Obama Care summerised

[Brett]

Check this out and be afraid! do the reading yourself. Alink is provided to the bill that is being debated.
 
Tim
 
It's been posted by the government.
 
http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
 
 
• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
• Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Health card.
• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.< br>
• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll
• Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll
• Page 167: Any individual who doesn’t have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).
• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
• Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that.
• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected."
• Page 241: Doctors: no matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)
• Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc.
• Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.
• Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.
2 Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!
• Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.
• Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.
• Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!
• Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.
• Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.
• Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.
• Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
• Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.
• Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).
• Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?
• Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.
• Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
• Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of -life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.
• Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
• Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
• Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.
• Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.

[m-g Willy]

Our best health insurance might be -guns and ammo!

[1marty]

I wonder if the assisted suicide will include gas chambers-Didn't someone by the name of Adolph come up with that idea first?

[cwall]

The entire healthcare plan is not really about healthcare anyway.  If you have studied Obama's past statements, he has actually said that he believes that the tax structure should be used as the instrument to redistribute the wealth of the nation, and that is what he is doing.  He claims that the healthcare system will be funded by the "rich" through additional taxes.  If providing healthcare was the real objective, premiums would be tax write-off or even a credit long ago, but they are not.  By nationalizing heathcare in the US and forcing the private sector out, the Fed will control a massive portion of the nation's wealth to be spent as they see fit.  The same thing will happen to those funds as happened to Sociel Security contributions when LBJs administration stopped putting the funds into a trust, and started putting them into the General Fund.  They (both parties) have been spending your retirement money ever since.  That is why SS is in trouble.  Funny thing that it was in the early eighties that you started hearing that SS was in trouble.  If this happened in the private sector, people would go to the slam.

Obama and the Dem party want the US to be a socielist nation, and they are making huge strides in that direction.
Clayton

[nomosendero]

Brett, I could not pull up the link.

This is horrific stuff.

[JustaShooter]

The link he posted was broken - try this one:

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

I don't know where that list came from, but it sure looks to be from someone who either misread, misunderstood, or is intentionally trying to misrepresent some aspects of the bill (or is trying to make those who spread it around look foolish and misinformed...) Don't take my word for it, read the text of the bill for yourself and see what it says.  And don't just read a short paragraph and expect that you understand what it is saying.  In many/most cases, you have to read the entire section (or at least from the beginning of the section) to understand what it is saying. 

For example, the list says "Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer." when in reality it is talking about nothing of the sort.  Start reading at page 57 Line 3 and read through page 60 line 12.  It says nothing about individual accounts, and should be clear that it is talking about administrative financial transactions.

Also, the list says "Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that."  The full text contains that phrase, sure, but that is taken completely out of context.  Here is the full sentence: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55."  (Emphasis added by me to indicate the critical context left out of the list.)  Again, what the bill says and what the list says are different.

There is a lot more misrepresentation in this list, but I'm not going to take a hundred pages to explain them all.  Become a part of the process, not a puppet - read it for yourself and make your own decisions.  If you have trouble understanding something, take your time, re-read it, and if necessary, get help understanding it.  Don't just blindly parrot what someone else is saying about it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of this plan or any other government run healthcare plan, but we need to fight it from a standpoint of knowledge, not ignorance or manipulation of the facts.  The temptation is to (and likely the intention was to make us) say "look, someone else read it, summarized it, and gave references to the actual bill.  It must be accurate, right, so I don't have to read it for myself."  Anyone who takes and spreads this list as the truth without reading the bill for themselves is going to look foolish. 

Don't get caught in the trap!

Just a Shooter

[nomosendero]

Thanks Just A Shooter for that & thanks Brett for the thread. I absolutley despise the entire concept of Gov. Healthcare & I would like a summary of the bad effects of the bill & then I will add the AR Congressmen to call/e-mail at the bottom, shoot I will go door to door in my area. But, I want it to be 100% right. Looks like the summary may need some tweaking.  Thanks!!

[billy_56081]

Here is what makes the Liberal scum so hypocritical, the ones who are pusing for this healthcare debacle are the same ones who piss and moan about the drug companies the most. Hey liberal retards the drug companies are for BHO care!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/08/08/drug-industry-helping-obama-overhaul-health-care/

[GatCat]

Folks, I will guar-an-ef'n-tee that if the Nationalized Health Care goes through, it will not be long before gunshot costs are tabulated, and used to be the basis for gun control. I can hear already how it will go.." no one in this administration wants to restrict gun ownership, but it is a simple fact that gun violence is costing ALL Americans "X" amount of money, and we simple must lower that cost. It is either that, or we will have to cut ( certain ) childrens ( or elderly ) care".
THAT is how the spineless, cowardly, back-stabbing, dry-gulching punks will attempt to do what we know they want to do!!
NO DOUBT !!!
Mark

[magooch]

GatCat, you are right on.  And that is just the start of it.  Almost every facet of our lives will be effected if the government controls healthcare any more than it already does.

Wouldn't it be refreshing if the government would do the things it is already empowered to do and see what a difference it would make in the cost of healthcare and a lot of other things.  To begin with, governments at all levels could enforce our immigration laws.  They could reform tort laws.  Tax laws could be used to allow for a more simplified insurance premium deduction and so on. 

I like to think that even Dumbycrats actually want to improve our healthcare system, but it baffles me that they somehow believe that if we go the nationalization route that we will have a different outcome than other countries.  I admit that all I know about healthcare in other countries is what the news media reports and to a degree, what I read on the Internet.  There is enough negative aspects raised that one must be very skeptical about the wisdom of having the government be the prime mover. 

I think we need to move very cautiously and thoroughly examine what the consequences might be from any changes to the system that involves government control.

[billy_56081]

GatCat you have a great point there, I would imagine motorcycles and red meat will be right behind them on the list.

[DDZ]

GatCat you have a great point there, I would imagine motorcycles and red meat will be right behind them on the list.

Adding to that. Any government control over our health care would be bad for the masses, no matter how little it is. It would give them a foot in the door for further restrictions on your health care. They would eventually be calling all the shots, not you or your doctor. They could put restrictions on the amount of health care you recieve, by the kind of lifestyle you live. Or they could increase your taxes if they think your lifestyle is unhealthy. They could penilize you if you are 5 or 10 pounds overweight. That would be thier judgement of coarse. The six pack of beer you drink a week, may be deemed unhealthy. The kind of car you drive, what you eat, what you do for a living, there is no limit to as what they could do. They could end up controlling all aspects of your life. Never think that this could, or would not happen. After all Obama got elected didn't he? The government we have now is not your friend. They will not make things better for you as they claim. Never trust anything they do or say, because lying has become the norm.

This country is headed toward damnation, the only thing that will stop the train wreck we are headed toward is if we as a country let God back in, follow his principles and morals, and place our faith in him, and not man or government.     

[jimster]

It's not likely you'll know what's in the "final version" of the health care package.  What they add and cross out with their pencils just before they vote is what you won't see or know about.  That's what they did with the bailouts and the pork package, that's what they will do here.  The final 1000+ pages of so called reform we won't be able to see, many in Congress won't read it, and the president won't read it either...to him it's just a "I got something done" thing and the few things he does know about that's in there will be some kind of payoffs Chicago style,  stuff like we already seen with Acorn.  The rest that's in there he don't care either.  Truth is your Congress no longer writes the legislation, or reads it,  the people that do this are the staff/lawyers and the czars and others you don't know about.  Probably some interns in there shoving spending through as well,  just to give them experience for when they run for office.

Best thing to do is try to have nothing passed,  "do nothing" is the best option now under these circumstances.

[m-g Willy]

GatCat you have a great point there, I would imagine motorcycles and red meat will be right behind them on the list.

Doesn't matter what the constitution says.
We don't let felons have guns.
So maybe to cut gun violence we should disarm those who commit most of the crimes!

THAT WILL STOP THE GUN CONTROL TALK!

[nomosendero]

GatCat you have a great point there, I would imagine motorcycles and red meat will be right behind them on the list.

Doesn't matter what the constitution says.
We don't let felons have guns.
So maybe to cut gun violence we should disarm those who commit most of the crimes!

THAT WILL STOP THE GUN CONTROL TALK!

First of all, it ALLWAYS matters what the Constitution says to Americans
Number two, it is already illegal for felons to have guns, many are out because Libs don't want them in jail
Number 3, nothing will stop the gun control talk because we have a never ending supply of stupid Liberal Liars.

[Heavy C]

GatCat you have a great point there, I would imagine motorcycles and red meat will be right behind them on the list.

Doesn't matter what the constitution says.
We don't let felons have guns.
So maybe to cut gun violence we should disarm those who commit most of the crimes!

THAT WILL STOP THE GUN CONTROL TALK!

First of all, it ALLWAYS matters what the Constitution says to Americans
Number two, it is already illegal for felons to have guns, many are out because Libs don't want them in jail
Number 3, nothing will stop the gun control talk because we have a never ending supply of stupid Liberal Liars.

+1; especially on point number 3.

[m-g Willy]

It's not illegal for felons to have guns according to the constitution!
The same as they still have all the rest of their constitutional rights.
They are inalienable rights.
No one can take them from you or even vote them away.
So the constitution doesn't always matter!
But I wish it did!!

[billy_56081]

I'm still waiting for our resident socialist medicine guy to chime in here. Maybe he can explain to us all why this is such a great deal for us, when he ranted preiviosly about the "evil" drug companys. Now the liberal liars are on the same side as the drug companys they hate. Normal liberal liar hypocrisy.       

[Casull]

It's not illegal for felons to have guns according to the constitution!
The same as they still have all the rest of their constitutional rights.
They are inalienable rights.
No one can take them from you or even vote them away.

BS!  Liberty is an inalienable right, and it is the first one taken away from a felon.

[m-g Willy]

It's not illegal for felons to have guns according to the constitution!
The same as they still have all the rest of their constitutional rights.
They are inalienable rights.
No one can take them from you or even vote them away.

BS!  Liberty is an inalienable right, and it is the first one taken away from a felon.

Yes a felon loses his liberty when he is imprisoned.
But upon his return to freedom he still has ALL his rights!
Or so it says in the constitution.
Why should he lose a inalienable right when it comes to guns, but be able to keep his other rights?
Inalienable rights are rights we are born with.
The government didn't give them to us .
They only recognize them as rights that can not be taken away.

[Casull]

Yes a felon loses his liberty when he is imprisoned.
But upon his return to freedom he still has ALL his rights!

What about a life sentence?  Or a death sentence?

Or so it says in the constitution.

Where exactly does it say this?

Why should he lose a inalienable right when it comes to guns, but be able to keep his other rights?

Because it is part of the punishment for doing the crime.

Inalienable rights are rights we are born with.
The government didn't give them to us .

Well, this is true.

They only recognize them as rights that can not be taken away.

They can't be taken away without "due process", but can certainly be taken away as punishment for committing a crime.

[m-g Willy]

Yes a felon loses his liberty when he is imprisoned.
But upon his return to freedom he still has ALL his rights!

What about a life sentence?  Or a death sentence?

(He is not a free man as long as he is in prison!)

Or so it says in the constitution.

Where exactly does it say this?

(The bill of rights .
They are inalienable ,not granted by the government.)

Why should he lose a inalienable right when it comes to guns, but be able to keep his other rights?

Because it is part of the punishment for doing the crime.

(Where does it say that a free man loses any rights?)

Inalienable rights are rights we are born with.
The government didn't give them to us .

Well, this is true.

They only recognize them as rights that can not be taken away.

They can't be taken away without "due process", but can certainly be taken away as punishment for committing a crime.

(Where do you get that info from?)

[billy_56081]

Felons in MN are givin there gun rights back after 10 years of the sentence expiring on a violent crime and after probation on a non violent felony. Now whether there is a federal law that supercedes the MN law I cannot answer.

[Cabin4]

Obama Care Summarized:

1. The government will tell you if you qualify for treatment.
2. The government will tell you what treatment you can have if you qualify
3. Abortion on demand will be next since the government will pay
4. The government will tell you what to eat so as to minimize health care costs.
5. The government will tell you who your doctor is

So let me get this straight, the same people that are pushing for the government to tell you/determine how you manage your body are the same people that say that the government has no business telling a woman if she can abort a baby or not?? We know the line, it's her body and no one should make any decicions for her.

Seems a bit hypocritical of the Liberals, don't ya think. WHy is this not being exposed.

[m-g Willy]

Obama Care Summarized:

1. The government will tell you if you qualify for treatment.
2. The government will tell you what treatment you can have if you qualify
3. Abortion on demand will be next since the government will pay
4. The government will tell you what to eat so as to minimize health care costs.
5. The government will tell you who your doctor is

So let me get this straight, the same people that are pushing for the government to tell you/determine how you manage your body are the same people that say that the government has no business telling a woman if she can abort a baby or not?? We know the line,

((((((( it's her body and no one should make any decicions for her.)))))))

Seems a bit hypocritical of the Liberals, don't ya think. WHy is this not being exposed.

WOW!!
GREAT INSIGHT!!
I think I'm going to us that line alot .
Thanks

[Casull]

Yes a felon loses his liberty when he is imprisoned.
But upon his return to freedom he still has ALL his rights!

What about a life sentence?  Or a death sentence?

(He is not a free man as long as he is in prison!)

You never specified that you were talking about a "free man".  But, in any event, if by breaking a law your liberty can be taken away, so can other inalienable rights.  And, if the punishment for that lawbreaking is that you lose those other inalienable rights for a period (or indefinitely) after serving the prison portion of your punishment, it is legal and not in violation of the Constitution.  Those rights are inalienable as long as you abide by the rule of law.  If you break that compact, then those rights can be taken.

Or so it says in the constitution.

Where exactly does it say this?

(The bill of rights .
They are inalienable ,not granted by the government.)

See above.

Why should he lose a inalienable right when it comes to guns, but be able to keep his other rights?

Because it is part of the punishment for doing the crime.

(Where does it say that a free man loses any rights?)

What about a parolee?  He's a "free man", but his travel (liberty) is limited and he must conform to the requirements of his parole.  Also, SEE ABOVE.

They only recognize them as rights that can not be taken away.


They can't be taken away without "due process", but can certainly be taken away as punishment for committing a crime.


(Where do you get that info from?)

From an understanding of the Constitution, the rule of law and the societal compact.  Where do you get your info?

[m-g Willy]

From an understanding of the Constitution, the rule of law and the societal compact.  Where do you get your info?

Do you know what inalienable rights are?
Because according to your thinking and understanding ,
There is no such thing as inalienable rights!
You speak of rights like they are  granted to us by the government!
And if we don't stay in line, the government will jerk these privileged rights away from us.
It's this kind of thinking that has lead to the deterioration of the America that the founding fathers envisioned.
Remember-  It says "We the PEOPLE"--not --"We the Sheeple"

[m-g Willy]

DUH, DOUBLE POST

[m-g Willy]

DOUBLE POST

[Casull]

Do you know what inalienable rights are?
Because according to your thinking and understanding ,
There is no such thing as inalienable rights!
You speak of rights like they are  granted to us by the government!
And if we don't stay in line, the government will jerk these privileged rights away from us.
It's this kind of thinking that has lead to the deterioration of the America that the founding fathers envisioned.
Remember-  It says "We the PEOPLE"--not --"We the Sheeple"

Obviously you do not understand what "inalienable rights" are.  They are not absolute.  Yes, they are God given rights, but when you choose to live among other people, they can be taken away if you break the societal compact.  If you commit murder, you can lose your inalienable right to life.  If you commit a felony, you will lose your inalienable right to liberty.  If you speed on the highway, you will lose your inalienable right to property (the fine).  Now, exactly why is that so difficult for you to understand?  It's your kind of absolutist "thinking" that makes some of us look like kooks.