Posts
I am interrupting my breakdown of the health insurance law to share with all of you a conversation that I had on Twitter the other day. I just want to show how different most conservatives and liberals are when having a discussion. Also, I want to point out the kind of crap that conservatives have to deal with, that no one in the media wants to talk about, but they will run with any negative story about a conservative, without any kind of proof.
I am not including the Twitter handle of the person that I had this conversation with, as I just don't think that's the right thing to do. I have edited their posts so that the foul language is no longer spelled out.
My post: Hey Americans w/ brown skin-tone - Is it teapartiers or liberals calling u names like Oreo, Uncle Tom, etc? #teaparty #tcot @Theblacksphere
Their reply: Hey AMNs w/ brown skin-tone - Is it teapartiers or libs calling u names lk Oreo, Uncle Tom/Why is "n" word on ur signs, b*tch?
My reply: (their twitter handle) States that my teaparty signs have the "n" word on them - show me, cause I haven't seen them. Have u? #tcot #912
Their reply: http://www.pensitoreview.com/Wordpress/wp-content/themes/mimbo2.2/images/photo-tea-bagger-with-n-word-300.jpg /enjoy
2nd reply: And there's plenty more. You know it, too, you little b*tch. #tcot #gop Like you never saw any of this. LYING SOW.
My reply: He's not calling black ppl nigger's - he saying Congress is treating us like slave's used 2b treated. I want 2 see "plenty more"
Their reply: You are dumber than lint if you believe that. Get off my TL, you dumb, racist apologist for evil. F*CK YOU.
2nd reply: Google it. It's everywhere. Everyone knows what the f*ck you baggers are. Go and suck corporate balls, racist.
My reply: Googled it & only found 1 pic u sent - funny, n conversation about name calling-did conservative or liberal call the other names?
Friday, April 9, 2010
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Senate Health Insurance Reform Bill Part 3
Pages 728 through 739 are devoted to a new program within Medicare called a Shared Savings Program. It seems to be a program in which a group of providers of services and suppliers that work together to manage and coordinate care for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. These groups will be called Accountable Care Organization (or ACO's) and will be assigned beneficiaries to manage (so, those on Medicare will have even fewer doctors to choose from). I'm just a little confused.....we stopped allowing banks to administer government's student loans to save the money. But we're paying these groups to administer government's health insurance plan in order to save money.
Pages 739 through 752 are devoted to a new pilot program on payment bundling. Basically, the Secretary will choose a mix of conditions that the government will pay one flat rate to the care provider's for, rather than paying for the actual services received. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. Granted it's just a pilot program, so it's not that they will necessarily implement the program after the 5 year pilot. We'll see how this one works out.
Pages 752 through 763 are devoted to an Independence at Home Demonstration Program. This program is designed to provide certain Medicare beneficiaries with 24-7 in-home care & medications (not that someone will necessarily be there 24-7, but that they will have someone available to be there at any time 24-7). This is another one of those policies that I'm not against in theory. Those with certain illnesses do need this kind of help, my problem is with the government running it. I know a couple people in two different cities currently receiving in-home care from the government. They receive terrible care and fraud abounds. I think they need to fix their current in-home care system before adding another one.
Pages 763 through 775 are devoted to a Hospital Readmission Reduction Program. Essentially, the Secretary will choose conditions that, if a hospital has a readmission for something relating to that condition, the hospital will not receive full payment for that readmission. Another recipe for disaster that will just raise our health care costs.
Physican assistants will be allowed to order post-hospital extended care services after January 1, 2011 (page 791).
In the years 2010 & 2011, the government will only pay 70% of the charges for a bone density test under medicare (pages 797-799).
$22,290,000,000 is no longer available to the Medicare Improvement Fund (page 800).
Pages 776 through 814 include the formation of, improvements to or extension of programs within the Medicare system. I don't really know how we're going to pay for all these - reduction in dollars to Medicare and expansion of Medicare. Does this make logical sense to anyone?
For the years 2011 & 2012, Medicare will be paying between 25 to 200% more to low-volume hospitals (pages 808-810).
A study will be done on improving payment accuracy which is just a fancy way of saying that they will reform what and how Medicare pays for services. For some services, we just don't know if payments will be going up or down. In other cases, we do know. For example, pages 828 through 832 contain information about Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospitals. Payments to these hospitals will be reduced to 25% and then will be adjusted by some factors that I don't really understand and then by minus 1% of the change in the percentage of individuals who are uninsured.
The Secretary will come up with a process for continually re-evaluating Codes under the Physician Fee Schedule to make sure they're not "misvalued". Part of the process includes repealing Section 4505(d) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which states:
"(d) Requirements for Developing New Resource-Based Practice Expense Relative Value Units.-- (1) Development.--For purposes of section 1848(c)(2)(C)(ii) of the Social Security Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall develop new resource-based relative value units. In developing such units the Secretary shall-- (A) utilize, to the maximum extent practicable, generally accepted cost accounting principles which (i) recognize all staff, equipment, supplies, and expenses, not just those which can be tied to specific procedures, and (ii) use actual data on equipment utilization and other key assumptions; (B) consult with organizations representing physicians regarding methodology and data to be used; and (C) develop a refinement process to be used during each of the 4 years of the transition period"
Pages 739 through 752 are devoted to a new pilot program on payment bundling. Basically, the Secretary will choose a mix of conditions that the government will pay one flat rate to the care provider's for, rather than paying for the actual services received. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. Granted it's just a pilot program, so it's not that they will necessarily implement the program after the 5 year pilot. We'll see how this one works out.
Pages 752 through 763 are devoted to an Independence at Home Demonstration Program. This program is designed to provide certain Medicare beneficiaries with 24-7 in-home care & medications (not that someone will necessarily be there 24-7, but that they will have someone available to be there at any time 24-7). This is another one of those policies that I'm not against in theory. Those with certain illnesses do need this kind of help, my problem is with the government running it. I know a couple people in two different cities currently receiving in-home care from the government. They receive terrible care and fraud abounds. I think they need to fix their current in-home care system before adding another one.
Pages 763 through 775 are devoted to a Hospital Readmission Reduction Program. Essentially, the Secretary will choose conditions that, if a hospital has a readmission for something relating to that condition, the hospital will not receive full payment for that readmission. Another recipe for disaster that will just raise our health care costs.
Physican assistants will be allowed to order post-hospital extended care services after January 1, 2011 (page 791).
In the years 2010 & 2011, the government will only pay 70% of the charges for a bone density test under medicare (pages 797-799).
$22,290,000,000 is no longer available to the Medicare Improvement Fund (page 800).
Pages 776 through 814 include the formation of, improvements to or extension of programs within the Medicare system. I don't really know how we're going to pay for all these - reduction in dollars to Medicare and expansion of Medicare. Does this make logical sense to anyone?
For the years 2011 & 2012, Medicare will be paying between 25 to 200% more to low-volume hospitals (pages 808-810).
A study will be done on improving payment accuracy which is just a fancy way of saying that they will reform what and how Medicare pays for services. For some services, we just don't know if payments will be going up or down. In other cases, we do know. For example, pages 828 through 832 contain information about Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospitals. Payments to these hospitals will be reduced to 25% and then will be adjusted by some factors that I don't really understand and then by minus 1% of the change in the percentage of individuals who are uninsured.
The Secretary will come up with a process for continually re-evaluating Codes under the Physician Fee Schedule to make sure they're not "misvalued". Part of the process includes repealing Section 4505(d) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which states:
"(d) Requirements for Developing New Resource-Based Practice Expense Relative Value Units.-- (1) Development.--For purposes of section 1848(c)(2)(C)(ii) of the Social Security Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall develop new resource-based relative value units. In developing such units the Secretary shall-- (A) utilize, to the maximum extent practicable, generally accepted cost accounting principles which (i) recognize all staff, equipment, supplies, and expenses, not just those which can be tied to specific procedures, and (ii) use actual data on equipment utilization and other key assumptions; (B) consult with organizations representing physicians regarding methodology and data to be used; and (C) develop a refinement process to be used during each of the 4 years of the transition period"
Monday, March 29, 2010
Senate Health Insurance Reform Bill Part 2
This post is a continuation of this post, breaking down what is in the new Health Insurance law.
States will no longer be allowed to require that individuals that becoming eligible for or remaining eligible for State medical assistance apply for enrollment employer-sponsored coverage (pages 422-423). In other words, an individual may be able to get coverage through their employer at the same cost to them as through the government, but we cannot even check to see if that is possible. But I do understand this section, in that, States are REQUIRED to automatically enroll individuals in government programs if they are found eligible for them.
Medicaid will be extended to former foster children until the age of 25 (pages 424-425).
The Federal government will increase payments to the States for CHIP by 23%, but the States cannot have eligibility standards are are more restrictive than the Federal government's standards (pages 432-434). Nowhere does it say that a States does not have to take this increase and, thus, CAN set eligibility standards more restrictive than the Federal government's. The income standards for CHIP will be set according to modified gross income - not net income (page 436).
Currently there is a sunset for reimbursement of Medicare part B services furnished by certain Indian Hospitals & Clinics. Because I do not have the Social Security Act in front of me, I do not know when these payments are suppose to end. But, now this sunset has been removed and they will forever receive these payments (page 560). Just another example of how sunsets almost never come to pass. Also, I see nothing in here about how much this will cost, thus was not figured in the CBO estimate.
Each States is required to conduct a statewide needs assessment within the next 6 months that identifies high risk communities (premature births, poverty, crime, substance abuse, etc), the quality & capacity of existing programs for early childhood home visitations in the State and the State's capacity for providing substance abuse treatment and counseling services (pages 561-563). If the state does not conduct this assessment and report to the Federal government, they will not receive their fair share of the money that the citizens of that State have paid in tax dollars to the Federal government.
This is exactly why the Federal government should not be redistributing our tax dollars. Stop taking our tax dollars and only giving them back to us, if you deem us worthy.Who's suppose to have the power in this country, the Fed's or the People? And the point of these assessments? So the Federal government can have more control over the States via grants to States for Early Childhood Home Visitation Programs. A State can refuse the grants, but, then the Federal government just implements a Early Childhood Home Visitation program through a non-profit organization (page 582). What in the Constitution gives the Federal government authority to do any of this? Why do we continue to allow the Federal government to take our money? Why do we continue to allow the Federal government have so much control over the way our States deal with State issues?
Everyone is eligible to receive these Early Childhood Home Visitations, but priority will be given to the poor (another redistribution of wealth social program). It doesn't say what these Early Childhood Home Visitations consist of, but it will all boil down to the government telling you what you should and should not do as a parent. Do we really want to give the government the power to enter our homes and tell us how to parent? Sure, you won't be required to participate in these visitation services, right now. But States will be required to improve according to their assessment, eventually leading to mandatory visitations. I have so much more I could say, but on with what more is in the bill.......
The government will now be conducting research & development on postpartum depression (pages 588-589). Again, what give the Federal government the authority to do such a thing? Who does better R & D, then those that have a stake in the cure (like making a profit by creating an effective cure)?
The Director of the National Institute of Mental Health will conduct research on the consequences for women of resolving a pregnancy and will again be providing grants to States to provide services to individuals with a postpartum condition (pages 590-591). Then there's a section that states "The Secretary shall conduct a study on the benefits of screening for postpartum conditions" (page 596). So, what kind of system will be implemented by the government to screen us for postpartum conditions?
The bill goes on into more allotment's & grant's that contain more Federal requirements and reporting on Personal Responsibility Education Programs (pages 596-602). A Personal Responsibility Education Programs are designed to educate adolescents on sex ed and "Adulthood Preparation Subjects (pages 602-604). Adulthood Preparation Subjects are relationships, self-esteem, friendships, dating, romantic involvement, marriage, healthy attitudes & values about adolescent development, body image, racial & ethnic diversity, parent-child communication, developing skills for employment, independent living, work-place productivity, goal-setting, decision making, interpersonal skills, stress management, etc (pages 604-605). These things are the parents responsibility to teach, NOT the government's. What horrible subjects to give our Federal government the power to teach our children! Parents should be outraged.
Of the funds set aside for the above allotment's & grant's - 5% are required to go to grants for Indian Tribes or Tribal Organizations (page 606). So much for all races be equal.
Pages 613 to 642 devoted to a Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program, but I don't really understand it, so I cannot tell you what it means. Well, except that on page 631 states "The Secretary shall promulgate regulations to carry out the Program". Another section devoted to enacting more government regulations.
Doctor's payment's will be reduced if they do not satisfactorily submit data on quality measures (page 645-646). How many more doctor's will those on government run health care loose due to further government regulations?
I do not understand the next number of pages, but I see that the government will be making public reports on doctors, hospitals, care providers, etc available to the public. You could say that this isn't such a bad thing, except it gives too much power to the government (do what we say or we'll post a negative report).
Section 3012 (a) says "The President shall convene a working group to be known as the Interagency Working Group on Health Care Quality" (page 688). I don't understand why the PRESIDENT is convening a working group. Why are we giving the President this power? I'm suspicious. This group will consist of senior level representatives from a number of government agencies, departments, etc including the Federal Trade Commission, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Department of Labor and any other agencies & departments as determined by the President (page 690).
Pages 692 through 706 address the expansion Medicaid Quality Measurement Program and providing grants for this program. I don't really know what this program is, except that the services must be provided free of charge.
States will no longer be allowed to require that individuals that becoming eligible for or remaining eligible for State medical assistance apply for enrollment employer-sponsored coverage (pages 422-423). In other words, an individual may be able to get coverage through their employer at the same cost to them as through the government, but we cannot even check to see if that is possible. But I do understand this section, in that, States are REQUIRED to automatically enroll individuals in government programs if they are found eligible for them.
Medicaid will be extended to former foster children until the age of 25 (pages 424-425).
The Federal government will increase payments to the States for CHIP by 23%, but the States cannot have eligibility standards are are more restrictive than the Federal government's standards (pages 432-434). Nowhere does it say that a States does not have to take this increase and, thus, CAN set eligibility standards more restrictive than the Federal government's. The income standards for CHIP will be set according to modified gross income - not net income (page 436).
Currently there is a sunset for reimbursement of Medicare part B services furnished by certain Indian Hospitals & Clinics. Because I do not have the Social Security Act in front of me, I do not know when these payments are suppose to end. But, now this sunset has been removed and they will forever receive these payments (page 560). Just another example of how sunsets almost never come to pass. Also, I see nothing in here about how much this will cost, thus was not figured in the CBO estimate.
Each States is required to conduct a statewide needs assessment within the next 6 months that identifies high risk communities (premature births, poverty, crime, substance abuse, etc), the quality & capacity of existing programs for early childhood home visitations in the State and the State's capacity for providing substance abuse treatment and counseling services (pages 561-563). If the state does not conduct this assessment and report to the Federal government, they will not receive their fair share of the money that the citizens of that State have paid in tax dollars to the Federal government.
This is exactly why the Federal government should not be redistributing our tax dollars. Stop taking our tax dollars and only giving them back to us, if you deem us worthy.Who's suppose to have the power in this country, the Fed's or the People? And the point of these assessments? So the Federal government can have more control over the States via grants to States for Early Childhood Home Visitation Programs. A State can refuse the grants, but, then the Federal government just implements a Early Childhood Home Visitation program through a non-profit organization (page 582). What in the Constitution gives the Federal government authority to do any of this? Why do we continue to allow the Federal government to take our money? Why do we continue to allow the Federal government have so much control over the way our States deal with State issues?
Everyone is eligible to receive these Early Childhood Home Visitations, but priority will be given to the poor (another redistribution of wealth social program). It doesn't say what these Early Childhood Home Visitations consist of, but it will all boil down to the government telling you what you should and should not do as a parent. Do we really want to give the government the power to enter our homes and tell us how to parent? Sure, you won't be required to participate in these visitation services, right now. But States will be required to improve according to their assessment, eventually leading to mandatory visitations. I have so much more I could say, but on with what more is in the bill.......
The government will now be conducting research & development on postpartum depression (pages 588-589). Again, what give the Federal government the authority to do such a thing? Who does better R & D, then those that have a stake in the cure (like making a profit by creating an effective cure)?
The Director of the National Institute of Mental Health will conduct research on the consequences for women of resolving a pregnancy and will again be providing grants to States to provide services to individuals with a postpartum condition (pages 590-591). Then there's a section that states "The Secretary shall conduct a study on the benefits of screening for postpartum conditions" (page 596). So, what kind of system will be implemented by the government to screen us for postpartum conditions?
The bill goes on into more allotment's & grant's that contain more Federal requirements and reporting on Personal Responsibility Education Programs (pages 596-602). A Personal Responsibility Education Programs are designed to educate adolescents on sex ed and "Adulthood Preparation Subjects (pages 602-604). Adulthood Preparation Subjects are relationships, self-esteem, friendships, dating, romantic involvement, marriage, healthy attitudes & values about adolescent development, body image, racial & ethnic diversity, parent-child communication, developing skills for employment, independent living, work-place productivity, goal-setting, decision making, interpersonal skills, stress management, etc (pages 604-605). These things are the parents responsibility to teach, NOT the government's. What horrible subjects to give our Federal government the power to teach our children! Parents should be outraged.
Of the funds set aside for the above allotment's & grant's - 5% are required to go to grants for Indian Tribes or Tribal Organizations (page 606). So much for all races be equal.
Pages 613 to 642 devoted to a Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program, but I don't really understand it, so I cannot tell you what it means. Well, except that on page 631 states "The Secretary shall promulgate regulations to carry out the Program". Another section devoted to enacting more government regulations.
Doctor's payment's will be reduced if they do not satisfactorily submit data on quality measures (page 645-646). How many more doctor's will those on government run health care loose due to further government regulations?
I do not understand the next number of pages, but I see that the government will be making public reports on doctors, hospitals, care providers, etc available to the public. You could say that this isn't such a bad thing, except it gives too much power to the government (do what we say or we'll post a negative report).
Section 3012 (a) says "The President shall convene a working group to be known as the Interagency Working Group on Health Care Quality" (page 688). I don't understand why the PRESIDENT is convening a working group. Why are we giving the President this power? I'm suspicious. This group will consist of senior level representatives from a number of government agencies, departments, etc including the Federal Trade Commission, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Department of Labor and any other agencies & departments as determined by the President (page 690).
Pages 692 through 706 address the expansion Medicaid Quality Measurement Program and providing grants for this program. I don't really know what this program is, except that the services must be provided free of charge.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Senate Health Insurance Reform Bill
I had read the Senate health insurance reform bill a while ago, but, after having also read the house bill, could not remember what was in each bill. Reading it again seems like the prudent thing to do. I will be posting here, what I learn from the bill, both as a way to let others know just what is in the bill and as a way for me to keep track of it all.
First the government details out what must be covered (pages 104-126) and who pays what part of the individuals out-of-pocket expenses (pages 20-21). Both the state and federal governments are required to go through our tax returns & exchange information to see if any of us qualify for any state or federal program (medicare, medicaid, CHIP, etc), they are required to enroll you in that program (or report your name & SSN to the federal government, so thy can enroll you in their program). I don't know how anyone could possibly say this is not a government take over our health care system.
From pages 29-30 of the bill:
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The plan sponsor of a group health plan (other than a self-insured plan) may not establish rules relating to the health insurance coverage eligibility (including continued eligibility) of any full-time employee under the terms of the plan that are based on the total hourly or annual salary of the employee or otherwise establish eligibility rules that have the effect of discriminating in favor of higher wage employees.
(b) LIMITATION.—Subsection (a) shall not be construed to prohibit a plan sponsor from establishing contribution requirements for enrollment in the plan or coverage that provide for the payment by employees with lower hourly or annual compensation of a lower dollar or percentage contribution than the payment required of similarly situated employees with a higher hourly or annual compensation."
So, employers CAN discriminate against employees in favor of lower wage employees. In fact, as you'll see below, they are encouraged to discriminate against higher paid employees.
Through 2013 insurance companies will be required to report how much they take in in premiums and how much they pay out in benefits. Anything over the government's standards must be paid back to the participants (pages 34-35). I think a lot of people would not have a problem with this - you know those evil insurance companies have been stealing all our money from us. Well, we could debate on that all day, but for right now I'll just say....if the government can do this to insurance companies, why can't they do it to food service companies, construction companies, computer programmers, etc? Where does their power end? I'm not sure why this stops in 2013.
The government will set the standards on how insurance companies do their paperwork and electronic standards for paying service providers (pages 61-79). This will be very expensive for small insurance companies and must be completed by April 1, 2014.
Insurance companies must charge the same premiums to everyone unless you're a tobacco user and based on age, but only by the amount the government allows and age brackets they set (page 81-83). Meaning that everyone's premiums will have to go up in order for the insurance company to stay in business.
Insurance companies cannot turn down anyone for coverage and cannot stop coverage for any reason (page 85-87). Again, many would say this is great, but if a company MUST take on new clients even if they cannot provide them with services, they cannot stay in business.
Employer's are required to have wellness programs for their employees and must report to the government if they provide rewards in the program (page 87-93). It is not an employer's responsibility to make sure you take care of yourself - and this is just another "tax" on employer's that will stifle the job market. If I were an employer, I would do everything possible to not have to report things to the government for a number of reasons (resources it takes to file such paperwork, hassle of being audited, having to adhere to the government's ever changing and confusing regulations, etc). Thus, I would not want to give rewards for the program. If there are no rewards for participating in the program, why would employee's participate? Some would, but most wouldn't. If they wanted to take care of their health, wouldn't they be doing that already? So, if few are participating in the program, what's the benefit?
The government will also set up a wellness program that will be run by the Treasury & Labor Dept Secretaries (page 93). What does the Labor Dept have to do with our health?
The States must set up Insurance Exchanges for purchasing insurance policies, which will be paid for with our federal & state tax dollars (page 130-144). I don't understand why we need to spend money setting up/maintaining exchanges? We don't need exchanges in shopping for auto insurance - that's what the internet is for.
Insurance companies can only do business with health care providers that "utilize a patient safety evaluation system, implement a discharge program for discharge and implement such mechanisms as the Secretary may by regulation require" (page 150). Yep, more government involvement in our health care and those regulations are yet to be determined.
The government will give grants to organizations (including unions, specifically) that inform people about what health plans are available, tax credits, etc (page 152). Can you say, asking for corruption and abuse?
The government will provide loans & grants to States to set up a "community health insurance option", more commonly known as a public option (pages 169-183) and MUST have this public option plan available in the exchange unless the State passes a law prohibiting them. If anyone is in this plan and receives a federal tax credit or cost sharing reduction and the State has a stricter benefits mandate than the federal standards of coverage, the State is required to defray the cost of those benefits. This goes back to the original argument against the "public option". It will put insurance companies out of business and we will all HAVE to go on the public option plan.
There will be a new social program for providing health coverage to those are considered low income, but not low enough to enroll in the current government health coverage program (pages 201-219). Because our current social programs are working so well.
States can decide to let insurance companies from other states into their exchanges - if they make an agreement with that state to do so AND the federal government approves of it (page 221). Again, why do we need more government bureaucracy to purchase insurance across state lines? Oh, and they CANNOT be in effect until 2016.
Tax Credits and Cost-Sharing Reductions will be available for those who's income is 100% to 400% of the poverty line and their income is based on their adjusted gross income (pages 244-262). Here is the poverty guidelines for 2009 (I could not find any for 2010). As you can see, a single individual making over $43,000 a year will be eligible for Federal aid.
Indians that are at or below 300% of the poverty line will have 100% of their cost-sharing expenses paid for by the US taxpayers (page 263).
Large employers (those with more than 50 full time employees) that have waiting periods exceeding 30 days, but less than 60 days, will pay a fine of $400 for each full time employee to whom the extended waiting period applies. For waiting periods exceeding 60 days, the fine is $600 (pages 345-346).
Large employers that offer an employer sponsored plan and have at least one full time employee that is allowed or receives a premium tax credit or cost sharing reduction will pay a fine of $250.00 per full time employee (not per employee that is allowed or receives a tax credit/cost sharing reduction, EVERY employee - minimum of $12,500) per month (pages 346-353). This amount will increase every year starting in 2015 (adding inflation, I believe). It looks like the point here is to raise wages, which we all know hurts business and only promotes moving jobs & product production over seas. So, the government is using private business to redistribute the wealth. In many situations, it will be more logical to raise someone's wages, rather than pay the government's tax. Raise the wages of someone that hasn't been with company as long as you, someone that doesn't do their job as well as you do, but they have more children than you do, so they have the right to make more than you. Because, as detailed above, tax credits & cost sharing reductions are based on your gross adjusted income - NOT your net income.
In year 2017, the states will be required to pay at least 30.3%* (see note below) of Medicaid for newly eligible individuals. At least 31.3% in 2018. And in January 2019 there will be an increase of 32.3% with a 1% increase every quarter there-after (pages 395-398). But don't worry - it can never go above 95%. They have to make sure they have SOME control over the states.
*NOTE: States that do not pay for health coverage of those at or below the poverty line will be required to pay 34.3% in 2017 and 33.3% in 2018. The 1% & 32.3% increases still apply.
I'm only on page 422, so there is lots more to go through. Will post more as I get through it.
First the government details out what must be covered (pages 104-126) and who pays what part of the individuals out-of-pocket expenses (pages 20-21). Both the state and federal governments are required to go through our tax returns & exchange information to see if any of us qualify for any state or federal program (medicare, medicaid, CHIP, etc), they are required to enroll you in that program (or report your name & SSN to the federal government, so thy can enroll you in their program). I don't know how anyone could possibly say this is not a government take over our health care system.
From pages 29-30 of the bill:
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The plan sponsor of a group health plan (other than a self-insured plan) may not establish rules relating to the health insurance coverage eligibility (including continued eligibility) of any full-time employee under the terms of the plan that are based on the total hourly or annual salary of the employee or otherwise establish eligibility rules that have the effect of discriminating in favor of higher wage employees.
(b) LIMITATION.—Subsection (a) shall not be construed to prohibit a plan sponsor from establishing contribution requirements for enrollment in the plan or coverage that provide for the payment by employees with lower hourly or annual compensation of a lower dollar or percentage contribution than the payment required of similarly situated employees with a higher hourly or annual compensation."
So, employers CAN discriminate against employees in favor of lower wage employees. In fact, as you'll see below, they are encouraged to discriminate against higher paid employees.
Through 2013 insurance companies will be required to report how much they take in in premiums and how much they pay out in benefits. Anything over the government's standards must be paid back to the participants (pages 34-35). I think a lot of people would not have a problem with this - you know those evil insurance companies have been stealing all our money from us. Well, we could debate on that all day, but for right now I'll just say....if the government can do this to insurance companies, why can't they do it to food service companies, construction companies, computer programmers, etc? Where does their power end? I'm not sure why this stops in 2013.
The government will set the standards on how insurance companies do their paperwork and electronic standards for paying service providers (pages 61-79). This will be very expensive for small insurance companies and must be completed by April 1, 2014.
Insurance companies must charge the same premiums to everyone unless you're a tobacco user and based on age, but only by the amount the government allows and age brackets they set (page 81-83). Meaning that everyone's premiums will have to go up in order for the insurance company to stay in business.
Insurance companies cannot turn down anyone for coverage and cannot stop coverage for any reason (page 85-87). Again, many would say this is great, but if a company MUST take on new clients even if they cannot provide them with services, they cannot stay in business.
Employer's are required to have wellness programs for their employees and must report to the government if they provide rewards in the program (page 87-93). It is not an employer's responsibility to make sure you take care of yourself - and this is just another "tax" on employer's that will stifle the job market. If I were an employer, I would do everything possible to not have to report things to the government for a number of reasons (resources it takes to file such paperwork, hassle of being audited, having to adhere to the government's ever changing and confusing regulations, etc). Thus, I would not want to give rewards for the program. If there are no rewards for participating in the program, why would employee's participate? Some would, but most wouldn't. If they wanted to take care of their health, wouldn't they be doing that already? So, if few are participating in the program, what's the benefit?
The government will also set up a wellness program that will be run by the Treasury & Labor Dept Secretaries (page 93). What does the Labor Dept have to do with our health?
The States must set up Insurance Exchanges for purchasing insurance policies, which will be paid for with our federal & state tax dollars (page 130-144). I don't understand why we need to spend money setting up/maintaining exchanges? We don't need exchanges in shopping for auto insurance - that's what the internet is for.
Insurance companies can only do business with health care providers that "utilize a patient safety evaluation system, implement a discharge program for discharge and implement such mechanisms as the Secretary may by regulation require" (page 150). Yep, more government involvement in our health care and those regulations are yet to be determined.
The government will give grants to organizations (including unions, specifically) that inform people about what health plans are available, tax credits, etc (page 152). Can you say, asking for corruption and abuse?
The government will provide loans & grants to States to set up a "community health insurance option", more commonly known as a public option (pages 169-183) and MUST have this public option plan available in the exchange unless the State passes a law prohibiting them. If anyone is in this plan and receives a federal tax credit or cost sharing reduction and the State has a stricter benefits mandate than the federal standards of coverage, the State is required to defray the cost of those benefits. This goes back to the original argument against the "public option". It will put insurance companies out of business and we will all HAVE to go on the public option plan.
There will be a new social program for providing health coverage to those are considered low income, but not low enough to enroll in the current government health coverage program (pages 201-219). Because our current social programs are working so well.
States can decide to let insurance companies from other states into their exchanges - if they make an agreement with that state to do so AND the federal government approves of it (page 221). Again, why do we need more government bureaucracy to purchase insurance across state lines? Oh, and they CANNOT be in effect until 2016.
Tax Credits and Cost-Sharing Reductions will be available for those who's income is 100% to 400% of the poverty line and their income is based on their adjusted gross income (pages 244-262). Here is the poverty guidelines for 2009 (I could not find any for 2010). As you can see, a single individual making over $43,000 a year will be eligible for Federal aid.
| Persons in family | Poverty guideline |
|---|---|
| 1 | $10,830 |
| 2 | 14,570 |
| 3 | 18,310 |
| 4 | 22,050 |
| 5 | 25,790 |
| 6 | 29,530 |
| 7 | 33,270 |
| 8 | 37,010 |
| For families with more than 8 persons, add $3,740 for each additional person. | |
Indians that are at or below 300% of the poverty line will have 100% of their cost-sharing expenses paid for by the US taxpayers (page 263).
Large employers (those with more than 50 full time employees) that have waiting periods exceeding 30 days, but less than 60 days, will pay a fine of $400 for each full time employee to whom the extended waiting period applies. For waiting periods exceeding 60 days, the fine is $600 (pages 345-346).
Large employers that offer an employer sponsored plan and have at least one full time employee that is allowed or receives a premium tax credit or cost sharing reduction will pay a fine of $250.00 per full time employee (not per employee that is allowed or receives a tax credit/cost sharing reduction, EVERY employee - minimum of $12,500) per month (pages 346-353). This amount will increase every year starting in 2015 (adding inflation, I believe). It looks like the point here is to raise wages, which we all know hurts business and only promotes moving jobs & product production over seas. So, the government is using private business to redistribute the wealth. In many situations, it will be more logical to raise someone's wages, rather than pay the government's tax. Raise the wages of someone that hasn't been with company as long as you, someone that doesn't do their job as well as you do, but they have more children than you do, so they have the right to make more than you. Because, as detailed above, tax credits & cost sharing reductions are based on your gross adjusted income - NOT your net income.
In year 2017, the states will be required to pay at least 30.3%* (see note below) of Medicaid for newly eligible individuals. At least 31.3% in 2018. And in January 2019 there will be an increase of 32.3% with a 1% increase every quarter there-after (pages 395-398). But don't worry - it can never go above 95%. They have to make sure they have SOME control over the states.
*NOTE: States that do not pay for health coverage of those at or below the poverty line will be required to pay 34.3% in 2017 and 33.3% in 2018. The 1% & 32.3% increases still apply.
I'm only on page 422, so there is lots more to go through. Will post more as I get through it.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Today's Views
Today I want to just get some things out there that have really been bothering me about the things that are currently going on in our country.
First, I would like to address Scott Brown's win in MA. I have to admit, I cried a little the night he was elected. Not because I was so excited that Brown, the man, won, but because Brown, the movement, won. The majority took a step in the right direction by not letting the other 20% of the country control our freedom. I do not know if I would have voted for Brown, because I do not feel he is a conservative and just didn't trust someone who seemed to use the Tea Party movement to get elected. But, in a state like MA, maybe he's the most conservative you can get. I'm glad I didn't have to make that choice.
Now I see that he is turning out to be just what I thought he was - used the Tea Party to get into power and then threw them to the side. It will be interesting to see how he votes once he's in office, but I am pretty ticked at him for disregarding the Tea Party's involvement in his win. Note: I am not disappointed in him, as I expected it. I am ticked because I think that his words make the Tea Party members tentative about supporting other supposedly conservative candidates.
I know, I know, he was running on the GOP ticket. Right now we have a two party system, so that is the system that the Tea Party is working in. I hope that will change soon - I'm hoping with Patrick Hughes in Illinois. It would just be awesome to vote in a real conservative that is not part of either of the major parties. I urge you, conservatives, to vote for the person you believe in, not the lesser of two evils. The conservative may not win that election because the vote is split, but if that is what continues to happen, eventually one of the two parties are going to wake up and the conservatives will start winning the primaries. Yes, it will be a long, hard road, but it MUST be done. We cannot continue to allow the two party system to steal our freedoms from us.
Secondly, I'd like to address President Obama's budget proposal and State of the Union Address. I don't understand why we continue to let our politicians get away with the accounting tactics they use. The budget allows for revenue from a health care tax and a cap and trade tax. Neither of which are law. What are the real numbers based on our actual laws?
Then he states that he will impliment a spending freeze. What he did not tell us is that it's only on about 17% of our Federal Budget and it's not like they are not going to spend the money, they're just not going to spend more than they have allocated for a few programs. Why aren't they doing that ALL the time? And he basically stated that he wants to cut spending on those programs he is against, but raise spending on those programs that he is for. So, we can look forward to raising taxes (because he's against the people having control of their own money) and more government programs (because he's for the government having power over you through taxation).
It's pretty obvious that they are not just going to stop spending our money, so we need to stop them. They won't listen to us, that's pretty obvious by the health care votes, but there are many actions we can take to control their spending of our money. We can replace them with those that have the same values we do. We can get the word out to everyone we know about what is really going on in Washington and how they are spending our money. We can bring our concerns to the public via protests, discussions, advertisements, etc. We can be sure to keep up on all that they are doing in Washington and contacting our representatives on each and every vote that comes up. Let them know that you are keeping an eye on them. Lastly, we can stop paying taxes. We will go to jail, but once we have, we can sue the government for requiring us to pay unconstitutional taxes.
Then he stated that Congress did not pass the law that he wanted to form a committee. So, he issued an executive order. Not only does it just validate the opinion that he thinks he's a dictator and we will do what he wants - he insists on it. But, it's just another waste of our tax dollars. The committee has no legal authority, thus they will be paid to sit there and come up with ideas that no one (well, except Obama himself) will listen to. More job creation by creating more government jobs. This is the only way that he knows how to create a job - creating them in the private sector requires relinquishing power. Not something Obama is capable of.
Third, I would like to talk about health insurance reform. I think that the administration is not talking about it much because they don't want us to know what is going on. Then they will sneak it through in the middle of the night again. Do not trust them. Keep pressing for REAL health insurance reform - tort reform, stop giving tax incentives to employers for providing health insurance, allow the purchasing of health insurance across state lines, etc.
Forth, I would like to address the bank bailouts and adding a tax to the 50 largest banks (excluding Fannie, Freddie & GM). Some of those banks did not take any bailout money, so why do they have to pay it back. Of those that did take bailout money, much of that money has been paid back with interest (not from Fannie, Freddie & GM, though). So, when he says "we want our money back", what money? If it's already been paid back plus interest, what money are we suppose to be getting "back"? But, let's say that it hadn't been paid back........if we had to give them the money because the bank would collapse with out it - how can it be good to then require them to pay even more money? It doesn't make any sense?! Then there's the fact that the government made a deal with this banks. We'll give you this amount of money at this interest rate. Now they want forcefully change their agreement with these banks. How can we trust the government, if they are changing the rules on us? When does it stop? Are they going to add another tax next year and a fee the year after that? How long are the banks stuck under the federal government's thumb? Now they are talking about using some of the TARP money, which is suppose to go back to the tax payers not back to the government, to bailout smaller banks (can't use the excuse of too big to fail here). If I were those banks, I would bring in CSPAN to air the discussions and then refuse any money the government wants to loan due to the fact that I cannot trust that they will not just change the agreement after I have accepted the money.
This same principle applies to the small businesses that he wants to "help". Be very wary of his proposals. Very wary.
And finally, I want to address the general idea that conservatives need to compromise all the time. We have been compromising and compromising. Giving away our freedoms one inch at a time (sometimes feet at a time from things like Social Security). Why? Why doesn't the left have to compromise, but the right does. And when does it stop? If you want to live in a nanny state - move to one, but don't think you can nudge this great country into one. We will not stand for it any more. I want my freedom back!
First, I would like to address Scott Brown's win in MA. I have to admit, I cried a little the night he was elected. Not because I was so excited that Brown, the man, won, but because Brown, the movement, won. The majority took a step in the right direction by not letting the other 20% of the country control our freedom. I do not know if I would have voted for Brown, because I do not feel he is a conservative and just didn't trust someone who seemed to use the Tea Party movement to get elected. But, in a state like MA, maybe he's the most conservative you can get. I'm glad I didn't have to make that choice.
Now I see that he is turning out to be just what I thought he was - used the Tea Party to get into power and then threw them to the side. It will be interesting to see how he votes once he's in office, but I am pretty ticked at him for disregarding the Tea Party's involvement in his win. Note: I am not disappointed in him, as I expected it. I am ticked because I think that his words make the Tea Party members tentative about supporting other supposedly conservative candidates.
I know, I know, he was running on the GOP ticket. Right now we have a two party system, so that is the system that the Tea Party is working in. I hope that will change soon - I'm hoping with Patrick Hughes in Illinois. It would just be awesome to vote in a real conservative that is not part of either of the major parties. I urge you, conservatives, to vote for the person you believe in, not the lesser of two evils. The conservative may not win that election because the vote is split, but if that is what continues to happen, eventually one of the two parties are going to wake up and the conservatives will start winning the primaries. Yes, it will be a long, hard road, but it MUST be done. We cannot continue to allow the two party system to steal our freedoms from us.
Secondly, I'd like to address President Obama's budget proposal and State of the Union Address. I don't understand why we continue to let our politicians get away with the accounting tactics they use. The budget allows for revenue from a health care tax and a cap and trade tax. Neither of which are law. What are the real numbers based on our actual laws?
Then he states that he will impliment a spending freeze. What he did not tell us is that it's only on about 17% of our Federal Budget and it's not like they are not going to spend the money, they're just not going to spend more than they have allocated for a few programs. Why aren't they doing that ALL the time? And he basically stated that he wants to cut spending on those programs he is against, but raise spending on those programs that he is for. So, we can look forward to raising taxes (because he's against the people having control of their own money) and more government programs (because he's for the government having power over you through taxation).
It's pretty obvious that they are not just going to stop spending our money, so we need to stop them. They won't listen to us, that's pretty obvious by the health care votes, but there are many actions we can take to control their spending of our money. We can replace them with those that have the same values we do. We can get the word out to everyone we know about what is really going on in Washington and how they are spending our money. We can bring our concerns to the public via protests, discussions, advertisements, etc. We can be sure to keep up on all that they are doing in Washington and contacting our representatives on each and every vote that comes up. Let them know that you are keeping an eye on them. Lastly, we can stop paying taxes. We will go to jail, but once we have, we can sue the government for requiring us to pay unconstitutional taxes.
Then he stated that Congress did not pass the law that he wanted to form a committee. So, he issued an executive order. Not only does it just validate the opinion that he thinks he's a dictator and we will do what he wants - he insists on it. But, it's just another waste of our tax dollars. The committee has no legal authority, thus they will be paid to sit there and come up with ideas that no one (well, except Obama himself) will listen to. More job creation by creating more government jobs. This is the only way that he knows how to create a job - creating them in the private sector requires relinquishing power. Not something Obama is capable of.
Third, I would like to talk about health insurance reform. I think that the administration is not talking about it much because they don't want us to know what is going on. Then they will sneak it through in the middle of the night again. Do not trust them. Keep pressing for REAL health insurance reform - tort reform, stop giving tax incentives to employers for providing health insurance, allow the purchasing of health insurance across state lines, etc.
Forth, I would like to address the bank bailouts and adding a tax to the 50 largest banks (excluding Fannie, Freddie & GM). Some of those banks did not take any bailout money, so why do they have to pay it back. Of those that did take bailout money, much of that money has been paid back with interest (not from Fannie, Freddie & GM, though). So, when he says "we want our money back", what money? If it's already been paid back plus interest, what money are we suppose to be getting "back"? But, let's say that it hadn't been paid back........if we had to give them the money because the bank would collapse with out it - how can it be good to then require them to pay even more money? It doesn't make any sense?! Then there's the fact that the government made a deal with this banks. We'll give you this amount of money at this interest rate. Now they want forcefully change their agreement with these banks. How can we trust the government, if they are changing the rules on us? When does it stop? Are they going to add another tax next year and a fee the year after that? How long are the banks stuck under the federal government's thumb? Now they are talking about using some of the TARP money, which is suppose to go back to the tax payers not back to the government, to bailout smaller banks (can't use the excuse of too big to fail here). If I were those banks, I would bring in CSPAN to air the discussions and then refuse any money the government wants to loan due to the fact that I cannot trust that they will not just change the agreement after I have accepted the money.
This same principle applies to the small businesses that he wants to "help". Be very wary of his proposals. Very wary.
And finally, I want to address the general idea that conservatives need to compromise all the time. We have been compromising and compromising. Giving away our freedoms one inch at a time (sometimes feet at a time from things like Social Security). Why? Why doesn't the left have to compromise, but the right does. And when does it stop? If you want to live in a nanny state - move to one, but don't think you can nudge this great country into one. We will not stand for it any more. I want my freedom back!
Monday, August 24, 2009
Facts About the Facts on Health Care Reform
Below is my response to the facts about the facts on health care reform from the White House.
The items in blue are taken directly from the white house website.
Lie #1: "We Can Afford Reform, We Can’t Afford the Status Quo
Jared Bernstein, Chief Economist for the Vice President and Executive Director of the Middle Class Task Force, debunks the myth that we can’t afford health insurance reform. To the contrary, not only has the President demanded that reform not add to the deficit in the short term, but reform is the only way to get skyrocketing health care costs under control that will be devastating not for families , businesses, and for government deficits in the long term under the status quo."
The "status quo" is not what we are promoting. We are promoting freedom. The government has NO RIGHT to force us to have health insurance and they sure do not have the right to set up their a health insurance system. In the past, we have allowed the federal government to take away our freedoms in exchange for "security" and it has been proven that we give them an inch of our freedoms and they want more. Over and over again they have done it. Inch by inch they are stealing our freedoms. It's time for us to start taking back our freedoms.
We want the government to de-regulate and remove the government regulation that prevents us from accessing the thousands of health insurance companies outside of our states. Think of the competition there would be, if you just open the market! It seems like such a "duh" thing to do, why is no one considering it in Washington?
And as far as "not only has the President demanded that reform not add to the deficit in the short term"....so if the furniture company says to me that they will not charge my credit card for the furniture I purchased for a whole year, does that mean I'm not in debt? What a ludicrous statement.
Lie #2: "Congress did not vote to exempt themselves from reform
Linda Douglass of the White House Office of Health Reform answers a question from outside the recent town hall in New Hampshire on why Congress voted to exempt themselves from reform. This is a myth: there is no exemption and there has not been any such vote. To the contrary, reform gives all Americans access to an insurance exchange much like the one Congress has enjoyed, and just like Congress, Americans will be free to make their own choices."
Well, partial lie. It's true that Congress did not vote to exempt themselves from reform, because Congress has not voted on the bill, yet. But stating that we will receive the same access to insurance options as Congress is a lie. Congress has access to so many plans that they get to choose from from all across the country. We will only have access to the same plans we have access to now - those that are in our state. If the government would lift it's restrictions and let me buy insurance from ANY company in ANY state, that would really encourage competition and actually give us the same access Congress has to health insurance plans.
Lie #3 "Reform will expand your choices, not limit them
Linda Douglass of the White House Office of Health Reform answers a question from outside the recent town hall in New Hampshire on whether any government involvement in health care will end up limiting choices for consumers. This is a myth: even the addition of a public option will be just that – another option –and will not eliminate any choices to the consumer. To the contrary, this would bring down costs and expand choice."
While it is true that adding the public option as a plan, does expand our choices (by one). Again, if they really want to give us choices, they wold allow us to purchase insurance from outside of our state. But the way this bill has been written, they ARE limiting our choices because they have included language in it that limits the plans that can be offered. The basic plan, of which the government mandates what is covered. The enhanced plan, which is the basic plan with a lower level of cost-sharing. The premium plan, which is the enhanced plan with an even lower level of cost-sharing. Then there's the premium plus plan, which is the premium plan that also provides additional benefits, such as adult oral health and vision care, approved by the Commissioner. Really, it will only be the wealthy, that can purchase any kind of coverage beyond the basic plan - thus most of us will all be on the same plan - how is this expanding choices? And even the rich will have to have the services covered by their premium-plan approved by the government. (Note: this is where rationing has the potential for coming into play.)
Lie #4: "There is no panel to decide end-of-life care
Linda Douglass of the White House Office of Health Reform answers a question from outside the recent town hall in New Hampshire on why reform will empower a panel to decide end-of-life care for Americans. This is a myth that has unfortunately been spread far and wide by defenders of the status quo. There is no such panel in any of the bills being considered in Congress, period. To the contrary, the House bill gives Americans and their families more choice and access to counseling and information on these most difficult decisions if, and only if, they choose to pursue it."
This is a half lie. The bill does empower a panel to decide end of life care (as the panel will decide all health care decisions), but there is not specifically an end of life panel. Though, when those usually talking about end of life, they are talking about the section that talks about the government paying doctors to discuss end of life issues with their patients. This section does not include a panel, but says this "Secretary shall include quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization".
Lie #5: "No bill puts off care for the disabled for "further study"
Linda Douglass of the White House Office of Health Reform answers a question from outside the recent town hall in New Hampshire on why a specific section of the House legislation (“section 1177”) puts off care for the disable pending "further study." This is a myth: for the disabled or their families, they can keep whatever care and coverage they currently have, but they will have additional options through Medicare for other voluntary programs. To the contrary, reform will make insurance more affordable, provide more options, and eliminate discrimination in purchasing health insurance so families won't be turned down if a parent or child has a pre-existing disability or other health condition."
To be honest, I cannot understand section 1177 as it only refers to other bills. Though, the reform purposed in HR3200 would not make insurance more affordable or provide more options. I will need to research this more, but for now this is what it says specifically:
SEC. 1177. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF SPECIAL NEEDS PLANS TO RESTRICT ENROLLMENT.
(a) In General- Section 1859(f)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-28(f)(1)) is amended by striking ‘January 1, 2011’ and inserting ‘January 1, 2013 (or January 1, 2016, in the case of a plan described in section 1177(b)(1) of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009)’.
(b) Grandfathering of Certain Plans-
(1) PLANS DESCRIBED- For purposes of section 1859(f)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-28(f)(1)), a plan described in this paragraph is a plan that had a contract with a State that had a State program to operate an integrated Medicaid-Medicare program that had been approved by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services as of January 1, 2004.
(2) ANALYSIS; REPORT- The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall provide, through a contract with an independent health services evaluation organization, for an analysis of the plans described in paragraph (1) with regard to the impact of such plans on cost, quality of care, patient satisfaction, and other subjects as specified by the Secretary. Not later than December 31, 2011, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on such analysis and shall include in such report such recommendations with regard to the treatment of such plans as the Secretary deems appropriate.
Lie #6: "The Indian Health Service will be fine and Native Americans will benefit
Kimberly Teehee, Policy Advisor for Native American Affairs at the White House Domestic Policy Council, debunks myths being spread about how health insurance reform will affect the Indian Health Service. To the contrary, reform will allow Native Americans to keep the care they have now and has benefits for every American."
The Indian Health Service is currently not fine and this bill does pretty much nothing for the service. Indian Health Services is just another failed government program that will continue to be a failure.
Lie #7: "Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it
Kavita Patel, who works with Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett and who worked for years before as a physician, debunks the myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies."
Again, this is a half lie. There is nothing in the bill that says the government will ration care. But the bill sets up the structure for the government to ration care. ALL countries that have socialized health care ration, because they cannot afford not to. They either outright ration or ration by not having health care accessible.
Here is a brief overview of the French system, which is known as the best Universal Health Care system:
The overall rate of social security and tax on the average wage in France in 2005 was 71.3% of gross salary. The government pays an average of 80% of the bill - leaving the other 20% (on average) for the citizen to cover either out of pocket or by purchasing additional insurance.
To counter the rise in health-care costs, the government has closed hospitals and installed a mandatory co-pay for a doctor visit, each box of medicine prescribed, and a fee per day for hospital stays and for expensive procedures.
A government body, ANAES, Agence Nationale d'Accréditation et d'Evaluation en Santé (The National Agency for Accreditation and Health Care Evaluation) is responsible for issuing recommendations and practice guidelines. There are recommendations on clinical practice (RPC), relating to the diagnosis, treatment and supervision of certain conditions, and in some cases, to the evaluation of reimbursement arrangements. ANAES also publishes practice guidelines which are recommendations on good practice that doctors are required to follow according to the terms of agreements signed between their professional representatives and the health insurance funds.
Lie #8: "The "euthanasia" distortion on help for families
Melody Barnes, the President's Director of the Domestic Policy Council, debunks the malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors."
Again, this is a half lie. There is nothing in the bill that says the government will require euthanasia for seniors. But the bill sets up the structure for the government to be able to require euthanasia for seniors or any some other group.
Lie #9: "Vets' health care is safe and sound
Matt Flavin, Director of Veterans and Wounded Warrior Policy, explains that nothing in health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget greatly expands coverage for veterans who have been denied access in the past."
I cannot find anything in this bill to support "the President's budget greatly expands coverage for veterans who have been denied access in the past". Largely because I do now know why a veteran would have be denied access. The only things in the bill concerning the VA is that when dolling out grants, preference will be given to "Training the greatest percentage, or significantly improving the percentage, of public health professionals serving in the Federal Government or a State, local, or tribal government". And "VA- Coverage under the veteran’s health care program under chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, but only if the coverage for the individual involved is determined by the Secretary in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner to be not less than the level specified by the Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Secretary of Veteran’s Affairs and the Health Choices Commissioner, based on the individual’s priority for services as provided under section 1705(a) of such title."
Now, if there are vets that really do not have access to care. I am all for getting it to them. But, really, they need to fix the quality of care. The VA system is such a mess and I cannot believe how bad we treat them. I don't just want more vets to have access to care, I want them all to have access to quality care. Unfortunately, this is not something that the government has done or ever will do well.
Lie #10: "Reform will benefit small business - not burden it
Christina Romer, Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, debunks the myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average."
Yet another half lie. Those small companies that currently do not offer health insurance coverage because they cannot afford it will be hurt by having to pay the fees and taxes charged to businesses. Those small companies that do currently offer health insurance will be helped (well, that's as long as the fees & taxes applied to them do not go up). The average employer pay 12% of gross wages to health insurance premiums. The bill will have employers paying an 8% of gross wages into the government if they do not provide insurance for their employees. That is part of the problem as so many will be dumped from their current insurance. Did someone say Trojan horse?
Lie #11: "Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform
Robert Kocher of the National Economic Council debunks the myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform would simply eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies."
Once a citizen is eligible for Medicare, they will automatically enrolled. Which mean the number of people on Medicare will rise - even though Medicare cannot pay their current costs. And if so much can be saved by eliminating waste and unnecessary subsidies, why have they not already done this? Maybe then the program wouldn't be billions of dollars in debt.
Lie #12: "You can keep your own insurance
Linda Douglass of the White House Office of Health Reform debunks the myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them."
As stated above, most businesses will opt for paying 8% of wages over 12%. Also, you care only allowed to keep your insurance if it does not change (don't get married, or have a child or change jobs). But, lets say that it does not change, this "grandfathered" cause expires in 5 years. Again, as stated above, it expands your choices in insurance companies by one.
I would like to address the idea of an insurance company not being allowed to refuse coverage to anyone and not being allowed to charge more to someone based on their health status. Can you tell me how they could afford to do such things without either going out of business or having to charge EVERYONE higher premiums to cover the costs? Trojan horse.
If we actually opened up competition by allowing us to purchase insurance from any company, the would be a market for those with health concerns bringing down their premium costs.
One more thing I would like to address, as there doesn't seem to be much about this out there. Private insurers will only be allowed to sell the plans that the government allows. Basically, we will all have the same plan (unless we can afford a premium-plus plan).
"(c) Specification of Benefit Levels for Plans-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Commissioner shall establish the following standards consistent with this subsection and title I:
(A) BASIC, ENHANCED, AND PREMIUM PLANS- Standards for 3 levels of Exchange-participating health benefits plans: basic, enhanced, and premium (in this division referred to as a ‘basic plan’, ‘enhanced plan’, and ‘premium plan’, respectively).
(B) PREMIUM-PLUS PLAN BENEFITS- Standards for additional benefits that may be offered, consistent with this subsection and subtitle C of title I, under a premium plan (such a plan with additional benefits referred to in this division as a ‘premium-plus plan’).
(2) BASIC PLAN-
(A) IN GENERAL- A basic plan shall offer the essential benefits package required under title I for a qualified health benefits plan.
(3) ENHANCED PLAN- A enhanced plan shall offer, in addition to the level of benefits under the basic plan, a lower level of cost-sharing as provided under title I consistent with section 123(b)(5)(A).
(4) PREMIUM PLAN- A premium plan shall offer, in addition to the level of benefits under the basic plan, a lower level of cost-sharing as provided under title I consistent with section 123(b)(5)(B).
(5) PREMIUM-PLUS PLAN- A premium-plus plan is a premium plan that also provides additional benefits, such as adult oral health and vision care, approved by the Commissioner. The portion of the premium that is attributable to such additional benefits shall be separately specified."
The only difference between the basic plan, enhanced plan, and premium plans are a lower level of cost-sharing - what is covered does not change. And these are the only plans that can be sold. If you go to the store to purchase Oreo's and one package of Oreo's cost $2.00 and another package costs $2.20, which Oreo's do you think most will purchase? Likewise, how many will pay more for the same insurance plan?
Trojan Horse
Friday, August 7, 2009
Real Health Care Reform
I want REAL health care reform.
Not a government take over. Not my rights & freedoms taken away from myself, my family & my countrymen. And, NOT the status quote.
I want TORT reform. Not only do malpractice lawsuits cost physicians in medical malpractice premiums, but there are the costs of the payouts and the biggest cost of all: the extra tests and procedures that are done so the physicians can protect themselves from being sued.
I want the government limitations removed, so there's real competition. Open the market and let me purchase insurance from any company in the US, not just those in my state. You know, the options that our Congressmen have.
I want fewer people between me and my doctor. Remove the incentives given to employers for paying for part or all of my health insurance premiums. I can spend the money I earn better than the government AND my employer.
I want to stop paying for illegal aliens health care. Secure or boarders and DO NOT allow illegal aliens to use our social services.
I want to stop paying emergency room bills for non-emergencies.
I want out of Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid. Again, I can spend (and save) the money I earn better than the government. I understand that this would be difficult, but, unless I opt into these programs, I should not be forced to pay for them and, of course, should not be given the benefits of them. Then, there's the fact the these three programs are failures - they are what need to be destroyed, not the best health care system in the world.
Mostly, I want the government to STAY OUT OF MY LIFE.
Not a government take over. Not my rights & freedoms taken away from myself, my family & my countrymen. And, NOT the status quote.
I want TORT reform. Not only do malpractice lawsuits cost physicians in medical malpractice premiums, but there are the costs of the payouts and the biggest cost of all: the extra tests and procedures that are done so the physicians can protect themselves from being sued.
I want the government limitations removed, so there's real competition. Open the market and let me purchase insurance from any company in the US, not just those in my state. You know, the options that our Congressmen have.
I want fewer people between me and my doctor. Remove the incentives given to employers for paying for part or all of my health insurance premiums. I can spend the money I earn better than the government AND my employer.
I want to stop paying for illegal aliens health care. Secure or boarders and DO NOT allow illegal aliens to use our social services.
I want to stop paying emergency room bills for non-emergencies.
I want out of Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid. Again, I can spend (and save) the money I earn better than the government. I understand that this would be difficult, but, unless I opt into these programs, I should not be forced to pay for them and, of course, should not be given the benefits of them. Then, there's the fact the these three programs are failures - they are what need to be destroyed, not the best health care system in the world.
Mostly, I want the government to STAY OUT OF MY LIFE.
How to Avoid "The Mob"
I have seen many of the videos of the town hall meetings and just had some suggestions for Congressmen on how to avoid the issues that arose at these meetings.
1. DO NOT stack the meeting
2. DO NOT prevent anyone from attending the meeting. If there are too many to adhere to fire codes, take the meeting outside so all can hear & be heard.
3. DO NOT talk AT us. You should be having a discussion WITH us
4. DO NOT give us the same answers that you have been giving us for months, that we do not agree with, accept or that are the very things that we have issues with
5. DO NOT disregard logic
6. DO NOT lie to us or stretch the truth
7. DO NOT expect us to respect you, when you have not respected us by either completely ignoring us or by calling us names or by stating that our opinions are invalid. You will have to humble yourself. Once you have proven that you can respect us, we will respect you.
Following the above will help in working WITH the American people, rather than against us.
1. DO NOT stack the meeting
2. DO NOT prevent anyone from attending the meeting. If there are too many to adhere to fire codes, take the meeting outside so all can hear & be heard.
3. DO NOT talk AT us. You should be having a discussion WITH us
4. DO NOT give us the same answers that you have been giving us for months, that we do not agree with, accept or that are the very things that we have issues with
5. DO NOT disregard logic
6. DO NOT lie to us or stretch the truth
7. DO NOT expect us to respect you, when you have not respected us by either completely ignoring us or by calling us names or by stating that our opinions are invalid. You will have to humble yourself. Once you have proven that you can respect us, we will respect you.
Following the above will help in working WITH the American people, rather than against us.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Action on Health Care Bill
Here is a list of the House Members on the Health Subcommittee of the Committee on Energy & Commerce - which is where the Health Care bill is currently held up in the Senate:
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey - 202 225-4671
John D. Dingell, MI - 202 225-4071
Nathan Deal, GA 202 225-5211
Bart Gordon, TN - 202 225-4231
Ralph M. Hall, TX - 202 225-6673
Anna G. Eshoo, CA - 202 225-8104
Ed Whitfield, KY - 202 225-3115
Eliot L. Engel, NY - 202 225-2464
John Shimkus, IL - 202 225-5271
Gene Green, TX - 202 225-1688
John B. Shadegg, AZ - 202 225-3361
Diana DeGette, CO -202 225-4431
Roy Blunt, MO 202 225-6536
Lois Capps, CA - 202 225-3601
Steve Buyer, IN - 202 225-5037
Jan Schakowsky, IL - 202 225-2111
Joseph R. Pitts, PA -202 225-2411
Tammy Baldwin, WI - 202 225-2906
Mike Rogers, MI - 202 225-4872
Mike Ross, AR - 202 225-3772
Sue Wilkins Myrick, NC - 202 225-1976
Anthony D. Weiner, NY -202 225-6616
Tim Murphy, PA -202 225-2301
Jim Matheson, UT - 202 225-3011
Michael C. Burgess, TX - 202 225-7772
Jane Harman, CA - 202 225-8220
Marsha Blackburn, TN - 202 225-2811
Charles A. Gonzalez, TX - 202 225-3236
Phil Gingrey, GA - 202 225-2931
John Barrow, GA - 202 225-2823
Joe Barton, TX - 202 225-2002
Donna M. Christensen, VI - 202 225-1790
Kathy Castor, FL - 202 225-3376
John P. Sarbanes, MD - 202 225-4016
Christopher S. Murphy, CT - 202 225-4476
Zachary T. Space, OH - 202 225-6265
Betty Sutton, OH - 202 225-3401
Bruce L. Braley, IA - 202 225-2911
According to a preliminary report - they will be voting on the bill, most likely, on Friday. Please contact all of them with your concerns about the bill.
If you only feel comfortable, just tell them that you want them to vote NO.
The person that answers the phone usually will not "talk" to you, they really only pass on what you tell them to the Congressman. So, feel free to address specific issues, not only with a government-run health care plan (which they may have taken out of the bill) and the high taxes (again, they may have cut some of those taxes out of the bill), but mostly with our FREEDOM! We, as a free people, will not be told that we are REQUIRED to have health insurance or what kind of health insurance we must have.
We just want the government out of our lives. No expansion of the current government run programs will be accepted.
We want REAL reform:
TORT reform - not only is the liability insurance expensive for doctors, but that is a huge reason for having so many unnecessary tests & procedures done.
FEWER people involved in our health care (get the government & our employers out of it).
Address the issue of illegal aliens by securing our borders and having real consequences for breaking our laws. Also address the birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants. (Currently US laws (actually this came from the supreme court - there is no definition in our actual laws) automatically recognizes any person born on American soil as a natural born citizen).
Change the law that states that hospitals must provide care to everyone that comes to the ER - they should only provide care to those that actually have an emergency (hence the name emergency room).
Keep up the fight for our freedoms and post any responses you receive.
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey - 202 225-4671
John D. Dingell, MI - 202 225-4071
Nathan Deal, GA 202 225-5211
Bart Gordon, TN - 202 225-4231
Ralph M. Hall, TX - 202 225-6673
Anna G. Eshoo, CA - 202 225-8104
Ed Whitfield, KY - 202 225-3115
Eliot L. Engel, NY - 202 225-2464
John Shimkus, IL - 202 225-5271
Gene Green, TX - 202 225-1688
John B. Shadegg, AZ - 202 225-3361
Diana DeGette, CO -202 225-4431
Roy Blunt, MO 202 225-6536
Lois Capps, CA - 202 225-3601
Steve Buyer, IN - 202 225-5037
Jan Schakowsky, IL - 202 225-2111
Joseph R. Pitts, PA -202 225-2411
Tammy Baldwin, WI - 202 225-2906
Mike Rogers, MI - 202 225-4872
Mike Ross, AR - 202 225-3772
Sue Wilkins Myrick, NC - 202 225-1976
Anthony D. Weiner, NY -202 225-6616
Tim Murphy, PA -202 225-2301
Jim Matheson, UT - 202 225-3011
Michael C. Burgess, TX - 202 225-7772
Jane Harman, CA - 202 225-8220
Marsha Blackburn, TN - 202 225-2811
Charles A. Gonzalez, TX - 202 225-3236
Phil Gingrey, GA - 202 225-2931
John Barrow, GA - 202 225-2823
Joe Barton, TX - 202 225-2002
Donna M. Christensen, VI - 202 225-1790
Kathy Castor, FL - 202 225-3376
John P. Sarbanes, MD - 202 225-4016
Christopher S. Murphy, CT - 202 225-4476
Zachary T. Space, OH - 202 225-6265
Betty Sutton, OH - 202 225-3401
Bruce L. Braley, IA - 202 225-2911
According to a preliminary report - they will be voting on the bill, most likely, on Friday. Please contact all of them with your concerns about the bill.
If you only feel comfortable, just tell them that you want them to vote NO.
The person that answers the phone usually will not "talk" to you, they really only pass on what you tell them to the Congressman. So, feel free to address specific issues, not only with a government-run health care plan (which they may have taken out of the bill) and the high taxes (again, they may have cut some of those taxes out of the bill), but mostly with our FREEDOM! We, as a free people, will not be told that we are REQUIRED to have health insurance or what kind of health insurance we must have.
We just want the government out of our lives. No expansion of the current government run programs will be accepted.
We want REAL reform:
TORT reform - not only is the liability insurance expensive for doctors, but that is a huge reason for having so many unnecessary tests & procedures done.
FEWER people involved in our health care (get the government & our employers out of it).
Address the issue of illegal aliens by securing our borders and having real consequences for breaking our laws. Also address the birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants. (Currently US laws (actually this came from the supreme court - there is no definition in our actual laws) automatically recognizes any person born on American soil as a natural born citizen).
Change the law that states that hospitals must provide care to everyone that comes to the ER - they should only provide care to those that actually have an emergency (hence the name emergency room).
Keep up the fight for our freedoms and post any responses you receive.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Response to Nationalized Health Care Issues
This post is in response to the comments left at this article by Steve Chapman. I believe that a lot of legitimate issues that we have with our current health care system. The specific posts that I am addressing will be in italics.
Steve never implied that private insurers are "fair", simply that they are efficient - far more efficient than the government. If private insurers were not efficient, they would not be in business. Have you looked at Medicare, Medicade, USPS, Amtrak, etc. Government-run systems are much, much worse than private insurers when it comes to being efficient, because there are no consequences for their actions. Yes, there are a lot of people that have to go through the private insurers bureaucracy to get things covered. I am not one of them. In fact, the only issue I have ever had, was trying to get my private insurer NOT to pay a bill that I was disputing. But I do know that there are issues. Do you really think that government bureaucracy will be better? If you look at any other government run health care system, in the US, England, Canada, etc, you will find that waiting lists are long, procedures are rejected, etc. Further, 40 million is 13% of the population (not even taking into account that many of that 13% are illegal aliens, those that are making plenty of money to afford health care but CHOOSE not to, and those that make a small enough amount to make them eligible for our current government run health care but either are not aware of it or CHOOSE not to sign up for it). REALLY, you want to destroy a good, but not perfect, system to help 13% of the population?! Maybe the system should be fixed, rather than destroyed. You refer to private insurers as if they are GM or any other company that is going bankrupt. Yes, there are issues and some are worse than others, but that doesn't mean we destroy them all. (Should we destroy all used car companies, also?) They cannot compete against government run insurance for a couple reasons. One, the government will make things more difficult for their competition. Higher fees, regulations, etc, will destroy private insurers. Second, the private insurers will be held accountable for their actions, the government will not (they can just take more tax dollars).
Those unnecessary, duplicate tests are due to malpractice suits. I am not completely sure how to address this issue. I'm not sure that caps are the answer, but something does need to be done. Maybe judges with more common sense. Maybe different caps, depending on what harm was done. Obama's plan does not address the issue of malpractice suits at all. As far as educating the masses, I believe that the government already does that in our school systems. Could we use more education, sure, but not paid for by the government. If you want to educate the masses, go right ahead.
You are implying that the private insurers run their plans efficiently and fairly. Does anyone who deals with the sea of "EOBs" and disputed charges that are generated with each doctor visit really agree with this? Unwieldy bureaucracy defines the private insurance system. How much worse can a government-run system be? Further, I would argue that you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. If you start with the assumption that the current system of having 40 million uninsured Americans has to be fixed, then the issue of maintaining competition in the health insurance marketplace is really far down the list of priorities in fixing the system. Do the private insurers do such a good job that preserving them needs to be a major concern? Those that are truly outstanding will compete against the public system. Those that don't - good riddance. Their employees can all find new jobs - but at least this time, they will still have access to healthcare unlike those Americans who currently are being laid off. - Posted by: SMY23 | Jun 15, 2009 3:42:40 PM
Steve never implied that private insurers are "fair", simply that they are efficient - far more efficient than the government. If private insurers were not efficient, they would not be in business. Have you looked at Medicare, Medicade, USPS, Amtrak, etc. Government-run systems are much, much worse than private insurers when it comes to being efficient, because there are no consequences for their actions. Yes, there are a lot of people that have to go through the private insurers bureaucracy to get things covered. I am not one of them. In fact, the only issue I have ever had, was trying to get my private insurer NOT to pay a bill that I was disputing. But I do know that there are issues. Do you really think that government bureaucracy will be better? If you look at any other government run health care system, in the US, England, Canada, etc, you will find that waiting lists are long, procedures are rejected, etc. Further, 40 million is 13% of the population (not even taking into account that many of that 13% are illegal aliens, those that are making plenty of money to afford health care but CHOOSE not to, and those that make a small enough amount to make them eligible for our current government run health care but either are not aware of it or CHOOSE not to sign up for it). REALLY, you want to destroy a good, but not perfect, system to help 13% of the population?! Maybe the system should be fixed, rather than destroyed. You refer to private insurers as if they are GM or any other company that is going bankrupt. Yes, there are issues and some are worse than others, but that doesn't mean we destroy them all. (Should we destroy all used car companies, also?) They cannot compete against government run insurance for a couple reasons. One, the government will make things more difficult for their competition. Higher fees, regulations, etc, will destroy private insurers. Second, the private insurers will be held accountable for their actions, the government will not (they can just take more tax dollars).
The problem with Mr. Chapman's analysis is, the current free-capitalist model of healthcare has not worked, at least not unless the person in need of health care is rich.
Instead of shooting down Obama's ideas with vague fears of government bureaucracy (apparently he's never dealt with PRIVATE insurers' bureaucracies before), I'd like to hear Mr. Chapman's plan to fix this broken system. That is, assuming he even thinks it's broken. - Posted by: Clarence Ewing | Jun 15, 2009 3:51:58 PM
First of all, our current system is not REALLY free-capitalist. There are many government regulations that limit competition. Second, the model has worked for me and everyone that I know, and we are far from rich. I do not know anyone that has had issues with getting proper care because of private insurance. (I'm not saying that there are people to not have bureaucracy issues with private insurance, just that they are not as rampant as everyone seems to think they are.) The only person I know that has had issues, is my mother, who died of cancer. Only, the issues were not with private insurance, they were with the government system denying her treatments.
If every other country in the world has socialized health care than why can't the most advanced country in the world? I am not one for socialism but if there is one thing that should be socialized it is Health Care. It is ridiculous that if you get hurt and don't have insurance you will not get treated or have to file bankruptcy due to the medical bills. Also a universal health care system will remove the "keep them sick" attitude of the private doctors. As of now doctors want you to stay sick so they can make money off of your prescriptions. If you are healthy then you are worthless to them. Does anyone out there realize that in France a doctors gets bonuses based on how HEALTHY his patients are! Doesn't that make more sense to you?
In America a doctor gets a free trip to Hawaii if he sells you enough Viox which will kill you....
In France they get a bonus if you don't have to see them!
Hmmm... And you want to keep things the way they are??? - Posted by: RG | Jun 15, 2009 4:07:29 PM
And why are we the most advanced country in the world? Not because we are sheep that follow the rest of the world, but because we march to the beat of a different drummer - his name is the US Constitution. If you are hurt, you will have no problem receiving treatment. Your statement is ridiculous. You do not have to file bankruptcy, in those times that I had a hard time paying my bills, I simply called the hospitals and doctor's that owed and set up payment arrangements. They were only $5/month for over a year, but as long as I was making a payment, they had no issues. I am not sure what the laws are currently, but I would be willing to discuss a law that states a medical center cannot go after a patient if they are making payments. I have had a lot of experience with doctors and it has NEVER crossed my mind that the doctors are trying to "keep me sick". I just don't believe this statement and there are other posts by those that know more than me that combat this idea. I did not see anywhere in Steve's post that stated he wants to keep things the way they are.
Yes, Obama perhaps fudged the facts, but his fudging is a candle in a windstorm compared to the lies from the other side, which is only concerned with maintining the exhorbitant salaries of health care CEOs as they continue to get rich denying health care to people. Maybe Medicare isn't as good as advertised, but compared to what? Compared to dollar Bill McGuire making 1.7 billion denying coverage to people. I'll take a good government program, thank you very much. - Posted by: John Pearson | Jun 15, 2009 4:34:39 PM
Why does everything have to be sides? We need to be talking about what's best for the country. The plan that Obama is purposing is not what is best for the country. Let start talking about real answers to the issues.
Personally, I doubt that a public plan is essential to fixing health care, but I have some questions of all those who are oppose to the President's efforts. I'm earnestly interested in people's responses.
Do you see any responsibility for society to aid it's weakest member?
Is basic healthcare (not the most expensive high-end plan) something that we could consider a human right?
If not a human right, isn't it something a nation as great as ours could still strive for?
Finally, is there any amount of tax you would pay in order to see our country's poorest citizens have better healthcare?
Could this tax be seen as an investment in our nation's productivity?
Thanks,
Chris - Posted by: ChrisH | Jun 15, 2009 5:29:02 PM
Yes, I as a human being feel for the weakest in our community. And I am more than willing to help them, but not via the government. I want to give where I feel that my money is being most well spent. Not on those that refuse to work, but to those that are down on their luck. No, health care is not a human right. No, there is no tax amount that I am willing to pay to "see our country's poorest citizens have better health care". (In our current system they are already covered, they don't have "better" health care because the government is running that health care.) I am willing to give money to area clinics, shelters, organizations that are not run by the government to cover their cost of health care.
Is that the best use of our money as an investment in our nation's productivity? We'll be adding over a trillion dollars to our debt (no, that is not the cost, it is just the amount we will not be able to pay for) to boost the productivity of 13% of the country? I think there are probably better ways to use that money. Like the TARP money is an amount that is enough to pay off every mortgage in the US, don't you think that would have been a better use of the TARP money? Not that I think there should have been any TARP money going to either the banks or home owners, I'm just saying it would have been a better way to address the issue of foreclosures.
Let's start with eliminating unnecessary, or duplicate tests, and educating the masses about proper diet and exercise. - Posted by: John | Jun 15, 2009 8:49:09 PM
Those unnecessary, duplicate tests are due to malpractice suits. I am not completely sure how to address this issue. I'm not sure that caps are the answer, but something does need to be done. Maybe judges with more common sense. Maybe different caps, depending on what harm was done. Obama's plan does not address the issue of malpractice suits at all. As far as educating the masses, I believe that the government already does that in our school systems. Could we use more education, sure, but not paid for by the government. If you want to educate the masses, go right ahead.
Mr. Obama is simply bringing back both public and corporate welfare!
Why has the phrase "single-payer" become such a negative? It IS the only way to insure medical coverage for EVERYONE.
The systems in more civilized countries like France, Canada and England work, but are being totally ignored as an option in the U.S. Why?
Mr. Obama has been bought and paid for by the ever-too-powerful medical insurance lobby . . . it is so obvious! - Posted by: mark | Jun 15, 2009 9:23:48 PM
It is not the government's job to insure medical coverage for everyone. It is fundamentally against our countries ideals. The systems in France, Canada & England do not work. I don't know where you got your information, but they are a disaster. Why do you think so many come to the US for medical treatment?
I don't want to start a flame war here but someone posted earlier the single party health care is unconstitutional, immoral and economically disastrous. You challenge other posters to look though the constitution and bill of rights for something that would provide the constitutionalism of single payer/ or universal health care.
Preamble to the Constitution reads:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
hmm.... welfare what does that mean exactly
1: the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity
Is the current system serving all American and insuring their well being? No. Insurance companies all to often deny claims and benefits on the basis of preexisting conditions and that that person is high risk. High risk for what exactly actually using the service you are supposed to provide.
Calling universal health care socialist is laughable. Why? Well you should be used to socialism by now. You went to a government run socialist institution for about 12 years. That is if you graduated high school. Government funds our schools through our taxes. Granted public schools could be better but for some reason people keep shooting down more funding for schools. Saying that universal health care will bankrupt America is equally absurd. People get caught up on the numbers 1 trillion dollars will bankrupt America. Really? Well why did we go do that Iraqi freedom thing. That costs us a trillion dollars not spent bettering the lives Americans but getting them killed in war that no one really understands. How about our defense spending? Would you seriously take a look at that? The U.S. spends 50% of all money (worldwide) spent on military. Do we need this much? Can we allocate some of that budget to help people here in the United States please? I mean it is our money after all. I am also curious how universal health care could possibly slow innovation. You see the thing is the U. S. government funds lots of the medical innovation in the United States through grants and other subsidies. Moving to universal health care will not cause American's to have worse health care we already have it. Look at life expectancy by country. Canada the U.K. and other countries are beating us soundly. With all this great health care we should be number 1 right? Nope we are number 30. And that's according to the CIA factbook. The United Nations has us doing worse. Right below Cuba. Guess who has top 2 spots. Japan and China. Well Hong Kong, China that is you know since they actually have hospitals there. By saying that you don't want your tax dollars to be used to support other people, you are being the worst kind of hippocrit. An uneducated one. Our tax dollars are going to help people in other countries all day long , through freeing people who weren't aware that they needed freeing, that's fine. But when it comes to helping out your neighbor your actual neighbor who can't get health care because of preexisting conditions (like cancer) the spendthrift comes out. Immoral is ignoring people who are dying because they are dying and didn't have health care because they couldn't get it. Unconstitutional is ignoring our responsibility to provide for the welfare of people in this country. And useless is what we are as stewards to the world if we let our people die or suffer by our own inaction and greed. You can say you don't support universal health care on your dollar. But I can say I do, because I don't want that on my conscience. - Posted by: alex c. | Jun 15, 2009 9:40:30 PM
The Preamble does not give the government the right to run health care, it simply states the purpose of the document. The definition of welfare, also does not give the government the right to run health care. It simply says that the government should do what is best for us. What is best for our well-being is not government run health care. No, someone should not be denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions. But should they pay higher premiums? Absolutely! They would have to pay more in medical bills anyway. I don't understand why calling government run health care socialist is laughable. The government run schools are laughable and I am against a government run school system. They should be run by the local communities. As far as the defense budget, it is currently 21% of our budget. The same percentage as Social Security and 2% less than Medicare & Medicaid. We have been questioning the Iraqi war for years and they will continue to take a hard look at it. But we're not talking about the Iraqi war, we're talking about health care. Talking about the Iraqi war is no kind of argument for nationalization of health care. Why do Japan & China at the top of the life expectancy list? Because biologically they are different & have completely different diets with lots of fish.
Again, we, as humans, are responsible for the welfare of our citizens. The government is not. It has nothing to do with greed, but everything to do self preservation. That is fine, if you want to fund government run health care. I would have no issue with it being an opt-in program. I am not FORCED to pay anything into it, but those that choose to, may. Though, I contend that a community based organization would do a much better job at administering this type of program, than a government run program. But you do whatever you want with your money.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Environmental Protest in Omaha, NE
Below is an email from the Nebraska912 Organizer:
For anyone who wants to jump-start the climate change protesting: This afternoon (Sat, May 30) the greenies are having "Repower Nebraska - A Project with the Alliance for Climate Protection". It's an organizational meeting and is this afternoon at 2:00 till approx 4:00pm at the W. Dale Clark Library (downtown branch), 215 S. 15th St. in Meeting Rooms 2 and 3, lower level.
A few of our members have already emailed me that they are going to this, and anyone else is welcome to join! Just look for the "Global Warming is a Hoax and Al Gore a Fraud" sign. :)
For anyone planning on protesting at this or any of the other climate change propaganda events next week, please feel free to take pictures/video and email to me. I'm going to post several of the other propaganda events as Meetups so that you all can RSVP and know who else is going.
Thanks!
Dawn
For anyone who wants to jump-start the climate change protesting: This afternoon (Sat, May 30) the greenies are having "Repower Nebraska - A Project with the Alliance for Climate Protection". It's an organizational meeting and is this afternoon at 2:00 till approx 4:00pm at the W. Dale Clark Library (downtown branch), 215 S. 15th St. in Meeting Rooms 2 and 3, lower level.
A few of our members have already emailed me that they are going to this, and anyone else is welcome to join! Just look for the "Global Warming is a Hoax and Al Gore a Fraud" sign. :)
For anyone planning on protesting at this or any of the other climate change propaganda events next week, please feel free to take pictures/video and email to me. I'm going to post several of the other propaganda events as Meetups so that you all can RSVP and know who else is going.
Thanks!
Dawn
Friday, May 29, 2009
Obama's Organizing Health Care Rallies
There is a link to Obama website, wherein he is organizing Health Care Rallies:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hckickoff
I think this is something we need to keep aware of and make sure that we are at those rallies, standing up for the principles of the constitution, our rights and our families health.
Do you think the media will view Obama's initiation, organization & backing of these rallies the same way the viewed Fox news covering the Tea Parties?
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hckickoff
I think this is something we need to keep aware of and make sure that we are at those rallies, standing up for the principles of the constitution, our rights and our families health.
Do you think the media will view Obama's initiation, organization & backing of these rallies the same way the viewed Fox news covering the Tea Parties?
Thursday, May 14, 2009
From NE 912 Project
Below is an email I received from the Nebraska 912 Project. Wanted to get it out to all Nebraskans, so they can tak action.
Earlier this year, our U.S. Congress authorized a huge financial stimulus package (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) to provide the 50 States of U.S.A. some capital to spend our way out of recession/depression/indebtedness. There is common knowledge that this act is in direct opposition to all economic/financial principles of freedom. Yet this package was even supported by a U.S. Senator from Nebraska -- Ben Nelson. Ben was in position to stop the vote on the stimulus package - yet allowed it. Thereby ushering a financial tragedy never before seen. Now the U.S. Treasury has our printing presses printing money where there is no backing and security. No country/civilization/culture has ever survived this type of action. Merely look to recent Zimbabwe, Africa; or back in the 1920's where Germany printed unsecured money = > yielding an economy where to purchase one loaf of bread would cost a wheelbarrow load of cash! This inflation destroys savings, retirement programs, investments and purchasing power. How would this affect you?
Recognizing the financial storm being pushed upon our United States and the State of Nebraska, citizens of Nebraska contacted their State Senators requesting that they refuse these stimulus dollars. Not one State Senator wanted to stop this mess. One Senator from the 33rd District even said he was too busy to worry about it -- just too much going on. Even our Governor Heineman has not stopped this increased indebtedness being placed on Nebraska citizens and and businesses. Our Nebraska Governor says he has helped cut taxes, yet this is a $1.5 billion tax increase. Tax increases destroy businesses and jobs. Obviously our political leaders no longer represent us.
What do we do? Well, on Thursday May 7th, a written request was made to Jon Bruning (Attorney General for State of Nebraska) to "file for and get an absolute and immediate injunction against the Executive and Legislative branches of our State Government to preclude further Constitutional violations et. al.." by taking and spending Federal stimulus money. That letter is the attachment to this e-mail.
As of today, May 13, 2009, no response has been received by the complainant from the Attorney General, Jon Bruning. Furthermore, no objections have been voiced by any State Senators to spending money Nebraska does not have. This is not an oversight, since at least 20 Senators are aware of the Nebraska Constitutional violations being promoted by accepting and spending stimulus 'American Recovery and Reinvestment Act' dollars.
Today May 13, 2009 our Nebraska State Legislature has approved a $7 Billion (2 year) budget using borrowed stimulus dollars to balance our Nebraska budget. Just a note, borrowed dollars in excess of $100,000 for our State is a violation of our Nebraska State Constitution. With all the financial calamity our State Aid to Education has increased $234 million in the face of a 30% drop in state revenues.
Our Governor Heineman has yet to sign this state budget approved today. Please, you and your friends use phone calls, e-mails, personal contacts (protests) to stop this acceptance of further debt to us, our families, and businesses. Governor Heineman's contact information is (e-mail) dave.heineman@nebraska.gov; (phone) 402-471-2244; (address) Governor's Office, P.O. Box 94848, Lincoln, NE 68509.
Understand these 'stimulus dollars' have nothing to do with economic recovery, only about Federal control! Also the State of Nebraska has been put on notice in writing to Nebraska Attorney General on May 7, 2009 to not accept stimulus dollars for State of Nebraska because it violates our State of Nebraska Constitution Therefore, some State of Nebraska elected officials are liable for willful violations regarding 'not upholding' our State Constitution (which each one swore to uphold by oath).
Please place all lawful pressure possible by a citizen to restore fiscal sanity to Nebraska leadership. All elected representatives and state officers who failed to object/oppose the acceptance and spending of stimulus dollars will be replaced in our next election cycle. This will allow citizens to have their say.
We the people - - - - - will succeed in keeping our country, culture, and property.
Spread the word to all you know - the sooner the better!
Sincerely,
Butch Hughes -- Hastings, NE
Earlier this year, our U.S. Congress authorized a huge financial stimulus package (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) to provide the 50 States of U.S.A. some capital to spend our way out of recession/depression/indebtedness. There is common knowledge that this act is in direct opposition to all economic/financial principles of freedom. Yet this package was even supported by a U.S. Senator from Nebraska -- Ben Nelson. Ben was in position to stop the vote on the stimulus package - yet allowed it. Thereby ushering a financial tragedy never before seen. Now the U.S. Treasury has our printing presses printing money where there is no backing and security. No country/civilization/culture has ever survived this type of action. Merely look to recent Zimbabwe, Africa; or back in the 1920's where Germany printed unsecured money = > yielding an economy where to purchase one loaf of bread would cost a wheelbarrow load of cash! This inflation destroys savings, retirement programs, investments and purchasing power. How would this affect you?
Recognizing the financial storm being pushed upon our United States and the State of Nebraska, citizens of Nebraska contacted their State Senators requesting that they refuse these stimulus dollars. Not one State Senator wanted to stop this mess. One Senator from the 33rd District even said he was too busy to worry about it -- just too much going on. Even our Governor Heineman has not stopped this increased indebtedness being placed on Nebraska citizens and and businesses. Our Nebraska Governor says he has helped cut taxes, yet this is a $1.5 billion tax increase. Tax increases destroy businesses and jobs. Obviously our political leaders no longer represent us.
What do we do? Well, on Thursday May 7th, a written request was made to Jon Bruning (Attorney General for State of Nebraska) to "file for and get an absolute and immediate injunction against the Executive and Legislative branches of our State Government to preclude further Constitutional violations et. al.." by taking and spending Federal stimulus money. That letter is the attachment to this e-mail.
As of today, May 13, 2009, no response has been received by the complainant from the Attorney General, Jon Bruning. Furthermore, no objections have been voiced by any State Senators to spending money Nebraska does not have. This is not an oversight, since at least 20 Senators are aware of the Nebraska Constitutional violations being promoted by accepting and spending stimulus 'American Recovery and Reinvestment Act' dollars.
Today May 13, 2009 our Nebraska State Legislature has approved a $7 Billion (2 year) budget using borrowed stimulus dollars to balance our Nebraska budget. Just a note, borrowed dollars in excess of $100,000 for our State is a violation of our Nebraska State Constitution. With all the financial calamity our State Aid to Education has increased $234 million in the face of a 30% drop in state revenues.
Our Governor Heineman has yet to sign this state budget approved today. Please, you and your friends use phone calls, e-mails, personal contacts (protests) to stop this acceptance of further debt to us, our families, and businesses. Governor Heineman's contact information is (e-mail) dave.heineman@nebraska.gov; (phone) 402-471-2244; (address) Governor's Office, P.O. Box 94848, Lincoln, NE 68509.
Understand these 'stimulus dollars' have nothing to do with economic recovery, only about Federal control! Also the State of Nebraska has been put on notice in writing to Nebraska Attorney General on May 7, 2009 to not accept stimulus dollars for State of Nebraska because it violates our State of Nebraska Constitution Therefore, some State of Nebraska elected officials are liable for willful violations regarding 'not upholding' our State Constitution (which each one swore to uphold by oath).
Please place all lawful pressure possible by a citizen to restore fiscal sanity to Nebraska leadership. All elected representatives and state officers who failed to object/oppose the acceptance and spending of stimulus dollars will be replaced in our next election cycle. This will allow citizens to have their say.
We the people - - - - - will succeed in keeping our country, culture, and property.
Spread the word to all you know - the sooner the better!
Sincerely,
Butch Hughes -- Hastings, NE
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
ALERT for All Florida CCW License Holders
Below is an email update I received from the NRA yesterday - just want to spread the news.
***ALERT for All Florida CCW License Holders***
Legislators Raid CCW Trust Fund - Try to Intimidate Governor
DATE: May 11, 2009
TO: USF & NRA Member and Friends
FROM: Marion P. Hammer
USF Executive Director
NRA Past President
In a last minute sneak attack on gun owners, the Florida Legislature raided the concealed weapons and firearms licensing trust fund. This not only effects resident CCW license holders, but non-resident Florida license holders as well!They took $6 million from the Division of Licensing Concealed Weapons and Firearm Trust Fund that is intended, by law, to be used solely for administering the concealed weapons and firearms licensing program. (Read background information below)Please Call, Fax, or Email Governor Charlie Crist IMMEDIATELY, and ask him to veto the $6 Million trust fund sweep from the Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services Division of Licensing authorized under Section 59 of the Conference Report of SB-2600.
Please send your email today!!!!!
And/or please contact the Governor's office by phone or fax ASAP.
Phone number: (850) 488-4441 or (850) 488-7146Fax number: (850) 487-0801Send your email to the Governor at this address: Charlie.Crist@MyFlorida.com
BACKGROUND:
Right now, the concealed weapons and firearms licensing program is backlogged and overloaded, due in part, to the refusal of budget officials and the Legislature to allow the Division of Licensing to use its own trust fund money to hire more employees and expand/upgrade equipment. Crates of unopened mail containing license and license renewal applications sit in storage. The backlog of mail sitting unopened, at times, has extended beyond 90 days while existing licenses are expiring because renewal applications haven't been opened and processed. Currently (although the Division of Licensing has been working weekend shifts to clear the backlog), it is taking 13-14 weeks to process a "perfect" application once it has been opened. That is an unequivocal violation of the law that requires issuance or denial of a license by a specific time –– a violation of law that legislative leaders are condoning by their actions.
THE LAW REQUIRES THE DIVISION OF LICENSING TO ISSUE A LICENSE WITHIN 90 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATION -- or deny the license "for cause", based upon the criteria set forth in the law. Theft of operating funds by the Legislature is not "just cause" for failure to issue licenses or renewals within 90 days. While applications sit gathering dust, legislative leaders took $6 million of approximately $8 million held in the trust fund. That $6 million is supposed to be used to pay employees, buy upgraded equipment, upgrade or replace computers or software and to otherwise administer the concealed weapons and firearms licensing program.
BUT, feigning a desperate need for funds for education and health care, legislative leaders recklessly and ruthlessly confiscated trust fund money. Why? Because they were building a so-called "working capital" fund for the 2010-12 legislative term, reported now to be in the neighborhood of $1.8 BILLION DOLLARS. This so-called "working capital fund" is for the use of future legislative leaders.
They didn't take that money for education. They didn't take that money for health care. They didn't take that money to save jobs. They didn't take that money to avoid pay cuts, or budget cuts -- they took the money to help build their own fund. While Senate leadership reportedly fought to stop the ruthless raids on trust funds, in the end, they simply caved and let the House of Representatives prevail.
The bad behavior doesn't end there.
Obviously fearing the Governor would use his line-item veto to stop trust fund raids, proviso language was inserted in the bill in a clear attempt to intimidate the Governor. The proviso language, states that if any portion of the moneys swept from this and other trust funds does not become law (meaning it is vetoed), that portion of the money shall be deducted from the EDUCATION BUDGET. This is clearly designed to keep the Governor from vetoing trust fund sweeps, and prevent trust fund money from being taken back out the House leadership's so-called "working capital" fund. Money in the concealed weapons trust fund came from gun owners. No money to administer and run the concealed weapons and firearms licensing program has ever come from general revenue, or any other state fund or revenue source. The taking of these gun owner user fees is an unauthorized tax on the exercise of the Second Amendment.
AGAIN, Please call, fax and email Governor Crist IMMEDIATELY, and ask him to veto the $6 Million raid on the Concealed Weapons & Firearms Trust Fund!
Send your email to the Governor at this address: Charlie.Crist@MyFlorida.com
Please send your email today!!!!!
You may also call the Executive Office of the Governor at: (850) 488-7146.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
NE Senator Ben Nelson's response to the "hate crimes" bill
Below is the response I received from Sen. Ben Nelson concerning the "hate crimes" bill. Does anyone else read this as saying "What my constituents want is not important. Instead I'll just tell you why I'm right and you're wrong."? Then there's the fact that he didn't actually address the issues that I have with the "hate crimes" bill - that is makes some people more important than others.
I will say that he was very polite is the only government representative that has consistently responded with more than just an auto response.
I will say that he was very polite is the only government representative that has consistently responded with more than just an auto response.
"Dear Kristy:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, H.R. 1913, often referred to as the "hate crimes bill." I appreciate knowing your views on this legislation.
As you may know, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1913 by a vote of 249-175 on April 29. A "hate crime" is defined in H.R. 1913 as an act of violence motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of the victim. H.R. 1913 recognizes the responsibility of state and local authorities to prosecute hate crimes in the United States with appropriate levels of federal assistance. Specifically, this bill enables the U.S. Department of Justice to assist local law enforcement in pursuing and prosecuting perpetrators of hate crimes. The bill also establishes a system by which grant monies will be given to local law enforcement agencies for the prosecution of hate crimes and requires a sentencing commission to study the adult recruitment of juveniles to commit hate crimes.
I have supported similar legislation in the past - together with Senate colleagues from across the political party spectrum - because I do not believe anyone should be victimized, and because this bill will strengthen state and local law enforcement's ability to respond to crimes of violence. Crimes motivated by hatred and prejudice represent acts of violence and intimidation directed against entire communities; for this reason, I support providing targeted resources for law enforcement to investigate and prosecute such crimes.
As Congress continues debate on hate crimes legislation, we will need to address the potential for unintended consequences; I have heard from many concerned constituents that hate crimes legislation could lead to infringement of free speech. As a former lay minister, I understand and respect these concerns. The fact is, no current or proposed hate crimes legislation is a threat to free speech. In order for hate crimes legislation to be applied in a specific case, a criminal act, such as assault, must first be committed. In addition, no evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may be presented to support the prosecution of a hate crime in a trial unless that evidence specifically relates to the criminal offense at hand.
Thank you again for contacting me with your comments. While we may disagree on this issue, I do appreciate knowing your views and hope you will continue sharing your thoughts and ideas.
Sincerely,
Ben Nelson
U.S. Senator"
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, H.R. 1913, often referred to as the "hate crimes bill." I appreciate knowing your views on this legislation.
As you may know, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1913 by a vote of 249-175 on April 29. A "hate crime" is defined in H.R. 1913 as an act of violence motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of the victim. H.R. 1913 recognizes the responsibility of state and local authorities to prosecute hate crimes in the United States with appropriate levels of federal assistance. Specifically, this bill enables the U.S. Department of Justice to assist local law enforcement in pursuing and prosecuting perpetrators of hate crimes. The bill also establishes a system by which grant monies will be given to local law enforcement agencies for the prosecution of hate crimes and requires a sentencing commission to study the adult recruitment of juveniles to commit hate crimes.
I have supported similar legislation in the past - together with Senate colleagues from across the political party spectrum - because I do not believe anyone should be victimized, and because this bill will strengthen state and local law enforcement's ability to respond to crimes of violence. Crimes motivated by hatred and prejudice represent acts of violence and intimidation directed against entire communities; for this reason, I support providing targeted resources for law enforcement to investigate and prosecute such crimes.
As Congress continues debate on hate crimes legislation, we will need to address the potential for unintended consequences; I have heard from many concerned constituents that hate crimes legislation could lead to infringement of free speech. As a former lay minister, I understand and respect these concerns. The fact is, no current or proposed hate crimes legislation is a threat to free speech. In order for hate crimes legislation to be applied in a specific case, a criminal act, such as assault, must first be committed. In addition, no evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may be presented to support the prosecution of a hate crime in a trial unless that evidence specifically relates to the criminal offense at hand.
Thank you again for contacting me with your comments. While we may disagree on this issue, I do appreciate knowing your views and hope you will continue sharing your thoughts and ideas.
Sincerely,
Ben Nelson
U.S. Senator"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)