Obama Care - An Atrocity!

[mcurrier]

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

Well, let's just take a look at what Mr. Briscoe is supporting:

Pg 22 of the HC Bill mandates the Government will audit books of all employers that self insure.

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - a Government committee (good luck with that!) will decide what treatments/benefits a person may receive.

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE WILL BE RATIONED!

Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you.

PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise.

Pg 58 HC Bill - Government will have real-time access to individual's finances and a National ID Healthcard will be issued!

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Government will have direct access to your bank accts for election funds transfer.

PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community organizations (read: ACORN).

Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Government will create an HC Exchange to bring private HC plans under Government control.

PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Government mandates linguistic appropriate services. Example - Translation for illegal aliens.

Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Government will use groups, i.e. ACORN & Americorps, to sign up individuals for Government HC plan.

PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specifics of Benefit Levels for Plans. AARP members - your Health care WILL be rationed.

PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.

pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue Government on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Government Monopoly.

pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ AMA - The Government will tell YOU what you can earn.

Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public option plan. NO CHOICE.

Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families.

Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.)

Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (the GOVERNMENT) will have access to ALL Americans' finances and personal records.

PG 203 Line 14-15 HC - "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" Yes, it says that.

Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Government will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected.

Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors - doesn't matter what specialty - will all be paid the same.

PG 253 Line 10-18 Government sets value of Doctor's time, professional judgment, etc. Literally, value of humans.

PG 265 Sec 1131 Government mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries.

Pg 317 L 13-20 OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Government tells Doctors what/how much they can own.

Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion - Government will mandate hospitals cannot expand.

Pg 354 Sec 1177 - Government will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs people!

PG 425 Lines 4-12 Government mandates Advance Care Planning Consultations. Think Senior Citizens end of life prodding.

PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Government provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in how to die.

PG 427 Lines 15-24 Government mandates program for orders for end of life. The Government has a say in how your life ends.

PG 429 Lines 10-12 "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from the Government to end a life!

Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION. 1 monthly payment to a community-based organization. (You mean like ACORN?)

There's plenty more. See for yourself at the folowing link as H.R. 3200 can be found in its entirety, all 1017 pages of it! (Enough to make you gag )

This bill would drive unemployment, taxes, and the deficit to the moon. It would turn hospitals into the DMV, dramatically reduce our access to healthcare, let bureaucratic a$$hats decide when it's time for us to die, and guarantee that no one in his right mind goes to medical school. As for the damage this would do to individual liberty - let's just say that any doubts about these liberals leading us down a path to socialism have been put to rest with this mess.

I apologize for a longer reply to a long post, however the above rancid smorgasbord of lies should not be allowed to stand. It's part of a widely circulated insurance industry effort to keep their gravy train on the rails at our expense. Our opinions should be factually based on this crucial issue.

Deconstructing the Right Wing Lies on the Health Insurance Bill

What follows is an article from the Right Wing blog ChronWatch:

Page After Page of Reasons to Hate ObamaCare

By Alan Caruba

The problem is, there's something missing, such as context. See, the writer is expecting the reader to take everything as gospel, and agree that it's bad, without any sort of explanation. It's a list of all of the things that are wrong with the current state of the health care reform bill before Congress. If you'd like to follow along, feel free to click here to go to the bill itself. In fact, I would encourage you to look at it for yourself; it's an easy way to learn what's actually in it, without having to read through all pf the legalese.

We're not called Please Cut the Crap for no reason. Below each item the right wing assures readers we're supposed to hate, I've inserted context, and explained why you really shouldn't hate it. Unless you should. All of my responses are italicized and printed in red, so that you can tell whose words are whose.

I'll warn you, this is a long one, but it's an important one, so get a glass of tea, print this out, and read it to everyone who spews one of these talking points, because this really does touch on pretty much all of the right's talking points. And now you'll be able to refute them. Isn't that cool?

Now, let's continue with the article.

Here are just a few very good reasons to hate ObamaCare:

• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!

First of all, it starts on page 21, not 22, and it simply mandates a study of risk on the part of all companies that choose to provide self-insurance, to make sure they are capitalized properly. This is something that private insurance companies are required to do; it's to protect the consumer. Say you work at a company with their own health insurance system; how would you like to find out after you've received a $100,000 bill for a hospital stay, that the insurance pool can't pay the bill?

This is also important because when they can't pay the bills, then everyone else with insurance ends up picking up the slack. Got that? That's the reason health insurance premiums have more than doubled in the last ten years, and are scheduled to double again in the next ten, if nothing changes.

Anyway, why should companies acting as health insurance companies be allowed to operate under different rules than insurance companies? Isn't that unfair competition?

• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!

The section actually starts on page 26, and it's entitled:

SEC. 122. ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED.

There is absolutely NO section in there, from page 26 through page 30, that indicates rationing of any kind. Looking at Page 29 specifically, it contains a section called "Annual Limitation." A-HA! See? It's a LIMITATION! That's the same as rationing, right? Didn't they admit rationing?

Well, no. Because the limit is on the amount that people will have to pay out in cost-sharing, should the agency implementing the bill decide to use a version of cost-sharing. The limit is on how much a patient will have to pay, not a limit on the health care the patient receives.Watch how many times these tools bring up the "rationing" canard. It's almost as often as they mention ACORN. (I kid you not. Just wait.)

See what I mean when I say we have to watch these people, and check their "facts?"

• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)

The section on Page 30 establishes an advisory committee, and yes; they will decide which treatments and benefits you get. I'm unsure as to why this is a bad thing. I don't want my health insurance premiums going to Britney's boob job, even if I have private insurance. Which reminds me; does this bozo actually think private insurance companies don't have a list of acceptable treatments and benefits?

There is one difference here, though. The committee's recommendations will be published and the public will have access to them. Which means they will be able to offer input to the process.

Oh, and there is nothing here about "no appeals process." The Committee will simply recommend processes for implementation. Not only that, but varying appeals processes are laid out in detail throughout the bill. So, he lied about that...

• Page 42: The “Health Choices Commissioner†will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.

See above. The Commissioner will simply oversee implementation of the rules that are decided upon by the Commission. He or she will be responsible for making sure that everyone is held accountable up and down the line. Nothing in the bill gives power to a "czar," who will make health benefits decisions. The commission and the Secretary will make decisions on benefits as changes become necessary. Again; I'm not sure why this is a bad thing, except that right wingers don't seem fond of accountability.Well, unless we're talking about unskilled poor people who get welfare money.

• Page 50: All non-U.S. citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.

Now, when you read something like this, you half expect to see something mandating that non-US citizens be given "free health care."

The funny thing is, the word FREE only appears one time in the entire bill, and it is not coupled with the term "health care." People will be provided with a new health care choice, based on their income, to a certain extent. So we can toss that little red herring off the boat right away. NO ONE will receive free health care. I mean, unless they win some sort of sweepstakes or something.I guess that's possible.

No, the section the wingnut refers to is entitled:

SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.

What is says is:

"… [A]ll health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services."

The word "free" isn't in there. It just means that no one can be denied insurance coverage or health care because of their looks, or because they're wearing robes or a burqa. But nothing in there says undocumented immigrants will be able to scam "free" health care. In other words, you can only call that a lie.

• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.

No, it says everyone who opts into the public insurance system MAY be issued a health identification card, if the commission thinks that's a good idea. But the bill doesn't mandate it. It's quite possible the insurance commission will recommend that states implement the public health insurance option, and some states may put the information on your driver's license or state ID card. And again; the only people who will need a card are those with public insurance.

And what's wrong with this idea, anyway? I've never had health insurance from a private company from which I didn’t receive an identification card.

• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.

Wow. Is that scary, or what? Only one problem; it's a lie. And I don't mean he's mistaken; I mean, he's lying. Here's what it says:

‘‘The standards under this section shall be developed, adopted and enforced so as to… © enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice;"

It clearly refers to payment for the health care, not payment of the premium. Most health care companies love this, and will adopt it. But it is still their choice, just as it could be your choice to pay your health insurance premiums by direct transfer, check or payroll deduction. As is the case now.

• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)

Once more, it doesn't say that. What it does say is:

SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES.

13 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish a temporary reinsurance program (in this section referred to as the ‘‘reinsurance program’’) to provide reimbursement to assist participating employment-based plans with the cost of providing health benefits to retirees and to eligible spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees.

Okay, you'll note the word PARTICIPATING in the above. To anyone who would bother to slide down a couple of paragraphs, past the definitions, all of which define the terms in the above, and do not include the word "mandatory" anywhere, to Page 67, we find:

( PARTICIPATION.—To be eligible to participate in the reinsurance program, an eligible employment-based plan shall submit to the Secretary an application for participation in the program, at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary shall require.

So, it's all voluntary. Not only that, but it's REINSURANCE, which means the participating plan will be providing their capital to the federal government to fund the plan. I would also point out that members of unions such as SEIU and UAW are also taxpayers, and they currently purchase private insurance for retired members. And if ACORN isn't a red herring, I don't know what is. I'm not aware that ACORN provides health insurance to anyone. But hey; it's not true racist wingnuttery until you invoke ACORN, eh? This isn't the last time you'll see it.

• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.

This is a phenomenally stupid complaint from a right wing ideological perspective, and it lays bare the moral bankruptcy in their arguments against universal health care. These are the same people who are always touting competition and choice as the most important aspects of capitalism. The point of the insurance exchange is to give people an obvious and transparent choice of health insurance options. A private insurance company can participate and offer their wares alongside the public option, if they so choose. If they don't want to participate, they're free to conduct business as usual, and they won't have to conform to any government rules. Well, except for the ones they must already conform with, whenever the Bush Administration's not in office. They've always had to conform to government rules to participate in Medicare, and I don't see any of them dropping out of business for that.

• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)

Again, this is a lie. There are requirements for those choosing to participating in the Health Exchange, but there is absolutely no mandate to join. And if there is going to be competition, it should be on a level playing field, which is what the Exchange creates. It creates an easy-to-read set of options, which insurance companies are free to enhance, and all companies who participate are instructed to offer several levels of plans. If you really think about it rationally, and not the right wing way, the Exchange actually enhances the private insurance companies' chances of survival. But these idiots want to kill it. If there's a public option available at a competitive price per month, insurance companies can offer two other tiers of service, with whatever enhancements they want to include, for a higher price. So, rather than offering "total government control," it actually allows insurance companies an opportunity to offer several tiers of "enhanced" service, to enhance their profitability.

• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens

There's that perpetual racist component again. My great-grandmother couldn't read English well enough to follow medical instructions when I was a kid in the 1960s, and she had been in this country since she fled the Nazis in the 1930s. I know this, because she used to have me read stuff to her when I was 6. By the way, she was from Poland, and she was very, very white. Hundreds of thousands of people come here legally from all over the world, without knowing English sufficiently, and they occasionally get sick. Hell, half the right wingers in this country legally can't speak English well enough to read a Congressional bill, let alone a doctor's instructions. Obviously.

• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.

Once more, they invoke ACORN. The above is too silly to even bother with, except to say that informing people of their options and helping them sign up seems remarkably similar to the teams of people the private insurance companies send out to workplaces during "open enrollment." Just saying...

• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.

Those eligible for Medicaid already have public health insurance. The reason they qualify for Medicaid is because they are poor and have no choices. What sense does it make to have two separate public health plans; Medicaid and this new plan. I mean, this is purely stupid, folks. Page 102 makes clear that Medicaid will be folded into this new plan when it passes. It's a no-brainer.

But I will say this; people on Medicaid will actually have just as much choice as they've always had; probably more.

• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No “judicial review†is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.

This is also extremely inaccurate, if not an outright lie. There is no "price-fixing." First of all, the bill refers to the same rate-setting statutes the government has always followed with Medicare and Medicaid. It has to do with the rates they pay for procedures, and the process includes medical providers and follows them very closely. The doctors and medical corporations still set the prices in that system, and private insurers will be free to negotiate higher or lower payment prices if they wish. They don't pay the same as Medicare and Medicaid for procedures now, and no one's complaining about "price fixing."

You know what? This isn't just inaccurate, it's dishonest.

• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.

Once again, the bill doesn't say that. In fact, the language is almost exactly the same as the language in Medicare, and it says absolutely nothing about anyone's "wages." The entire section is about rates for procedures and treatment, and physicians are free to apply in any category they choose, just as they are now with Medicare.

The level of dishonesty in this one is astounding. Every single private health insurance company in the market negotiates rates for procedures with participating physicians, and physicians are not allowed to charge any more than that amount. In other words, they do the same thing Medicare does. The only difference is, Medicare pays every claim short of fraud, while insurance companies routinely deny claims, and try every trick they can think of to not pay at all. And they wonder why we're gunning for them...

• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.

This one is pure crap. There's no other way to put it. Here's what it actually says:

SEC. 312. EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT COVERAGE.

21 (a) IN GENERAL.—An employer meets the requirements of this section with respect to an employee if the following requirements are met:

(1) OFFERING OF COVERAGE.—The employer offers the coverage described in section 311(1) either

through an Exchange-participating health benefits plan or other than through such a plan.

(2) EMPLOYER REQUIRED CONTRIBUTION.— The employer timely pays to the issuer of such coverage an amount not less than the employer required contribution specified in subsection ( for such coverage.8 (3) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.—The employer provides the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable, with such information as the Commissioner may require to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this section.

(4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES.—The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection ©.

In other words, IF the employer opts into the public insurance system, THEN he must provide for the autoenrollment of employees… again a choice. But here's the really dishonest part. Just a few paragraphs later, there is this little section (Page 148):

(2) OPT-OUT.—In no case may an employer automatically enroll an employee in a plan under paragraph (1) if such employee makes an affirmative election to opt out of such plan or to elect coverage under an employment-based health benefits plan offered by such employer. An employer shall provide an employee with a 30-day period to make such an affirmative election before the employer may automatically enroll the employee in such a plan.

Remember; this lying wingnut said "no alternatives." Strange, but I see an employer being able to choose not to participate in the public insurance system. And every employee has the choice to opt-out; it says so right in the bill. Those seem like alternatives. Even if you're not the best at math, you have to know that two is greater than zero, right?

• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.

Again, an absolute lie. The page number is 146, not 126, which is a quibble. But employers are not required to pay healthcare bills for anyone. IF they CHOOSE to participate in the public insurance system, they are required to autoenroll employees in the insurance, unless the employee chooses to opt out. But the INSURANCE pays the bills, not the employers. Employers will not be required to pay for the procedures themselves, unless they opt to self-insure. But that's hardly a mandate, is it?

• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll.

• Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll.

More lies. The section ONLY refers to any employer who doesn't offer ANY insurance to his employees. If they offer either private insurance or the public insurance, they do not have to pay the 8%, regardless of the size of their payroll. The purpose of the public insurance system is to cover as many people as possible. An employee of such an employer who wants to buy the public insurance will have to pay an amount indexed to the probably meager pay the cheapskate employer is paying. (Think fast food franchise where everyone works for $8 an hour or less.) The fund created by this tax will subsidize the purchase of health insurance for these people.

An employer with a tiny payroll will pay considerably less, but again; ONLY if he doesn't participate in the public insurance system. Here's the table.

If the annual payroll of such employer for the preceding calendar year:

The applicable percentage is:

Does not exceed $250,000 ..................................... 0 percent

Exceeds $250,000, but does not exceed $300,000 2 percent

Exceeds $300,000, but does not exceed $350,000 4 percent

Exceeds $350,000, but does not exceed $400,000 6 percent

So, if they have a really small business, say 10 employees making $24,000 each, and don't offer insurance, they get off scot-free. In fact, if they have 20 employees making $15,000 per year, they only pay $6,000 into the fund.

If you ask me, there's a gap here. Really small cheapskate business owners are going to get off light, and all other taxpayers will have to foot more of the bill as a result.

• Page 167: Any individual who doesn't have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.

Yay! Finally, they got one right. Well, partially right, anyway.

Anyone without health insurance -- specifically those who choose to run around without health insurance because they're too cheap and stupid -- will now have to pay something into a system that is required to take care of them when they contract a serious illness or get hit by a bus. Let's see… if the guy makes $100,000 per year, the total tax is $2,500, which is far less than he would pay for health insurance now. And for those who think this is especially unfair to rich people who choose not to carry insurance because of their immense wealth, don't worry; the amount is capped at the size of the average health insurance premium. In return, the rest of us won't have to pick up the tab when the uninsured numb nuts is wheeled into the emergency room for a trauma because he was riding his dirt bike and slammed into a tree while not wearing a helmet. .

In other words, this is something to applaud, not to hate. It should encourage people to opt into the insurance system, which saves everyone money.

• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).

This wingnut sure does have an obsession with immigrants. By the way, NON-RESIDENT ALIEN means someone who doesn't LIVE here. In almost all other countries, there is a national health insurance system, and their government will pay for their health care. Why would we tax them for something they won’t use in most cases?

• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.

And we get back to the lies.

The agency will have extremely limited access to SOME information contained in IRS TAX records for those individuals choosing to participate in the public health insurance system, in order to determine eligibility for certain premium discounts. There are strict limits on the info they will have access to, and there is a strict prohibition on passing the information anywhere else.It is most certainly NOT "ALL American financial and personal records."

• Page 203: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.†Yes, it really says that.

No, actually, it doesn't. What is it about wingnuts that makes them think they can put a period anywhere they want, and change the meaning of something, and no one will notice? Here's what it REALLY says:

‘‘(4) NOT TREATED AS TAX IMPOSED BY THIS CHAPTER FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.—The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55.’’'

I can't explain what this means. I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't "really say" what they say it says...

•Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected.â€

This is also a lie. The entire section has to do with reducing the number of physician services used to compute health care growth rates from 2011 on. There is absolutely no provision to reduce services for Medicaid. In fact, Medicaid will be folded into the public insurance system, which makes the above assertion just insane.

• Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you’ll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)

See above. Another lie. It's another part of the section dealing with predicting costs. Specifically, it deals with "conversion factors. There is nothing in there mandating what anyone gets paid for anything.

• Page 253: Government sets value of doctors’ time, their professional judgment, etc.

• Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.

• Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.

These are just insane. The first one doesn't set values for anything. It simply adjusts the method for coming up with values later on. Which makes sense, because covering everyone will drop the health care inflation rate tremendously, especially after the first few years. The second evaluates productivity and offer incentives to increase efficiency and productivity. As for the last one, why wouldn't the government regulate the rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs they intend to buy? You think private insurance companies just go to Wal-Mart? And read it carefully; all it does is extend Medicare regulations to the public insurance system. Why is it suddenly not good enough?

• Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!

They love that word "rationing." If only they knew what it meant.

Essentially, there is no rationing anywhere in this bill. And anyone who doesn't think private insurance rations health care has never encountered a denied claim. But not only does the section they point to NOT impose anything close to "rationing," it promises to pay EXTRA to hospitals that specialize in cancer treatment. EXTRA!

Since when does "rationing" constitute EXTRA anything? Bet our grandparents are pissed to know that gas rationing during World War II meant they could get extra.

• Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.

• Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.

Okay, the first one's not entirely a lie, although it doesn’t say "preventable readmissions;" it says "EXCESSIVE readmissions," and there is a significant difference. It merely extends a policy that's been standard under Medicare for years. It encourages doctors to make sure they aren't treating the hospital as an assembly line and making sure people are treated properly the first time. It also goes a long way to keeping hypochondriacs out of the hospital to a significant degree, and keeping costs down.

The second one, on the other hand, is completely made up. First of all, the page number is wrong. But it rewards efficiency. Think about it this way. Suppose you take your car in to have the air conditioning repaired, and the shop charges you $200. If you have to take it in two more times for the same problem, are you going to accept them charging you $200 more each time? Of course not. Well, why shouldn't doctors be encouraged to do everything possible to fix a problem the first time? Not only that, but imagine a medical office scamming the insurance company/government by purposely not treating everything the first time, so that they can get more money for more readmissions? This measure actually increases efficiency.

Imagine that; these wingnuts actually have a problem with the government encouraging efficiency and waste, and keeping the cost of health care down.

• Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!

• Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.

• Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on “community†input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.

Surprise; more lies The bill prohibits doctors from referring patients to hospitals in which they have a significant ownership interest in, without disclosing to the patient that he indeed has an ownership stake in the hospital. The government also prohibits "self-referral" under most circumstances. That's actually fair to all of the other hospitals. There is absolutely zero prohibition on doctors having ownership of hospitals. What this tool is citing has to do with rural areas. It's to prevent one physician from effectively controlling all aspects of health care in a region, where possible.

But once more; doctors are not prohibited from doing anything, except creating a monopoly and locking others out of a market. And the "community input" provision is just common sense. Note, another ACORN reference, and there is no way it applies here at all. I'm not aware of ACORN being involved in hospital expansion in rural areas.

• Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.

I don't even have to look this one up, but I did anyway. Another joke/lie.

Outcome-based healthcare is common sense. And it has nothing to do with "rationing." In fact, rationing is the exact OPPOSITE of "outcome-based" care. By emphasizing quality care, you reduce the number of ER and urgent care admissions, and you reduce the number of readmissions, as well. Again; it's the opposite of rationing. Rationing is what private insurance companies do. I'm reminded of that guy at the beginning of Michael Moore's film, "Sicko," in which some poor guy had a choice of which finger he would like to have reattached. "Outcome based" care would have repaired both fingers and made the guy a productive citizen again. Health care "rationing" forced him to choose the cheapest finger to reattach.

• Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.

They already have the ability to regulate and disqualify Medicare Advantage plans.. In other words, this maintains the status quo . Oh, and it says absolutely nothing about "HMOS, etc."

• Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.

No. That's not what it says. What it says is, it will begin to phase such special needs individuals into the public health insurance system. IOW, those people who qualify for Medicaid and people under 65 who qualify for Medicare will be eligible for this system instead. Seriously, can wingnuts read at all?

• Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).

• Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?

• Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.

• Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.

• Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.

• Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient’s health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.

• Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.

More bureaucracy than the private insurer's tendency to automatically deny claims over $1500, and force you to call them in order to get the bill paid? Have you ever been to a hospital's administrative offices? There is no more bureaucracy than in the private health insurance industry.

That said, Telehealth has been around for years, and has saved Medicare countless dollars by directing seniors to services. This merely expands the concept to people covered under the public insurance system. Imagine; more service; what a concept, right?

The rest are pure paranoia. The Advance Care Planning Consultation system has also been around for years, and I'm unaware of a spate of senior suicides or euthanasia as a result. It simply encourages people to consult with their doctors, and get all of the options available for either planning for the end, or working to create a higher quality of life. I'm sure almost everyone knows someone with a debilitating disease, such as multiple sclerosis or diabetes; advance care planning reduces the likelihood that these people will constantly show up at urgent care or the ER for minor problems that they themselves can take care of.

• Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.

• Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.

Two more gratuitous mentions of ACORN. And what's wrong with either of the above?

• Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.

This one is silly, of course. Unless the government starts mandating marriage and family therapy, and then conducts the therapy themselves, the "intervention" isn't happening. I mean, many health insurance plans cover psychiatric services under some conditions, but no one is suggesting that Blue Cross or CIGNA is trying to control your mind.

• Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.

Of course, it merely adds them to the Medicare mix. There is nothing to define, create or ration them in this bill.

I guess they became tired, because they got tired of lying about halfway through the bill. There are over 500 more pages to this thing.

A tip of my hat to my friend, Ben Cerruti, for providing this look at the Obamanation called ObamaCare.

Yes, thank him for lying his ass off, and giving me a chance to cut the crap, big time. I'd been working on a piece about right wing health care lies, and this gave me a chance to dispel most of them in one fell swoop. I mean, all of these lies in one piece. How do these people sleep at night?

Write, e-mail, fax, or call your senators and your representative and tell them to vote NO!

If you tell them that, you're a fool. The CBO estimates that, with no changes to the health care system, premiums will increase by $1800 per year for the next ten years. That means an family will pay an average annual premium of more than $32,000 by then. And that's assuming that the 47 million people without insurance doesn't increase tremendously. This offers everyone a chance at affordable health insurance, and stops the health care inflation that has crippled our economy for decades. But more than that, it will make us a proud nation, that cares about its people once again.

Stop letting these wingnut idiots lie their asses off. Read what I wrote above, and compare it to what's actually in the bill. It's really not as long as it sounds, by the way; if the bill was written single spaced, with normal margins, it would probably be a couple of hundred pages at best. But look through it, and what you'll find is a plan that is very thoughtful and measured, and provides access to everyone.

Call your Congressperson and Senators, and ask them one simple question;

Do you REALLY want to be on record as having voted against health insurance for all this year?

This is going to happen. If not this year, then we throw out the *******s who vote against it, and put in someone who will. Our country is becoming second-rate right before our eyes, and one reason is the money we're flushing away on health care for no one, while thousands of people die and thousands of others are pushed to financial ruin.

The fact that the opposition can do nothing but lie to get their point across means that even they believe universal health insurance is necessary. Either that, or they like seeing their rates double every decade...

[Guest redbarron06]

Once again Ralph,

You have still not answered a couple of simple questions

1. Where in the constiution does it give Congress, or POTUS to authority to regulate the healthcare industry?

2. Why should those that have jobs, work hard, save money, and happen to get sucessfull in life, be required to provide ANYTHING to those that dont?

You keep avoiding the questions.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

Once again Ralph,

You have still not answered a couple of simple questions

1. Where in the constiution does it give Congress, or POTUS to authority to regulate the healthcare industry?

2. Why should those that have jobs, work hard, save money, and happen to get sucessfull in life, be required to provide ANYTHING to those that dont?

You keep avoiding the questions.

1. Where does the constitution prohibit Congress from regulating healthcare? Or food quality, or drugs, or air traffic? Facilitating healthcare for all comes under the heading of "promoting the general welfare", though I know you disagree.

2. I don't believe they should, providing everyone has a reasonable opportunity for gainful employment. If you're assuming people don't have healthcare because they don't want to work you don't understand the problem at all.

[Mark@Sea]

Ralph, the federal government is prohibited from regulating healthcare through the tenth amendment.

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

--Thomas Jefferson

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one...."

-- James Madison

"With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them." -- James Madison

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

-- James Madison

James Madison WROTE the Constitution. Would you suggest you have a better grasp of what it means than he did? So no, regulating healthcare does NOT fall under "provide for the general welfare." 10 yard penalty for attempted historical revision.

Reasonable opportunity for gainful employment? Dude, this is AMERICA! Education loans and grants. Small business loans. There is better opportunity in this country (although Obama is working on that) than anywhere else in the world for gainful employment. Sheesh.

The problem isn't that people who don't or can't work don't have access to healthcare. The problem is that you want your costs lowered by forcing everyone else to join the 'risk pool'. You said that, so your reply is facetious at best.

A cut-n-paste reply straight from Democratic Underground - by an 'author' who admits he doesn't know what the bill means, but it doesn't mean what those 'wingnuts' say it means in the plain text of the bill. Because they're right wing wingnuts, and thus must be wrong. Or something. Excellent.

Once again, evading the question. Why should Redbarron and I pay to reduce your healthcare costs? What legal, moral or ethical foundation do you use to justify taking our money?

By the way, if the evil insurance companies are so against this bill, why is it their lobbyists were pushing so hard for it? If the AMA is so in favor of this bill, why is it they only decided it was a good idea after Obama gave them 245 billion dollars to get on the bus? If taxing people who don't choose to purchase insurance, and using that tax to pay for "those less fortunate" (and yes, while there are some less fortunate souls, off the cuff I'd say it works out about like welfare and section 8 housing - 80 percent are gaming the system because they're unwilling to work) isn't stealing from Peter to pay Paul, what the heck is it? If you can ever get around to a straight answer to my first question, then maybe you could take a stab at these.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Mark@Sea

[Guest redbarron06]

1. Where does the constitution prohibit Congress from regulating healthcare? Or food quality, or drugs, or air traffic? Facilitating healthcare for all comes under the heading of "promoting the general welfare", though I know you disagree.

2. I don't believe they should, providing everyone has a reasonable opportunity for gainful employment. If you're assuming people don't have healthcare because they don't want to work you don't understand the problem at all.

Do airplanes go from state to state (Interstate commerce?), What about meat, veggies and drugs? How many pratice in more than one state? Most pratice in thier own state therefor congress has to legal aurhority by the constitution to tell a doctor what they can or can not do.

With 80% of the people in the US happy with the health care they have, the "General Welfare" is taken care of so that excuse is horse . Quite frankly there is no right to health insurance, there is no right to health care. We have the greatest system in the world and that is proven time and time again. Yes it still has problems however, there is no legal, moral, or just way to justify MAKING one person pay for anothers insurnace or medical care.

I understand exactally what the problem. Some folks are too lazy to get thier own and some folks have problems getting thier own. Congradulations I see to be having a problem getting a my own G-5 airplane too. Tough , life sucks. I am not entitled to one just because I can not afford to buy one.

[Steelharp]

Thank you, Mark and Redbarron; you understand what Ralphie just refuses to grasp. It's not that he doesn't understand your point. He'll just never agree to it, because he's just not wired "right."

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

Do airplanes go from state to state (Interstate commerce?), What about meat, veggies and drugs? How many pratice in more than one state? Most pratice in thier own state therefor congress has to legal aurhority by the constitution to tell a doctor what they can or can not do

If a hospital or Dr. treats patients from another state, or a drug company sells drugs nationally, that's interstate commerce.

With 80% of the people in the US happy with the health care they have,

the "General Welfare" is taken care of so that excuse is horse .

80%? Based on what authority?

What do you do with people who insurance companies refuse to cover?

We also have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Does the heart transplant patient in Nashville who can't afford the $2500 an month for medication to keep him alive not have the right to life?

Quite frankly there is no right to health insurance, there is no right to health care. We have the greatest system in the world and that is proven time and time again. Yes it still has problems however, there is no legal, moral, or just way to justify MAKING one person pay for anothers insurnace or medical care.

I wonder if you'd still feel that way if someone in your family got a grave illness and your insurer dropped you? It happens many times every day.

I understand exactally what the problem. Some folks are too lazy to get thier own and some folks have problems getting thier own. Congradulations I see to be having a problem getting a my own G-5 airplane too. Tough , life sucks. I am not entitled to one just because I can not afford to buy one.

You won't die or go bankrupt from not having a G-5.

[Guest redbarron06]

You won't die or go bankrupt from not having a G-5.

What difference does that make right now I am paying for folks to drive brand new cars at my expense.

Everybody will die you can not avoid that. There are jobs out there that will provide insurance for preexisiting conditions but you are going to have to make a choice to get one of those. There is no right to health care or health insurance. It is a service that is provided. I will die without food, air and water too but the govt does not give it to me.

[Mike.357]

I will never understand why people feel entitled to anything.

If you want something then work and pay for it.

If you work and can't get it still then tough titties. Life is not fair.

The gov't is not my nanny, and I want nothing from it.

[Mark@Sea]

Okay, looks like Ralphs' argument actually boils down to a belief that theft may be wrong in the third person ("He stole my wallet"), but it becomes okay when it happens in the first person ("I needed the money").

I disagree.

I also note he still hasn't even attempted to answer a couple of minor questions, but hey. If you live in the fact free void of those who believe that a president noticeably to the left of Dmitriy Medvedev, socialized medicine and massive political payoffs are just what this country needs, lets' face it; rational thought isn't exactly your strong suite.

I don't see it as a sense of entitlement. I see it more as a bold-faced lie used to grab financial and political power.

[Guest slothful1]

What do you think we should do to fix our broken healthcare system?

Well, we could try this... You worry about your family's health care, I'll worry about mine, and you and your thug friends in Congress leave me the #3(( alone.

Works for me.

[Guest canynracer]

Well, we could try this... You worry about your family's health care, I'll worry about mine, and you and your thug friends in Congress leave me the #3(( alone.

Works for me.

Holy crap, did I just agree with Slothful??

Must be something in the water....

[mcurrier]

[USMCJG]

Ralph,

Please, for the sake of the republic, move to Canada or Europe NOW. And take the rest of the socialists with you.

Oh, and by the way, you still haven't answered the two very simple questions I asked you on page three of this thread:

1) Why it is our(the taxpayers) responsibility to provide health care for you and your family?

2) Do you really believe that THIS plan will make things better for the MAJORITY of Americans, or just for you?

[Rightwinger]

I think a key word is being missed in this. It's INSURANCE !

Think of it this way, if you wanted to save money, you could stop paying your car insurance today. You could go years with no accidents. Three years from now, BANG, you hit the ditch and the car is totaled. Can you run down to All State and sign up for insurance and then make your claim? Nope, it was a pre-existing condition, so sorry.

Do you run over to Farmers and ask them to pay for your new wheels, oil change, wiper blades? Nope, called regular maintenance and it's not covered.

So why do so many that can or could get insurance not, and then expect us to cover the bill when they get sick? Why do so many run to the emergency room or their doctor for a cold or a sprain? Because medical insurance was set up wrong in the first place. It should be there only for major things not sprains. When people started feeling that pinch for prescription strength ibuprofen or 20 dollar ACE bandages again they would stop what's driving health costs up, abuse!

People are going to die! There is no stopping it, no matter how we try. The sad reality is you can't legislate everyone happy! Govt should "promote" not hand out general welfare. That means make the opportunities available. Anyone can pursue happiness as well but it's not guaranteed. There is always going to be a top and a bottom, even if God forbid they nationalized health care. Bill Gates isn't going to wait for his doctor to see him!! And I don't fore sake Bill anything he wants, he earned it by being bright and working hard. He created a bunch of jobs and made a lot of people's lifes happy. Take away all the Bill Gates and you have nothing!

I can't believe we even have to discuss this as having any merit!

Free market can make it affordable again! Imagine Blue Cross and Aetna spots on TV going head to head like Geico and Progressive!

[Steelharp]

The Perfect Solution to Senior Health Care

While discussing the upcoming Universal Health Care Program with my friend the other day, I think we have found the solution. I am sure you have heard the ideas that if you're a senior you need to suck it up and give up the idea that you need any health care. A new hip? Unheard of. We simply can't afford to take care of you anymore. You don't need any medications for your high blood pressure, diabetes, heart problems, etc. Let's take care of the young people. After all, they will be ruling the world very soon.

So here is the solution. When you turn 70, you get a gun and 4 bullets. You are allowed to shoot 2 senators and 2 representatives. Of course, you will be sent to prison where you will get 3 meals a day, a roof over your head and all the health care you need!!! New teeth, great!!! Need glasses, no problem. New hip, knee, kidney, lung, heart? Well, bring it on. And who will be paying for all of this? The same government that just told you that you are too old for health care. And, since you are a prisoner, you don't have to pay any income tax.

I really think we have a Perfect Solution!

[Guest Phantom6]

It's really quite simple and I would submit that when it comes to discussing the healthcare initiative and the planned outrageous expansion and intrusion of the government under this current administration, Mr. Robert Levy said it as well as anyone can say it:

"The fundamental principle is this: No matter how worthwhile an end may be, if there is no constitutional authority to pursue it, then the federal government must step aside and leave the matter to the states or to private parties. The president and Congress can proceed only from constitutional authority, not from good intentions alone. If Congress thinks it necessary to expand its powers, the Framers crafted an amendment process for that purpose. But too often, rather than follow that process, Congress has disregarded the limits set by the Constitution and gutted our frontline defense against overweening federal government."

-- Robert A. Levy (1941- ) author, lawyer, Cato Institute Chairman

[Guest CK1]

Betsey McCaughey is a tool the healthcare industry. She's one of the kooks promoting the lie that Obama wants to use healthcare to kill off old people.

Fred Thompson's just trying to get rich like Rush....he'll put anybody on the air to entertain his audience.

What do you think we should do to fix our broken healthcare system?

P.S.

If you don't recognize that there are major problems don't waste my time.

?! I almost can't believe it... someone on TGO who actually has a clue about how things really are. amazing, maybe there is hope for TN.

[Guest 44M]

there is 50 000 000 (FIFTY MILLION) people without health insurance...!!! and someone is telling me we don`t need a health care reform....? are you kiddin` me? some say "I`m happy with my health insurance"..well, good for you, but you are not the only one or the most important here, there is few more of us in US.... no compassion, no nothing, all about ME ME ME ME.... egocentrics...unbeliavable... "health care is not a right"...?? some would die to keep their gun but don`t give a crap if their family,friends or coworkers have a decent health care...? sick world we live in today..sick....

Db

[Guest SUNTZU]

By their fruits you will no them...

[Rightwinger]

there is 50 000 000 (FIFTY MILLION) people without health insurance...!!! and someone is telling me we don`t need a health care reform....? are you kiddin` me? some say "I`m happy with my health insurance"..well, good for you, but you are not the only one or the most important here, there is few more of us in US.... no compassion, no nothing, all about ME ME ME ME.... egocentrics...unbeliavable... "health care is not a right"...?? some would die to keep their gun but don`t give a crap if their family,friends or coworkers have a decent health care...? sick world we live in today..sick....

Db

Why don't you and Ralph just go ahead and ask us to send you all money 44M. I bet you spout this crap at work as well but see the "man is keeping you down" when all he really wants is you to just drive the damn bus!

It's not 55 million or they would be storming the gates already. Even if it were, it's not the majority and you all that voted for "he who shall not be named" like to throw that out there all the time. The majority is speaking! This is NOT the solution.

I'll send you 5 bucks to stop posting this dribble!

PM me with an address or better yet, I'll send it to Jim Cooper or Bart Gordon and you can pry it from their claws.

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

there is 50 000 000 (FIFTY MILLION) people without health insurance...!!! and someone is telling me we don`t need a health care reform....? are you kiddin` me? some say "I`m happy with my health insurance"..well, good for you, but you are not the only one or the most important here, there is few more of us in US.... no compassion, no nothing, all about ME ME ME ME.... egocentrics...unbeliavable... "health care is not a right"...?? some would die to keep their gun but don`t give a crap if their family,friends or coworkers have a decent health care...? sick world we live in today..sick....

Db

Ok, not every one who doesn't have health insurance can't get it. There is a place for compassion, its called CHARITY. The "evil rich" give BILLIONS of dollars to charity each year. We help the homeless get coats, why not help the uninsurable get health care? However, it is not the job of the government to take care of you. It is not the government's job to be compassionate. The government has very specific roles in our society, as do charities, private companies, and so on. Private insurance is for profit, and it fills its role well. If you do not fit into their model, then start a charity and take donations. It is not the role of the goverment to forcibly take from some and give to others in the name of "compassion". RTKBA is in the constitution. Health insurance is not. Read the constitution sometime. If you don't like what it says, petition your legislators to amend it.

[Mark@Sea]

Charity is when you reach into your pocket, pull out some cash, and give it to the needy.

When you reach into MY pocket for your compassionate deeds, it has a different name altogether.

Lets' take another look at the image here, of millions of people too poor, or disabled, or too old to work who can't afford insurance.... Happy days, they are already covered by government run health insurance programs! Medicare, Medicaid... Cue rejoicing in the streets.

America is about freedom, including the freedom to choose. That includes choosing not to get health insurance. Obamacare means no choice at all.

I've got a name for that, too.

And, 44M, I'm not the most important one here? When it comes to making my financial decisions, sir, I dam' well am! And no, healthcare isn't a right and cannot be a right, it is a commodity, like food and housing.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Mark@Sea

[Guest Hyaloid]

there is 50 000 000 (FIFTY MILLION) people without health insurance...!!! and someone is telling me we don`t need a health care reform....? are you kiddin` me? some say "I`m happy with my health insurance"..well, good for you, but you are not the only one or the most important here, there is few more of us in US.... no compassion, no nothing, all about ME ME ME ME.... egocentrics...unbeliavable... "health care is not a right"...?? some would die to keep their gun but don`t give a crap if their family,friends or coworkers have a decent health care...? sick world we live in today..sick....

Db

Let's pretend the entire population of the US had no health insurance.

Where does the Federal Government derive the authority to mandate Universal healthcare? Easy question, should be an easy answer.