Political Discussions
House Bill Outlaws Private Health Insurance
Posted by anticsrocks • 7/19/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: health care, lied, lies, obama, private insurance outlawed, socialized medicine
Obama from July 18, 2009:
"If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance. Period, end of story."
www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/07/healthcare_showdown_obama_...
Obama from June 24, 2009:
"At yesterday's press conference, President Obama seemed to clarify his pledge that if you like your health insurance plan you wont have to change it with the pending health care reform proposal.
Diane Sawyer followed up in her interview with the president.
"People have been hearing you say these words," Sawyer said, "about 'If you like your doctor -- '"
"Yeah," said President Obama.
" ' -- you'll keep your doctor, period. If you like your -- '"
"Right," the president interjected.
"' - -health plan, you'll keep your health plan, period.' Yet, I thought today in the press conference I heard you amend it to say, 'If your employer decides to change it, we don't have control over that.' So-- "
"Whoa, whoa, whoa," said the president "But, of course, there, I mean, that's, that's the case whether we pass health care or not. I mean, the, look, the, the, the fact is that right now, all across the country, people are losing their health care. Every day. You, you can travel into Washington, D.C. And you'll find somebody on the street whose employer just dropped them from health care. Or who has decided to increase their deductibles. Or increase their premiums."
Continued the president, "So, those choices are being made by employers constantly, right? I can't pass a law that says, 'I'm sorry, employers, you can never make changes to the health care plans that you provide your employees.' What I can say is that the government is not going to force you to, your employer or you to join a government plan, for example. If you're happy with it, and your employer's happy with it, keep it."
blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/more-on-the-if-you-like-your-healt...
I could quote Obama many more times as he says we can keep our present insurance if we like it. So our President is on record, several times saying that under his administration, with his new health care reform, we will be able to keep our own health care if we like it.
However, on page 16 of H.R. 3200, a 1,018-page bill, it clearly says that private insurers will not be allowed to ADD ANY NEW CUSTOMERS AFTER A CERTAIN DATE. After Year 1 of the bill, which is 2013, you won't be allowed to sign up for any private insurance anywhere. Period.
Here it is right from the bill, itself, laughingly put under the heading "Protecting the choice to keep current coverage."
"SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT
COVERAGE.
(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV-
ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1."
edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
So to all on BC who have really given me a rough time telling me that Obama wants to compete with the private industry. He won't run them out of business, he wants to give Americans a choice, I say that Obama lied. He lied to you and he lied to me and he lied to all of America.
And to all who said that Obama would not force anyone to have health insurance:
"Dr. LaPook: Ultimately, philosophically, do you believe that each individual American should be required to have health insurance?
President Obama: I have come to that conclusion. During the campaign, I was opposed to this idea because my general attitude was the reason people don't have health insurance is not because they don't want it, but because they can't afford it. And if you make it affordable, then they will come. I've been persuaded that there are enough young uninsured people who are cheap to cover, but are opting out. To make sure that those folks are part of the overall pool is the best way to make sure that all of our premiums go down. I am now in favor of some sort of individual mandate as long as there's a hardship exemption. If somebody truly just can't afford health insurance even with the subsidies that the government is now providing, we don't want to double penalize them. We want to phase this in, in a way that we have time to make sure that coverage is actually affordable before we're saying to people "go out and get it."
www.hedgehogs.net/pg/newsfeeds/hhwebadmin/item/565580/my-interview-with-pre...
Now I know he put in the indigent clause there, but many have said that he would never force people to have health care. Another lie by the man we elected to the Oval Office. But all politicians lie, so why is this any worse? Because this is the most massive entitlement program to ever be proposed in this country and it is, by the Congressional Budget Office's own Director, been declared unsustainable. That means, that it cannot be paid for.
User Comments
-
Another pack of nothing but lies. Quelle Surprise-
Strange isn't it that the liberal bloggers on BC are curiously avoiding even looking at this post. Maybe I should be more inventive with my titles in the future. Something like,"Obama was right! Health care needs help!" or "I've come around and now I believe in Obama!"
Think it would help? Nah. Probably not.
-
-
It seems to me that the healthcare bill that Obama wanted is dead. The blue dogs wouldn't or couldn't jump on. Now he's backpeddling hoping for SOMETHING.
If he get's something on his desk, he pretty much HAS to sign what he gets. It may well be a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't type deal for him. Y'all can pretty much mark this up as in his "L" column.-
Considering how fundamentally fascist his new health plan is, only a lunatic or partisan braincase would consider voting for it. I mean, he wants to force people to accept a health plan, he wants to force many of them to continuing paying the whole bill for it, and he wants the corporate guys to still make a profit? WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS MAN?? DID YOU JUST PURPOSEFULLY COOK UP THE WORSE POSSIBLE MANDATE AS SOME KIND OF SADISTIC GAME AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?????? WHY MUST YOU HURT US?????? WHAT DID WE EVER DO TO YOU!!
"He steals from the poor,
And gives to the rich,
Stupid *****..." -Monty Python's Flying Circus, Dennis Moore Song
-
-
After reading the first 16 pages, and all definitions included - it's easy to see that "employment based" in that context is referring to the public option (federal) plan and how they plan on implementing and working that plan in group and employer settings. NOT employers who choose to remain using private insurance providers.
After reading it - I would have to say that in context - if a company decides to switch over to the public plan option for their employers - the employees receiving benefits from their private insurance plans may keep their private coverage but the company may not continue enrolling employees in private plans if they are using the federal plan after a certain date.
I could be wrong, and I will have to read more about that provision because it has odd wording.
However Obama is right - if your employer decides to switch providers it's tough cookies for you, the employee if you don't like their new choice. And they do it all the time. -
By the way, here is a link briefly describing the health exchange program:
waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/exchange.pdf
America’s Affordable Health Choices Act will reform the insurance marketplace to ensure that everyone can purchase quality, affordable health insurance coverage. A critical piece is a new Health Insurance Exchange (Exchange) for individuals and businesses to allow them to comparison shop for coverage. This Exchange will revolutionize health care choices and will help reduce the growth in health care spending by encouraging competition on price and quality, not benefit manipulation or efforts to exclude needy patients. Recognizing that many businesses want to continue providing their own health coverage as they do today, business participation in the Exchange is simply a new option for those that are eligible – no business is required to enter.
HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE:
ABILITY TO COMPARISON SHOP
Give people the ability to choose from a variety of plans — including a new public health insurance option.
Provide standardized benefit packages so that people will be able to comparison shop and make informed choices based on cost and quality.
Plans compete locally—so small plans and national plans have an equal opportunity to offer coverage.
And here is a link to media matters explaining what the grandfather clause is in referrence to:
mediamatters.org/research/200907170005
In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, the provision to which the editorial referred establishes the conditions under which existing private plans would be exempted from the requirement that they participate in the Health Insurance Exchange. Individual health insurance plans that do not meet the "grandfather" conditions would still be available for purchase, but only through the Exchange and subject to those regulations.
So my initial interpretation was only partially correct.-
So you are okay with this monstrosity? You have no problem with choking out the private companies over time?
-
I'm not sure yet if it is choking out the private industry.
Then again I have no love lost for private insurance and the privatization and profit mongering while people are suffering type of system we have now. So, I guess if it is a strangulation (which I am not convinced it is, nor nearly enough of a choke hold) I am not so opposed to it.
My current understanding is still that companies have a choice between private and public insurance, and if they opt for neither they must contribute in some way through taxes.
The grandfather clause seems to be only appliciple to certain strict circumstances (and individual coverage) and still allows a private insurance option on the exchange - but only under certain circumstances.
I still have to look at it further, though - the language is convoluted in the bill.
-
-
Is this what you are talking about?
IBD falsely claimed House health bill would "outlaw individual private coverage"
"In a July 15 editorial, subsequently highlighted by Rush Limbaugh and the Media Research Center, Investor's Business Daily falsely claimed that the House tri-committee health-care reform bill includes "a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal." The editorial later stated that the "provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage." That assertion is false; the bill will not "outlaw individual private coverage."
In fact, the provision to which the editorial referred establishes the conditions under which existing private plans would be exempted from the requirement that they participate in the Health Insurance Exchange. Individual health insurance plans that do not meet the "grandfather" conditions would still be available for purchase, but only through the Exchange and subject to those regulations."
mediamatters.org/research/200907160040-
But facts have a liberal bias.
-
It's like a shell game with these people. They purposely mislead and hope people don't dig deeper.
-
Sure. That is why I posted the wording ver batim. I guess because it says that private insurers cannot add customers after Y1 (2013), that doesn't really mean what it says?
-
-
Exactly, only it's the dems that hope we don't dig..
Let's examine the facts.
After Y1, only grandfathered plans may be offered. In other words, no new plans may be offered which means that you have eliminated competition.
By regulating against new plans, insurance companies cannot offer new plans meeting demands, adjusting to market or customer wants and needs. This means that only old plans will be competing with the gov't.
It's like saying taht since the gov't owns GM now, Ford can only offer models pre-dating 2013... Thats REAL good for the market.
You also can't offer a new plan to new employees, and since new companies won't have any grandfathering they therefore HAVE to offer gov't insurance as only option.
Someone tell me how this isn't going to kill private insurance?-
Actually nothing in the bill suggests that no new plans may be used. It states that certain old plans that were once used, but no longer complies with heal laws may not be used in the future, but those who were already on it may be grandfathered in if they so choose too.
I've been reading bits and pieces here and there, and while I haven't come across anything authoritative on this particular language and with regards to the Health Exchange proposal - the general consensus from both right and left sides thus far seems to be that new health insurance legislation is coming down the road, and those providers or plans that do not comply with the new regulations are no longer considered "adequate health care" and thus go by the wayside.
With regards to employer based care employers may still purchase private group plans for their employees, but the providers must be in compliance with the federal health care laws in order to be considered adequate providers of health care. Employers may also choose to go with the pubic option and from what I'm gathering if the employees have individual insurance from a previous provider who no longer complies with the laws they may either keep their insurance or they may use the new health exchange program which offers both public and private policies side by side for comparative purposes.
-
-
Thank you Anok for reading it correctly.
Either way it is a far cry from what I'd prefer. It will be a watered down mess because some people care not one iota about health care, they only care about making this Obama's Waterloo.
"If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him,".(Senator Jim DeMint)
There is no loss of patients rights, because the only people who have the right to state of the art care are those with money anyway.That option isn't going to go away for those of us including myself who can afford to pay for top of the line insurance programs or in cash for anything our insurance doesn't cover.
It's not the bill they fear it's Obama's success if it gets passed.
the public option is "an option", you don't think those insurance folks have spent all those millions on capital hill bargaining to let their piece go do you?
The largest problems for dems is to delay is dangerous, yet not to delay will make the bill somewhat shittier than it should be. In reality this bill should be something that takes a year to finalize. Unfortunately the way congress works that can't happen, and that is the largest travesty.-
Oh the joys of making sausage.
-
I saw that comment today Cooper. It's yet another notch in the "let's destroy Obama anyway we can even if it hurts the country or people in it" ideology.
Why are Republicans cutting off their noses to spite their face? It makes no sense to me. -
@ruin, mark and Anok...Gee, I wonder. Do you think that Obama will campaign for DeMint? No??!! Why not? Because he disagrees with DeMint? Does that mean he wants DeMint to lose, even though DeMint is sponsoring S. 1324: Health Care Freedom Act of 2009? This legislation could help people. Does Obama care more for party politics than helping Americans??!! Outrageous.
www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-1324
Big deal that DeMint said this. That is the way politics works in D.C. It doesn't mean that he is against helping Americans. It means that he disagrees with what Obama is trying to do and the way he is trying to do it. -
Antics - if the quotes being read lately said things like "We disagree with the bill, we disagree with the president's vision of the future/plans etc and so forth" I'd agree with you. But they are not saying that. They are saying, if we make him lose this, we will break him, we will destroy him.
There is little actual conversation going on about the bill and proposed ideas. If they really wanted to help Americans, and they really did have issues with the bill, they would be working to propose alternative suggestions and working across the aisle to come to a resolution that will both help the people and that they can live with.
But they are not doing that. Hence my original opinion stands. This has nothing to do with the bill, and they are willing to sacrifice the people they represent to make a political point. It's disgusting.
-
-
Special interests and opponents of health care reform in Washington have made their priority clear: attack President Obama at any cost.
On Friday, GOP Senator Jim DeMint told a special-interest attack group that if they're "able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him." And just this morning, Republican Chairman Michael Steele backed up DeMint's statement 100%. At the same time, the Republican National Committee is running deceptive ads to scare Americans away from the reform we need.
Their plan is simple: oppose health care reform as a political ploy to weaken the President and defeat his entire agenda of change. But if we follow the Republican "Party of No" and do nothing, we'll not only ensure more of the same, but saddle our children and grandchildren with a growing burden of exploding costs and declining care that they may never overcome.
- Excerpt from Democratic Party release.
President Obama Responds to Healthcare Detractors: www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSjfDyEW4nA-
"...saddle our children and grandchildren with a growing burden of exploding costs...
You mean like TARP and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (stimulus)? Like those monstrosities of pork that were passed? Saddle our children with that debt?
Obama realizes that he cannot sell socialized medicine to the American public, that is why today he started calling it "insurance reform." More liberal speak... -
Antics, you do realize that several of the corporations who have received tarp and bailout funds have already begun repaying those loans, right?
They have to pay that money back - so what financial burden is that costing our children and grandchildren? -
Anok, please provide proof of what has been paid back and what hasn't. What has been paid back and what was not allowed to be returned. Then I will be happy to answer your question.
-
Actually the quote is in another thread - I can't remember if it was yours or not.
AIG is already paying back, I believe Goldman-Sachs has already begun paying back, and smaller banks already returned the money. I'll see if I can find for you, but I know you already read it in one of these threads.
-
-
Under a public health care option, 120 million Americans will "lose what they now get from private companies and be forced onto the government-run rolls as businesses decide it is more cost-effective for them to drop coverage." - Karl Rove
The Democrats propose "a government-controlled health care plan that will deprive roughly 120 million Americans of their current health care coverage." - Mike Pence
"Under the Obama plan . . . all the health care in this country is eventually going to be run by the government." - Tom Coburn
"House Bill Outlaws Private Health Insurance" - anticsrocks
With so many lies coming from the right, how can anyone trust them?
More from PolitiFact: www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/subjects/health/-
The Republicans aren't relying on cultivating trust. Fear and delaying tactics are all they need to accomplish the dirty deed.
-
I would say that our President is also fear mongering. His mantra of NOW, NOW, NOW! We need to pass this bill now or the economy will collapse!!! is nothing but fear mongering.
We are talking about nationalizing ONE FIFTH OF OUR COUNTRY'S BUDGET!!!!! What we need to do is to slow down and reason this out. Why hurry up and do it wrong? Does everyone who blindly supports Obama just want them to churn out any old bill as long as it says health care reform on it?? I thought that the Democrat Party was supposed to be compassionate and caring for the "little guy?" So why do you all want Obama to force this bill through?
Anyone care to answer? Or do you all want to just spew more useless partisan rhetoric like "Fear and delaying tactics are all they need to accomplish the dirty deed." ??? -
@ruin...Why don't we be honest here and tell where Mr. Rove got his quote from.
The Lewin Group put out this study:
www.lewin.com/content/publications/Testimony_April_29,_2009.pdf
"Coverage Effects
We estimate that the Obama-like health reform program described above would reduce the number of uninsured by about 28 million people. This reflects expanded eligibility under Medicaid/CHIP, and the tax credits under the proposal.
As discussed above, the President’s campaign proposal would limit enrollment to individuals, the self-employed and small employers. Large employers would not be permitted to cover their workers through the public plan. Under this scenario, about 42.9 million people would be enrolled in the public plan (Figure 3). The number of people with private coverage would fall by about 32.0 million people.
If we assume that the public plan is open to all individuals, the self-employed and all firms, the public plan would enroll about 131.2 million people (includes some uninsured who become covered). The number of people with private health insurance would decline by about 119.1
million people (Figure 3). This is equal to about 70 percent of all people currently covered under private health insurance (excludes supplemental coverage for Medicare beneficiaries)."
Now all those little "truth meters" look snazzy on your post. But what facts do you offer up in refutation?
For example, you cherry picked nicely.
""During a town hall meeting on health care, "ABC didn't even allow ads that opposed the president's health care plan to be aired."
"On mandating health care coverage.
"On a single-payer health care system.
"Medicare and Medicaid are the single biggest drivers of the federal deficit and the federal debt by a huge margin."
(Although politicfact doesn't tell why this is true.) - "In 1942 the individual was discouraged from purchasing health insurance plans by offering a tax deduction to the employer only and not the employee. In 1965 congress created Medicare making individual health insurance obsolete for those over the age of 65. In this time frame total costs for insurance went up as doctors and patients alike used the system to there benefit.
The over use of the system caused rates to go up and in the late 1960’s it was starting to become difficult for a person to afford an individual health plan. In 1973 President Nixon approved the HMO act that the left wing was promoting to help make insurance available to everyone. Only Kaiser Permanente was an HMO in 1969 and most of the members where encouraged to join through their union. The belief of the new HMO act was to encourage lower cost insurance to everyone. At this point of the implementation of Medicare and the HMO act started the beginning of a much larger problem of unaffordable individual health insurance.
The managed health care plans were subsidized by the government which created an abundant amount of deals from insurance companies to lure the businesses to buy the new discounted low cost HMO plans. The businesses dropped the individual health plans and offered only the HMO insurance for their employees."
www.bestsyndication.com/2005/Nicole-WILSON/081005-HMO-Plan-History.htm
Once again, Government intervention drives up costs and prices.
But back to politicfact...
"A new poll shows 62 percent support the president's plan to reform health care. That means ... letting you choose between keeping the private insurance you have and a public health insurance plan."
"Democrats have failed to answer the most basic question of how they want to pay for the more than $1 trillion of health care spending."
But I think the biggest distortion of what you are posting, ruin is that this article evidently addressed the Obama plan vs. the McCain plan during the Presidential campaign. So it is not up to date. -
"Now all those little "truth meters" look snazzy on your post. But what facts do you offer up in refutation?"
The link at the bottom of the my post provides details on why each one of those statements are FALSE.
@ruin...Why don't we be honest here and tell where Mr. Rove got his quote from.
The link associated with Mr. Rove's quote provides details on how he distorted the The Lewin Group study.
-----------
Karl Rove's claim:
"...Rove misrepresents the report in a couple of significant ways.
First, he neglects to mention that the 120 million number is only for the public option that is most like Medicare, and if everyone were allowed to enroll. That is the most extreme option that could drive the most people from private insurers.
Rove says people would "be forced" to switch, but the report is modeled on the idea that consumers choose health plans based on price and would opt for a public plan — not be forced into one. Rove's comments give the impression that 120 million people would be booted out of their private insurance and forced to turn to the government. That's not the scenario the report describes."
Direct link to more:
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/12/karl-rove/roves-op-...
Mike Pence's claim:
Similar to Karl Rove... he cherry picks a scenario (a Medicare-style plan open to everyone) from the Lewin Group study, fails to mention it and several other stats.
Direct link to more:
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/19/mike-pence/120-mill...
Tom Coburn's claim:
"...a golden oldie PolitiFact has heard many times before.
During the campaign, we heard the same tune from vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin , who said Obama was calling for a "government-run plan"; Mitt Romney , who said Obama "wants the government to take over health care"; and Rudy Giuliani , who called Hillary Clinton's similar plan "socialized medicine." (We rated their statements Barely True , Barely True and False .)
Obama's plan leaves in place the private health care system, but seeks to expand it to the uninsured. It increases eligibility for the poor and children to enroll in initiatives like Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, and creates pools for individuals to buy their own cheaper insurance. It also outlines strategies to rein in costs for everyone, such as electronic medical records and preventive care.
Would Obama's plan result in closer regulation of the health care system? Very likely so. It includes provisions that require health insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and disclose more information about how they treat patients. Obama's plan also calls for evidence-based health care standards, so that government can stop paying (through programs like Medicare) for treatments that don't get good results. But the plan is very different from some European-style health systems where the government owns health clinics and employs doctors.
Direct link to more:
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/05/tom-coburn/obama-he...
Oh... by the way... The Lewin Group is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, which also offers private health insurance. That puts their study in question from the start. -
@ruin...Okay, you wanna see something? You keep saying that Obama doesn't want to take over health care. He wants competition from the private sector.
I urge you all to read this post, especially the parts I have highlighted. This is scary stuff, all partisan politics aside.
Here, DIRECTLY FROM H.R. 3200 is what it says in the bill:
"Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!
Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benes u get
Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!
Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose UR HC Benefits 4 you. U have no choice!
PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided 2 ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise
Pg 58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access 2 individs finances & a National ID Healthcard will b issued!
Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access 2 ur banks accts 4 elect. funds transfer
PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan 4 retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).
Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange 2 bring priv HC plans under Govt control.
PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs 4 priv. HC plans in the Exchange
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration ur Healthcare!
PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Govt mandates linguistic approp svcs. Example - Translation 4 illegal aliens
Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps 2 sign up indiv. for Govt HC plan
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs of Ben Levels 4 Plans. #AARP members - U Health care WILL b rationed
-PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Indiv. will b automat.enrolled in Medicaid. No choice
pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt Monop
pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ #AMA - The Govt will tell YOU what u can make.
Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into pub opt plan. NO CHOICE
Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay 4 HC 4 part time employees AND their families.
Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Emplyr w payroll 400k & above who does not prov. pub opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll
pg 150 Lines 9-13 Biz w payroll btw 251k & 400k who doesnt prov. pub. opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll
Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesnt have acceptable HC accrdng 2 Govt will be taxed 2.5% of inc
Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from indiv. taxes. (Americans will pay)
Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access 2 ALL Americans finan/pers recs
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 Govt will reduce physician svcs 4 Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected
Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors, doesnt matter what specialty u have, you'll all be paid the same
PG 253 Line 10-18 Govt sets value of Dr's time, prof judg, etc. Literally value of humans.
PG 265 Sec 1131Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries
PG 268 Sec 1141 Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs
PG 272 SEC. 1145. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!
Page 280 Sec 1151 The Govt will penalize hospitals 4 what Govt deems preventable readmissions.
Pg 298 Lines 9-11 Drs, treat a patient during initial admiss that results in a readmiss-Govt will penalize u.
Pg 317 L 13-20 OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Drs. what/how much they can own.
Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand
pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have oppt to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can u say ACORN?!!
Pg335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339 - Govt mandates estab. of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing
Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Govt has authority 2 disqual Medicare Adv Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing peeps in2 Govt plan
Pg 354 Sec 1177 - Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs ppl! WTF. My sis has down syndrome!!
Pg 379 Sec 1191 Govt creates more bureaucracy - Telehealth Advisory Cmtte. Can u say HC by phone?
PG 425 Lines 4-12 Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life
Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory!
PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Govt provides apprvd list of end of life resources, guiding u in death
PG 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program 4 orders 4 end of life. The Govt has a say in how ur life ends
Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An "adv. care planning consult" will b used frequently as patients health deteriorates
PG 429 Lines 10-12 "adv. care consultation" may incl an ORDER 4 end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV
Pg 429 Lines 13-25 - The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.
PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment u will have at end of life
Pg 469 - Community Based Home Medical Services=Non profit orgs. Hello, ACORN Medical Svcs here!!?
Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG. 1 monthly payment 2 a community-based org. Like ACORN?
PG 489 Sec 1308 The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt in2 ur marriage
Pg 494-498 Govt will cover Mental Health Svcs including defining, creating, rationing those svcs"
This is from the following link...
www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2009/07/whats-in-healthacre-bill.html
So, as you can see Obamacare is nothing but, single payer, socialized, rationed medicine. All the naysayers that have been defending Obama have egg on their face. He cares not for reform, he wants control. Plain and simple. -
The people with egg on the face are those who have claimed the President and Democratic congress wish to eliminate or outlaw private health insurance. These claims have been debunked many times now and it's simply a desperate tactic employed by the far right and special interest groups to confuse the issue and influence public opinion.
Here's another link debunking this claim: www.factcheck.org/politics/more_health_care_scare.html
Regarding the post above. I guess this is a tactic to change the subject away from the OP claim and false claims made by several Republicans. Regardless, the snippets you've posted:
1) Were not authored by President Obama
2) Are part of a draft bill authored by congress
3) Are not yet part of a finalized bill
Perhaps it would be illuminating to compare the insurance contract available from private medical insurers with the government plan. As it is now, Americans are at the mercy of a private sector that sets prices, drops patients with existing conditions and records hefty profits. -
Typical response from ruin. He simply overlooks what he doesn't want to see. He said nothing about Government telling seniors what care they can and can't have and even planning end of life issues for seniors.
He did not address the fact that all doctors, regardless of specialties will be paid one flat rate.
He did not address the fact that and "advance care consultation" my include an end of life plan made BY THE GOVERNMENT.
He did not address the fact that the Government will have access to your bank accounts for forced automatic fund withdrawals.
And on and on. No Obama did not actually sit down and write this up. That would, to use his own words, probably be beyond his pay grade. But rest assured he is getting what he wants. All one has to do is to look at the White House visitor logs for the past 6 months and see all the special interest lobbyists that have been there time and time again. Gee, weren't we promised that lobbyists would have no part in his White House?
The link ruin cites has nothing to do with H.R. 3200. No, ruin only wants to see what he wants to see. And what he wants to see is that Obama can do no wrong. Obama is his messiah and hail to the great one, he will save America from all their pesky freedoms and liberties.
Oh YAY! Socialism. Well at least ruin will be right at home... -
Typical antics... Proven wrong, so he changes the subject.
The OP specifically states "House Bill Outlaws Private Health Insurance". That is a LIE and similar claims have been debunked as I have clearly demonstrated. That has been the focus of my posts.
It's obvious your hatred for Obama and the Democrats has clouded your ability to make fair and rational observations. Every OP is tainted with sensationalized rhetoric and misinformation. We would all benefit if it were possible to have honest dialog here, but somehow I think that is impossible for you. -
I do not hate Obama, as ruin claims. I have posted on BC that I find him personable and funny. However, I do detest his policies and his socialistic, marxist agenda.
Proven wrong? I don't see how. Jennifer Tolbert of the Kaiser Family Foundation says, "There will be individual policies available, but people will buy those policies through the national health insurance exchange."
What that clause is saying is that private insurers will not be allowed to have any new customers after Y1, which is 2013. They will be able to enroll people into Government plans in a bureaucracy called the 'National Health Exchange.'
What will happen, and what many people on both sides of the aisle believe is that the National Health Exchange will impose restrictions that are "so onerous as to drive private insurance out of business." This according to many sources including the Heritage Foundation, which agrees with the Kaiser Family Foundation. But it is the same thing. Private insurance will be forced out from attrition and from Government totalitarianism. Therefore the OP is telling the truth about the left wing spin.
What ruin still refuses to do is to address the incredibly socialistic power grabs written into H.R. 3200. Why is that? Maybe he does not care that every 5 years, a Government Bureaucrat will come into their home and tell the senior citizens what to eat, what meds they are allowed to have, or when they may have assisted suicide, i.e. "end of life plans."
Maybe he does not want to address the fact that doctors will be paid the same, no matter their specialty. So a neurosurgeon or orthopedic surgeon will make the same as a general practitioner, i. e. family doctor.
Maybe he does not care that special needs people's access to the Government health plans will be restricted.
His avoidance of these issues speaks volumes. When he asked me if I thought Bush went against the Constitution when he appointed czars, I did not avoid his question. I answered immediately that I thought Bush did something wrong, just as Obama has. I also think Obama is doing it to the extreme.
But I digress. It seems I won't be getting any answers from ruin. Hard to debate that way.
-
-
I believe I have addressed the issue of urgency elsewhere. It needs to happen before the next congressional election cycle begins, or it won't happen this term. The congressional math is really good this term, so it is a good time to make it happen. Kicking the can down the road would mean at least another three-year wait, by which time we're in a presidential election cycle, and the Washington gridlock continues.
And that is exactly what conservatives want to happen. Their arguments about needing more time are completely disingenuous. Their plea for time is a tactical maneuver to try and kill this thing, or take out its guts and teeth.
(This is more or less what I already said above. www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/house-bill-outlaws-private-healt...).
Some cite half a century of failed attempts. I personally can remember 15 years worth of them. More than enough time has passed. A deadline is necessary, as Obama has said, or nothing will get done.-
Well thank you for at least showing what the rest of the country is feeling. After the next election cycle.. there isn't a chance in hell the Dems are going to remain in the drivers seat..
2010, Change we need
2012, Change we'll be desperate for.. -
I am the one who keeps saying that we needn't rush it through, I know the GOP does, but I am speaking as a citizen.
By the way, you just as much as admitted that you are playing partisan politics above the good of the country.
"It needs to happen before the next congressional election cycle begins, or it won't happen this term."
So you are saying that this needs to be rushed because you have the votes now. Screw what is good for the country. This is ONE FIFTH OF OUR ECONOMY!!! Don't you think that an issue this big needs serious debate and deliberation? Or are you just in favor of rushing through any legislation so that Obama can look good and crow about what he accomplished?
Yeah, love of country kinda falls by the wayside under that scenario. -
I"m saying that with the House getting elected every two years, its members have to do the really hard stuff in off election years. This is true of any Congress, no matter which two-year cycle you are talking about. Doing this while the math is good certainly makes sense. The math could still be very good in a couple years, but why would anyone want to count on that.
Acting as if no tinkering can occur after the initial legislation is done is also nonsense.
Finally, pulling out the "patriotism card" is not an argument. At best it's specious, but really it's just obnoxious, though of a par with the BS I heard from the Republicans during the presidential campaign. As if only Republicans can be partisan and patriotic at the same time, but any partisanship from Democrats renders them . . . What? Traitors? Why? Because we want health care for everyone? Maybe you ought to change that avatar. -
What? You have never accused anyone on the right of "putting party before country?" I think you have, as have a few other lib bloggers on BC. So don't get all high and mighty with me. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You are saying that you want your party to pass ANYTHING because now they have the votes. I am saying that I think enough damage has been done on both sides of the aisle with that kind of logic in the past. Don't you?
-
If I have, it would have been in an ironic mode. Doing this kind of thing in an ironic fashion can work rather nicely for a party that used "Country First" for its candidate's campaign slogan and whose candidates accused a whole lot of people, a majority of citizens, if you do the math, of not living in the real America. My blog is full of examples of divisive GOP "patriotic" rhetoric. So was the convention. And it goes back further than that. So sometimes people like me might poke fun at you and use this rhetoric themselves. Can't remember if I did, but it's plausible. Course, irony is not really a Republican thing. It's usually lost on them. I've seen them do sarcasm, usually in a heavy, plodding manner, but never any good irony. Not so as I noticed it anyway.
-
Just the same theme from you over and over and over and.....ugh. All Republicans are evil. All Republicans are stupid. All Republicans are bad, mean old white men who hate most Americans. Yeah mark, you are enlightened. Give me a break. You are so biased against anything that isn't liberal, against anyone who isn't on the same page as you that it isn't even funny. I find it laughable that the same crap you cry about is your favorite way to "debate." You don't debate, you attack and then cry when it gets thrown back at you.
Bottom line for you is that you want Obama and the Far Left Liberal Dems to pass ANYTHING that has the words ?em>Health and Care on it. Damn the consequences. You don't care that the Government will set up a rationing body and that many people will be DENIED treatment. Where is all that compassion that you are always shouting about? I think it is just that your health coverage sucks, so you want SOMETHING DONE about it. Screw the poor people.
According to you, it can be "tinkered" with after the fact. Tell me, exactly how does that tinkering happen? I mean are you that naive that you think that they can pass any old bill and fill in the blanks later? Or say, "No, we didn't mean we wanted rationing, we meant it in a different way. Let's tinker with it." That is absurd. -
Apropos irony, we probably shouldn't talk about the Uncle Sam avatar to which I have been addressing my remarks, and which is responding to me so defensively on the subject. Did I say it was "evil"? No. Insidious, sure, which is why I explained the party rhetoric. If you feel spoken to, well, good. I know what kind of rhetoric I saw in the last line here: www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/house-bill-outlaws-private-healt.... And I have a context for that rhetoric, which I explained in my previous comment.
-
*rolls eyes* Now you are attacking my avatar. Wow. Want my email addy so you can try and pick it apart as well? So now you are saying that you didn't say my avatar was evil, you said Republicans are.
"Course, irony is not really a Republican thing. It's usually lost on them. I've seen them do sarcasm, usually in a heavy, plodding manner, but never any good irony.
You still won't address what I said about you wanting your party to pass any old damned piece of crap so your messiah doesn't meet his "Waterloo."
And let me point one thing out that is evidently lost on you. Obama keeps attacking the Republicans on this health care bill. Why? It has ONE PARTY SUPPORT, the far left loony Dems and it has BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION, all the Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats. You don't hear him attacking the Blue Dogs, do you? Not yet, but when he doesn't get his way, he will turn on them like a rabid dog. -
To answer the question in your third paragraph about "any old . . ." (before the addition you just made), I would have to address its false premise. There aren't always enough hours in the day.
-
So you are ignoring it, then? Typical. I didn't think you would defend your remarks. Or say anything about the health care bill having bipartisan opposition. I guess you don't claim those silly conservative democrats...
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
