[drayeshashahid_278]

ORIGINAL: Justapeon

I didn’t take the time to compare this point by point. 

First of all, I admire your approach of “hey, I haven’t expended any time or energy to actually read the bill, but I think I understand it better than you”.

However, I did compare the page 30 sec 123 portion. Umm, It didn’t ever say anything about coverage being “decided and rationed”.  It said recommendations were to be made to the Secretary. It did not say anything about “determining coverage”, but did refer to actuarials that determine premiums paid for coverage.  There was also a section requiring public input.

Consider this quote from sec 124, (b).
(b) Adoption of Standards-

(1) INITIAL STANDARDS- Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, through the rulemaking process consistent with subsection (a), adopt an initial set of benefit standards.

(2) PERIODIC UPDATING STANDARDS- Under subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide for the periodic updating of the benefit standards previously adopted under this section.

(3) REQUIREMENT- The Secretary may not adopt any benefit standards for an essential benefits package or for level of cost-sharing that are inconsistent with the requirements for such a package or level under sections 122 and 123(b)(5).

As far as the “government bean counter” thing goes, it specifically says that the committee won’t be Federal employees.

I googled “bean counter” and came up with this:
bean counter   (bean counters plural ), bean-counter   You can describe people such as accountants and business managers as bean counters if you disapprove of them because you think they are only interested in money.  n-count 
 (disapproval)  …bean counters who tend to focus on controlling expenses.  

I think my description of 9 Federal appointees of the Comptroller of the Congressional Budget Office as “bean counters” – accountants/business managers whose interest is in money and the cost of things- is probably pretty accurate.

Not only did you not take the time to read the bill, you didn’t even read my post. I never once said anything about the Committee members being Federal employees. It’s pretty clearly stated that the majority are Federal appointees, except for the 8 who CAN be Federal employees.

The reform process is concerning enough without hysterical misrepresentations.  I am pretty sure you are depending on everyone that reads your post to take your words as truth so that your “mission” will be accomplished.
Who are you affiliated with and what is your agenda?
PF could stand for Pants on Fire!!

I would ask you, as a starting member with two posts, who YOU are, and what is YOUR agenda? As far as “hysterical misrepresentations”, I think my reading of the bill is sound. I also made it clear that I’d like to hear if someone thinks I’m reading something wrong. That’s the purpose of discussing things. You can’t spend 20 seconds on something like that and expect your opinion to be taken seriously, though.

There have been some changes in the bill, however, and it is something that will continue to be updated, I am sure. And from what I understand, the Senate has yet to release their final version. A bill from one of their committees is available online, but I haven’t had the time to read it.