Jump to content

Universal Health Care...


Recommended Posts

I see no reason to engage the participants of this forum on any political issue because the 'discussion' that goes on here poisons the mind, and no one approaches any idea with any degree of charity. (And by that I mean Aristotle's notion of charity, not philanthropy.)
LOL, I don't think you've read a whole lot here. People have repeatedly thanked people for teaching them things they don't know, and the dialogue here is top notch.I wonder who has the closed mind here.....
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't think it's the #1 problem, but it's a huge, huge problem.The question is, how do we go forward and build a better system?As is standard, you take the high-flying ideological position, whereby

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/07/hea...care/index.htmlhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091008/ap_on_...h_care_overhaulgood news guys. the bill won't actually cost all that much itself AND it'll reduce the deficit, ALL ON ITS OWN.
For a view grounded in the reality where most people live:http://www.cato.org/pressroom.php?display=...ents&id=287http://www.cato.org/people/michael-tanner
Michael D. Tanner, senior fellowmtanner@cato.org:

The CBO scoring makes it clear that the Baucus bill's reduction in future budget deficits comes not from controlling government spending or reducing health care costs, but because of a rapid escalation in tax revenues. The bill imposes a 40 percent excise tax on health-insurance plans that offer benefits in excess of $8,000 for an individual plan and $21,000 for a family plan. Insurers would almost certainly pass this tax on to consumers via higher premiums. As inflation pushes insurance premiums higher in coming years, more and more middle-class families would find themselves caught up in the tax. In fact, overall, the tax increases in the bill are more than double the amount of deficit reduction. This isn't a health care efficiency bill or a cost containment bill. It is a tax and spend bill, pure and simple.

<a class="fn n url" href="http://www.cato.org/people/michael-cannon">Michael F. Cannon, director of health policy studiesmcannon@cato.org:

The CBO score of the Baucus bill is like a mystery novel with the last 50 pages missing. It fails to reveal both the full cost of the bill and the budget gimmicks that Mr. Baucus uses to hide that cost. The Baucus bill will not reduce the deficit, and it would ultimately cost taxpayers more than $2 trillion—just like every other bill Congress has produced so far. The biggest gimmick employed by the bill is that its individual mandate pushes more than
half
of the legislation's cost off-budget, and onto businesses and individuals who will have to shoulder that burden. A real-world parallel already exists in the Massachusetts health care plan, where private-sector mandates account for 60 percent of the cost. In 1994, CBO counted those mandated private payments in the federal budget, and it helped kill the Clinton health plan. This time around, Democrats were very careful to craft their mandates so that they just barely avoided having the CBO include those payments in the federal budget. But the CBO's decision does not change the fact that those private-sector mandates are part of the cost of this bill. The second-biggest gimmick is assuming that Congress will let the "Sustainable Growth Rate" cuts in Medicare physician payments to occur. Starting in 2003, Congress has repeatedly blocked those cuts, and there is no reason to think that Congress will behave any differently in the future. So yes, provided that the sun rises in the West, the Baucus bill would reduce the federal deficit.

So yeah, by increasing taxes by $2, they are able to reduce the deficit by $1. This is the great Democratic Healthcare Budget Saving Idea.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the bill’s funding comes from $404 billion in cuts to Medicare and other government insurance programs that Democrats say will reduce waste but won’t hurt recipients’ benefits. An additional $201 billion comes from a 40% excise tax on particularly generous health-insurance plans levied on insurers. The rest comes from annual fees on insurers, medical-device makers and pharmaceutical companies, as well as a series of other changes to the tax treatment of health expenses. What happened to no tax increase for those under $250,000?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know why he bothers to post links, but I can understand why mike doesn't want to stick around. It is quite irritating to get piled on and insulted for thinking differently. While there are certainly some good posters here, I can think of at least two people that generally offer nothing but no-content derision. You can take my word for it--mike is the nicest guy ever in person.
I have to say, the ratio of people interested in good discussions to people who want to fight and insult is about as good in this forum as you can get anywhere on the internet, which is why his complaint rings so hollow.And I believe he is very nice. I never assume that anyone's political views have much to do with their personality. I've met lots of good people and bad people from all over the political spectrum.
Link to post
Share on other sites
While there are certainly some good posters here, I can think of at least two people that generally offer nothing but no-content derision.
personally I think it can be even more frustrating when you're on their "side" since, if you didn't agree with them, you could just be write them off as crazy, but if you do agree with their underlying premise, regardless of their idiotic delivery and nonsensical connections as "proof," it can just make you want to scream "YOU'RE NOT HELPING."
You can take my word for it--mike is the nicest guy ever in person.
well I mean yeah, as long as you make over 100k.
Link to post
Share on other sites
personally I think it can be even more frustrating when you're on their "side" since, if you didn't agree with them, you could just be write them off as crazy, but if you do agree with their underlying premise, regardless of their idiotic delivery and nonsensical connections as "proof," it can just make you want to scream "YOU'RE NOT HELPING."
It's why I rarely respond to your posts.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Greatest Show on Earth Step right up: A new entitlement that cuts the deficit!Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A18

The political and media classes are proving they'll believe anything, as they are now pronouncing that this never-before-seen miracle is a "green light" for ObamaCare. (What isn't these days?) The irony is that the CBO's guesstimate exposes the fraudulence and fiscal sleight-of-hand underlying this whole exercise. Anyone who reads beyond the top-line numbers will find that the bill creates massive new spending commitments that will inevitably explode over time, and that this is "paid for" with huge tax increases plus phantom spending cuts that will never happen in practice.The better part of the 10-year $829 billion overall cost will finance insurance "exchanges" where individuals and families could purchase coverage at heavily subsidized rates. Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus kept a lid on the cost by making this program non-universal: Enrollment is limited to those who aren't offered employer-sponsored insurance and earn under 400% of the poverty level, or about $88,000 for a family of four. CBO expects some 23 million people to sign up by 2019. But this "firewall" is unlikely to last even that long. Liberals are demanding heftier subsidies, and once people see the deal their neighbors are getting on "free" health care, they too will want in. Even CBO seems to find this unrealistic, noting "These projections assume that the proposals are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not the case for major legislation." Scratch "often."Then there are the many budget gimmicks. Take the "failsafe budgeting mechanism" that would require automatic cuts in exchange spending if it increases the deficit. CBO expects 15% reductions in exchange subsidies each year from 2015 to 2018, even though the exchanges don't open until 2014. That kind of re-gifting should have been laughed out of the committee room, but the ruse helps to move future spending off the current budget "score."Mr. Baucus spends $10.9 billion to eliminate the scheduled Medicare cuts to physician payments—but only for next year. In 2011, he assumes they'll be reduced by 25%, with even deeper cuts later. Congress has overridden this "sustainable growth rate" every year since 2003 and will continue to do so because deeper cuts in Medicare's price controls will cause many doctors to quit the program. Fixing this alone would add $245 billion to the bill's costs, according to an earlier CBO estimate.The Baucus bill also expands ailing Medicaid by $345 billion—even as it busts state budgets by imposing an additional $33 billion unfunded mandate. The only Medicare cut that isn't made merely on paper is $117 billion in Medicare Advantage, which Democrats hate because it gives one of five seniors private insurance options. Recall that when President Obama started the health-care debate, the goal was "bending the curve"—finding a way to reduce both Medicare and overall health spending. Budget director Peter Orszag talked about "game changers," which CBO has now outed as nonchangers. Comparative effectiveness research about what treatments work best? That will save all of $300 million in Medicare, even as it costs $2.6 billion in new taxes on premiums. More prevention and primary care will increase spending by $4.2 billion. Meanwhile, the bill piles on new taxes, albeit on health-care businesses so the costs are hidden from customers. Insurance companies offering policies that cost more than $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families will pay $201 billion per a 40% excise tax, which will be passed down to all policy holders in higher premiums. Another $180 billion will hit the likes of drug and device makers, including $29 billion because companies won't be allowed to deduct these "fees" from their corporate income taxes. Then there's the $4 billion in penalty payments on those who don't buy insurance because all of ObamaCare's other new taxes and mandates have made it more expensive.Senate Finance votes next week, and no doubt this freak of political nature will pass amid fanfare and self-congratulation that their new entitlement will reduce deficits. Never mind that such a spectacle has never happened in the history of the republic. P.T. Barnum had nothing on this crowd, and the bill hasn't even hit the Senate floor yet.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would appear that the Canadian healthcare system has had unintedned results.

Canada's Sperm Shortage Couples face shortage of Canadian spermUpdated Mon. Aug. 10 2009 10:00 PM ETCTV.ca News StaffWhy is it that Canada, a country of 12 million adult men, has only 33 sperm donors to supply its thousands of infertile couples? That's the question being asked by some fertility doctors as many couples look elsewhere for help growing their families.Canada once had about two dozen sperm banks. But in 2004, the federal government passed the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, which outlawed payment to sperm or egg donors. The only money that has been allowed to change hands is for expenses incurred in the donation process, such as the costs of traveling to the clinic.Five years later, there are very few Canadian sperm donors willing to donate for free, says Dr. Tom Hannam of the Hannam Fertility Centre in Toronto. That's left many couples, especially those among visible minorities, without many choices."Today, there is one South Asian donor for all of Canada," he says, noting that couples are often shocked at the limited choices."There is a significant shortage of donor semen in this country, yes."
It has created selfish Canadians who won't help each other without being paid.
One of the biggest suppliers of donor sperm is Outreach Health Services which imports and distributes semen for assisted reproduction clinics across Canada. The company imports sperm from an agency that collects primarily from men in Georgia and northern Florida, where donors are paid about $100 per visit.With so much sperm coming from the States, some estimate that up to 80 per cent of babies conceived in Canada through donor sperm have American DNA.Some scratch their heads at Canada's seeming hypocrisy. On the one hand, Canada is okay with clinics importing sperm from paid foreign donors in the States, yet won't allow clinics in Canada to compensate potential Canadian donors.
Luckily Florida and Georgia have stepped up to cover the shortage, in a few more decades 80% of all Canadians will have American DNA and the assimilation will be complete.
Link to post
Share on other sites

So the Dems claim that one of the major reasons we need universal insurance is because the uninsured drive up costs for everyone.That's an easy theory to test, right? Just look at the various states costs vs uninsured rates.Article discussing the comparisonI've said all along this result should be obvious. Given a choice between incurring a one-time large cost (dying of something expensive), or a small cost (preventative care) many times over many years followed by a large one-time cost, which will be more expensive? Sometimes our intuition is wrong, though, but here we have some data to back it up.Obama is lying (again).

Link to post
Share on other sites
House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) held a hearing this morning to certify that H.R. 3200 -- the main House Obamacare bill which was the subject of all the town hall rage in August -- has met all requirements to pass as a “budget reconciliation” measure.Under reconciliation, the bill can be passed by a simple majority vote in the Senate -- just 51 votes -- and will be given preferential treatment on the House floor as well. The Dems have apparently invoked the “nuclear option” to shut out Republicans and ensure the bill is passed before the end of the year. The bill certified for “reconciliation” is the Ways & Means version of H.R. 3200 that was passed out of committee before the August break, and before it was read aloud at town hall meetings across the country and blasted by voters across the country. It contains all of the horrors previously exposed: federal funding of abortion, coverage for illegal aliens, comparative effectiveness, healthcare rationing, deep cuts to Medicare. Everything the American people overwhelmingly reject. No amendments were allowed at the hearing and no debate. Rangel told Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), the ranking Republican on the committee, that he would not have preferred to do it this way, but leadership -- i.e., Speaker Pelosi -- forced his hand. While the media cameras are focused on Harry Reid’s office door, the House of Representatives has made it possible for H.R. 3200 to pass the Senate with 51 votes. It is still possible that Senator Reid won’t choose to use reconciliation in the Senate, but the odds against it are infinitesimal. Since it has now cleared the Ways and Means Committee (fulfilling the $1 billion reconciliation requirement), H.R. 3200 will go to the Budget Committee where they will do the same thing that was done today in Ways & Means. They will agree that the bill has met the reconciliation requirements on a straight party line vote. The bill then goes to Pelosi and the Rules Committee where Pelosi will do the same thing Reid is doing right now: merge the three House versions of H.R. 3200 together into whatever she wants it to be, then she will schedule it for a floor vote. H.R. 3200 could see a floor vote in the next two weeks, or the first week of November. If it passes, the House it goes to the Senate and can pass there with 51 votes.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
“You’ll hear everyone say, ‘There’s got to be a better name for this,’” Pelosi said. “When people think of the public option, public is being misrepresented, that this is being paid for with their public dollars.”…
Thank You Nancy Pelosi...Moron
Link to post
Share on other sites

I love it that the Democrats keep thinking they can just rename the pieces of crap they are pumping out and the public will just stupidly say "oh, ok, now I think it's a good idea to destroy the economy a little more."

Link to post
Share on other sites
It would appear that the Canadian healthcare system has had unintedned results. It has created selfish Canadians who won't help each other without being paid.Luckily Florida and Georgia have stepped up to cover the shortage, in a few more decades 80% of all Canadians will have American DNA and the assimilation will be complete.
So there will be a whole new generation of Nascar fans in Canada,lol?
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just watched the movie John Q, and at the end when they show clips from Jesse Jackson, Bill Maher, and some other socialists it makes me want universal health care. I don't want to be the bad guy anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone explain why these aren't options considered by the Pelosi Obama Reid braintrust?GOP Plan

Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.
The Republican health care substitute to be offered during floor debate on Speaker Pelosi's government takeover of health care will incorporate all or part of the following bills:
Empowering Patients First Act (Republican Study Committee Health Care Reform Bill, introduced July 30, 2009) Improving Health Care for All Americans Act (Shadegg Health Care Reform Bill, introduced July 14, 2009) Medical Rights & Reform Act (Kirk-Dent Health Care Reform Bill, introduced June 16, 2009) Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act (Gingrey medical liability reform bill, introduced June 6, 2009) Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2009 (Johnson small business health plans bill, introduced May 21, 2009) Promoting Health and Preventing Chronic Disease through Prevention and Wellness Programs for Employees, Communities, and Individuals Act of 2009 (Castle Wellness & Prevention Bill, introduced July 31, 2009) Improved Employee Access to Health Insurance Act of 2009 (Deal auto-enrollment bill, introduced October 15, 2009) Health Insurance Access for Young Workers and College Students Act of 2009 (Blunt bill to improve health insurance coverage of dependents, introduced October 21, 2009)
Link to post
Share on other sites
Can someone explain why these aren't options considered by the Pelosi Obama Reid braintrust?
Because those suggestions are not megalomanaical enough for the control freaks. They would allow people freedom of choice to take the steps necessary to improve their own lives. That's no way to grab power.Also, the lobbyists who wrote the Pelosi-Reid monstrosity would stop giving suitcases full of money to Democrats if they passed a bill like that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
ObamaCare: A National Version of RomneyCareby Paul HsiehThe details of Congress’ health care “reform” legislation are finally coming into focus, and it’s not a pretty picture. Congress is essentially proposing a national version of the failing Massachusetts system.In 2006, Massachusetts adopted a health care plan which included an individual mandate requiring residents to purchase state-approved health insurance, new regulations on insurance companies specifying who they must cover and what benefits they must provide, and a government-subsidized “public option” for low-income residents. Supporters promised a utopia of “universal coverage” which would save money while improving quality of care. However, the exact opposite has occurred — health costs in Massachusetts have skyrocketed, while patient care has suffered.Before we adopt a similar plan at the national level, Americans should know three things about the Massachusetts plan.1) Massachusetts’ system of mandatory insurance drives up costs and violates individual rights.Under any system of mandatory insurance, the government must necessarily specify what constitutes an “acceptable” insurance plan. Hence, this creates a giant magnet for special interest groups seeking to have their pet benefits included in the required package.Massachusetts residents are thus required to purchase benefits they may neither need nor want, such as in vitro fertilization, chiropractor services, and autism treatment — raising insurance costs for everyone to reward a few with sufficient political “pull.” In aggregate, such mandated benefits have increased the costs of health insurance in Massachusetts by up to 50%.Since 2006, providers have successfully lobbied to include 16 new benefits in the mandatory package (including lay midwives, orthotics, and drug-abuse treatment), and the state legislature is considering 70 more. In the past three years, insurance premiums in Massachusetts have increased by 8-10% each year, nearly twice the national average.Mandatory insurance thus violates the individual’s right to spend his own money according to his judgment for his benefit. Instead, he much choose from a limited set of insurance plans on terms set by lobbyists and bureaucrats, rather than based on a rational assessment of his needs.2) “Coverage” is not the same as actual medical care.Supporters of the Massachusetts plan frequently claim that it is a success because 98% of the state’s residents are now “covered.” But this is misleading, because it conflates theoretical “coverage” with actual medical care. In fact, access to medical care has worsened for many Massachusetts residents.Because the state-mandated health insurance is so expensive, the government must subsidize the costs for lower-income residents. In response, the state government has cut payments to doctors and hospitals. With such poor reimbursements, physicians have become increasingly reluctant to see new patients.The Massachusetts Medical Society reports that 40% of family practice doctors and 56% of internal medicine physicians no longer accept new patients — “the highest percentages of primary care practices closed to new patients … ever recorded.”Some patients in western Massachusetts must wait more than a year for a routine physical exam. Some desperate patients have even resorted to “group appointments,” where the doctor sees several patients at once (without the privacy necessary to allow the physician to remove the patient’s clothing and perform a proper physical exam).Similarly, the average waiting time in Boston to see a specialist has increased to seven weeks. In contrast, waiting times in comparable cities in other states have been decreasing and now average three weeks.Massachusetts patients may have theoretical “coverage,” but that’s not the same as actual medical care.3) The Massachusetts plan will end in rationing.Although supporters of the Massachusetts plan had hoped it would save money, the opposite has occurred. The state expects to spend $595 million more in 2009 on its health insurance program than it did in 2006 — a 42% increase.In response, a special state commission has proposed controlling costs by radically restructuring how doctors and hospitals will be paid. Instead of paying providers based on the services they render, the state would pay a fixed annual fee to cover all of a patient’s medical needs. In theory, this would give providers an incentive to improve efficiency and eliminate unnecessary tests and treatments.But in practice, this would also create a dangerous incentive for physicians and hospitals to render as little care as possible. Under the Massachusetts proposal, if your care costs less than your annual allotment, then the providers would keep the unused portion. If your care costs more, then the difference would come out of their pockets. Such a system thus pits your doctor’s interests against your own.Suppose your annual allotment was $5,000 and you had already spent $4,500 that year. You then see your doctor for a severe headache. He examines you and says, “No, Bill, you don’t need a $1000 MRI scan of your brain. Just take two Tylenol and call me in the morning.”Can you be 100% sure that he’s giving you unbiased medical advice?And even if your doctor conscientiously practices in your best interest, he will inevitably find himself at odds with hospital administrators questioning his decisions:“Does Mr. Jones really need another ultrasound test? Can’t you use a cheaper antibiotic for his infection? Isn’t his heart rhythm stable enough to allow sending him home today, rather than requiring another expensive night in the hospital?”Your doctor will thus be forced to constantly balance your interests against the demands of a hospital administrator who might be deciding whether or not to renew his practice privileges.Advocates of government-run health care like to claim that it is morally superior because it “doesn’t put a price on human life.” But when the government sets an annual spending cap for each patient, then that’s exactly what it will be doing.Such rationing is the dead end of the Massachusetts plan, and it will be the dead end of ObamaCare.In summary, the Massachusetts plan has raised costs, reduced access to actual care, and will result in rationing. Americans should reject Congress’ plan to impose a similar system at the national level. Otherwise, we’ll be giving the federal government control over our lives (and one-sixth of the American economy), in exchange for a mere illusion of “coverage.”Or to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, those who surrender essential liberty for temporary “universal” health care deserve neither liberty nor health care.
Link to post
Share on other sites

How about letting us deduct health insurance exepnses and health care costs of our taxes?Too simple... we need a complete governmnt takeover

Link to post
Share on other sites
How about letting us deduct health insurance exepnses and health care costs of our taxes?Too simple... we need a complete governmnt takeover
This is what I don't get. There are maybe 3 or 4 simple reforms that could change the market at no risk to government.1. No more pre-tax contributions through employers for health care.2. All medical expenses are deductible on private tax returns, dollar for dollar3. Competition across state lines4. Means-tested vouchers for the poor to get preventative care.That's it. Do those four things, and you'd have nearly 100% support for the bill outside of Congress (probably 5% in Congress), and you'd very quickly radically reduce medical costs and improve quality.But then, no campaign contributors would be paid off like in the Pelosi-bill-from-Hell.I've reached the point where I consider a vote for this bill to be treason against the United States. And unlike anything in this bill, the penalties for treason ARE in the constitution.
Link to post
Share on other sites

There would be 111 new Pelosicare/Obamacare boards, bureaucracies, commissions, and programs created in H.R. 3962, Speaker Pelosi’s legislation for a government takeover of health care:1. Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 111(d), p. 61)2. Grant program for wellness programs to small employers (Section 112, p. 62)3. Grant program for State health access programs (Section 114, p. 72)4. Program of administrative simplification (Section 115, p. 76)5. Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 223, p. 111)6. Health Choices Administration (Section 241, p. 131)7. Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 244, p. 138)8. Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 155)9. Program for technical assistance to employees of small businesses buying Exchange coverage (Section 305(h), p. 191)10. Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Commissioner (Section 306(B), p. 194)11. Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 307, p. 195)12. State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 308, p. 197)13. Grant program for health insurance cooperatives (Section 310, p. 206)14. “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 321, p. 211)15. Ombudsman for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 321(d), p. 213)16. Account for receipts and disbursements for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 322(B), p. 215)17. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (B), p. 589)18. Demonstration program providing reimbursement for “culturally and linguistically appropriate services” (Section 1222, p. 617)19. Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 648)20. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicare (Section 1301, p. 653)21. Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 672)22. Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 681)23. Independence at home demonstration program (Section 1312, p. 718)24. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 734)25. Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 738)26. Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 753)27. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(B)(1), p. 784)28. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (B)(2), p. 786)29. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 796)30. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(B)(3), p. 804)31. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 859)32. Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 933)33. Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 978)34. Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 1647, p. 1000)35. Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 1058)36. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1730A, p. 1073)37. Nursing facility supplemental payment program (Section 1745, p. 1106)38. Demonstration program for Medicaid coverage to stabilize emergency medical conditions in institutions for mental diseases (Section 1787, p. 1149)39. Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 1162)40. “Identifiable office or program” within CMS to “provide for improved coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligibles” (Section 1905, p. 1191)41. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 1907, p. 1198)42. Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 1214)43. Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 1224)44. Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 1236)45. Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 1240)46. Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 1253)47. Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 1254)48. Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 1258)49. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)50. Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 1275)51. Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 1286)52. Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1295)53. Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1301)54. Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 1305)55. Grant program for research and demonstration projects related to wellness incentives (Section 2301, p. 1305)56. Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 1308)57. Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 1313)58. Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 1322)59. Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 1330)60. Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 1352)61. Grant program for nurse-managed health centers (Section 2512, p. 1361)62. Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2521, p. 1372)63. Grant program for interdisciplinary mental and behavioral health training (Section 2522, p. 1382)64. “No Child Left Unimmunized Against Influenza” demonstration grant program (Section 2524, p. 1391)65. Healthy Teen Initiative grant program regarding teen pregnancy (Section 2526, p. 1398)66. Grant program for interdisciplinary training, education, and services for individuals with autism (Section 2527(a), p. 1402)67. University centers for excellence in developmental disabilities education (Section 2527(B), p. 1410)68. Grant program to implement medication therapy management services (Section 2528, p. 1412)69. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors in underserved communities (Section 2530, p. 1422)70. Grant program for State alternative medical liability laws (Section 2531, p. 1431)71. Grant program to develop infant mortality programs (Section 2532, p. 1433)72. Grant program to prepare secondary school students for careers in health professions (Section 2533, p. 1437)73. Grant program for community-based collaborative care (Section 2534, p. 1440)74. Grant program for community-based overweight and obesity prevention (Section 2535, p. 1457)75. Grant program for reducing the student-to-school nurse ratio in primary and secondary schools (Section 2536, p. 1462)76. Demonstration project of grants to medical-legal partnerships (Section 2537, p. 1464)77. Center for Emergency Care under the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (Section 2552, p. 1478)78. Council for Emergency Care (Section 2552, p 1479)79. Grant program to support demonstration programs that design and implement regionalized emergency care systems (Section 2553, p. 1480)80. Grant program to assist veterans who wish to become emergency medical technicians upon discharge (Section 2554, p. 1487)81. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 2562, p. 1494)82. National Medical Device Registry (Section 2571, p. 1501)83. CLASS Independence Fund (Section 2581, p. 1597)84. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 2581, p. 1598)85. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 2581, p. 1602)86. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1610)87. National Women’s Health Information Center (Section 2588, p. 1611)88. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1614)89. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women’s Health and Gender-Based Research (Section 2588, p. 1617)90. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1618)91. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1621)92. Personal Care Attendant Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 2589(a)(2), p. 1624)93. Grant program for national health workforce online training (Section 2591, p. 1629)94. Grant program to disseminate best practices on implementing health workforce investment programs (Section 2591, p. 1632)95. Demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (Section 3101, p. 1717)96. Demonstration program for substance abuse counselor educational curricula (Section 3101, p. 1719)97. Program of Indian community education on mental illness (Section 3101, p. 1722)98. Intergovernmental Task Force on Indian environmental and nuclear hazards (Section 3101, p. 1754)99. Office of Indian Men’s Health (Section 3101, p. 1765)100.Indian Health facilities appropriation advisory board (Section 3101, p. 1774)101.Indian Health facilities needs assessment workgroup (Section 3101, p. 1775)102.Indian Health Service tribal facilities joint venture demonstration projects (Section 3101, p. 1809)103.Urban youth treatment center demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1873)104.Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for diabetes prevention (Section 3101, p. 1874)105.Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for health IT adoption (Section 3101, p. 1877)106.Mental health technician training program (Section 3101, p. 1898)107.Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1909)108.Program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims and perpetrators (Section 3101, p. 1925)109.Program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (Section 3101, p. 1927)110.Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1966)111.Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1968)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...