What is the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act?

@Taskr36 (13928)
United States
February 28, 2010 12:32am CST
Before you scratch your heads wondering why I started this thread I'll tell you. It's the Patriot Act. Yup, fancy name wouldn't you say? If you vote against it you're one heartless SOB that doesn't want physicians to get paid and subsequently let their patients die. This is the final bill that was passed by the house after the senate passed it one day earlier. The majority of Democrats passed it just as the majority of Republicans did. Both parties failed you. If you really thought the democrats in congress were against it, think again. Check the role call and see if your congressman was one of the morons that supported it. The two people I looked for primarily were Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Both voted against it so if you're a fan of either or both, you can be glad they stayed true to their past statements. My congressman Robert E. Andrews D-NJ voted for it. I'm not surprised though. He's always supported that garbage and even wanted it to be permanent. H R 3961 http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll067.xml
1 person likes this
3 responses
@anniepa (26442)
• United States
28 Feb 10
I don't know if it's because I'm stupid, lazy or impatient but I DO know I'm confused...lol! First there was anger over the extension of the Patriot Act being included in the Jobs Bill, which it ended up not being. Now, you mention it being tied in with the Medicare Care Physician Payment Reform Act. What actually happened, was it included in the House Bill but voted on separately in the Senate? Anyway, regardless of how it was "snuck in" I'm opposed to any extension of the Paatriot Act and I'm not happy about the President signing it or my Representative voting for it and I've let them know. I don't know if it means anything to anyone here or not but at least the Democrats had TRIED to add some restrictions and privacy protection to the Patriot Act but they lacked the votes to prevent a filibuster by the GOP who claim it would stymie terror investigations. Annie
@Taskr36 (13928)
• United States
1 Mar 10
"First there was anger over the extension of the Patriot Act being included in the Jobs Bill, which it ended up not being." It was in the jobs bill Annie. I don't understand everything about how bills get numbered, modified, then somehow numbered differently, but the jobs bill that was voted on and passed in the senate extended the patriot act. There were 8 different versions of that bill and frankly, I'm too tired to thumb through it all now. "don't know if it means anything to anyone here or not but at least the Democrats had TRIED to add some restrictions and privacy protection to the Patriot Act" It doesn't mean anything to me. The democrats had the majority. They weren't voting to "end" the Patriot Act. If that's what they were doing then yes, a filibuster would be a problem. All they had to do was NOT vote to extend the Patriot Act. A filibuster on a bill to EXTEND the Patriot Act would have prevented it from being extended and it would have expired on the 28th. Well, actually it would have expired last December if they hadn't voted back then to extend it till February and they did have a filibuster proof majority back then. Either way, it's in H.R. 3961. I linked to the votes above, but just to be absolutely clear here is the official page from the bill that details the extension of the Patriot Act. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3961enr.txt.pdf
@anniepa (26442)
• United States
1 Mar 10
Well, it wasn't in the jobs bill voted on by the Senate because they voted on the extension of the Patriot Act by voice vote. The votes you linked to were only for the House. I agree, I wish they would have voted to END the Patriot Act altogether and I'm not going to deny that they were simply too wimpy to do so because the GOP would've used that against them by saying they're "soft on terror". You know that's true as well as I do! Annie
@xfahctor (14111)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
1 Mar 10
"the GOP would've used that against them by saying they're "soft on terror"." They absolutely would have annie, they use that line on anyone who oposes liberty robbing legislation, including congressman Paul. It was used to destroy him in the primaries. Another famous line people promoting this crap use is "well, if you have nothing to hide you don't have anything to worry about do you.." It's a straw man argument though. It isn't a matter of having "something to hide", it's a matter of living in a country where you don't have to prove you have nothing to hide or even justify your exercising of rights.
1 person likes this
@gewcew23 (8012)
• United States
28 Feb 10
My Congressmen Vic Synder D-AR voted for this too. Good thing he is not running for reelection, bad thing is the guys that will probably replace him would also have voted for this underhanded bill. I am going to write every candidate that is running for this seat to see how they would have voted. Anyone that will say they would have voted no will get my vote, if everyone says they would have voted for this bill I will just write in a name. What would will it matter who wins if none of them respect my rights.
@xfahctor (14111)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
28 Feb 10
Sneaky fukkers. At least I am pleased to see both my represenatives voted no. Thank god for heartless SOBs that don't want physicians to paid. I'm also not suprised to see Kusinich and Paul are heartless SOBs. Also not suprised to see Obama signed the extension in to law...CHANGE!! I am still trying to dig up a list of the senators who voted yea in the voice vote but it is nearly impossible. Hopefully it will be up on monday. Judd Greg and Jean Shaheen both BETTER had voted no.