Friday, March 26, 2010

Here is the latest in cement. Click here. Back to reading.

It didn't imbed well. It needs to be watched to the end to understand the crisis.

And while we are on the subject of the Catholic Church, I don't consider something that happened nearly four decades ago relevant to the Pope as he leads the church forward.

Pope Benedict is a good person. The issues of pedophilia are settled. The 1970s were a different time.

Asking him to step down is a horrible thing to do. The Cardinals that elected him had to know about what was occurring. We witnessed how ill prepared the Bishops were to handle the circumstances in Boston.

The tragedy that is pedophilia within the Catholic Church will go on for some time. There are some remote areas of the world where they have missions and I am quite confident there will be stories told about those as well someday.

The issue is a personal one between those involved and the church. The children that were molested need to file a suit against the church. The real issue is not so much about the pedophilia from so long ago, but, how the current parishoners are 'fairing' through all this. I know for a fact from people I know they want to leave the church and some of the anger is about the monies that have to be paid out.

So, I think Pope Benedict has his hands full in many ways. The Catholic Church needs to come to terms with celibacy and the dangers that it allowed to hide within their churches. I believe that is part of it.

The only problem I can see is that the church has rolled back its progress to return to orthodox ways that are out of step with modern times. Their problems are bigger than the past. The Catholic Church doesn't know how to live in the present with hopes for the future.

Let's get something straight. If CITIZENS are not happy because they didn't get EVERYTHING they wanted in health care reform,...

There are only a very few people to blame and that is the Senate Republicans. They don't see their electorate as citizens needing their rights upheld, they see their electorate as peasants to Wall Street.

Get it right.

And I've seen the best of what the captains of Wall Street can do. Trust them? No.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) speaks at the podium about the stimulus package while flanked by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) (L) Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) (2nd-L) and other members of Congress during news conference February 4, 2009 in Washington, DC. Senate Republicans say they are alarmed by President Obama's stimulus package worth nearly $900 billion dollars, which will be voted on later in the week. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images) Tom Price;Jim DeMint;Lindsey Graham
(February 4, 2009 - Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images North America)

Section 2701 simply states that insurers no longer can write policies based on a citizen's health status. Basically, the insurer and their wellness will be blind to insurance companies in any pool one enters to get health insurance. The likelihood of having a maximum deductible and high premiums is again reduced by that aspect of the new law.

So when citizens seek health insurance the underwriters to the policy CANNOT ask about pre-existing conditions even for the purpose of setting rates. The cost will be and should be based upon the number of people within that pool and the 'likelihood' of 'risk' to 'cost.'

THEY CAN'T EVEN ASK !!!!!!!!!!

The argument against that is stated as, if a young person wants health insurance and has no pre-existing condition they can't get the best rate available. It doesn't matter, because, as soon as that young person has 'SOMETHING, ANYTHING' go wrong their likelihood of keeping a lower cost policy will be gone. It isn't as though there is security in that point of view, there isn't. Even car accident or ski accident or appendectomy will cause an increase. The only security citizens have is to allow them to set rates based upon 'statistics' of 'occurrence.'

A pool of people will have a 'certain' ability to 'incur' an incident that will cost a health insurer expense. If you are that person and you are not in a pool to the insurer and blind to your risk, regardless of you age, you won't be able to get health insurance and your life is basically ruined.

Why put the people that occur 'expense' at greater risk than those that do? As citizens we are suppose to be equal in our understanding to our rights and Lady Justice is blind to many things except unlawful acts when all is considered. This law is absolutely the way it is suppose to be. By being part of a pool, the citizens are improving all their quality of life and longevity.

The rest of the law reads like this and takes into account age and difference in 'risk' to that age:

(ii) vary on the basis of age by a factor of not greater than 4 to 1; and

(iii) be established at a standard rate for a standard population; and

(D) meets any other requirements determined appropriate by the Secretary.

Youth will get a better rate than those in the pool that are older. At the same time, they also receive protection from not ever having health care again the rest of their lives.

I'll continue this later.

Senate passes reconciliation bill (click title to entry - thank you)

By Matthew DoBias
Posted: March 25, 2010 - 2:15 pm ET

On 56-43 vote, the Senate cleared a set of amendments to a comprehensive package of health reforms signed into law earlier this week by President Barack Obama.

The bill now goes back to the House for final passage later this evening....