you only had to visit the Psychologist once a month. I saw a lot of people come in and out of the Henry County Health Department like it was a pill mill. I went back to this place for group counseling in 2008, and they had done a lot to clean up the place from being a pill mill for prescription drugs, but even the group counselor told us that they couldn't require group, though they felt that counseling is an integral part. I haven't been on any medication since 2005, I found out that I had a hormonal imbalance and a low thyroid, something that the state didn't test me for when I went to Columbus, GA. We've got to stop pushing pills, thinking that's the end all be all of mental health care.
SEC. 3140. MEDICARE HOSPICE CONCURRENT CARE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this section referred to as the ‘Secretary’) shall establish a Medicare Hospice Concurrent Care demonstration program at participating hospice programs under which Medicare beneficiaries are furnished, during the same period, hospice care and any other items or services covered under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) from funds otherwise paid under such title to such hospice programs.
(b) Independent Evaluation and Reports-
(1) INDEPENDENT EVALUATION- The Secretary shall provide for the conduct of an independent evaluation of the demonstration program under this section. Such independent evaluation shall determine whether the demonstration program has improved patient care, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness for Medicare beneficiaries participating in the demonstration program.
(c) Budget Neutrality- With respect to the 3-year period of the demonstration program under this section, the Secretary shall ensure that the aggregate expenditures under title XVIII for such period shall not exceed the aggregate expenditures that would have been expended under such title if the demonstration program under this section had not been implemented.
Does this mean that after 3 years of Hospice Care that funding is terminated? Isn't this decision best left up to the family and whether or not a person has SSI benefits? Shouldn't people be able to pick where they want to receive hospice care, not a short list approved by the government??
(b) Report- Not later than 9 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report containing the results of the study conducted under subsection (a), together with recommendations for such legislation and administrative action as the Secretary determines appropriate.
Reports need to be done every 90 days, so we can make adjustments and really analyze costs, EVERY HOSPITAL AND EVERY FACILITY!! Otherwise, you have no accountability for reform!!! You can create jobs and put people to work, don't burden the Secretary with such a large task when this needs to be delegated.
Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Part C
SEC. 3201. MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PAYMENT.
This whole section is about amending the tax codes for fairness and setting standards for care. I think this gives too much power to the Secretary to make all of these determinations, creates more red tape that slows things down, and instead of a system of checks and balances, it places the Secretary in charge of it all. I don't like the way the entire section is worded, or how it determines price costs with no provisions for proper reporting systems quarterly. This would put the Secretary in a position that could be exploited by the bribes of other insurance companies. Right now, they have to compete with each other, but under the duties required of the Secretary, they will have to bribe the Secretary, and I don't see these tax revisions as bringing the type of reform of getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse just because you're going to hold the Secretary solely responsible.
SEC. 3202. BENEFIT PROTECTION AND SIMPLIFICATION.
(a) Limitation on Variation of Cost Sharing for Certain Benefits-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 1852(a)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-22(a)(1)(B)) is amended--
(A) in clause (i), by inserting ‘, subject to clause (iii),’ after ‘and B or’; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new clauses:
‘(iii) LIMITATION ON VARIATION OF COST SHARING FOR CERTAIN BENEFITS- Subject to clause (v), cost-sharing for services described in clause (iv) shall not exceed the cost-sharing required for those services under parts A and B.
I know that DMSO cures cancer, but it isn't available in the U.S. but in Mexico, because it can't be patented. Also, lab rats with cancer injected with Vitamin D on the tumors had the tumors disappear! I just don't like making people who are sick with cancer cash cows for insurance companies for the government by giving them chemo as the only option, and they're sick enough just to prolong their life miserably, but not well enough from something purported as curative treatment with all of those terrible side effects. Now I know
SEC. 3204. SIMPLIFICATION OF ANNUAL BENEFICIARY ELECTION PERIODS.
(a) Annual 45-day Period for Disenrollment From MA Plans To Elect To Receive Benefits Under the Original Medicare Fee-for-service Program-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 1851(e)(2)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-1(e)(2)(C)) is amended to read as follows:
The amending of this section will allow the Secretary too much power to price fix drugs and decide what is available under this plan, and even other insurance plans if the mandate clause in H.R. 1200 isn't struck. This is greed, this isn't holding insurance companies accountable, this is the government using the Medicare program to control the prescription drug market through it.
SEC. 3205. EXTENSION FOR SPECIALIZED MA PLANS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS INDIVIDUALS.
(a) Extension of SNP Authority- Section 1859(f)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-28(f)(1)), as amended by section 164(a) of the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-275), is amended by striking ‘2011’ and inserting ‘2014’.
If you're restricting the enrollment of special needs persons into this program that they are now covered under an umbrella, what is your program for special needs people if they're restricted from enrolling??
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:15 PM, CREATIVE INNOVATIONS <creativeinnovations27@gmail.com> wrote:LARGEST DEFICIT IN HISTORY IN FEBRUARY...
So the new strategy is to pay with blood of the unborn?!
You know, I really don't get why you don't see abortion funding as misappropriation, when you're supporting killing off future taxpayers!!I see that H.R. 3590 has been cut down 200 pages, and I'm looking through the rest of the bill, but ABC reported that the abortion provisions were on 10 pages, starting on pg. 2,069.ABORTION ISN'T A PREVENTIVE SERVICE -- providing birth control/contraception is, so we need to be very clear with the language or you won't get the support that you seek for it.I do see provision of adoption fees, and while it is encouraging that the government has made an initiative, I think that we have enough DFACS, family courts, and paper pushers on the state payroll with kids still falling through the cracks. I don't really blame the government, I look at our communities and what we can do better. Throwing money at a problem regarding abortion, doesn't make the problem go away, it makes it worse and it often repeats itself -- which is why I don't support abortion funding or Planned Parenthood clinics!!What are you defining as a preventive service in this section here?
SEC. 10406. AMENDMENT RELATING TO WAIVING COINSURANCE FOR PREVENTIVE SERVICES.
Section 4104(b) of this Act is amended to read as follows:
‘(b) Payment and Elimination of Coinsurance in All Settings- Section 1833(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)(1)), as amended by section 4103(c)(1), is amended--
‘(1) in subparagraph (T), by inserting ‘(or 100 percent if such services are recommended with a grade of A or B by the United States Preventive Services Task Force for any indication or population and are appropriate for the individual)’ after ‘80 percent’;
‘(2) in subparagraph (W)--
‘(A) in clause (i), by inserting ‘(if such subparagraph were applied, by substituting ‘100 percent’ for ‘80 percent’)’ after ‘subparagraph (D)’; and
‘(B) in clause (ii), by striking ‘80 percent’ and inserting ‘100 percent’;
‘(3) by striking ‘and’ before ‘(X)’; and
‘(4) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the following: ‘, and (Y) with respect to preventive services described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 1861(ddd)(3) that are appropriate for the individual and, in the case of such services described in subparagraph (A), are recommended with a grade of A or B by the United States Preventive Services Task Force for any indication or population, the amount paid shall be 100 percent of (i) except as provided in clause (ii), the lesser of the actual charge for the services or the amount determined under the fee schedule that applies to such services under this part, and (ii) in the case of such services that are covered OPD services (as defined in subsection (t)(1)(B)), the amount determined under subsection (t)’.’.
Budget deficit sets record in February
February budget deficit hits record high of $220.9B with imbalance ahead of last year's pace
- Buzz up! 20
Martin Crutsinger, AP Economics Writer, On Wednesday March 10, 2010, 2:44 pm ESTWASHINGTON (AP) -- The government ran up the largest monthly deficit in history in February, keeping the flood of red ink on track to top last year's record for the full year.
The Treasury Department said Wednesday that the February deficit totaled $220.9 billion, 14 percent higher than the previous record set in February of last year.
The deficit through the first five months of this budget year totals $651.6 billion, 10.5 percent higher than a year ago.
The Obama administration is projecting that the deficit for the 2010 budget year will hit an all-time high of $1.56 trillion, surpassing last year's $1.4 trillion total. The administration is forecasting that the deficit will remain above $1 trillion in 2011, giving the country thrree straight years of $1 trillion-plus deficits.
The administration says the huge deficits are necessary to get the country out of the deepest recession since the 1930s. But Republicans have attacked the stimulus spending as wasteful and a failure at the primary objective of lowering unemployment.
The administration defends the economic stimulus bill that Congress passed in February 2009 with a pricetag at the time of $787 billion as the right medicine to get the economy back on its feet. President Barack Obamahas said even more is needed to battle an unemployment rate that remained stuck in February at 9.7 percent.
The White House says that job creation will remain a top priority, hoping to convince voters that Obama did not spend too much time during his first year in office trying to get Congress to pass health care reform.
The government's monthly budget report showed the record $220.9 billion deficit for February reflected outlays of $328.4 billion and revenues of $107.5 billion. The February receipts marked the first time that revenues are up compared with the same month a year ago since April 2008. Revenues had fallen for 21 straight months as the recession cut into both individual and corporate income tax payments.
Deficits normally shoot up in February because it is a month when the government makes large refund payments to individuals and corporations as part of the tax filing process. Those payments were boosted this year by various tax credits that were expanded or added as part of the government's stimulus efforts including the "Making Work Pay" tax credit and the first-time home buyers tax credit.
Through the first five months of the budget year, government revenues totaled $800.5 billion, down 7 percent from a year ago, while outlays totaled $1.45 trillion, up a slight 0.1 percent from a year ago.
The deficit of $651.6 billion through February is up by 10.5 percent from the $589.8 billion deficit run up during the first five months of the 2009 budget year. The government's budget year begins on Oct. 1.
The budget that Obama sent to Congress in February projects that the deficits over the next decade will total $8.53 trillion. But the Congressional Budget Office last week put the 10-year total even higher at $9.8 trillion. Part of the reason for the $1.2 trillion difference is that the CBO is projecting slower economic growth and thus less tax revenues than the administration over the next decade.
The administration has maintained that the country must run large budget deficits until the economy has begun to grow at a sustainable pace that is bringing the unemployment rate down. Only then, the administration says, should the government focus on getting control of the deficits.
Obama has created by executive order an 18-member fiscal reform commission that has been charged with coming up with a plan to shrink the deficit to 3 percent of the economy within five years. The plan is scheduled to be unveiled in December, after the midterm congressional elections.
With the economy so weak, the interest rates that the government has to finance the flood of red ink have remained low. However, economists are worried that the favorable outlook on interest rates could change quickly if investors, including foreign investors, start to worry about the government's commitment to restraining future deficits. China is the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasury securities.
Through the first five months of this budget year, net interest payments totaled $86.5 billion, up 15.3 percent from a year ago.
In its report last week, the CBO predicted that the government debt held by investors would climb from $7.5 trillion at the end of last year to $20.3 trillion in 2020. CBO forecast that interest payments would more than quadruple from a projected $209 billion this year to $916 billion annually by the end of the decade.
$40 MILLION PER MONTH TO FUND ABORTION -- THAT'S NOT HEALTH CARE!! THAT'S $480 MILLION PER YEAR FOR ABORTION -- AND THAT'S REALLY NOT HEALTH CARE !!
Oh, and what I mean by the bills that are worth passing, they're worth funding. At this time H.R. 3590 is NOT WORTH funding as written. I concede that H.R. 3200 and H.R. 1200 cut in half are worth appropriating those measures, only without the federal mandate.
IT SHOULDN'T MATTER IF THERE'S A DEADLINE ON H.R. 3590; IT'S NOT WORTH THE FUNDING WITHOUT REVISION!
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 2:50 PM, CREATIVE INNOVATIONS <creativeinnovations27@gmail.com> wrote:(I would include Mr. Marshall, but he's inaccessible by email, unless I email him through the write your rep. site./please fwd. to him.)
I found out after the Summit that you're trying to push an up or down vote on H.R. 3590, the most poorly written out of all of the health care bills! Charlie Rangel should definitely step down, in light of the fact that this bill is a conflict of interest with him as Chairman, as it benefits his position directly to influence higher taxation by the enactment of fiscally irresponsible legislation!
I will continue revision on H.R. 3590, but don't expect any miraculous outcomes on how to bring the cost down on this bill with the language that's in it. This will be the most difficult revision process yet. Since you have not struck the mandate clause in H.R. 1200, there won't be enough competition to make other insurance companies change their policies/bring prices down to compete with the Public Option; you will only then be covering a 30-40 million pool and deteriorating the health insurance market further, not fostering the competition that you seek.
I implore you to strike that clause in H.R. 1200 for the federal mandate of health insurance, as we already pay for it one way or another, and shouldn't we have the choice to say NO or OPT-OUT?! Rid the bills of ANY provision to fund abortion in any of the health care legislation !!
Why do you then wonder why people are NOT supporting Public Option or the President's New Plan? The New Plan apparently isn't a compilation of ALL the health care legislation or even H.R. 3962 with tweaks, so why do you then expect us to support this crappy bill H.R. 3590???!!! When Republicans say start over, they mean, take all of the objections, revisions, and their legislation, (which you've neglected the entire time, trying to attach your names to bills for you to take the credit for health care reform) and make some new legislation that we agree upon!!We had Baucus' version, we had Reid's version, we had Pelosi's, now we have Rangel's and Obama's combo! Why is this all about you guys?? What about us??! We're the ones paying for it! Why doesn't our voice count when you're taxing us??!
Suggestion:Table H.R. 3590 for further revision -- NO UP OR DOWN VOTE !!Take 3200, 1200 (which were both cut in half) strike the mandate clause, and pass them.Reconsider H.R. 3400 and combine it with H.R. 3962, after substantial revision and subcommittee processing.And for God's sake, could we please have an up or down vote on something else other than H.R. 3590?!S. 1679 is by far, the best bill that I've read over out of all the health care bills! It addresses trauma care needs, chronic care needs, elderly care reform and provisions, and general market reforms on health care --- you know, AN ACTUAL HEALTH CARE BILL !!!I'm fully aware after not having health insurance for 6yrs. for myself, that we need to do something immediately to bring high premiums down for everyone else, and so that the uninsured have health coverage since they pay sales tax and income tax, and all of you who work for the government get health care!! We've been paying for yours!! HOWEVER, H.R. 3590 WON'T WORK AS WRITTEN !!Why won't it work?I invoke Byrd's rule: only stem cells grown from a person's own body doesn't cause genetic rejection/tumors; therefore, funding abortion is extraneous to reconciliation! There's no justification to force taxpayers to pay $3 billion to cover the cost of 1 million abortions performed on average per year, when the gov.t should not be making women cash cows for Planned Parenthood to begin with, and with the gov.t endorsing human carcass harvesting when aborted stem cells don't work/cause cancer!! Limit stem cell funding for organ regeneration only! You don't need to justify $3 billion for abortions to properly appropriate for stem cell research that actually works!
Aborted stem cells cause cancer!! -- IT'S AN UNETHICAL MISAPPROPRIATION AND POSES CONSUMER LIABILITIES IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT ENTITIES SPONSORING THIS IRRESPONSIBLE PROVISION IN PUBLIC OPTION COULD THEN BE SUED FOR DEFRAUDING THE PUBLIC IN THE NAME OF SO-CALLED "HEALTH CARE", when abortion clearly isn't health care!From a very concerned constituent,Ms. Aja Brooks
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 5:13 PM, CREATIVE INNOVATIONS <creativeinnovations27@gmail.com> wrote:Since the New Plan primarily comes from H.R. 3962, and I'm revising it now, I hope that as I send you the revisions in segments that this will prevent a filibuster vote in which Americans will feel that their voice isn't heard. A filibuster isn't examining the budget or seeing why we haven't ever made appropriations to offer state programs to cover the uninsured.
Everyone pays sales tax and income taxes, and every day, Americans feel with budget cuts that they're getting less for what they pay in: roads are crumbling, teachers are getting their benefits cut - having to take unpaid vacations called furloughs, and GA is between a rock and a hard place between cutting public safety or education. All the while the existing health care programs have been regulated poorly! We've got to make this legislation viable where it enacts reform that is more than words on paper, and we've got to include a plan that isn't just making taxpayers pay for abortion, when that's not health care. That's why there's such a repulsion, seeing the cost to boot, and the bills have to bring cost down, NOT UP!!
We shouldn't have to chose between the two of public safety and education, like this stimulus bill that was passed that made people choose between national security, Medicare, or clean energy. Sometimes Ms. Pelosi, I wonder what it is that y'all do in WA other than undercut one another. At least in CA, you work for progress, but WA is completely different, I saw that from the Summit!
I'm looking forward to reading this bill; I pray it's better than 3200,1200, and 3590 combined!
-Ms. Aja Brooks
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 3:59 PM, CREATIVE INNOVATIONS <creativeinnovations27@gmail.com> wrote:I don't agree with mandating insurance becoming federal law, when you will have a pool of over 30 million, as it's unconstitutional. What if I don't like the coverage, even though it sounds good on paper? Why should I pay for something that I'm not using?
Is this new plan under a certain legislative bill, so that we may read it? I want to look at the fine print.
Thanks,
Ms. Aja Brooks
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 3:59 AM, CREATIVE INNOVATIONS <creativeinnovations27@gmail.com> wrote:I just saw the ABC report of focusing on the uninsured, raising taxes on pharmaceuticals, and to prohibit denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
I wish you well at the health care summit, but I won't be listening or watching, my time better focused on revision this week, and to provide you with revisions on H.R. 3962/3067 next. I will work with you on getting the costs down, but I won't budge, and neither will GA on abortion. Abortion is not contraception or health care. Stem cell research should be limited to organ regeneration and funded appropriately, not funding human carcass harvesting!
$1 trillion is a lot of money for this latest unveiling, but maybe we could appropriate the money for nutrition and natural therapies to be available to the state and county health departments to revive the agro-sector. We don't want the state to foot the cost of being pill mills for mental health, pushing prescription meds and pill popping, but we need to appropriate for counselors of all kinds. If people don't produce enough dopamine in the brain, like a diabetic doesn't produce enough insulin, we must work to remove these stigmas, so that people can get care, something I was taught by Dr. Sandy Curtis when I took Music Therapy in college. I don't think it's so much an issue of $1 trillion in cost, but one of responsible appropriation, and each state may propose how they want to appropriate their program for the uninsured, with federal oversight to check the balance.
We can reform health care, if we're really willing to look at whether or not the application of the legislation not just works on paper, but in real life. $70 million is a nominal pledge for mental health in GA, when taxpayers are footing the bill to house inmates at $60,000 per year for mandatory minimum drug sentences, with GA's children only receiving $10,000 for education. I want to see more police officers get counseling and sensitivity training, and cultural studies to understand peoples' backgrounds too, as we need to be officers of keeping the peace, not just abusing the Patriot Act for serving the system of County police and jailers to have jobs. CA has a great model for substance abuse education that I would like to see taught in high schools in GA. I just wish that for all of the education and programs in CA, that we can compromise with this proposed model for addressing the uninsured, and not revert to Public Option without revision.
Again, I thank you.
-Ms. Aja Brooks
No comments:
Post a Comment