Jump to content

Obama Care a la Pelosi (the Oct 09 House Bill )


John-in-KC

Recommended Posts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...