This whole back and forth about whether the "Death Panels" really exist with no one showing proof that they don't is tiring. Below is the section of the Healthcare Bill that addresses the, well as they like to call it, "Advanced care planning". What I want you to pay attention to is what they are REALLY saying. Don't let all the wording slip you up and remember, you are reading a document created by government officials who HAVE NO CARE OR CONCERN about you or your family!
As well, they are clever in word choice to not openly state what they REALLY mean. It is up to us to determine what is and what is not. Just one other thing to note, physicians and other healthcare professionals already consult with patients about Living Wills and Medical Power of Attorneys. We already advocate for them to establish such for THEIR safety because unlike the government, we actually do care about our patients and their families! (Despite what Obama thinks about us, coming from an attorney it is quite comical to question the motives of healthcare professionals). Also note, insurance companies do NOT deny care based on stage of life or disease. If you have coverage you are covered until your last breath regardless of your condition!
SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION.
6 (a) MEDICARE.—
7 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861 of the Social
8 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended (A) in subsection (s)(2)—
10 (i) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (DD);
12 (ii) by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (EE); and
14 (iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
16 ‘‘(FF) advance care planning consultation (as defined in subsection (hhh)(1));’’; and (B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
20 ‘‘Advance Care Planning Consultation
21 ‘‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:
3 ‘‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and5 considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.
7 ‘‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.
10 ‘‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
12 ‘‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).
19 ‘‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.
(What they mean: Doctors will inform you of all aspects of advanced care planning. This is already done and yes, it doesn't sound bad because being informed is important...but keep in mind those who are advising Obama that believe in healthcare rationing and the Complete Lives Cycle or Eugenics. Also remember they are referring to those who are terminal or have life threatening conditions. With the thought of healthcare rationing and Eugenics it makes a clear concern for what the government is wanting to accomplish with "requiring" advanced care planning- or discussing when enough is enough and you should just go ahead and die.)
1 ‘‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include—
4 ‘‘(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;
9 ‘‘(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and
13 ‘‘(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decision maker (also known as a health
21 care proxy).
(continuing with things that are already done by physicians and healthcare professionals...)
22 ‘‘(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations under clause (i) to consultations furnished in a State—
1 ‘‘(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical orders respected across all care settings; and
5 ‘‘(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).
8 ‘‘(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that—
11 ‘‘(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;
13 ‘‘(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;
18 ‘‘(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment; and
22 ‘‘(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.
6 ‘‘(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is— ‘‘(A) a physician (as defined in subsection
8 (r)(1)); and
9 ‘‘(B) a nurse practitioner or physician’s assistant who has the authority under State law to sign orders for life sustaining treatments.
12 ‘‘(3)(A) An initial preventive physical examination under subsection (WW), including any related discussion during such examination, shall not be considered an advance care planning consultation for purposes of applying the 5-year limitation under paragraph (1).
17 ‘‘(B) An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program.
1 ‘‘(4) A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.
4 ‘‘(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that—
8 ‘‘(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care;
17 ‘‘(ii) effectively communicates the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;
21 ‘‘(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary); and
1 ‘‘(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the individual.
(What they mean: the physician is required to do this "planning" session with you and is required to do it every 5yrs or more often if indicated. So, the government will know when you are at a stage of care that is terminal or life-threatening, and thus considering the breakdown of healthcare rationing already discussed will be in charge of determining what care you will receive. This doesn't seem to mesh well with individual privacy. Why does the government need to know what condition you are in if not to determine whether you need further care of whether you should just go ahead and die? It is no one's business what stage you are at other then you and your physician. The government has stated they want to decrease costs and what better way then to limit care to those who are dying anyhow?)
4 ‘‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified
7 interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items—
9 ‘‘(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;
12 ‘‘(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;
15 ‘‘(iii) the use of antibiotics; and
16 ‘‘(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.’’
(What they mean: As of now, the patient will decide how much is too much when they are facing the end of their life, or family does. With this bill, the government will make those decisions for you. Remember, the wording sounds good and looks innocent, but you have to consider the whole rather then the parts. Healthcare rationing + Eugenics = End of life planning! Still skeptical, read further regarding "Physician Quality Reporting Initiative".)
18 (2) PAYMENT.—Section 1848(j)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–4(j)(3)) is amended by inserting
20 ‘‘(2)(FF),’’ after ‘‘(2)(EE),’’.
21 (3) FREQUENCY LIMITATION.—Section 1862(a)
22 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)) is amended—
23 (A) in paragraph (1)—
24 (i) in subparagraph (N), by striking
25 ‘‘and’’ at the end;
1 (ii) in subparagraph (O) by striking
2 the semicolon at the end and inserting ‘‘,
3 and’’; and
4 (iii) by adding at the end the fol5
lowing new subparagraph:
6 ‘‘(P) in the case of advance care planning consultations (as defined in section 1861(hhh)(1)), which are performed more frequently than is covered under such section;’’; and
11 (B) in paragraph (7), by striking ‘‘or (K)’’
12 and inserting ‘‘(K), or (P)’’.
13 (4) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this subsection shall apply to consultations furnished on or after January 1, 2011.
16 (b) EXPANSION OF PHYSICIAN QUALITY REPORTING
17 INITIATIVE FOR END OF LIFE CARE.—
18 (1) PHYSICIAN’S QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE.—Section 1848(k)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–4(k)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
22 ‘‘(3) PHYSICIAN’S QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE.—
24 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of reporting data on quality measures for covered professional services furnished during 2011 and any subsequent year, to the extent that measures are available, the 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, if appropriate. Such measures shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for life
sustaining treatment.
(What they mean: Now comes the good part. The physician is to report all end of life services (that is what they shared with YOU) so that the Secretary can use that information to develop quality measures on advanced care planning and have a consensus-based organization (which is? and consists of who?) measure the creation of and adherence to end of life care. What they are doing is collecting data to determine what you do or don't need. Remember, they are all about saving money not lives!)
10 ‘‘(B) PROPOSED SET OF MEASURES.—The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register proposed quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that the Secretary determines are described in subparagraph (A) and would be appropriate for eligible professionals to use to submit data to the Secretary.
17 The Secretary shall provide for a period of public comment on such set of measures before finalizing such proposed measures.’’.
(What they mean: The government will put forth quality measures for physicians to follow when it comes to assisting you in your advanced care plan. Hmmmmmm...)
20 (c) INCLUSION OF INFORMATION IN MEDICARE & YOU HANDBOOK.—
22 (1) MEDICARE & YOU HANDBOOK.—
23 (A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall update the online version of the Medicare & You Handbook to include the following:
3 (i) An explanation of advance care planning and advance directives, including—
6 (I) living wills;
7 (II) durable power of attorney;
8 (III) orders of life-sustaining
9 treatment; and
10 (IV) health care proxies.
11 (ii) A description of Federal and State resources available to assist individuals and their families with advance care planning and advance directives, including—
15 (I) available State legal service organizations to assist individuals with advance care planning, including those organizations that receive funding pursuant to the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 93001 et seq.);
22 (II) website links or addresses for State-specific advance directive forms; and
1 (III) any additional information, as determined by the Secretary.
3 (B) UPDATE OF PAPER AND SUBSEQUENT
4 VERSIONS.—The Secretary shall include the information described in subparagraph (A) in all paper and electronic versions of the Medicare & You Handbook that are published on or after the date that is 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
6 SEC. 1751. HEALTH-CARE ACQUIRED CONDITIONS.
7 (a) MEDICAID NON-PAYMENT FOR CERTAIN HEALTH CARE-ACQUIRED CONDITIONS.—Section 1903(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(i)) is amended—
10 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of paragraph (23);
12 (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (24) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and
14 (3) by inserting after paragraph (24) the following new paragraph:
16 ‘‘(25) with respect to amounts expended for services related to the presence of a condition that could be identified by a secondary diagnostic code described in section 1886(d)(4)(D)(iv) and for any health care acquired condition determined as a noncovered service under title XVIII.’’.
(What they mean: They will determine if your condition is one they want to cover. Yes, you read right. Using the SSA 1886(d)(4)(D)(iv) which I have listed below as a courtesy: http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title18/1886.htm#act-1886-d-5
(iv) By not later than October 1, 2007, the Secretary shall select diagnosis codes associated with at least two conditions, each of which codes meets all of the following requirements (as determined by the Secretary):
(I) Cases described by such code have a high cost or high volume, or both, under this title.
(II) The code results in the assignment of a case to a diagnosis-related group that has a higher payment when the code is present as a secondary diagnosis.
(III) The code describes such conditions that could reasonably have been prevented through the application of evidence-based guidelines.
The Secretary may from time to time revise (through addition or deletion of codes) the diagnosis codes selected under this clause so long as there are diagnosis codes associated with at least two conditions selected for discharges occurring during any fiscal year.
They determine coverage based on cost 'SSA 1886(d)(4)(D)(iv)(I)', and again a condition that requires a higher payment as a secondary diagnosis 'SSA 1886(d)(4)(D)(iv)(II)', and conditions that could have reasonably been prevented, uh yeah fatties/smokers/drinkers/any other area the government determines "preventable" 'SSA 1886(d)(4)(D)(iv)(III)', and don't forget the part about how the Secretary, and I love this verbiage "from time to time", may revise the list of such conditions! This is screaming "healthcare rationing" and "death panel". The government will reserve the right to determine what it will and will not cover based on cost, not on what is best for the American people!)
The key things to consider regarding this part of the bill...
1. The friends/advisers Obama aligns himself with. If he does not buy into those radical beliefs then why would he entertain anyone who does? Remember, you are only as good as the company you keep!
2. The government clearly stated how healthcare will be rationed in section 122 pg 29 lines 4-16, section 123 pg. 30, and section 142 pg 42. Whereas, you will not choose your healthcare the government will create a government committee who will determine what health benefits you receive. This directly ties to the section of the bill detailed above. If the physician has to report to the government committee your stage of life based on your medical diagnosis and issues then they directly determine your benefits. Keep in mind the government is all about saving money not lives!
3. The expressed need of the government to know what is going on with you and how severe your condition is. Why would the government need to know anything about your condition if they did not intend on having a direct impact on what services you recieve. Look, as Obama said, "you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig." Don't let the government fool you by using words in a fashion that makes you feel safe and cared for. No government has ever cared for it's people!
It is time to realize that YOU are best at determining what you need and how much of it you get. Granted insurance companies don't give you carte blanc but you do have to option of paying out of pocket for more if you choose. With this plan you can not do that because that specific care will not be made available to you. The next thing on my agenda is how this plan controls physicians and nurses in a way that is almost like the draft into the military. Will we be MADE to work even if we choose not too, where we can live based on community healthcare need and how much money we can make? The answer is YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stop Socialist Reform...Protect our Constitution and our Freedoms...Take Our Country Back from the Government we elected to work FOR us not AGAINST us! The lives of our children are dependent upon this!
B
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Ronald Reagan on Socialized Medicine in 1961
Ronald Reagan Speaks out on Socialized Medicine
1961 - My name is Ronald Reagan. I have been asked to talk on several subjects that have to do with the problems of the day. It must seem presumptuous to some of you that a member of my profession would stand here and attempt to talk to anyone on serious problems that face the nation and the world. It would be strange if it were otherwise.
Most of us in Hollywood are very well aware of the concept or the misconception that many people, our fellow citizens, have about people in show business. It was only a generation ago that people of my profession couldn’t be buried in the churchyard. Of course the world has improved since then, we can be buried now. As a matter of fact, the eagerness of somebody to perform that service gets frightening at times.
Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.
There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, the method of earning a living. Our government is in business to the extent of owing more than 19,000 businesses covering 47 different lines of activity. This amounts to a fifth of the total industrial capacity of the United States.
But at the moment I’d like to talk about another way, because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent.
One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.
Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.
So, with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Furan introduced the Furan Bill. This was the idea that all people of Social Security should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance.
Now this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those who are disabled. This would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for Social Security.
Now Congressman Furan brought the program out on that idea of just for that particular group of people. But Congressman Furan was subscribing to this foot in the door philosophy because he said, “If we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can expand the program after that.”
Walter Ruether said, “It’s no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record as backing a program of national health insurance.” And by national health insurance he meant socialized medicine for every American.
Well let’s see what the Socialists themselves had to say about it. They say, “Once the Furan Bill is passed this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population.” Well, we can’t say that we haven’t been warned.
Now Congressman Furan is no longer a Congressman of the United States Government. He has been replaced, not in his particular assignment but in his backing of such a bill by Congressman King of California.
It is presented in the idea of a great emergency that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. But this ignores the fact that in the last decade 127 million of our citizens, in just ten years, have come under the protection of some kind of privately owned or hospital insurance.
Now the advocates of this bill when you try to oppose it challenge you on an emotional basis, they say what would you do, throw these poor old people out to die with no medical attention?
That’s ridiculous, and of course no one has advocated it. As a matter of fact, in the last session of Congress a bill was adopted known as the Kerr/Mills Bill. Now without even allowing this bill to be tried to see if it works they have introduced this King Bill, which is really the Furan Bill.
What is the Kerr/Mills Bill? It is a frank recognition of the medical need or problem of our senior citizens that I have mentioned. And it has provided from the federal government money to the states and local communities that can be used at the discretion of the state to help those people who need it.
Now what reason could the other people have for backing a bill which says we insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on a basis of age alone, regardless of whether they are worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they’re protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings.
I think we can be excused for believing, that as ex-Congressman Furan said, “This was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time, socialized medicine.”
James Madison in 1788, speaking to the Virginia Convention said, “Since the general civilization of mankind I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
They want to attach this bill to Social Security, and they say here is a great insurance program now instituted now working.
Let’s take a look at social security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, social security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.
Now in our country under our free enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.
But let’s also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.
This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being. I know how I’d feel if you fellow citizens decided that to be an actor I had to become a government employee and work in a national theater.
Take it into your own occupation or that of your husband. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your son won’t decide when he’s in school where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do.
In this country of ours took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in worlds history, the only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another.
But here for the first time in all the thousands of years of man’s relation to man, a little group of men, the founding fathers, for the first time established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God-given right and ability to determine our own destiny. This freedom was built into our government with safeguards.
We talk democracy today, and strangely we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rule is all that is needed. Well majority rule is a fine aspect of democracy provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minorities.
What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.
Now you may think that when I say write to the Congressman or Senator that this is like writing fan mail to a television program, it isn’t. In Washington today 40,000 letters, less than one hundred per Congressman are evidence of a trend in public thinking.
Former Representative Halleck of Indiana has said, “When the American people want something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want.”
So write, it’s as simple as finding just the name of your Congressman, or your Senator. Then you address your letter to that individuals name, if he’s a Congressman, to the House Office Building, Washington D.C. If he’s a Senator, to the Senate Office Building, Washington D.C.
And if this man writes back to you and tells you that he or she too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don’t let them get away with it. Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell them that you believe in government economy and fiscal responsibility; that you know that governments don’t tax to get the money the need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our traditional free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he is on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say “I have heard from my constituents and this is what they want.”
Write those letters now; call your friends and them to write them. If you don’t, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. Until, one day, as Normal Thomas said we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don’t do this and if I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.
Source: Ronald Reagan Presidential Library & Museum
The above transcript is available in it’s original audio, recorded version HERE.
1961 - My name is Ronald Reagan. I have been asked to talk on several subjects that have to do with the problems of the day. It must seem presumptuous to some of you that a member of my profession would stand here and attempt to talk to anyone on serious problems that face the nation and the world. It would be strange if it were otherwise.
Most of us in Hollywood are very well aware of the concept or the misconception that many people, our fellow citizens, have about people in show business. It was only a generation ago that people of my profession couldn’t be buried in the churchyard. Of course the world has improved since then, we can be buried now. As a matter of fact, the eagerness of somebody to perform that service gets frightening at times.
Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.
There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, the method of earning a living. Our government is in business to the extent of owing more than 19,000 businesses covering 47 different lines of activity. This amounts to a fifth of the total industrial capacity of the United States.
But at the moment I’d like to talk about another way, because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent.
One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.
Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.
So, with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Furan introduced the Furan Bill. This was the idea that all people of Social Security should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance.
Now this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those who are disabled. This would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for Social Security.
Now Congressman Furan brought the program out on that idea of just for that particular group of people. But Congressman Furan was subscribing to this foot in the door philosophy because he said, “If we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can expand the program after that.”
Walter Ruether said, “It’s no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record as backing a program of national health insurance.” And by national health insurance he meant socialized medicine for every American.
Well let’s see what the Socialists themselves had to say about it. They say, “Once the Furan Bill is passed this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population.” Well, we can’t say that we haven’t been warned.
Now Congressman Furan is no longer a Congressman of the United States Government. He has been replaced, not in his particular assignment but in his backing of such a bill by Congressman King of California.
It is presented in the idea of a great emergency that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. But this ignores the fact that in the last decade 127 million of our citizens, in just ten years, have come under the protection of some kind of privately owned or hospital insurance.
Now the advocates of this bill when you try to oppose it challenge you on an emotional basis, they say what would you do, throw these poor old people out to die with no medical attention?
That’s ridiculous, and of course no one has advocated it. As a matter of fact, in the last session of Congress a bill was adopted known as the Kerr/Mills Bill. Now without even allowing this bill to be tried to see if it works they have introduced this King Bill, which is really the Furan Bill.
What is the Kerr/Mills Bill? It is a frank recognition of the medical need or problem of our senior citizens that I have mentioned. And it has provided from the federal government money to the states and local communities that can be used at the discretion of the state to help those people who need it.
Now what reason could the other people have for backing a bill which says we insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on a basis of age alone, regardless of whether they are worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they’re protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings.
I think we can be excused for believing, that as ex-Congressman Furan said, “This was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time, socialized medicine.”
James Madison in 1788, speaking to the Virginia Convention said, “Since the general civilization of mankind I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
They want to attach this bill to Social Security, and they say here is a great insurance program now instituted now working.
Let’s take a look at social security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, social security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.
Now in our country under our free enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.
But let’s also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.
This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being. I know how I’d feel if you fellow citizens decided that to be an actor I had to become a government employee and work in a national theater.
Take it into your own occupation or that of your husband. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your son won’t decide when he’s in school where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do.
In this country of ours took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in worlds history, the only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another.
But here for the first time in all the thousands of years of man’s relation to man, a little group of men, the founding fathers, for the first time established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God-given right and ability to determine our own destiny. This freedom was built into our government with safeguards.
We talk democracy today, and strangely we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rule is all that is needed. Well majority rule is a fine aspect of democracy provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minorities.
What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.
Now you may think that when I say write to the Congressman or Senator that this is like writing fan mail to a television program, it isn’t. In Washington today 40,000 letters, less than one hundred per Congressman are evidence of a trend in public thinking.
Former Representative Halleck of Indiana has said, “When the American people want something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want.”
So write, it’s as simple as finding just the name of your Congressman, or your Senator. Then you address your letter to that individuals name, if he’s a Congressman, to the House Office Building, Washington D.C. If he’s a Senator, to the Senate Office Building, Washington D.C.
And if this man writes back to you and tells you that he or she too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don’t let them get away with it. Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell them that you believe in government economy and fiscal responsibility; that you know that governments don’t tax to get the money the need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our traditional free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he is on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say “I have heard from my constituents and this is what they want.”
Write those letters now; call your friends and them to write them. If you don’t, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. Until, one day, as Normal Thomas said we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don’t do this and if I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.
Source: Ronald Reagan Presidential Library & Museum
The above transcript is available in it’s original audio, recorded version HERE.
Conspiracy Theory ~vs~ Consideration of Reason
When is it something a Conspiracy Theory? And conversely; when is it a Consideration of Reason; in which outcomes and/or circumstances leading to real events are speculated in order to arrive at a reasonable scenario, in the temporary lieu of facts, until the entire consideration is proved as a fact itself? We all know that authorities solve more crimes by the (sheer,at times) use of speculation; in order to arrive to the solution of a case, aka investigative process. It is not only the suspension of disbelief what enables an investigator to pinpoint reasons to suspect or to rule out known facts: It is the adoption of an open mind and the readiness to accept ANY possible outcome what facilitates their judiciousness. In doing so, honest people cannot indulge in the mocking of propositions that are within the actual realm of possibility: They must learn to detach themselves from the issues at hand, and to see over their own preferences, as to better provide the best impartial assessment.
Yet all individuals pursuing clarity, transparency and closure on the issues that have been raised upon the very record of facts involving Mr. Obama’s eligibility, or possible (and likely, as of now) lack thereof, in their rightful quest for truth, have been accused of pursuing “Conspiracy Theories”; merely for raising pertinent questions:Is Mr. Obama an American citizen? Quite probably, yes.Is he a natural born citizen? There is absolutely no proof of that, other than the word of Hawaiian officials, including its governor. NOTE that these assertions were NOT made under oath, and that ANYONE can face the camera and utter into a microphone the most insincere lies: Bill Clinton looked to us in the eye and said “I did not have sex with that woman (in reference to Ms. Monica Lewinsky). Was he born in Hawaii? We don’t know for sure. A birth certification states he was, yet suspiciously enough, Mr. Obama is legally preventing the disclosure of proof to further support it.
More pertinent even are these still unanswered matters:Has Mr. Obama ever had another citizenship? British/Kenyan citizenship, at birth, via his father. It is suspected he has or had Indonesian citizenship, via his adoptive father; Lolo Soetoro.Is his allegiance to our country undivided? We do not know.Did he renounce to any other citizenship he might have had? We do not know. Was he vetted properly by the Illinois Democratic Party? Apparently, not at all.Has congress declared him a natural born citizen, as they did with McCain regarding his birth to two American citizens in the Panama Canal zone? Not yet, but they are working on it; EVEN AS THEY DO NOT HAVE ALL FACTS AT HAND REGARDING OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY.Does the 14th Amendment provide Mr. Obama with statutory natural born citizenship? NOT for Constitutional purposes, such as eligibility to the Presidency of the United States. Please be advised on the following facts:
‘The State Department asserts that “the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.” This position seems to be at odds with …the fact that Congress in 1790 felt it could confer natural born citizenship on those born abroad to American parents. Ultimately, it will take a Supreme Court decision to settle the matter once an American citizen born abroad runs for and wins the presidency.’ (Wikipedia) The requirements for said eligibility can be seen here:http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdfOut of which it is pertinent to point out that:
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural- born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency; b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible for the Office of President;”c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization ”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “…the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”d. This statute is NO LONGER operative, however, and its formula is NOT included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute DOES NOT necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES.
All past presidents complied with, or were protected (as J. Buchanan’s father, who moved to America in 1783, and benefited from Peace treaties and ratification of our Constitution by England in 1788) by the “Grandfather Clause” of; the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.W. Wilson and H. Hoover had mothers who benefited from the Congressional Act of February 1855, which stated, “(A)ny woman who might lawfully be naturalized under existing laws, married, or shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.” [Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604, section 2], in vigour until 1922. Chester Arthur; however, is a very sad chapter in our history indeed: He lied his way to the Oval Office, in an era in which facts were far easier to mould into lies. Deceivers CANNOT be precedents to follow.
Has the Supreme Court ever ruled, or at least clarified, upon who is and is not a natural born citizen? Only clarified by obiter dictum, (a non-binding, non-dispositive legal commentary) as in Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. : " The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.”This test was affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898).
Article II of the Constitution provides that “[n]o person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .” From the Minor decision, we learn who the Framers placed in the second category as being eligible to be President. These were the “original citizens,” those who were members of and who gave their allegiance to the revolutionary cause that produced the new nation. The Framers grandfathered these individuals to be eligible to be President. There cannot be any doubt that even children who were born on U.S. soil fell into this category simply because they were the first generation of citizens.
With the passing of time, no one would be able to benefit from the grandfather clause and then would have to be “natural born Citizens” to be eligible to be President. We learn that “all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens… ” make up the “natural born Citizen” category. The Court says that there have never been any doubts as to the status of these children. As to children born in the U.S. to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of their birth, there have been doubts. In other words, “natural born Citizen” under this formulation requires two generations of U.S. citizens, one generation in the parents and the other in the child himself/herself who also must be born on U.S. soil. It is important to understand that we are focusing on what is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II which specifies the requirements to be President and not on what a “Citizen” is under the 14th Amendment or under some Congressional Act which does not relate to the Article II of our Constitution regarding natural born Citizenship.
Obama, while having his mother’s U.S. citizenship generation, is missing that of his father’s, for his father was a British subject/citizen at the time of his birth. He therefore cannot be a “natural born Citizen,” even if the presumptive president was born in Hawaii. Which he; by the way, is not ready, willing nor able to prove in court and under oath; with anything other than a prima facie piece of evidence and two newspapers clippings from Hawaiian newspapers of the era, which announce his birth, yet all of these combined are not probative of where the birth took place. It is up to you; the people of the United States, to ascertain if all of this is a Conspiracy Theory, or a Consideration of reason and of purely legal questions. Once you ponder all of these facts; it is important to voice your opinions, without which the Supreme Court will likely do nothing to stop this travesty.
Thanks to Homar Marchebout for this detailed, fact based explanation about Obama’s ability to even be president based on the American Constitution.
http://fortheconstitution.com/index.php/blog/show/“PRESIDENT%3F”-CHESTER-ARTHUR-et-al—WHY-THEY-AREN’T-PRECEDENT-FOR-OBAMA’S-ELIGIBILITY.html
Why are people so willing to overlook this? It doesn't matter which party you align yourself with. This is about truth and abiding by the rules set forth in our Constitution which sets us apart form other countries because we have a set of rules that we rely on to maintain organization and fairness. Just delete Obama's name from the above and read it again. We just want the truth and if he has nothing to hide why is he fighting so hard to hide the truth? It is very perplexing!
B
Yet all individuals pursuing clarity, transparency and closure on the issues that have been raised upon the very record of facts involving Mr. Obama’s eligibility, or possible (and likely, as of now) lack thereof, in their rightful quest for truth, have been accused of pursuing “Conspiracy Theories”; merely for raising pertinent questions:Is Mr. Obama an American citizen? Quite probably, yes.Is he a natural born citizen? There is absolutely no proof of that, other than the word of Hawaiian officials, including its governor. NOTE that these assertions were NOT made under oath, and that ANYONE can face the camera and utter into a microphone the most insincere lies: Bill Clinton looked to us in the eye and said “I did not have sex with that woman (in reference to Ms. Monica Lewinsky). Was he born in Hawaii? We don’t know for sure. A birth certification states he was, yet suspiciously enough, Mr. Obama is legally preventing the disclosure of proof to further support it.
More pertinent even are these still unanswered matters:Has Mr. Obama ever had another citizenship? British/Kenyan citizenship, at birth, via his father. It is suspected he has or had Indonesian citizenship, via his adoptive father; Lolo Soetoro.Is his allegiance to our country undivided? We do not know.Did he renounce to any other citizenship he might have had? We do not know. Was he vetted properly by the Illinois Democratic Party? Apparently, not at all.Has congress declared him a natural born citizen, as they did with McCain regarding his birth to two American citizens in the Panama Canal zone? Not yet, but they are working on it; EVEN AS THEY DO NOT HAVE ALL FACTS AT HAND REGARDING OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY.Does the 14th Amendment provide Mr. Obama with statutory natural born citizenship? NOT for Constitutional purposes, such as eligibility to the Presidency of the United States. Please be advised on the following facts:
‘The State Department asserts that “the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.” This position seems to be at odds with …the fact that Congress in 1790 felt it could confer natural born citizenship on those born abroad to American parents. Ultimately, it will take a Supreme Court decision to settle the matter once an American citizen born abroad runs for and wins the presidency.’ (Wikipedia) The requirements for said eligibility can be seen here:http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdfOut of which it is pertinent to point out that:
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural- born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency; b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible for the Office of President;”c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization ”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “…the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”d. This statute is NO LONGER operative, however, and its formula is NOT included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute DOES NOT necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES.
All past presidents complied with, or were protected (as J. Buchanan’s father, who moved to America in 1783, and benefited from Peace treaties and ratification of our Constitution by England in 1788) by the “Grandfather Clause” of; the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.W. Wilson and H. Hoover had mothers who benefited from the Congressional Act of February 1855, which stated, “(A)ny woman who might lawfully be naturalized under existing laws, married, or shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.” [Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604, section 2], in vigour until 1922. Chester Arthur; however, is a very sad chapter in our history indeed: He lied his way to the Oval Office, in an era in which facts were far easier to mould into lies. Deceivers CANNOT be precedents to follow.
Has the Supreme Court ever ruled, or at least clarified, upon who is and is not a natural born citizen? Only clarified by obiter dictum, (a non-binding, non-dispositive legal commentary) as in Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. : " The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.”This test was affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898).
Article II of the Constitution provides that “[n]o person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .” From the Minor decision, we learn who the Framers placed in the second category as being eligible to be President. These were the “original citizens,” those who were members of and who gave their allegiance to the revolutionary cause that produced the new nation. The Framers grandfathered these individuals to be eligible to be President. There cannot be any doubt that even children who were born on U.S. soil fell into this category simply because they were the first generation of citizens.
With the passing of time, no one would be able to benefit from the grandfather clause and then would have to be “natural born Citizens” to be eligible to be President. We learn that “all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens… ” make up the “natural born Citizen” category. The Court says that there have never been any doubts as to the status of these children. As to children born in the U.S. to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of their birth, there have been doubts. In other words, “natural born Citizen” under this formulation requires two generations of U.S. citizens, one generation in the parents and the other in the child himself/herself who also must be born on U.S. soil. It is important to understand that we are focusing on what is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II which specifies the requirements to be President and not on what a “Citizen” is under the 14th Amendment or under some Congressional Act which does not relate to the Article II of our Constitution regarding natural born Citizenship.
Obama, while having his mother’s U.S. citizenship generation, is missing that of his father’s, for his father was a British subject/citizen at the time of his birth. He therefore cannot be a “natural born Citizen,” even if the presumptive president was born in Hawaii. Which he; by the way, is not ready, willing nor able to prove in court and under oath; with anything other than a prima facie piece of evidence and two newspapers clippings from Hawaiian newspapers of the era, which announce his birth, yet all of these combined are not probative of where the birth took place. It is up to you; the people of the United States, to ascertain if all of this is a Conspiracy Theory, or a Consideration of reason and of purely legal questions. Once you ponder all of these facts; it is important to voice your opinions, without which the Supreme Court will likely do nothing to stop this travesty.
Thanks to Homar Marchebout for this detailed, fact based explanation about Obama’s ability to even be president based on the American Constitution.
http://fortheconstitution.com/index.php/blog/show/“PRESIDENT%3F”-CHESTER-ARTHUR-et-al—WHY-THEY-AREN’T-PRECEDENT-FOR-OBAMA’S-ELIGIBILITY.html
Why are people so willing to overlook this? It doesn't matter which party you align yourself with. This is about truth and abiding by the rules set forth in our Constitution which sets us apart form other countries because we have a set of rules that we rely on to maintain organization and fairness. Just delete Obama's name from the above and read it again. We just want the truth and if he has nothing to hide why is he fighting so hard to hide the truth? It is very perplexing!
B
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
What is REALLY in HR 3200 despite what "they" say! Part 2: Health care rationing
Health care rationing is when the government decides who is worthy of health care and at what level. For instance, if you need surgery the government will look at your age, weight, sex and "life expectancy" to determine if you qualify. Keep in mind, however, the government is NOT going to say that outright. As most politicians do, they will word it in a way that looks good or make the wording so complex that it is not easily understood. Well, I have the section of the health care bill that directly addresses health care rationing (of course that isn't the word they use).
First I want to address the man behind the bill. Obama has spoken about health rationing. He even used his own grandmother as an example in an interview with Hans Nichols in Washington:(http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aGrKbfWkzTqc)
President Barack Obama said his grandmother’s hip-replacement surgery during the final weeks of her life made him wonder whether expensive procedures for the terminally ill reflect a “sustainable model” for health care.
(a "sustainable model" for health care...so in other words treating the elderly or very ill is not necessary? Therefore, it will be determined whether some one gets medical care based on their age and there diagnosis? That's rationing care!)
“I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost,” Obama said in the interview. “I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother.”
(He is concerned about the cost but somehow was unable to find out the actual cost of the surgery even though he was an attorney, supposedly a smart guy? Secondly, he WOULD have paid...ummm he was a millionaire at the time, if he was honestly concerned why didn't he pay for it?")
Obama said “you just get into some very difficult moral issues” when considering whether “to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill.
(It is a difficult moral issue so why not let the government decide for us because we are just to close and love our parents and grandparents to much to be able to make the appropriate decision...WOW!)
“What I’ve been constantly searching for is a ruthless pragmatism when it comes to economic policy,” he said, in the interview.
(Ruthless Pragmatism??? I would say deciding who qualifies for health care or certain treatments sustaining life is quite ruthless AND pragmatic!)
Now here is the section of the health care bill that speaks directly to health care rationing. Keep in mind it is not made very clear. Obviously being vague works in the benefit of the government leaving them all the space they need to make decisions based on who gets what and when:
SEC. 122. ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED.
3 (2) ANNUAL LIMITATION.—
(A) ANNUAL LIMITATION.—The cost-sharing incurred under the essential benefits pack age with respect to an individual (or family) for a year does not exceed the applicable level specified in subparagraph (B).
9 (B) APPLICABLE LEVEL.—The applicable level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (United States city average) applicable to such year.
(What they mean: Each family regardless of size will get yearly MAXIMUM annual dollar limitations. Once met, it isn't clear, but it appears you will not receive any further care until the following year. Granted, insurance companies have annual max or lifetime max dollar limitations but those caps are much higher then what the government is offering. $5,000/person or $10,000/family is not enough, especially for a large family or for a family who has just one very ill family member, although that family member probably won't qualify for health care treatments anyhow)
SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
12 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—
13 (1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a
panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.
(What they mean: an advisory board will determine what benefits you can have. You do NOT get to choose what benefits you want. Granted, your employer does this when offering you benefits but you can push for changes and exceptions as well as refute any denials of care based on your specific needs thus affecting changes to your benefit plan. With the government plan you can not do that. You will be assigned benefits based on what this panel thinks you need.)
19 (2) CHAIR.—The Surgeon General shall be a member and the chair of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee.
22 (3) MEMBERSHIP.—The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall be composed of the following members, in addition to the Surgeon General:
1 (A) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the President.
(What they mean: The president will be in charge of appointing 9 members of this committee which chooses your benefit coverage. Not random health care/health insurance professionals...no, people the President deems appropriate.)
4 (B) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States in a manner similar to the manner in which the Comptroller General appoints members to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission under section 1805(c) of the Social Security Act.
(What they mean: The Comptroller General is appointed for a fifteen-year term by the President of the United States. He/She is a government official (head of GAO) whose main function is to audit governmental agencies. He/She is a United States federal official who supervises expenditures and settles claims against the government. This person who works directly under the supervision of the President is to assign the additional 9 members of this panel to decide your insurance benefits. Key words: appointed by the President, directly monitored by the President, influenced by the President)
11 (C) Such even number of members (not to exceed 8) who are Federal employees and officers, as the President may appoint. Such initial appointments shall be made not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
17 (4) TERMS.—Each member of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall serve a 3-year term on the Committee, except that the terms of the initial members shall be adjusted in order to provide for a staggered term of appointment for all such members.
(Remember, these are people appointed by the President not by us!)
23 (5) PARTICIPATION.—The membership of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall at least reflect providers, consumer representatives, employers, labor, health insurance issuers, experts in health care financing and delivery, experts in racial and ethnic disparities, experts in care for those with disabilities, representatives of relevant governmental agencies. and at least one practicing physician or other health professional and an expert on children’s health and shall represent a balance among various sectors of the health care system so that no single
9 sector unduly influences the recommendations of such Committee.
(What they mean: All the people of the committee WHO ARE APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT will determine what health care you deserve based on RACE, age, sex, disability etc...other people who could care less about what you want will decide for you.)
11 (b) DUTIES.—
12 (1) RECOMMENDATIONS ON BENEFIT STANDARDS.—The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall recommend to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the ‘‘Secretary’’) benefit standards (as defined in paragraph (4)), and periodic updates to such standards.
(What they mean: The Committee will then tell the Secretary of Health and Human Services what you can or can't have. Keep in mind YOU are not involved in this decision making!)
18 In developing such recommendations, the Committee shall take into account innovation in health care and consider how such standards could reduce health disparities.
(What they mean: They will determine what advances in health care are necessary and that you can have access too.)
22 (2) DEADLINE.—The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall recommend initial benefit standards to the Secretary not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(What they mean: Are you wondering how they can institute a government plan but not have what health care we can have access too for one year. That is because they want it to start in 2010, meaning you and I start paying for it then, but they won't institute it and make it available until 2013! So, for three years you will pay for government health care while you are still paying for the private insurance you have now or continue to have no health care benefits
, even though you are paying for it until the 3 years is up.)
1 (3) PUBLIC INPUT.—The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall allow for public input as a part of developing recommendations under this subsection.
(What they mean: Did you notice the length of this section? How kind of them to "allow" our input!)
Now, lets address the "advisers" Obama has chosen to "advise" him on health care and see what they have to say:
Ezekial Emanual (Rahm Emanuel's brother) is a physician and a TOP advisor to Obama:
"When implemented. The complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated. The complete lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather then instrumental value."
(What they mean: Attenuated is to lessen the amount, force, magnitude or value of. So, he is saying the very young (pre-term babies, infants and toddlers) and the very old (yes, grammy and grampy!) have less value then the 15-40yo age group and thus have an attenuated (or lessened chance) of receiving needed medical care.)
Ezekial Emaual is also very outspoken in his belief that doctors are effectively community property whose decisions should not center exclusively on the best interests of the patient, but should also consider whether resources should be withheld from a given patient in order to be better spent on others.
Obama's Science Czar is John Holdren who penned a book “that approved of and recommended compulsory sterilization and even abortion in some cases, as part of a government population control regime.”
(What they mean: Forced abortions and sterilization to control population! Enough said? Don't believe me, check out excerpts from his book "Ecoscience")
Obama giggles at the accusations that the government will ration health care and kill "grammy and grampy" but there is nothing funny about it! Obama even said that if we want to know what he is doing or planning to simply look at the people he surrounds himself with. (Ezekia Emmanual, John Holdren, etc). I don't like what I am seeing!
He is trying to lie to us by assurance only. He can not recite any section of this bill to back up his "assurances". I think you and I all know that assurances alone are not enough...we want proof! They don't have it. That is why they are trying to make us all out to be crazies at the TH meetings in order to take the focus off of them.
Do not play their game. Instead, stay the course and stand for what is right and just. Keep yourself educated and informed. DO NOT RELY ON THE MAINSCHEME MEDIA! If we all do this there is NO way we can go wrong!
Remember, Hitler was likable and promised things that sounded wonderful and look what he ended up becoming. No one thought he would be capable of the atrocities he incited. Lets learn from history!!!!
Quote to ponder: It was former President Gerald Ford who once cautioned, in an uncharacteristic display of sagacity, that “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”
First I want to address the man behind the bill. Obama has spoken about health rationing. He even used his own grandmother as an example in an interview with Hans Nichols in Washington:(http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aGrKbfWkzTqc)
President Barack Obama said his grandmother’s hip-replacement surgery during the final weeks of her life made him wonder whether expensive procedures for the terminally ill reflect a “sustainable model” for health care.
(a "sustainable model" for health care...so in other words treating the elderly or very ill is not necessary? Therefore, it will be determined whether some one gets medical care based on their age and there diagnosis? That's rationing care!)
“I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost,” Obama said in the interview. “I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother.”
(He is concerned about the cost but somehow was unable to find out the actual cost of the surgery even though he was an attorney, supposedly a smart guy? Secondly, he WOULD have paid...ummm he was a millionaire at the time, if he was honestly concerned why didn't he pay for it?")
Obama said “you just get into some very difficult moral issues” when considering whether “to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill.
(It is a difficult moral issue so why not let the government decide for us because we are just to close and love our parents and grandparents to much to be able to make the appropriate decision...WOW!)
“What I’ve been constantly searching for is a ruthless pragmatism when it comes to economic policy,” he said, in the interview.
(Ruthless Pragmatism??? I would say deciding who qualifies for health care or certain treatments sustaining life is quite ruthless AND pragmatic!)
Now here is the section of the health care bill that speaks directly to health care rationing. Keep in mind it is not made very clear. Obviously being vague works in the benefit of the government leaving them all the space they need to make decisions based on who gets what and when:
SEC. 122. ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED.
3 (2) ANNUAL LIMITATION.—
(A) ANNUAL LIMITATION.—The cost-sharing incurred under the essential benefits pack age with respect to an individual (or family) for a year does not exceed the applicable level specified in subparagraph (B).
9 (B) APPLICABLE LEVEL.—The applicable level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (United States city average) applicable to such year.
(What they mean: Each family regardless of size will get yearly MAXIMUM annual dollar limitations. Once met, it isn't clear, but it appears you will not receive any further care until the following year. Granted, insurance companies have annual max or lifetime max dollar limitations but those caps are much higher then what the government is offering. $5,000/person or $10,000/family is not enough, especially for a large family or for a family who has just one very ill family member, although that family member probably won't qualify for health care treatments anyhow)
SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
12 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—
13 (1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a
panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.
(What they mean: an advisory board will determine what benefits you can have. You do NOT get to choose what benefits you want. Granted, your employer does this when offering you benefits but you can push for changes and exceptions as well as refute any denials of care based on your specific needs thus affecting changes to your benefit plan. With the government plan you can not do that. You will be assigned benefits based on what this panel thinks you need.)
19 (2) CHAIR.—The Surgeon General shall be a member and the chair of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee.
22 (3) MEMBERSHIP.—The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall be composed of the following members, in addition to the Surgeon General:
1 (A) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the President.
(What they mean: The president will be in charge of appointing 9 members of this committee which chooses your benefit coverage. Not random health care/health insurance professionals...no, people the President deems appropriate.)
4 (B) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States in a manner similar to the manner in which the Comptroller General appoints members to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission under section 1805(c) of the Social Security Act.
(What they mean: The Comptroller General is appointed for a fifteen-year term by the President of the United States. He/She is a government official (head of GAO) whose main function is to audit governmental agencies. He/She is a United States federal official who supervises expenditures and settles claims against the government. This person who works directly under the supervision of the President is to assign the additional 9 members of this panel to decide your insurance benefits. Key words: appointed by the President, directly monitored by the President, influenced by the President)
11 (C) Such even number of members (not to exceed 8) who are Federal employees and officers, as the President may appoint. Such initial appointments shall be made not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
17 (4) TERMS.—Each member of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall serve a 3-year term on the Committee, except that the terms of the initial members shall be adjusted in order to provide for a staggered term of appointment for all such members.
(Remember, these are people appointed by the President not by us!)
23 (5) PARTICIPATION.—The membership of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall at least reflect providers, consumer representatives, employers, labor, health insurance issuers, experts in health care financing and delivery, experts in racial and ethnic disparities, experts in care for those with disabilities, representatives of relevant governmental agencies. and at least one practicing physician or other health professional and an expert on children’s health and shall represent a balance among various sectors of the health care system so that no single
9 sector unduly influences the recommendations of such Committee.
(What they mean: All the people of the committee WHO ARE APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT will determine what health care you deserve based on RACE, age, sex, disability etc...other people who could care less about what you want will decide for you.)
11 (b) DUTIES.—
12 (1) RECOMMENDATIONS ON BENEFIT STANDARDS.—The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall recommend to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the ‘‘Secretary’’) benefit standards (as defined in paragraph (4)), and periodic updates to such standards.
(What they mean: The Committee will then tell the Secretary of Health and Human Services what you can or can't have. Keep in mind YOU are not involved in this decision making!)
18 In developing such recommendations, the Committee shall take into account innovation in health care and consider how such standards could reduce health disparities.
(What they mean: They will determine what advances in health care are necessary and that you can have access too.)
22 (2) DEADLINE.—The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall recommend initial benefit standards to the Secretary not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(What they mean: Are you wondering how they can institute a government plan but not have what health care we can have access too for one year. That is because they want it to start in 2010, meaning you and I start paying for it then, but they won't institute it and make it available until 2013! So, for three years you will pay for government health care while you are still paying for the private insurance you have now or continue to have no health care benefits
, even though you are paying for it until the 3 years is up.)
1 (3) PUBLIC INPUT.—The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall allow for public input as a part of developing recommendations under this subsection.
(What they mean: Did you notice the length of this section? How kind of them to "allow" our input!)
Now, lets address the "advisers" Obama has chosen to "advise" him on health care and see what they have to say:
Ezekial Emanual (Rahm Emanuel's brother) is a physician and a TOP advisor to Obama:
"When implemented. The complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated. The complete lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather then instrumental value."
(What they mean: Attenuated is to lessen the amount, force, magnitude or value of. So, he is saying the very young (pre-term babies, infants and toddlers) and the very old (yes, grammy and grampy!) have less value then the 15-40yo age group and thus have an attenuated (or lessened chance) of receiving needed medical care.)
Ezekial Emaual is also very outspoken in his belief that doctors are effectively community property whose decisions should not center exclusively on the best interests of the patient, but should also consider whether resources should be withheld from a given patient in order to be better spent on others.
Obama's Science Czar is John Holdren who penned a book “that approved of and recommended compulsory sterilization and even abortion in some cases, as part of a government population control regime.”
(What they mean: Forced abortions and sterilization to control population! Enough said? Don't believe me, check out excerpts from his book "Ecoscience")
Obama giggles at the accusations that the government will ration health care and kill "grammy and grampy" but there is nothing funny about it! Obama even said that if we want to know what he is doing or planning to simply look at the people he surrounds himself with. (Ezekia Emmanual, John Holdren, etc). I don't like what I am seeing!
He is trying to lie to us by assurance only. He can not recite any section of this bill to back up his "assurances". I think you and I all know that assurances alone are not enough...we want proof! They don't have it. That is why they are trying to make us all out to be crazies at the TH meetings in order to take the focus off of them.
Do not play their game. Instead, stay the course and stand for what is right and just. Keep yourself educated and informed. DO NOT RELY ON THE MAINSCHEME MEDIA! If we all do this there is NO way we can go wrong!
Remember, Hitler was likable and promised things that sounded wonderful and look what he ended up becoming. No one thought he would be capable of the atrocities he incited. Lets learn from history!!!!
Quote to ponder: It was former President Gerald Ford who once cautioned, in an uncharacteristic display of sagacity, that “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
What is REALLY in HR 3200 despite what "they" say! Part 1: Debunking Obama's claim that it won't affect our choice of private insurance
I have the actual HR 3200 bill and have been reading it. It is certainly difficult to read, I have to read it over and over but am catching on to the verbage. Right now there is much to do about Obama claiming we will be able to maintain our choice to enroll in private insurance as opposed to the government plan. Well people, what Obama is telling you is a lie! Below is a copy of Section 102 of the Healthcare Bill regarding private insurance:
1 SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.
3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
(what they mean: if you have private insurance that is active BEFORE day one of the institution of the government health plan then you can keep it provided that the below are met:)
10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
(What they mean: the private insurance company is not able to enroll anyone into a private policy on or after the date the government plan is instituted. Therefore, NO NEW enrollments after the government plan is instituted. This means if you lose your job or the insurance company goes under you HAVE to enroll in the government health plan)
17 (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.
(What they mean: if you have a baby or adopt a child or get married then you can add them to your private insurance policy despite the day the government plan was instituted)
21 (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.
(What they mean: If the private insurance has to adjust their plan terms or conditions including benefits and cost sharing then you will no longer be able to keep your private plan and be forced to enroll in the government plan)
1 (3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES.— The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner.
(What they mean: The private insurance company can not adjust premiums based on certain group of enrollees without increasing it for all enrollees. If that is done then you will be forced to enroll in the government health plan)
8 (b) GRACE PERIOD FOR CURRENT EMPLOYMENT BASED HEALTH PLANS.—
10 (1) GRACE PERIOD.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.
(What they mean: Health plans provided and managed by the employer (ie MHHS health plan) alos must adhere to the above rules and if not you will be forced to enroll in the government plan)
20 (B) EXCEPTION FOR LIMITED BENEFITS PLANS.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an employment-based health plan in which the coverage consists only of one or more of the following:
1 (i) Any coverage described in section 3001(a)(1)(B)(ii)(IV) of division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5).
5 (ii) Excepted benefits (as defined in section 733(c) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974), including coverage under a specified disease or illness policy described in paragraph (3)(A) of such section.
11 (iii) Such other limited benefits as the Commissioner may specify. In no case shall an employment-based health plan in which the coverage consists only of one or more of the coverage or benefits described in clauses (i) through (iii) be treated as acceptable coverage under this division.
(What they mean: The employer health plans have to comply with the two acts stated (i, ii) and any other limitations set forth, not stated in this bill)
18 (2) TRANSITIONAL TREATMENT AS ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.—During the grace period specified in paragraph (1)(A), an employment-based health plan that is described in such paragraph shall be treated as acceptable coverage under this division.
(c) LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.
(What they mean: Any insurance plan sold to an individual that is not active prior to day 1 that the government plan is instituted must be government managed health plans)
6 (2) SEPARATE, EXCEPTED COVERAGE PERMITTED.—Excepted benefits (as defined in section 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act) are not included within the definition of health insurance coverage. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall prevent the offering, other than through the Health Insurance Exchange, of excepted benefits so long as it is offered and priced separately from health insurance coverage. (see section 2791(c) of Public Health Service Act below:)
Section 2791(c) Public Health Services Act
(c) Excepted benefits
For purposes of this subchapter, the term “excepted benefits” means benefits under one or more (or any combination thereof) of the following:
(1) Benefits not subject to requirements
(A) Coverage only for accident, or disability income insurance, or any combination thereof.
(B) Coverage issued as a supplement to liability insurance.
(C) Liability insurance, including general liability insurance and automobile liability insurance.
(D) Workers’ compensation or similar insurance.
(E) Automobile medical payment insurance.
(F) Credit-only insurance.
(G) Coverage for on-site medical clinics.
(H) Other similar insurance coverage, specified in regulations, under which benefits for medical care are secondary or incidental to other insurance benefits.
(2) Benefits not subject to requirements if offered separately
(A) Limited scope dental or vision benefits.
(B) Benefits for long-term care, nursing home care, home health care, community-based care, or any combination thereof.
(C) Such other similar, limited benefits as are specified in regulations.
(3) Benefits not subject to requirements if offered as independent, noncoordinated benefits
(A) Coverage only for a specified disease or illness.
(B) Hospital indemnity or other fixed indemnity insurance.
(4) Benefits not subject to requirements if offered as separate insurance policy
Medicare supplemental health insurance (as defined under section 1395ss (g)(1) of this title), coverage supplemental to the coverage provided under chapter 55 of title 10, and similar supplemental coverage provided to coverage under a group health plan.
(What they mean: Any of the above are not included in the government health plan and thus can not be included in the private health insurance plan unless they are listed and charged seperately.)
Essentially guys, this is the governments way of fazing out private insurance plans. Obama even said he wanted a single payer healthcare plan that covers BASIC healthcare needs. BASIC? That is concerning, what about those of us who need more then basic care? Check out the video below of Obama himself speaking about his desire for a singer payer health care plan in 2003:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE
This is very serious business people. This plan is just a stepping stone to the creation of an imperialist government that chooses for us what we need and how much of it. (healthcare, money, food......) I will continue to read the bill and update as I go. If you want the whole bill email me at valsgal@gmail.com and I will forward the whole bill to you for your reading pleasure.
B
1 SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.
3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
(what they mean: if you have private insurance that is active BEFORE day one of the institution of the government health plan then you can keep it provided that the below are met:)
10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
(What they mean: the private insurance company is not able to enroll anyone into a private policy on or after the date the government plan is instituted. Therefore, NO NEW enrollments after the government plan is instituted. This means if you lose your job or the insurance company goes under you HAVE to enroll in the government health plan)
17 (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.
(What they mean: if you have a baby or adopt a child or get married then you can add them to your private insurance policy despite the day the government plan was instituted)
21 (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.
(What they mean: If the private insurance has to adjust their plan terms or conditions including benefits and cost sharing then you will no longer be able to keep your private plan and be forced to enroll in the government plan)
1 (3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES.— The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner.
(What they mean: The private insurance company can not adjust premiums based on certain group of enrollees without increasing it for all enrollees. If that is done then you will be forced to enroll in the government health plan)
8 (b) GRACE PERIOD FOR CURRENT EMPLOYMENT BASED HEALTH PLANS.—
10 (1) GRACE PERIOD.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.
(What they mean: Health plans provided and managed by the employer (ie MHHS health plan) alos must adhere to the above rules and if not you will be forced to enroll in the government plan)
20 (B) EXCEPTION FOR LIMITED BENEFITS PLANS.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an employment-based health plan in which the coverage consists only of one or more of the following:
1 (i) Any coverage described in section 3001(a)(1)(B)(ii)(IV) of division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5).
5 (ii) Excepted benefits (as defined in section 733(c) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974), including coverage under a specified disease or illness policy described in paragraph (3)(A) of such section.
11 (iii) Such other limited benefits as the Commissioner may specify. In no case shall an employment-based health plan in which the coverage consists only of one or more of the coverage or benefits described in clauses (i) through (iii) be treated as acceptable coverage under this division.
(What they mean: The employer health plans have to comply with the two acts stated (i, ii) and any other limitations set forth, not stated in this bill)
18 (2) TRANSITIONAL TREATMENT AS ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.—During the grace period specified in paragraph (1)(A), an employment-based health plan that is described in such paragraph shall be treated as acceptable coverage under this division.
(c) LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.
(What they mean: Any insurance plan sold to an individual that is not active prior to day 1 that the government plan is instituted must be government managed health plans)
6 (2) SEPARATE, EXCEPTED COVERAGE PERMITTED.—Excepted benefits (as defined in section 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act) are not included within the definition of health insurance coverage. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall prevent the offering, other than through the Health Insurance Exchange, of excepted benefits so long as it is offered and priced separately from health insurance coverage. (see section 2791(c) of Public Health Service Act below:)
Section 2791(c) Public Health Services Act
(c) Excepted benefits
For purposes of this subchapter, the term “excepted benefits” means benefits under one or more (or any combination thereof) of the following:
(1) Benefits not subject to requirements
(A) Coverage only for accident, or disability income insurance, or any combination thereof.
(B) Coverage issued as a supplement to liability insurance.
(C) Liability insurance, including general liability insurance and automobile liability insurance.
(D) Workers’ compensation or similar insurance.
(E) Automobile medical payment insurance.
(F) Credit-only insurance.
(G) Coverage for on-site medical clinics.
(H) Other similar insurance coverage, specified in regulations, under which benefits for medical care are secondary or incidental to other insurance benefits.
(2) Benefits not subject to requirements if offered separately
(A) Limited scope dental or vision benefits.
(B) Benefits for long-term care, nursing home care, home health care, community-based care, or any combination thereof.
(C) Such other similar, limited benefits as are specified in regulations.
(3) Benefits not subject to requirements if offered as independent, noncoordinated benefits
(A) Coverage only for a specified disease or illness.
(B) Hospital indemnity or other fixed indemnity insurance.
(4) Benefits not subject to requirements if offered as separate insurance policy
Medicare supplemental health insurance (as defined under section 1395ss (g)(1) of this title), coverage supplemental to the coverage provided under chapter 55 of title 10, and similar supplemental coverage provided to coverage under a group health plan.
(What they mean: Any of the above are not included in the government health plan and thus can not be included in the private health insurance plan unless they are listed and charged seperately.)
Essentially guys, this is the governments way of fazing out private insurance plans. Obama even said he wanted a single payer healthcare plan that covers BASIC healthcare needs. BASIC? That is concerning, what about those of us who need more then basic care? Check out the video below of Obama himself speaking about his desire for a singer payer health care plan in 2003:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE
This is very serious business people. This plan is just a stepping stone to the creation of an imperialist government that chooses for us what we need and how much of it. (healthcare, money, food......) I will continue to read the bill and update as I go. If you want the whole bill email me at valsgal@gmail.com and I will forward the whole bill to you for your reading pleasure.
B
Friday, August 7, 2009
Czar you awake????
Our forefathers created a system of checks and balances. There are three entities if you will that were created to prevent one power and they are called the Legislative Branch, Judicial Branch and the Executive Branch. It has worked for 100's of years and while others like to claim we have a "broken" system I submit to you that over these 100's of years we have seen many governments fall that did not embrace freedom and democracy...now whose system is "broken"?
We are now in a new Era, the Obama Era. This is a time of deception. Is it the time of the fall of the America we have all known and loved? I think it is time to start thinking seriously about this. As the video I shared last week explained, the communist movement is not overt, it is not in your face. No, No...it is casual, smooth, almost invisible; lead by a smooth talking, good looking, charismatic BLACK man (accentuating black simply for the timing not being racial). He plain fit the bill and most of us bought it hook line and sinker!!!
Well, it isn't too late. You can choose to keep your head in the sand or you can choose to step up to the plate and make your voice known. This is no longer about Republican or Democrat...this is about FREEDOM! You have got to stop and take a look at who this fine Man, Obama, really is and who he surrounds himself with. Remember, you are only as good as the company you keep!
Do you know what Czars are? They used to be called dictators but that didn't' quite work for the here and now so they use a shifty little word most may not know or understand. Well, let me define it for you first from Merriam Webster:
one having great power or authority (A banking Czar) (I believe Obama has one of these too)
Czar you scared yet? How about if I tell you these "Czars" are not appointed by you yet they speak for you...does that scare you? OK, tough bunch here...what if I told you that they bypass the House and Senate which contain the people you DID vote for thus putting Obama in complete power. Look, they go and do many things that would typically have to taken for a vote in the House and Senate...they bypass the Legislative Branch and they only answer to Obama!!! Scared yet? What if I told you one of them believes in forced abortion and sterilization by drinking water to control the population? Looks like I am getting to you...here's another one: One of them believes a child is not a "human being" until they are trained to be one so therefore they have no rights and up to the age of two can be "disposed of"? Did I mention you didn't get to vote for these people yet they speak for you AND they bypass the ones we did vote for? What kind of government do you call that?
OK, so who gave these freaks the position of "one having great power or authority"? No, not George Bush...it is the smooth talking, charismatic, fine BLACK man, Obama. Yep, those are his "friends"! Wow, I bet you CZAR scared now and if not you need some help?
I just have one question for you.....What are you going to do about it? Check out the new video I have here. It is an elected official in Washington describing how the Government has taken over and is moving in on the American public like a "Gangster Government"...she's right in the middle of it so you have got to take her seriously! Again, something not made readily available to us by the mainSCHEME media!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thR-lVuztIYhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thR-lVuztIY
Czar you awake now????
We are now in a new Era, the Obama Era. This is a time of deception. Is it the time of the fall of the America we have all known and loved? I think it is time to start thinking seriously about this. As the video I shared last week explained, the communist movement is not overt, it is not in your face. No, No...it is casual, smooth, almost invisible; lead by a smooth talking, good looking, charismatic BLACK man (accentuating black simply for the timing not being racial). He plain fit the bill and most of us bought it hook line and sinker!!!
Well, it isn't too late. You can choose to keep your head in the sand or you can choose to step up to the plate and make your voice known. This is no longer about Republican or Democrat...this is about FREEDOM! You have got to stop and take a look at who this fine Man, Obama, really is and who he surrounds himself with. Remember, you are only as good as the company you keep!
Do you know what Czars are? They used to be called dictators but that didn't' quite work for the here and now so they use a shifty little word most may not know or understand. Well, let me define it for you first from Merriam Webster:
one having great power or authority (A banking Czar) (I believe Obama has one of these too)
Czar you scared yet? How about if I tell you these "Czars" are not appointed by you yet they speak for you...does that scare you? OK, tough bunch here...what if I told you that they bypass the House and Senate which contain the people you DID vote for thus putting Obama in complete power. Look, they go and do many things that would typically have to taken for a vote in the House and Senate...they bypass the Legislative Branch and they only answer to Obama!!! Scared yet? What if I told you one of them believes in forced abortion and sterilization by drinking water to control the population? Looks like I am getting to you...here's another one: One of them believes a child is not a "human being" until they are trained to be one so therefore they have no rights and up to the age of two can be "disposed of"? Did I mention you didn't get to vote for these people yet they speak for you AND they bypass the ones we did vote for? What kind of government do you call that?
OK, so who gave these freaks the position of "one having great power or authority"? No, not George Bush...it is the smooth talking, charismatic, fine BLACK man, Obama. Yep, those are his "friends"! Wow, I bet you CZAR scared now and if not you need some help?
I just have one question for you.....What are you going to do about it? Check out the new video I have here. It is an elected official in Washington describing how the Government has taken over and is moving in on the American public like a "Gangster Government"...she's right in the middle of it so you have got to take her seriously! Again, something not made readily available to us by the mainSCHEME media!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thR-lVuztIYhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thR-lVuztIY
Czar you awake now????
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Dazed and Confused...
I am terribly concerned about the direction our country is taking and the fact that so many people are totally oblivious to what is going on!!!
God gave us free will and our forefathers established a place for us to practice that free will and now we have cronies in our government who want to take that away...
I am very bothered by that but moreso bothered by the lack of concern among my fellow Americans...because these cronies were put into power by many of you! Voting with a complete disregard for the issues and consequences of those choices.
You keep it up and will find you wake up one day and have lost your right to choose your path, your destiny. Are you seriously ok with the government telling you how you can live????
I was noticing people on my way to work...consumed in their world, oblivious to what is going on around them (people crossing the street thoughtless of the cars waiting on them as they meander down the street crossing diagonally while chatting amongst themselves or the care that decided they really wanted to turn left so without regard to the people waiting behind them they turn on their left blinker and set there while we all watch our light turn green and can't move till this person accomplishes self gratification)
That's what it's all about isn't it? Self Gratification? Living in the moment???
Then it dawned on me..."then they go out and vote"......Wow, very scary!
And that is exactly what has happened...If most of you knew what Obama was really about you would have ran far away from him...but noooo, it felt good to vote the first black president into office, making history, feeling good about the change that you are proving had taken place by having a black man as the leader of the "Free World", it felt good didn't it?
Well, the Leader of the Free World is working feverishly to take your freedoms away!!! Kinda ironic isn't it? All of this because at the moment it "felt good"!!!!
We are in some what of a sleeper state and all I can think of to fix this is to scream out, at the top of my lungs to hopefully wake us all up and get us interested in what is really happening cause it doesn't feel good but as we are seeing, sometimes feeling good isn't so good after all.
So I take on my calling from my higher power telling me to speak out, to shout out and to challenge as many as I can to engage a conversation about what this GREAT country stands for and invigorate people to put a stop to the overwhelming socialist movement that has invaded our home!!!!!
B
God gave us free will and our forefathers established a place for us to practice that free will and now we have cronies in our government who want to take that away...
I am very bothered by that but moreso bothered by the lack of concern among my fellow Americans...because these cronies were put into power by many of you! Voting with a complete disregard for the issues and consequences of those choices.
You keep it up and will find you wake up one day and have lost your right to choose your path, your destiny. Are you seriously ok with the government telling you how you can live????
I was noticing people on my way to work...consumed in their world, oblivious to what is going on around them (people crossing the street thoughtless of the cars waiting on them as they meander down the street crossing diagonally while chatting amongst themselves or the care that decided they really wanted to turn left so without regard to the people waiting behind them they turn on their left blinker and set there while we all watch our light turn green and can't move till this person accomplishes self gratification)
That's what it's all about isn't it? Self Gratification? Living in the moment???
Then it dawned on me..."then they go out and vote"......Wow, very scary!
And that is exactly what has happened...If most of you knew what Obama was really about you would have ran far away from him...but noooo, it felt good to vote the first black president into office, making history, feeling good about the change that you are proving had taken place by having a black man as the leader of the "Free World", it felt good didn't it?
Well, the Leader of the Free World is working feverishly to take your freedoms away!!! Kinda ironic isn't it? All of this because at the moment it "felt good"!!!!
We are in some what of a sleeper state and all I can think of to fix this is to scream out, at the top of my lungs to hopefully wake us all up and get us interested in what is really happening cause it doesn't feel good but as we are seeing, sometimes feeling good isn't so good after all.
So I take on my calling from my higher power telling me to speak out, to shout out and to challenge as many as I can to engage a conversation about what this GREAT country stands for and invigorate people to put a stop to the overwhelming socialist movement that has invaded our home!!!!!
B
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)