It’s finally arrived! Nancy Pelosi’s dream plan for a government-run health care system, all 1,990 pages of it.
Stay tuned as we wade through this monstrosity to find out just exactly how bad we’re going to be screwed over by this government takeover of our life and death decisions. The previously released version, HR 3200, was only 1,100 pages and most of our elected officials couldn’t find the time to read that bill. There’s little doubt they’ll find time in their schedules to read Pelosi’s bill that’s almost twice as long!
So once again, it will be up to us to point out the deficiencies in their plan for our future!
We do know for certain it contains the dreaded “public option” that is certain to run private insurance plans out of the market, but we’ll have to explore the details to see just how bad it’s going to be.
Some good news though…it appears Democrats in the Senate and House differ on approaches to pay the nearly $1 trillion cost of the bill. We’re also hearing some Democrats from more conservative districts promising not to vote for any bill with a government-run insurance plan. Hopefully that will help stall the bill’s progression through Congress long enough for its problems to be exposed.
In the coming days, look for more details of the Democrats’ plan to increase government control of our health care system!
Today Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee refused to approve a Republican amendment to make the full text of Chairman Max Baucus’ (D-MT) bill available to the public 72 hours before a vote. Democrats in the Senate are determined not to repeat the biggest mistake of their allies in the US House in the battle for Obamacare.
As spring turned to summer this year, it appeared President Obama’s sweeping Socialist agenda would be put in place with virtually no resistance on Capitol Hill. The Tea Parties had already begun, but with virtually no coverage by the mainstream media their impact had done little to slow the President’s blitzkrieg to re-engineer the social and economic systems of the country.
Then House Democrats made their fatal mistake. They released the gargantuan 1,018 page bill, HR 3200.
At the time they thought they had nothing to fear. After all, 1,000 plus pages of legal jargon and sub-paragraphs nested three and four deep inside other sub-paragraphs, with references to sections of the bill hundreds of pages away, and even references to other sections of the US Code would make the bill virtually indecipherable to the voting public. Or so they thought!
House Democrats, and the President himself, thought they had little to fear by opening the bill to public scrutiny. Because they thought the American public wasn’t smart enough to understand the bill. They didn’t count on the devotion of conservatives who dove in and tore the legislation apart. Struggling through the nested references, the legal jargon, and other obfuscatory tactics utilized in the writing, conservative activists put Obamacare under a very powerful microscope. And the American public began to understand just how dangerous this government takeover of our health care industry would be.
Even as line after line of the bill was exposed, President Obama, his administration, and Congressional Democrats repeated lie after lie that was debunked by the text of the bill they thought nobody could read. Conservative America mobilized to let these lying national leaders know they weren’t buying it anymore. The White House sent congressional Dems home for the August recess armed with lies to tell their constituents, but in the trenches these legislators came face to face with voters armed with facts gleaned from the pages of the Democrats’ own bill. By the end of the recess, Obama’s health care shock troops (Democratic congressmen) were turned back and his offensive bogged down.
The President’s last hope to nationalize the nation’s health care system lay with the Senate Finance Committee, which had been working for months to hammer out a bipartisan health care bill. Soon after legislators returned to DC, Chairman Baucus gave up on compromise and issued his vision for a Finance Committee Obamacare bill.
But Baucus and his Lieutenants have learned from the mistakes of the past. He and his Democratic colleagues don’t want the light of public scrutiny to shine on this bill before a vote. Arguing against the amendment was Senator John Kerry (D-MA), “Let’s be honest about it, most people don’t read the legislative language.” What he meant was Democrats don’t want those who can understand it to read it.
Please take a moment to let your Senators and Representative know that if they don’t want to let us know what’s in the bill, we don’t want them to represent us any longer!
Click here to send a fax to your Senators and Representative. Or use the links on the right side of this page to contact them by email and/or phone.
by Steve Buyer at Townhall.com
President Obama has attempted to alleviate veterans’ concerns about the negative impact of national healthcare reform legislation.
In a speech earlier this month before the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention, President Obama said, “Since there’s been so much misinformation out there about health insurance reform, let me say this. One thing that reform won’t change is veterans’ health care. No one is going to take away your benefits. That’s the truth.” Although his statement may be true, it is at best misleading.
Neither I nor the veterans’ service organizations have asserted that the proposed healthcare reform legislation would eliminate or directly change health care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
However, there are a number of reasons for veterans to be deeply concerned, despite the assurances by President Obama and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman.
by Ann Coulter at Townhall.com
With the Democrats getting slaughtered — or should I say, “receiving mandatory end-of-life counseling” — in the debate over national health care, the Obama administration has decided to change the subject by indicting CIA interrogators for talking tough to three of the world’s leading Muslim terrorists.
Had I been asked, I would have advised them against reinforcing the idea that Democrats are hysterical bed-wetters who can’t be trusted with national defense while also reminding people of the one thing everyone still admires about President George W. Bush.
But I guess the Democrats really want to change the subject. Thus, here is Part 2 in our series of liberal lies about national health care.
Here are the liberal lies Ann exposes in this article.
- There will be no rationing under national health care.
- National health care will reduce costs.
- National health care won’t cover abortions.
OPINION: August 24, 2009
By Congressman John Carter
There was an old country judge that had the highest criminal conviction rate in the state. When a reporter from the state capital came down investigate this judicial phenomenon, the judge explained that he simply instructed the jury to listen very carefully to what the prosecutor had to say, then make their decision. The reporter cried indignantly, “don’t you also tell them to listen to the defense?” The judge replied, “well, I used to, but it just confused ‘em.”
20 years as a Texas judge taught me a few things about listening to both sides of an argument. In most cases, both sides truly think they’re right. Then they start presenting arguments and evidence to try to prove their case. Naturally, neither side will present anything remotely supportive of their opponent, even if they know it’s true. So as a judge, you sit there and weigh the evidence presented by all with a grain of salt, knowing that either side is capable of stretching the limits of veracity and withholding relevant information if not in their favor.
That’s precisely the kind of case that all Americans are having to judge right now concerning the healthcare reform proposals being pushed by Democrats in Washington.
We hear it everyday in the press – the President says anybody who likes their current health insurance will get to keep it, while opponents say all private health insurance will be gone by 2013. Democrats in the House say their plans will control rising healthcare costs, while opponents say it will drive costs even higher. Opponents say the new system will eventually start denying care to elderly, and encourage euthanasia, while supporters say it won’t.
Who’s right? With our very lives at stake, along with 19% of our gross domestic product, being wrong could be deadly for us personally as well as our free market economy.
Let’s examine the evidence together. In looking at the both sides of this case, let’s leave out the emotion and political rhetoric, and try to look at just the facts on each major point.
To begin, we can only examine the bill passed by Democrats in the House Energy and Commerce Committee in late August, HR 3200. That will not be the final bill, if there is a final bill. The current House version would first be voted on by the entire House, where changes would be made, then reconciled with whatever the Senate passes, changed again, then brought to a final vote in both Chambers. But this Committee version is all we have in writing, so that’s what we must judge.
Can You Keep Your Current Health Plan?
The bill contains no provision that would specifically abolish any health plan. But it would require all individuals and employers to purchase health plans approved by a new federal agency starting in 4 years, or pay a heavy tax penalty. It is not enough to require a health plan be purchased – it must be a federally approved plan to avoid paying an 8% payroll penalty by employers or a 2% income tax penalty by individuals. The bill allows the new federal agency to set any requirements they like on what constitutes an “approved” plan. Whether a current individual plan could survive and be approved by this new bureaucracy is suspect, as is whether an employer will continue to offer any current plan under these circumstances.
Verdict: PROBABLY Not
Will This Help Control Health Care Costs?
This issue is one of the most clear. After extensive research, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is currently overseen by the Democrat majority, officially reported to Congress that not only would it not hold down health costs, it would push them even higher than doing nothing. The number one problem with American health care is high cost, and this bill would make it worse.
Does The Bill Encourage Denial of Care and Euthanasia for the Elderly?
There is no language specifically calling for denial of care or euthanasia. But language was added requiring Medicare to pay for “end of life counseling” that will include educating senior citizens on the option of pre-authorizing the cessation of life-sustaining care, and in states which allow physician-assisted suicide, education on that option as well. President Obama has made repeated references to avoiding costly treatments for elderly patients, and other nations that have adopted this same style health system do in fact limit medical treatments and encourage euthanasia for elderly patients. These facts, coupled with the creation of a new federal agency that will unilaterally determine what benefits are included in “approved” health plans AFTER the bill passes, is heavy evidence that the bill may encourage denial of care and euthanasia. But in this issue there is even more – a proverbial “smoking gun.” The very advocacy groups like the now-defunct Hemlock Society that have historically lobbied for legalized suicide were instrumental in adding the “end-of-life” counseling section to the legislation.
Does the Bill Use Federal Funds to Pay for Abortions?
There is nothing specific in the bill to fund abortions. However, the yet unspecified new rules for all “approved” health plans – rules that will be written by Obama Administration appointees AFTER the bill passes – could include abortion coverage. Over concerns on this issue, an amendment prohibiting abortion funding was submitted in the House, and subsequently voted down by Democrat members of the Committee. This provides substantial evidence that the new federal health plan rules could require abortion coverage by all health plans in the country, while the final decision remains unknown.
Is This the Beginning of Single-Payer Healthcare?
Like most issues concerning this bill, there is no specific provision that would mandate single-payer socialized medicine and the shutdown of private sector healthcare. But as early as 2003 then-Senator Barack Obama was advocating single-payer healthcare publicly, and has recently stated along with key House Democrats that this bill would lead eventually to single-payer healthcare, over a period of 10-20 years. All of these comments are on tape and available to the public.
Verdict: Likely Over Time
Will the Bill Increase the Federal Deficit and Federal Taxes?
No argument here from either side. The bill will cost $1.28 trillion in the first 10 years according to CBO, and raise taxes $818 billion on those who cannot afford to buy insurance, not counting surcharges on small business income.
Will the Bill Cost American Jobs?
No argument here either. The Obama Administration’s own White House Council of Economic Advisors has estimated 4.7 million Americans will lose their jobs if the bill passes, as employers who cannot afford health insurance or the 8% payroll tax penalty will have to fire their employees, move overseas, or go out of business.
There are many more issues to this bill than seven, but in my opinion the answers to just these are enough to reach a final judgment on HR 3200: NO.
HR 3200 is fatally flawed, does not provide the health reforms we truly do need in this country, and should be buried. It is one of the worst pieces of legislation I have examined since being elected to the House. It would destroy the finest quality health care system in the world, undermine the free market, throw Americans out of work, and violate the moral principles of the majority of this country in the process.
Examining all the evidence is not just important in determining action on legislation, but in writing that legislation to begin with. Like the story of the old judge who only listened to one side of a case, this bill was written without any consideration of opinions from anyone other than the liberal Democrat faithful, with a resulting faulty outcome.
We can do better. We don’t need the federal government to take over the healthcare industry, we just need some commonsense bipartisan reforms.
First, we are already in bipartisan agreement to make affordable health insurance available to folks with pre-existing health conditions who are presently barred from buying a health plan.
We can let small businesses and organizations join together to purchase group insurance at the same affordable rates as big business, allowing more small employers to offer coverage.
We can remove restrictions on buying health insurance across state lines, letting families in prohibitively high-cost states purchase affordable plans in other states.
To pass these reforms will require a simple concession from the Democrat majority. That is to agree to work with Republicans in a bipartisan effort, and listen to both sides of the case before reaching a verdict.
U.S. Rep. John Carter (TX31)
Secretary, House Republican Conference
Thanks to Erick Erickson at Redstate for putting this out there.
Here’s the story of a government (state of Oregon) run health care system that told a woman they wouldn’t pay for her life-saving chemotherapy drugs, but would be happy to pay for a physician assisted suicide! It can and will happen in the single-payer system Obama and the Democrats are trying to force us into.
“If we invest thousands of dollars in one person’s days to weeks, yet…we are taking those dollars away from someone,” says the chairman of the Commission that sets policy for the Oregon health plan.
Oh. Who do you think offered to supply the woman with the drugs, free of charge?
The big, mean pharmaceutical company that makes the drug.
So the government health care system is really the bad guy, the pharma company the good.
Rationing & Gov’t Access to Your Money
This bill is so huge, and so bad, sometimes it’s hard to decide where to start. But today we’ll take a look at how the government will be authorized to access your bank accounts any time you seek medical services and to extract what they decide is your financial responsibility at the time services are rendered. As usual, the President and his cronies believe if they lie to you with a straight face you’ll believe them and support this government intrusion into your life. Then it will be too late.
Beginning on page 57 of the bill, under the heading sec. 1173A. STANDARDIZE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTION, we find the following:
‘‘(2) GOALS FOR FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS.—The goals for standards under paragraph (1) are that such standards shall—
‘‘(A) be unique with no conflicting or redundant standards;
(B) be authoritative, permitting no additions or constraints for electronic transactions, including companion guides;
‘‘(C) be comprehensive, efficient and robust, requiring minimal augmentation by paper transactions or clarification by further communications;
‘‘(D) enable the real-time (or near real time) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card;
‘‘(E) enable, where feasible, near real-time adjudication of claims;
Now we don’t know about you, but whenever the government is trying to help us and this great bill that’s going to do all these wonderful things for us promises Big Brother will have “authoritative” powers over us, that’s troublesome. We mean, if this bill is so benign and so wonderful, it seems lawmakers could count on its beneficiaries voluntarily embracing it, abiding by it. There’s no imaginable reason why a bill that would truly benefit everyone would need to establish “authoritative” powers over those it purports to “help.”
In the above passage though, paragraph (D) is the really dangerous stipulation.
This bill is being sold by the President’s team as free health care for all. According to him and his cronies, once his system is in place, all anyone will have to do is walk into any medical facility seeking treatment and, in this most wonderful world of all worlds, and receive the best treatment from the best doctors working in the best system in the best country in the best world in the best universe. Peaches and cream, cookies and milk, and all the best things you can imagine. Right?
If this plan is so wonderful, and we’ll be able to walk in and get “free” healthcare everywhere, why does the government even need to determine an “individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service”? Wouldn’t we all be eligible for all services with all physicians at all facilities? And then of course there’s the issue of the National Health Card, sort of all-in-one card that can access virtually all necessary information to determine your financial responsibility and your qualifications to determine when, where, and by whom you can receive health care services. Now how exactly do you think one card can provide such a plethora of information?
The answer’s really pretty obvious.
To determine your financial responsibility, the card can simply access IRS records and determine your income and tax liability for the previous year. Of course, to determine your eligibility the card would pull data from the electronic medical records system Obama has often spoken of. He always states the purpose of this database will be to streamline record keeping and save money. But, hey! If it serves an additional purpose that’s more bang for the buck.
So here we see the electronic record system may well be designed more to make it easy for the government to determine your eligibility for services than saving money. Unless…wait a minute…could it really be? Doesn’t this sound like the electronic records may now be used to limit your access to health care?
Folks, that’s rationing. Plain and simple. Don’t let this forked-tongue President fool you any longer!
But there’s even more. A little more reading in the bill brings us to page 59, where buried in a paragraph titled “(4)Requirements for Specific Standards” (still with regards to financial and administrative transactions) we find the following little gem.
‘‘(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice;
So we have an electronic records database and a machine-readable National Health Card so the government will be able to ration our care and immediately collect electronic automated payments to cover the free health care services we receive. And exactly how can this supercard collect our payment on the spot, for our rationed health care?
By directly accessing your bank account! That’s the only way this can work! Regardless how many times President Obama lies to you and says his system won’t have access to your bank account, regardless how many times he lies and says rationing won’t result from his plan, that’s what this bill says!
There is no reason to support HR 3200. That is, unless you want rationed care and government control over your bank account to pay for your free health care.
Surely everyone remembers when the President admitted he didn’t know what’s in HR 3200, after he publicly stated he supported it.
Then he accused doctors of needlessly hacking kids’ tonsils out so they could make more money! (I personally know this is a false accusation because we tried for years to get my daughter’s tonsils out and the doctors wouldn’t do it.) The President passed it off as routine that doctors take out tonsils when a prescription would suffice because the tonsillectomy pays more.
Then Obama’s DNC hack labeled us, those who love our health care freedom and are exercising our 1st amendment rights to protect it, an “angry mob.”
At a handpicked town hall crowd, President Obama took a question from a little girl. The problem is, the question was obviously fed to her by her mother, Kathleen Hall, a coordinator of Massachusetts Women for Obama. Michelle Malkin has photos of the woman with Obama from the campaign trail.
And finally he lied to the American people when he told them the AARP has endorsed his government takeover of the health care industry. The problem is, AARP points out they haven’t endorsed anything!
Now that it’s obvious Obama can’t win this battle on the merits of the bill, he and his cronies have taken to attacking private citizens, making lists of dissenters, and staging town hall questions to lie to convince the American people that more people support his plan than actually do!
Yeah, he’s losing it.
Not long if Obama has his way!