Hillary makes it official

[nickqt]

Cool, you skipped right past "but that would never happen!" and went straight to "but that's a good thing!"

Just to be clear, Medicare is age-based, not means-based.

Cool, you skipped right past the part where I showed that your argument isn't valid because:

1. The bill didn't make it illegal to pay for your own health care, meaning that your scenario is invalid.

If a patient forgoes Medicare coverage in order to get Namebrand over generic, he isn't paying the doctor to prescribe Namebrand instead of generic, on Medicare's dime.

2. Medicare being age-based is irrelevant to this.

If Medicare says prescribe generic, and a patient wants Namebrand, there is nothing stopping patient from paying all costs for a prescription of Namebrand.

The bill doesn't prohibit a patient from asking for Namebrand, but it does make it possible that if patient asks for a prescription for Namebrand, to be paid for by Medicare, the doctor says that he isn't allowed, and the patient slips the doctor $50.00 to get the prescription, then again, that is bribery.

 

[werepossum]

Cool, you skipped right past the part where I showed that your argument isn't valid because:

1. The bill didn't make it illegal to pay for your own health care, meaning that your scenario is invalid.

If a patient forgoes Medicare coverage in order to get Namebrand over generic, he isn't paying the doctor to prescribe Namebrand instead of generic, on Medicare's dime.

2. Medicare being age-based is irrelevant to this.

If Medicare says prescribe generic, and a patient wants Namebrand, there is nothing stopping patient from paying all costs for a prescription of Namebrand.

The bill doesn't prohibit a patient from asking for Namebrand, but it does make it possible that if patient asks for a prescription for Namebrand, to be paid for by Medicare, the doctor says that he isn't allowed, and the patient slips the doctor $50.00 to get the prescription, then again, that is bribery.

That was already illegal; no need to redefine it. The new part was making it illegal to offer the doctor something of value* to change her decision, not offering to pay for it. (*In this case, liver enzyme testing.)

Sorry, I honestly thought that was apparent. Sometimes I forget just how far something must be dumbed down.

EDIT: Medicare being age-based is very much relevant because many people on Medicare have the means to buy a medication for which Medicare will not pay. That is not at all an unusual practice now, and if the doctor agrees that it's more effective she will write you a prescription for the new drug.

EDIT 2: Just in case that wasn't simplified enough, let me point out:
1.) Medicare would actually pay less, since it would pay 80% of the cheaper drug but 0% of the more expensive drug. The patient would be offering to pay all costs associated with the new drug, not trying to get something for free. (I can understand why you'd have trouble understanding that concept, so take a moment.)
2.) The liver enzyme testing is something of value to the doctor because it is a service for which she will be paid.
3.) The liver enzyme testing is assumed to be a required part of the more expensive drug's treatment regime, which is common.

 

[ivwshane]

Lol! Holy shit you stupid fuck! Only a hack like you would come to such a conclusion and only after failing to understand the words you claimed to read. Even in the strictest interpretation of this passage could anyone consider someone paying out of pocket for a medical procedure be considered a form of bribery or inappropriate.

`Sec. 226. Bribery and graft in connection with health care

`(a) Whoever--
`(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to a health care official, or offers or promises a health care official to give anything of value to any other person, with intent--
`(A) to influence any of the health care official's actions, decisions, or duties relating to a health alliance or health plan;
`(B) to influence such an official to commit or aid in the committing, or collude in or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on a health alliance or health plan; or
`(C) to induce such an official to engage in any conduct in violation of the lawful duty of such official; or
`(2) being a health care official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, the giving of which violates paragraph (1) of this subsection;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.
`(b) Whoever, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of any duty, directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to a health care official, for or because of any of the health care official's actions, decisions, or duties relating to a health care alliance or health plan, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
`(c) As used in this section--
`(1) the term `health care official' means--
`(A) an administrator, officer, trustee, fiduciary, custodian, counsel, agent, or employee of any health care alliance or health plan;
`(B) an officer, counsel, agent, or employee, of an organization that provides services under contract to any health alliance or health plan;
`(C) an official or employee of a State agency having regulatory authority over any health alliance or health plan;
`(D) an officer, counsel, agent, or employee of a health care sponsor; and
`(2) the term `health care sponsor' means any individual or entity serving as the sponsor of a health alliance or health plan for purposes of the Health Security Act, and includes the joint board of trustees or other similar body used by two or more employers to administer a health alliance or health plan for purposes of such Act.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of chapters at the beginning of chapter 11 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`226. Bribery and graft in connection with health care.'.

I am continually amazed that anyone, even while holding his nose, can get behind someone who would author a "health care" bill which would put you in jail for using your own money to pay for your own health care. Have we really fallen that far?

If that doesn't give you pause, how about supporting an attorney who would certify her close friend and tennis partner as destitute, even though her husband owned a bank at the time, to get a no-interest $300,000 federal loan that the taxpayers guaranteed and ultimately had to pay off? (Admittedly if one considers owning a $1.4 million house as being "dead broke", perhaps owning a bank qualifies as destitute, but still.)

Have we no standards beyond "my team" or "my promised loot"?

You probably aren't aware, but you can save a PDF down, open it with a PDF reader, and actually search for words. Well, not you per se, but normal people. In fact, whomever puts your helmet on you when you go outside can find rather a lot of references to prison. (Hint: When the bill says "imprison", it means to send someone to prison. Also, when it refers to changing penalties in other codes, it's ain't talking about time outs.)

Go to your first link.
Save it as a PDF.
Open it in Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Search for section 226 Bribery and graft in connection with health care.
Whoever corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to a health care official to influence any of the health care official's actions, decisions, or duties relating to a health alliance or health plan, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both. Same threat for the health care official.

Now, this is in a section entitled "Bribery and graft in connection with health care", so clearly it's there to protect us, right? But look at the definition of "health care official". It includes employees of any organization providing services under contract to a health alliance or health plan.

The scenario (as I recall it from almost twenty years ago) was thus:
You are a Medicare patient.
Your doctor is an employee of an organization contracting with the government to provide services to you under Medicare.
Your doctor diagnoses you with a particular form of brain cancer (let's call it neoproggiplasm. Symptoms include voting Democrat and blathering.)
There are several possible drugs to treat this disease.
Medicare will pay for the cheapest two (let's call them Generical and Cheapomil) which are less effective but good enough for most people, but not the newer, more expensive drug (let's call it Miracal.)
Your doctor therefore tells you she'll write you a prescription for Cheapomil.
You go home and read everything you can find about neoproggiplasm, including claims of wondrous response to Miracal.
You come in and tell your doctor you want Miracal instead of Cheapomil.
Your doctor explains that Medicare does not cover Miracal, but if you continue to regress on Cheapomil she can then prescribe Generical.
You tell your doctor that you will pay for your Miracal from your own pocket. In fact, you'll pay for the necessary liver enzyme testing as well.

By a strict reading, you have just committed bribery by offering a health care official something of value to influence her decision, for which you can be fined and/or imprisoned for up to fifteen years.

Before you scoff at such a thing - was bribery legal before?

If not, why would this bill need to redefine it?

Remember the words of President Obama: Maybe Grandma doesn't get the hip replacement, maybe Grandma just gets a wheelchair and pain pills. He didn't add "unless she pays for it", did he?

Now that I've backslid and done the search for you, you can move on to "but that would never happen!" and "but that's a good thing!

Lol! Did the research for me? Hah! Your bitch ass didn't do shit!

 

[nickqt]

That was already illegal; no need to redefine it. The new part was making it illegal to offer the doctor something of value* to change her decision, not offering to pay for it. (*In this case, liver enzyme testing.)

Sorry, I honestly thought that was apparent. Sometimes I forget just how far something must be dumbed down.

EDIT: Medicare being age-based in very much relevant because many people on Medicare have the means to buy a medication for which Medicare will not pay. That is not at all an unusual practice now, and if the doctor agrees that it's more effective she will write you a prescription for the new drug.

Wow.

You're so determined to be right that you'll gloss over what I said while insulting me.

Awesome!

The bill never made it illegal to pay for your own medication. Hence, your sob story about Medicare patient wanting a Namebrand drug over a generic drug doesn't matter if that patient will pay for their own Namebrand drug.

If, on the other hand, the Medicare patient attempts to get the doctor to prescribe the Namebrand drug on Medicare's dime by giving the doctor money, it is bribery.

Your scenario has confused you I believe. And again, that Medicare is age-based is irrelevant to Medicare patient attempting to bribe the doctor into prescribing a Namebrand drug over a generic drug when the doctor and patient know that Medicare doesn't provide for the Namebrand drug.

If patient asks for Namebrand, doctor says I can't prescribe that because Medicare says no, and patient gives the doctor money to get him to prescribe the Namebrand...how is that not bribery?

 

[werepossum]

Lol! Holy shit you stupid fuck! Only a hack like you would come to such a conclusion and only after failing to understand the words you claimed to read. Even in the strictest interpretation of this passage could anyone consider someone paying out of pocket for a medical procedure be considered a form of bribery or inappropriate.

Lol! Did the research for me? Hah! Your bitch ass didn't do shit!

I salute you for even attempting to post through all that foam on your monitor.

Wow.

You're so determined to be right that you'll gloss over what I said while insulting me.

Awesome!

The bill never made it illegal to pay for your own medication. Hence, your sob story about Medicare patient wanting a Namebrand drug over a generic drug doesn't matter if that patient will pay for their own Namebrand drug.

If, on the other hand, the Medicare patient attempts to get the doctor to prescribe the Namebrand drug on Medicare's dime by giving the doctor money, it is bribery.

Your scenario has confused you I believe. And again, that Medicare is age-based is irrelevant to Medicare patient attempting to bribe the doctor into prescribing a Namebrand drug over a generic drug when the doctor and patient know that Medicare doesn't provide for the Namebrand drug.

If patient asks for Namebrand, doctor says I can't prescribe that because Medicare says no, and patient gives the doctor money to get him to prescribe the Namebrand...how is that not bribery?

Under current law, as long as the patient pays for the medication not covered by Medicare, no crime is committed. That is what I set up and repeatedly emphasized. I'm sorry, I really do not know how to make that any simpler or plainer.

 

[sportage]

THIS is why I soooo want Hillary as our next president.
And why you should too...



"ISIS? ISIS? BEND OVER ISIS. PAYBACK TIME"

 

[fskimospy]

You probably aren't aware, but you can save a PDF down, open it with a PDF reader, and actually search for words. Well, not you per se, but normal people. In fact, whomever puts your helmet on you when you go outside can find rather a lot of references to prison. (Hint: When the bill says "imprison", it means to send someone to prison. Also, when it refers to changing penalties in other codes, it's ain't talking about time outs.)

Go to your first link.
Save it as a PDF.
Open it in Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Search for section 226 Bribery and graft in connection with health care.
Whoever corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to a health care official to influence any of the health care official's actions, decisions, or duties relating to a health alliance or health plan, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than fifteen years, or both. Same threat for the health care official.

Now, this is in a section entitled "Bribery and graft in connection with health care", so clearly it's there to protect us, right? But look at the definition of "health care official". It includes employees of any organization providing services under contract to a health alliance or health plan.

The scenario (as I recall it from almost twenty years ago) was thus:
You are a Medicare patient.
Your doctor is an employee of an organization contracting with the government to provide services to you under Medicare.
Your doctor diagnoses you with a particular form of brain cancer (let's call it neoproggiplasm. Symptoms include voting Democrat and blathering.)
There are several possible drugs to treat this disease.
Medicare will pay for the cheapest two (let's call them Generical and Cheapomil) which are less effective but good enough for most people, but not the newer, more expensive drug (let's call it Miracal.)
Your doctor therefore tells you she'll write you a prescription for Cheapomil.
You go home and read everything you can find about neoproggiplasm, including claims of wondrous response to Miracal.
You come in and tell your doctor you want Miracal instead of Cheapomil.
Your doctor explains that Medicare does not cover Miracal, but if you continue to regress on Cheapomil she can then prescribe Generical.
You tell your doctor that you will pay for your Miracal from your own pocket. In fact, you'll pay for the necessary liver enzyme testing as well.

By a strict reading, you have just committed bribery by offering a health care official something of value to influence her decision, for which you can be fined and/or imprisoned for up to fifteen years.

Before you scoff at such a thing - was bribery legal before?

If not, why would this bill need to redefine it?

Remember the words of President Obama: Maybe Grandma doesn't get the hip replacement, maybe Grandma just gets a wheelchair and pain pills. He didn't add "unless she pays for it", did he?

Now that I've backslid and done the search for you, you can move on to "but that would never happen!" and "but that's a good thing!"

This is getting embarrassing. Not only would this 'strict' reading of the law mean that under existing bribery statutes people would constantly be violating them by doing similar things, but the statute explicitly says 'corruptly', which requires BOTH intent AND the desire to get an 'unlawful' or 'fraudulent' benefit. Getting medication you are paying for out of pocket does neither of these things.

So no, the bill does not jail people for paying for their own care in any way, shape, or form. Yet again, you're completely full of shit. This is why I linked the bill to you to begin with. It was pretty obvious that you yet again had gotten something completely insane in your head and I knew you couldn't back it up.

I have no doubt that being shown that you were duped yet again will have no effect on what you think, even as you complain about other people slavishly adhering to their own ideology.

 

[sportage]

THIS is why I soooo want Hillary as our next president.
And why you should too...



"TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY AND I'LL KICK YOU IN THE BALLS"

 

[CZroe]

This is getting embarrassing. Not only would this 'strict' reading of the law mean that under existing bribery statutes people would constantly be violating them by doing similar things, but the statute explicitly says 'corruptly', which requires BOTH intent AND the desire to get an 'unlawful' or 'fraudulent' benefit. Getting medication you are paying for out of pocket does neither of these things.

So no, the bill does not jail people for paying for their own care in any way, shape, or form. Yet again, you're completely full of shit. This is why I linked the bill to you to begin with. It was pretty obvious that you yet again had gotten something completely insane in your head and I knew you couldn't back it up.

I have no doubt that being shown that you were duped yet again will have no effect on what you think, even as you complain about other people slavishly adhering to their own ideology.

With universal healthcare where a certain treatment or medication is covered, paying out of pocket for a better treatment or medication could be interpreted as a bribe. That's what he's saying. That is NOT the way it has always been under strict reading of recent/past law because we did not have universal healthcare. You have not addressed what he is actually saying.

 

[fskimospy]

With universal healthcare where a certain treatment or medication is covered, paying out of pocket for a better treatment or medication could be interpreted as a bribe. That's what he's saying. That is NOT the way it has always been under strict reading of recent/past law. You have not addressed what he is actually saying.

I explicitly addressed what he said.

1. Similar passages in current law are not interpreted in this way. Judges not only look to the text of the statute but also look at prior precedent. Under either standard his reading is implausible. It is certainly not sufficiently likely to merit his original post.

2. Even when being as favorable to his position as I was in point 1, his point still obviously fails. As I previously mentioned the law explicitly requires someone to act 'corruptly'. This is a word that is used quite often in other statutes, and it is very important. This requires someone to be acting to secure themselves benefits that would be unlawful or fraudulent. Paying for medications out of pocket would 1. Not be a benefit, as you would be getting no money from the government and the medication is not otherwise prohibited for use and 2. Not be fraudulent, for obvious reasons. Therefore paying for medications out of pocket cannot be a bribe. Period.

Even under the reading of the law most favorable to his position he's wrong. Now go back and look at what he originally wrote about this. It is indefensible. If he's an honest person he will admit as much.

 

[CZroe]

I explicitly addressed what he said.

1. Similar passages in current law are not interpreted in this way. Judges not only look to the text of the statute but also look at prior precedent. Under either standard his reading is implausible. It is certainly not sufficiently likely to merit his original post.

2. Even when being as favorable to his position as I was in point 1, his point still obviously fails. As I previously mentioned the law explicitly requires someone to act 'corruptly'. This is a word that is used quite often in other statutes, and it is very important. This requires someone to be acting to secure themselves benefits that would be unlawful or fraudulent. Paying for medications out of pocket would 1. Not be a benefit, as you would be getting no money from the government and the medication is not otherwise prohibited for use and 2. Not be fraudulent, for obvious reasons. Therefore paying for medications out of pocket cannot be a bribe. Period.

Even under the reading of the law most favorable to his position he's wrong. Now go back and look at what he originally wrote about this. It is indefensible. If he's an honest person he will admit as much.

In current/past law, you couldn't define it as corrupt because it wasn't the true universal healthcare HillaryCare promised. Context is key. If everyone were covered for free, then paying more to get better treatment WOULD get viewed as bribery/corrupt. You haven't addressed that because you keep comparing it to a system where that isn't the case.

 

[fskimospy]

In current/past law, you couldn't define it as corrupt because it wasn't the true universal healthcare HillaryCare promised. Context is key. If everyone were covered for free, then paying more to get better treatment WOULD get viewed as bribery/corrupt. You haven't addressed that because you keep comparing it to a system where that isn't the case.

It would only be 'corruptly' if they were doing so to get an unlawful or fraudulent benefit, and that's not the case here regardless of the system.

In order to show that it is corrupt you will need to show one of these things:

1. A statute that says it is unlawful to pay for medication by yourself.
2. That it would be unlawful for the patient to receive that medication otherwise.
3. That fraud was being committed by the patient somehow.

If you can't, it's not bribery or corruption. Full stop.

 

[CZroe]

I explicitly addressed what he said.

1. Similar passages in current law are not interpreted in this way. Judges not only look to the text of the statute but also look at prior precedent. Under either standard his reading is implausible. It is certainly not sufficiently likely to merit his original post.

2. Even when being as favorable to his position as I was in point 1, his point still obviously fails. As I previously mentioned the law explicitly requires someone to act 'corruptly'. This is a word that is used quite often in other statutes, and it is very important. This requires someone to be acting to secure themselves benefits that would be unlawful or fraudulent. Paying for medications out of pocket would 1. Not be a benefit, as you would be getting no money from the government and the medication is not otherwise prohibited for use and 2. Not be fraudulent, for obvious reasons. Therefore paying for medications out of pocket cannot be a bribe. Period.

Even under the reading of the law most favorable to his position he's wrong. Now go back and look at what he originally wrote about this. It is indefensible. If he's an honest person he will admit as much.

And that is where we'd need to get more in depth with the decades-old failed legislation than we are willing to do. It's deeper than the definition of "corrupt" and whether or not the word "prison" is in the bill. We need to find expert analysis. Does it set things up such that doctors are employed by the state and any attempt at direct payment is seen as circumventing their system? Who originally made the claim? On what grounds? Did an expert ever refute it? On what grounds?

 

[dank69]

And that is where we'd need to get more in depth with the decades-old failed legislation than we are willing to do. It's deeper than the definition of "corrupt" and whether or not the word "prison" is in the bill. We need to find expert analysis. Does it set things up such that doctors are employed by the state and any attempt at direct payment is seen as circumventing their system? Who originally made the claim? On what grounds? Did an expert ever refute it? On what grounds?

You need to ask werepossum for that info. He isn't sharing with us.

 

[fskimospy]

And that is where we'd need to get more in depth with the decades-old failed legislation than we are willing to do. It's deeper than the definition of "corrupt" and whether or not the word "prison" is in the bill. We need to find expert analysis. Does it set things up such that doctors are employed by the state and any attempt at direct payment is seen as circumventing their system? Who originally made the claim? On what grounds? Did an expert ever refute it? On what grounds?

I really don't think we do. Those words have specific meanings and it's pretty clear that those standards aren't met. Again, if you can't point out how someone fit one of the three criteria I put out before that's game over. People aren't getting extra benefits from a doctor by paying more money for medication that's available to anyone with their condition but the feds decline to pay for.

With that in mind, this is what he wrote:

I am continually amazed that anyone, even while holding his nose, can get behind someone who would author a "health care" bill which would put you in jail for using your own money to pay for your own health care. Have we really fallen that far?

Do you think that statement is supportable given the evidence he has provided?

 

[fskimospy]

You need to ask werepossum for that info. He isn't sharing with us.

According to werepossum the burden is on us to go research his insane claims and debunk them. He already knows what he knows, facts be damned.

 

[chucky2]

THIS is why I soooo want Hillary as our next president.
And why you should too...



"TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY AND I'LL KICK YOU IN THE BALLS"

Please do not breed. Thanks.

 

[boomerang]

Now she's been called out for inventing immigrant grandparents. I can see how she appeals to the left. We're in our second term of a pathological liar and they're looking to put another one in the White House.

I guess she figures she can't get away with saying she was born a poor black child. Of course it ain't over yet.

 

[theeedude]

Now she's been called out for inventing immigrant grandparents. I can see how she appeals to the left. We're in our second term of a pathological liar and they're looking to put another one in the White House.

I guess she figures she can't get away with saying she was born a poor black child. Of course it ain't over yet.

Looks like your 8 years Obama rage will transition to 8 years of Clinton rage quite nicely.

 

[boomerang]

Looks like your 8 years Obama rage will transition to 8 years of Clinton rage quite nicely.

OMG, you make me so mad!! J/K, you consistently come across as a juvenile simpleton.

 

[ivwshane]

OMG, you make me so mad!! J/K, you consistently come across as a juvenile simpleton.

Lol! You are projecting again!

 

[nickqt]

Lol! You are projecting again!

You're arguing with someone who has the reading comprehension of an alligator.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Dateline Iowa ... Candidates Manage Campaign Events!!!

OK, so Hillary managed her campaign event -- just like EVERY OTHER candidate.

Yes, they try to stack the deck with friendlies and weed out the ringers -- again nothing new here and here's why. If you aren't careful about who gets in you WILL have operatives of the opposition come in to cause trouble. The republicans are notorious for there hostile efforts to exclude anyone that isn't a drooling supporter.

Getting worked up about this is pathetic. It's likely the repubs tried to get into her event to cause trouble and were pissed they were denied. The complaining about it after the fact serves two purposes: first, lather up the drooling right (check), and second, put pressure on Hillary's team to be more open so they have a better chance of getting in to cause trouble.

To the drooling righies that frequent this site ... will you be pissed when YOUR guy is demonstrated to have excluded "regular people" from there events?


Brian

 

[First]

You're arguing with someone who has the reading comprehension of an alligator.

That's far nicer than he deserves and you know it.

 

[boomerang]

To the drooling righies that frequent this site ... will you be pissed when YOUR guy is demonstrated to have excluded "regular people" from there events?

I, for one, am anxious to hear the response from drooling righies.