6 ms·

Actually if the Independent Payment Advisory Board fails to develop a proposal should costs exceed certain thresholds then the Secretary of Health and Human ser

Actually if the Independent Payment Advisory Board fails to develop a proposal should costs exceed certain thresholds then the Secretary of Health and Human services must submit a proposal themselves which they must implement. Since all appointees to this committee must be agreed upon by the Executive Branch as well as both minority and majority leaders from each party (hence 12 from Congress with the Presidents approval/recommendation) and 3 from the President, yes the Executive branch could very well determine what health options are available too you. The real issues before us now are. 1) why can the Secretary of Health and Human Services even refuse to divulge enrollment numbers? 2) why is the same not keeping the President fully aware or made aware of the problems the site faced before launch and after (conspiracy advocated claim the President knew) 3) By regulating what must be covered and not covered they are deciding what you can have and have not. Remember, there are a lot of gray areas in the law which the Secretary has shown more than enough interest in creating actual rules.

generj 13y ago
Of course, the nice part is that since they do have analytics (as terribly implemented as it appears to have been), we can force enrollment number disclosure by filing a FOIA request for the web analytics data. Which, incidentally, I did today before this story broke.
cma 13y ago
You can still by supplemental insurance, so they aren't regulating what you can have, they are regulating the minimum floor.
- drivingmissm 13y ago
  Obamacare is not a "minimum floor" it is a full suite of mandated coverage for every politically connected medical sector.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    Yes, its a minimum floor. And there are many plans that offer more than the ACA minimum. You may not like where the minimum is set, but that doesn't make it anything but a minimum floor.
- RickHull 13y ago
  > they aren't regulating what you can have, they are regulating the minimum floor. This is utter nonsense on its face. If I have (or want) something under the minimum floor, they have regulated that away from me. They have regulated what I can have.
  - VladRussian2 13y ago
    They also regulated away spoiled beef in stores, non smoke detectors equipped bedrooms and poisoned tap water. You can't have it. Minimum floor.
    - RickHull 13y ago
      Indeed. I'm simply asking that we call a spade a spade.
    - mrschwabe 13y ago
      Some municipalities mandate the addition of sodium fluoride in their public water systems. Sodium fluoride is a poison, so it's not necessarily accurate to claim they have 'regulated away' poisoned tap water.
      - Aloisius 13y ago
        No one drinking publicly fluoridated tap water in the US is coming even close to a toxic dose. You might as well call all caffeinated beverages toxic given the toxic dose of caffeine is 1/30th that of sodium fluoride.
        aric 13y ago
        The difference is that said municipalities mandate that this toxic substance be added to people's water. With soda, people have more direct awareness and choice. With communal water, many people remain trusting and assuming. Meanwhile, there is no hard, double-blind science backing any clear benefits of fluoridation; yet the negatives keep growing. The EPA lowers their "recommended maximum" continually throughout the years, as pressure for sanity builds. Sane countries banned fluoridation long ago. Furthermore, the more it infects the food chain, the more "a little bit" adds up. It doesn't magically stay contained in tap water alone. Sure, it won't matter to most people, even not on principle alone. It will matter to some people, though, in compounding their chronic health problems. And that matters to me. Then there is ethics. Ethics and choice matter. Even if there were startling net benefits to this very toxic substance, using or ingesting it should be exclusively on an individual basis: personal choice, OTC, or per a physician. Advocating for needlessly and forcefully "medicating" (read: it's not medicine) other people through their communal water supply is, in no uncertain terms, blatantly unethical. It seems to stem from either psychopathy, greed, or sheer ignorance. It's on the same order as an industry and some physicians promoting nicotine cigarettes for health, once upon a time, and other such barbarities of an era.

generj 13y ago

Of course, the nice part is that since they do have analytics (as terribly implemented as it appears to have been), we can force enrollment number disclosure by filing a FOIA request for the web analytics data. Which, incidentally, I did today before this story broke.

cma 13y ago

You can still by supplemental insurance, so they aren't regulating what you can have, they are regulating the minimum floor.

drivingmissm 13y ago
Obamacare is not a "minimum floor" it is a full suite of mandated coverage for every politically connected medical sector.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  Yes, its a minimum floor. And there are many plans that offer more than the ACA minimum. You may not like where the minimum is set, but that doesn't make it anything but a minimum floor.
RickHull 13y ago
> they aren't regulating what you can have, they are regulating the minimum floor. This is utter nonsense on its face. If I have (or want) something under the minimum floor, they have regulated that away from me. They have regulated what I can have.
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  They also regulated away spoiled beef in stores, non smoke detectors equipped bedrooms and poisoned tap water. You can't have it. Minimum floor.
  - RickHull 13y ago
    Indeed. I'm simply asking that we call a spade a spade.
  - mrschwabe 13y ago
    Some municipalities mandate the addition of sodium fluoride in their public water systems. Sodium fluoride is a poison, so it's not necessarily accurate to claim they have 'regulated away' poisoned tap water.
    - Aloisius 13y ago
      No one drinking publicly fluoridated tap water in the US is coming even close to a toxic dose. You might as well call all caffeinated beverages toxic given the toxic dose of caffeine is 1/30th that of sodium fluoride.
      - aric 13y ago
        The difference is that said municipalities mandate that this toxic substance be added to people's water. With soda, people have more direct awareness and choice. With communal water, many people remain trusting and assuming. Meanwhile, there is no hard, double-blind science backing any clear benefits of fluoridation; yet the negatives keep growing. The EPA lowers their "recommended maximum" continually throughout the years, as pressure for sanity builds. Sane countries banned fluoridation long ago. Furthermore, the more it infects the food chain, the more "a little bit" adds up. It doesn't magically stay contained in tap water alone. Sure, it won't matter to most people, even not on principle alone. It will matter to some people, though, in compounding their chronic health problems. And that matters to me. Then there is ethics. Ethics and choice matter. Even if there were startling net benefits to this very toxic substance, using or ingesting it should be exclusively on an individual basis: personal choice, OTC, or per a physician. Advocating for needlessly and forcefully "medicating" (read: it's not medicine) other people through their communal water supply is, in no uncertain terms, blatantly unethical. It seems to stem from either psychopathy, greed, or sheer ignorance. It's on the same order as an industry and some physicians promoting nicotine cigarettes for health, once upon a time, and other such barbarities of an era.