affordable health care act and section 1303

[Charles]

Originally Posted by finnbow

My only problem with it is that it comes from a law that apparently has over 1303 sections.

There's the punchline, anyone care to make a guess as to what the joke is?

Chas

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Charles

There's the punchline, anyone care to make a guess as to what the joke is?

Chas

Dayum, Chas. I guess I'm funny even when I'm trying to be serious.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Dayum, Chas. I guess I'm funny even when I'm trying to be serious.

You're a laff a minute, that's why I find you to be "interesting".

Besides, you're an angler, and I cotton to anglers. At least the one's who are willing fish something besides a farm pond.

As a rule, they bore me to tears. I gave up the cane pole years ago.

Chas

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Charles

You're a laff a minute, that's why I find you to be "interesting".

Besides, you're an angler, and I cotton to anglers. At least the one's who are willing fish something besides a farm pond.

As a rule, they bore me to tears. I gave up the cane pole years ago.

Chas

Oops. Farm ponds (at least in these parts) are some of the best fishing around. They can hold some huge bass and bluegills if they've been ignored for awhile. Big slab bluegills on a flyrod from a farm pond is some serious fun, not to mention some good eating. I typically return all bass to the ponds though.

BTW, in "Missouri talk," what does "interesting" mean?

[Wasillaguy]

Biggest bass I ever caught was from a cow pond so small you could easily cast twice it's distance across.

[JCricket]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

That's not the way I read it. Under most circumstances, federal law prohibits federal funds from being used for abortion. Some states require medical plans to cover abortion services. The program in section 1303 provides a means for segregating funds in those states that require abortion services to be provided so that the funds are available for such services without federal funds being used. The only $1 figure is the minimum actuarial value that must be placed on such services per participant for purpose of segregating funds that may legally be used for abortions. I don't see a conspiracy, but instead, a bow to federalism by accommodating state laws.

Regards,

D-Ray

D-Ray,
Had anyone else written this i would have siad they were nuts.
I went back and reread several more times the act. Yep, 1303 is about segregating funds.

BUT, I didn't see where it eliminated everybody paing into the fund for abortions wether you agreed with them or not. I think this is the point the religious right is making.

So, please set me straight, what gives?
TIA!

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by JCricket

D-Ray,
Had anyone else written this i would have siad they were nuts.
I went back and reread several more times the act. Yep, 1303 is about segregating funds.

BUT, I didn't see where it eliminated everybody paing into the fund for abortions wether you agreed with them or not. I think this is the point the religious right is making.

So, please set me straight, what gives?
TIA!

I think it is really a question of state law. Section 1303 only comes into play in those states where state law requires that medical coverage include coverage for abortions. In those states, the segregation is necessary in order to create a plan that complies with both state and federal law. The money can't come from the feds, so it has to come from somewhere - and that would be from the fund participants.

Regards,

D-Ray

[JCricket]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I think it is really a question of state law. Section 1303 only comes into play in those states where state law requires that medical coverage include coverage for abortions. In those states, the segregation is necessary in order to create a plan that complies with both state and federal law. The money can't come from the feds, so it has to come from somewhere - and that would be from the fund participants.

Regards,

D-Ray

That is how I read it too. But, how is it decided which fund participants have to pay and which don't? I think that is the question that is causing hte uproar. Am I missing something? Is this defined within the text of the act?

Mushy minds want to know.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Oops. Farm ponds (at least in these parts) are some of the best fishing around. They can hold some huge bass and bluegills if they've been ignored for awhile. Big slab bluegills on a flyrod from a farm pond is some serious fun, not to mention some good eating. I typically return all bass to the ponds though.

BTW, in "Missouri talk," what does "interesting" mean?

To me, it means you're willing to converse on a variety of subjects, offer a perspective which may times doesn't correspond directly with mine, generally present your argument from the viewpoint of a casual observer as opposed to a partisan, and seldom get a case of the ass.

That's a compliment in "Missouri talk". Now don't get the big head, because you still tend to exhibit traits known as around here as "a smart ass".

BTW, I've caught some nice fish out of farm ponds, but the thoughts of crawling through a chigger invested weed patch to get to them no longer holds much appeal for me.

Fishing ain't about catching fish, as far as I'm concerned. It's just something to keep you occupied while you're enjoying life. And getting eat alive by chiggers ain't my idea of enjoying life.

Chas

[Charles]

Originally Posted by JCricket

That is how I read it too. But, how is it decided which fund participants have to pay and which don't? I think that is the question that is causing hte uproar. Am I missing something? Is this defined within the text of the act?

Mushy minds want to know.

Free advice is worth exactly what it costs.

Chas