Just a few sections that might interest you - they do me.
Sec. 123, Pg. 30 - THERE WILL BE A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE deciding what treatments and benefits you get.
Sec. 163, Pg. 59, Lines 21-24 - Government will have direct access to your bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
Sec. 164, Pg. 65 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations (ACORN).
Sec. 205, Pg. 102, Lines 12-18 - Medicaid-eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No freedom to choose.
Sec. 401.59B, Pg. 167, Lines 18-23 - ANY individual who does not have acceptable care, according to government, will be taxed 2.5% of income.
Sec. 1121, Pg. 239, Lines 14-24 - The government will limit and reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income and poor are the ones affected.
Sec. 1177, Pg. 354 - Government will RESTRICT enrollment of special needs people! "Extension of Authority of Special Needs Plans to Restrict Enrollment."
Sec. 441, Pg. 203, Lines 14-15 - "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it says that.
To read more you can go to -
http://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attachments/healthcare_overview_obama_072909.pdf
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 251 ( 1 removed by M. Bradley McCauley McCauley )
Mary has posted a Republican edited version.
The Republicans do not think you are smart enough to read and understand what the legislaton says.
They will tell what will scare you.
“The House of Representatives … can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as the great mass of society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interest, and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny.” –Federalist No. 57, February 19,1788
Free Markets
and does provide for the regulation of commerce.
Doesn't mention "fair" taxes
and does not mention "limited" government
Free or relatively markets were the norm for the states as envisioned by the FFs. The Commerce Clause in Art 1 Sec 8 was specifically created to PREVENT state duties/restrictions on trade between the states and otherwise worded on regulating trade with Indian tribes and foreign countries. Not until 1937 (surprise) did that narrow view get overturned in the NLRB vs Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
Taxes ARE noted in Art Sec 8 as being within the realm of Congress to levy but with the stipulation they be "uniform throughout the US" The word fair isn't used because of semantics. You for instance think it's justified to levy higher rates on some than others while I for one would disagree. Both of us might use the word fair to describe those rates. That's why I try to avoid use of the word because it means different things to different people. The FFs understood that and wished to maintain a limited government which is why they chose a republic rather than a democracy or some other form of government.
Oh it didn't mention limited government? It simply states in the 10th Amendment that"powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution nor prohibited to it by the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" Federal powers were specific and few and until the late 19th century kept that way and even until the early 20th only slightly expanded. Both the Federalists and Anti Federalists wanted government restricted which is why they wrote the Constitution they way they did. Both feared the monster we have today could grow out of the republic they created though few believed we'd so willingly embrace it.
So I went to the bill and it didn't have a single one of Mary's listed statements. Perhaps when it is condensed into a single bill that is acceptable to both houses, the language will tell what will and will not be the case. In the meantime you're debating a straw man. It's as bad or as good as you want it to be.
But, unfortunately, the feds will be hitting Texas with various retail, income, gas, breathing taxes for the rest of the nation.
"Government will have direct access to your bank accounts for electronic funds transfer."
Excuse me, why do the government need this info???
"ANY individual who does not have acceptable care, according to government, will be taxed 2.5% of income."
Why? So we can afford less?
All of this is nonsense. It must be stopped.
This is not about health care, it's about turning over another portion of our lives to government control.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
No man's life, liberty or fortune is safe while our legislature is in session.
Both the above quotes by Ben Franklin
These will never get passed. Ever.
The people will see to it.
I agree that people should read the bill. I also agree it should be discussed and not sidelined with accusations.
I'm puzzled as to where these originated. According to the copy of the bill I accessed, most of these do not appear in the bill in any form and the sections referenced don't exist.
Since I've searched and found what is supposed to be the entire bill, but since these provisions are non-existent, where can I find a copy actually encompassing these items? I have contacted my congressional delegation urging them to pass this needed legislation!
The copy I found is at http://www.pnhp.org/docs/nhi_bill_final1.pdf if anyone wishes to check for themselves. And if I'm missing something, please advise me as to where I can find it.
My understanding is that there are currently 3 different bills in the House and 1 in the senate.
http://www.capwiz.com/afa net/webreturn/?url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:
I'm mystified, what is it you think I have "fallen" for? We desperately need health care insurance reform and have for some time. While I'd like to see it go farther than Obama's plan does, I certainly support the president in getting his through as I believe that is the best we can do at this time.
1) All private insurance companies have panels of experts who decide what coverage to provide their clients and to set the limits of that coverage. If they didn't, they would have to provide unlimited coverage for every possible contingency, and they would all go bankrupt.
2) The president has not endorsed, or agreed to sign, any public plan which requires subscribers to pay through electronic funds transfer. Congressmen may toss the idea around, but that does not make it so.
3) There is no such thing as a "payoff subsidized plan", and the term doesn't even make sense. Taxpayers may choose to enroll in a public plan as individuals, or (it has been proposed that) they may join as members of an organization which subscribes them as a pool, so as to obtain lower premiums for the individuals in the pool. All private health insurance companies do this, and it applies to a wide variety of qualifying organizations. Your use of the ACORN name is a complete non-sequitur.
4) If you choose the public plan, you will probably be required to also subscribe to Medicare or Medicaid, if you are eligible for them. This is to prevent the public plan from paying for things which are already available from other insurance sources, and to eliminate wasteful double-coverage. All but the most gold-plated private health insurance plans already do the same thing, so only multi-millionaires can escape it with or without a public plan.
5) Requiring all individuals to carry some form of health insurance is one of the items proposed in some of the unfinished bills currently under consideration. If this requirement makes it into a finished bill and the President signs that bill, everyone will have to choose a plan. Every American citizen can choose to obtain insurance from a private insurer, if they think they can get a better deal than is offered by the public plan. If you choose the public plan, you will pay your premiums directly to the federal government, as they will be the provider of that plan. If you'd rather have a private insurer take 5% of your income than pay half that for the public plan, shut up and do it.
6) President Obama has made it clear that he wants a bill which addresses waste and fraud in Medicaid and Medicare, in order to keep costs reasonable and make better coverage available to more people for the same cost. If he gets his way, you will probably not be able to demand expensive tests, procedures and drugs based on some advertisement you saw on TV unless real doctors feel that those things might help you be more healthy. If you're a bully who makes decisions based on fear, you're probably not going to like it. If you feel your doctor is denying you something unfairly, you can always get a second opinion, just like you can now with your private insurer.
7) None of the proposed bills now under consideration have a fully developed system for handling all the health care needs of all classes of special needs individuals. Unless and until they do, those who have needs which exceed what the public plan can offer may still enroll in the public plan, but they may need to carry additional, supplemental insurance to cover their extraordinary needs. This is exactly the way private insurance works. Only the most jaw-droppingly expensive private plans will cover everything that every kind of special needs person may require. Such plans are beyond the means of most of the people who need them in the private insurance industry. A public plan will attempt to make the cost of such coverage more affordable for the people who need it.
8) It is proposed that the collecting of premium payments from individuals who enroll in the public plan be handled in a way which is as similar as possible to the way private insurers collect premium payments. The way taxes have traditionally been collected would not be suitable for this purpose. Also, treating the collection of premium payments as an ordinary tax would place insurmountable obstacles and burdens on anyone trying to file a tax return. It would throw a giant monkey wrench in the mandatory process employers undergo in providing employees with their annual tax information. To avoid all that nonsense, premium payments will not be treated as a tax when to do so would make the paperwork too complex for the average person or small business.
But, you know... don't let the facts get in the way of your desire to say and do whatever it takes to prevent the rest of us from helping our fellow men and women at no cost to you.
I always welcome, actually more than welcome those who disagree with me, please stay in touch--I want to know what else you have to say so that I can weight it against other FACTS!
To read the ACTUAL bill go to HR3200.
Go to those sections, pages and line PLEASE
They know they have to tell their voters what to think.
This is where a single payer system can get the most leverage and hold down prices as well as can be done.
I cannot get too excited about anyone citing chapter and verse of "the bill" to convince me it is bad, good, or indifferent. Like I said, the bill I read didn't have any of these features. Lord only knows what a final version will have.
The opponents are launching a major fear campaign against any changes. It worked in the early nineties and it may well work again, even though it was devoid of truth then and mostly is today. The loosers will be, once again, the American people.
I'm certainly not accusing Mary of lying. I'm sure she has read what she says she has. But she is jumping the gun when there is no "the bill" as yet. When the bill is finalized, perhaps it will contain objectionable language, that is up to our congressional delegation to prevent. Premature efforts to poison the well are unnecessary.
And, yes, everyone will be paying for those who choose public option.
It is not closed, nor is the health care legislation.
Above - you wrote >>"But, you know... don't let the facts get in the way of your desire to say and do whatever it takes to prevent the rest of us from helping our fellow men and women at no cost to you."<<
To that I reply, please don't let your anti Bush, Reagan hatred get in the way of your logic.
Nice passive-aggressive turn of phrase there. See how you managed to imply that what I have said and the FACTS are two different things, without actually saying so or supplying any actual facts to support the idea?
You're predicting that the unfinished, proposed bills being worked on in Congress will result in a bill which you're predicting President Obama will sign. And you're predicting that the bill the President will sign will result in discrimination against the elderly and the handicapped. By your own admission, your mind is made up on this, even though no such bill even exists much less bears the President's signature. If no quantity of facts can change your mind about this, then you might consider the possibility that your fears in the present are not actually being caused by the future events you predict will occur. Something inside you, in the present, is causing your current fears and that something is unrelated to the facts of the as-yet undetermined future.
Of course, that is my opinion; and you know what they say about opinions!
With the exception of taxing people who do not elect to get health care.
EFT funds transfer has to allow the government access to the bank accounts to TRANSFER money into the account. It does not in any way allow the government to withdraw money or to do anything else with our money or bank account.
The government ALWAYS chooses which benefits we get and do not get - and always chooses to restrict special needs people, etc....etc..
There is NOTHING new in this. IT is business as usual for Medicaid, Medicare, SSI and SSDI...
I know we have rationing right now and that medical decisions are made by the boards and committees of various for profit insurance corporations who have a conflict of interest in trying to provide payment for many procedures. No insurance company, including Medicare, pay for anything one might desire. I was covered by Blue shield for years and the sheer number of mistakes I found in explanation of benefits was exemplary of the conflict of interest they had. It is past time for reform, not of the health care system, but of the health insurance industry. It is currently an abomination.
This gets labeled as "health care reform" when it is insurance reform. I would oppose the government taking over the delivery of services and drugs and do not feel that is necessary. I'm also aware that what I'd like to see is not going to happen as it would involve single payer insurance. There is too much money on the table against what is needed for it to even be remotely possible at this time. Any reform will be a step in the right direction, with changes and improvements possible. Remember the adds from the early nineties when the government was advertised by the insurance companies as being "in your medicine chest?" If you drop enough statements over time they will bake root regardless of facts.
And thank you Mary, for the link.
If he did, it would be single payer.
More than a few of us agree with him.
Hannity was blabbing about this like it was some BIG discovery yesterday.
President is trying to get your elected representatives & senators to come up with a plan that is more broad based.
She did? She must have been taking lessons from the rabble-rousers who consistently interrupt the town meetings on healthcare. I told her she should stop going to those things...
I also did not know there is more than one 'proposed' bill circulating. Thank you.
"Whether or not the secretary of Health and Human Services, or the advisory panels that are supposed to make recommendations to HHS, would choose to cover abortions under any new federal plan is something we can’t predict. Our crystal ball functions no better on the topic of whether the elderly, or anyone else for that matter, will get the care they need under such a plan or under Medicare."
I don't think I want a politician deciding on my health care.
And I don't want insurance accountants deciding on my health care and that's what we have!
And who decides this now? If you are insured, the insurance company decides what they'll cover. You want something else, you pay for it. Under a single payer system the same would apply. There is absolutely no reason we could not choose our own providers.
I really would have thought the scary part of any healthcare bill would be in how much they modeled the current insurance companies.
A little bit about Tony
Heritage Foundation
My original comment:
Yep! You could SMELL this article from the very first sentence! "Come on, Puppets...let's scare the hell out of the American people with LIES"!
The Heritage Foundation is an ULTRA Right Wing group, most notable for cooking up the Iraq War LONG before GWB was ever elected!
Now, that's FUNNY! We all know your agenda and it isn't purrrrrrdy. How much do you get paid to spread fascism? Why not get a real job, one you can pretend you are good at doing. Find your unique ability and then see where it takes you.
We can't afford it!
Loss of freedom is not limited to the Obama administration, but it sure has picked up speed fast since his inauguration. He seems to have an especially strong hold on the houses of congress, who jump to do his bidding, forgetting their constituents.
Am sending you Blessings dear one, you are a great opponent!
Let me go in my sleep like my grandfather...not screaming like everyone else in the car...
Sometimes I think the whole reason you continually harangue Obama on this site is because your family's getting a bonus from hubby's bosses for the "fine work" you do for their company.
http://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attachments/healthcare_overview_obama_072909.pdf
Goes to a website created by "Liberty Counsel: A NATIONWIDE PUBLIC INTEREST RELIGIOUS CIVIL LIBERTIES LAW FIRM," which just ain't true folks. It's no sucha thing! It's a construct of Jerry Falwell's infamous Liberty University - dedicated to twisting facts and creating lies in an attempt to turn the USA into a theocracy... you know - sorta like ANY MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRY YOU'D LIKE TO NAME.
You can take to the bank that any "interpretation" they've made of ANY section of this PROPOSED law is the most extreme and least likely to be upheld in court interpretation possible.
Love you baby--hope you have a great weekend.