John-in-KC Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Courtesy of my Congresscritter: http://graves.houseenews.net/mail/util.cfm?mailaction=clickthru&gpiv=2100049242.35843.35&gen=1&mailing_linkid=17673 (you'll have to cut and paste the link, sorry about that folks...) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Commentary below from the House Republican Conference: Page 94Section 202© prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government Page 110Section 222(e) requires the use of federal dollars to fund abortions through the government-run health planand, if the Hyde Amendment were ever not renewed, would require the plan to fund elective abortions Page 111Section 223 establishes a new board of federal bureaucrats (the Health Benefits Advisory Committee) to dictate the health plans that all individuals must purchaseand would likely require all Americans to subsidize and purchase plans that cover any abortion Page 211Section 321 establishes a new government-run health plan that, according to non-partisan actuaries at the Lewin Group, would cause as many as 114 million Americans to lose their existing coverage Page 225Section 330 permitsbut does not requireMembers of Congress to enroll in government-run health care Page 255Section 345 includes language requiring verification of income for individuals wishing to receive federal health care subsidies under the billwhile the bill includes a requirement for applicants to verify their citizenship, it does not include a similar requirement to verify applicants identity, thus encouraging identity fraud for undocumented immigrants and others wishing to receive taxpayer-subsidized health benefits Page 297Section 501 imposes a 2.5 percent tax on all individuals who do not purchase bureaucrat-approved health insurancethe tax would apply on individuals with incomes under $250,000, thus breaking a central promise of then-Senator Obamas presidential campaign Page 313Section 512 imposes an 8 percent tax on jobs for firms that cannot afford to purchase bureaucrat-approved health coverage; according an analysis by Harvard Professor Kate Baicker, such a tax would place millions at substantial risk of unemploymentwith minority workers losing their jobs at twice the rate of their white counterparts Page 336Section 551 imposes additional job-killing taxes, in the form of a half-trillion dollar surcharge, more than half of which will hit small businesses; according to a model developed by President Obamas senior economic advisor, such taxes could cost up to 5.5 million jobs Page 520Section 1161 cuts more than $150 billion from Medicare Advantage plans, potentially jeopardizing millions of seniors existing coverage Page 733Section 1401 establishes a new Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research; the bill includes no provisions preventing the government-run health plan from using such research to deny access to life-saving treatments on cost grounds, similar to Britains National Health Service, which denies patient treatments costing more than 35,000 Page 1174Section 1802(b) includes provisions entitled TAXES ON CERTAIN INSURANCE POLICIES to fund comparative effectiveness research, breaking Speaker Pelosis promise that We will not be taxing [health] benefits in any bill that passes the House, and the Presidents promise not to raise taxes on families with incomes under $250,000 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Let the games begin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 What? What section is the Death Panels in? You mean to tell me there won't be any Death Panels? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John-in-KC Posted October 31, 2009 Author Share Posted October 31, 2009 I'm more concerned about mandatory single payer in 2013. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vol_scouter Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Gern, John had it: Health Benefits Advisory Committee. They will make the rules on how everyone will be treated or more correctly, denied the optimal and appropriate treatment for the individual patient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutldr Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 And the worst part...your kids will not have to get jobs and move out until age 27! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Single payer by 2013? WOOOO HOOOOO! Bring it on baby! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle92 Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 As most of you know, I'm a medical librarian. If you think healthcare is bad now, just wait until this bill passes. While reform does need to occur, a good bit of the reason healthcare is so expensive is that medicare/medicaid does not pay the full cost of of the actual healthcare expenses, leaving the rest of us with private insurance to pick up the slack. Also if universal healthcare is so great, why do so many folks who can afford medical healthcare out of pocket in the US do so, when they have universal healthcare in their home countries, ie Canada, UK, France, etc? Also if universal healthcare is so good, then why is France looking to the US as a viable healthcare model to reforem their system, and the person who basically created Canadacare sayignt hat it is a wreck and needs to be reformed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John-in-KC Posted October 31, 2009 Author Share Posted October 31, 2009 As usual, Congress walks away from its own mandates... Cue John Adams... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HD1x_kZRQQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutldr Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Recently from the Wash Post: Lawmakers could save as much as $54 billion over the next decade by imposing an array of new limits on medical malpractice lawsuits, congressional budget analysts said today a substantial sum that could help cover the cost of President Obamas overhaul of the nations health system. New research shows that legal reforms would not only lower malpractice insurance premiums for medical providers, but would also spur providers to save money by ordering fewer tests and procedures aimed primarily at defending their decisions in court, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, wrote in a letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). From the PelosiCare Bill: Section 2531, entitled Medical Liability Alternatives, establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [but] a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys fees or imposes caps on damages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Besides the fact that tort reform can only happen at the state level, if it would have reformed healthcare so much more efficiently, why didn't the Republicans do it while they had the power? Do we really want to remove or restrict the freedom of the people to seek compensation from corporate malfeasance? Doesn't seem very American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutldr Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Do we really want to restrict the freedom of the people? It wouldn't be very American. COuldn't have said it better myself, Gern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 So you are with me then Scoutldr, tort reform takes freedom away from Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vol_scouter Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 The fredoms lost in the health care bill pale in comparison to tort reform. Tort reform does not prohibit lawsuits but restricts pain and suffering - not damages. So that someone who has never worked and is in their 40's will be compensated for actual damages but cannot win tens of millions of dollars for pain and suffering. So freedoms are not restricted - only the amount of awards. When you are your loved one needs dialysis and the democrat health panel says that they 'do not qualify', then you have lost freedoms. As to letting the states handle tort reform, the federal government has no constituttional power to enact the present bill butwill do so anyway so why stop there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 I can't see how offering Americans a choice is restricting freedom? If you don't like the government "OPTION", don't take it. Isn't freedom wonderful? Whereas restricting my ability to make claims against others who have potentially harmed me is a direct assault on my freedom. I just can't figure you conservatives out. You are so full of contradictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vol_scouter Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 The way that the democrat bills are setup, the option will soon be the only option - the opposite of freedom. Once again, tort reform does not restrict anyone's abilty to sue. The democrat bill may do so by providing 'protection' if physicians follow certain guidelines - even if those guidlelines are not in the patient's best interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now