Those cashing in on the clunkers program are surprised when they get to the treasurer's office windows. That's because the government's rebate of up to $4500 dollars for every clunker is taxable. Another Nancy Pelosi Government Run Program!
Friday, August 28, 2009
Clunker Money is Taxable!
Those cashing in on the clunkers program are surprised when they get to the treasurer's office windows. That's because the government's rebate of up to $4500 dollars for every clunker is taxable. Another Nancy Pelosi Government Run Program!
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
This Weeks Cable News Race
CABLE NEWS RACE MONDAY, AUG. 24, 2009
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,440,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,937,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,810,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,450,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,066,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 1,860,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,114,000
CNN KING 1,063,000
MSNBC MADDOW 885,000
CNN COOPER 827,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 640,000
Monday, August 24, 2009
What would a "Death Panel" say?
President Obama's Quit Smoking Journal December 24, 2005 - Freshman Senator Obama says he's trying to quit smoking for his daughters. "The flesh is weak." "It's an ongoing battle. I have my gum, my patches and all that stuff."
November 18, 2006 - Question about smoking: "I'm struggling with those. I've quit before. It's one of those habits that creep up when you're stressed and you have to shake it off. It's not something I'm proud of."
February 6, 2007 - I've never been a heavy smoker," no more than 10 a day. "I've quit periodically over the last several years. I've got an ironclad demand from my wife that in the stresses of the campaign I don't succumb. I've been chewing Nicorette strenuously." "Actually Nicorette works pretty well."
February 11, 2007 - Michelle Obama: "I hate it." "That's why he doesn't do it anymore. I'm proud to say. I outed him -- I'm the one who outed him on the smoking. That was one of my prerequisites for, you know, entering this race, is that, you know, he couldn't be a smoking president."
March 15, 2007 - Question: "How's quitting smoking going?" Obama: "Nicorette is going justfine."
August 2007 - Reporter claims Senator Obama reeked of cigarette smoke smell during an interview.
September 11, 2007 - Video clip of Senator Obama chewing nicotine gum before a Senate Committee meeting
February 28, 2008 - Senator Obama asserts success in quitting smoking, a dealbreaker with Michelle. I had been sneaking 3 to 4 cigarettes a day but I've been chewing on Nicorette which tastes like chewing on ground pepper, "but it does help."
April 2, 2008 - Motivation to quit: "After your wife saying on 60 Minutes that if you seeBarak with a cigarette let me know." "I fell off the wagon a couple of times during the course of it and then was able to get back on." "It's a struggle like everything else. And I think that it's important to just keep in mind I have a nine-year-old daughter and a six-year-old daughter and I want to give them away in their weddings and I want to see my grand-kids and I want to set a good example for all these young people here and I want to make sure that as President of the United States I'm going to try to stay healthy ..." In advising smokers: "You guys need to get it straight. You guys need to get on the case" (see minute 31:10 of clip).
May 29, 2008 - Obama's physician releases a health statement which mentions smoking and asserts: he "has quit this practice on several occasions and is currently using Nicorette gum with success."
July 25, 2008 - Video clip of Senator Obama throwing Nicorette gum to a supporter whoasked if he still smokes: "I do not." [How did you quit?] "Nicorette, you what one? Here, try one out. Now that's 2 milligrams because I only had like 3 or 4 a day but - 3 or 4 cigarettes a day when I was smoking - but if you're a heavier smoker you may need the 4 milligrams. It's not bad, though. It works well."
October 2008 - "There wasn't some dramatic moment [when I quit]." "Michelle had been putting pressure on me for a while. I was never really a heavy smoker. Probably at my peak I was smoking seven or eight a day. More typical was three. So it wasn't a huge challenge with huge withdrawal symptoms. There have been a couple of times during the campaign when I fell off the wagon and bummed one, and I had to kick it again. But I figure, seeing as I'm running for president, I need to cut myself a little slack."
December 7, 2008 - President-Elect Obama declares that "I have" quit smoking" butacknowledges that "there are times where I have fallen off the wagon" "You will not see any violations" of the White House no smoking zone policy.
February 2, 2009 - Question: Have you had a cigarette since you been to the WhiteHouse? "I haven't had one on these grounds. Sometimes it's hard." "But I'm sticking toit."
June 22, 2009 - The President signs FDA tobacco regulation bill, during which he twice refers to smoking as a "habit" (not an addiction or chemical dependency).
June 23, 2009 - Video clip in which the President acknowledges falling off the wagon here and there, yet claimsto be 95% cured.
The President should expect news and jokes to continue
Time to Fold Your Race Cards!
New York State's Governor Patterson...."Part of what I feel is that one very successful minority is permissible, but when you see too many success stories, then some people get nervous.
Integrity?
One day a florist went to a barber for a haircut. After the cut, he asked about his bill, and the barber replied, 'I cannot accept money from you , I'm doing community service this week.' The florist was pleased and left the shop. When the barber went to open his shop the next morning, there was a 'thank you' card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill, the barber again replied, 'I cannot accept money from you , I'm doing community service this week.' The cop was happy and left the shop. The next morning when the barber went to open up, there was a 'thank you' card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.
Then a Congressman came in for a haircut, and when he went to pay his bill, the barber again replied, 'I can not accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The Congressman was very happy and left the shop. The next morning, when the barber went to open up, there were a dozen Congressmen lined up waiting for a free haircut. And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between the citizens of our country and the politicians who run it.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
The Painting is on the Wall
Confidence in Obama Drops to 49% From 60%, Washington Post-ABC Poll Finds U.S. public confidence in President Barack Obama declined over the summer as opposition to the administration's health-care proposals increased, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Cash For Clunkers a Lemon
The National Automobile Dealers Association, a nationwide trade group, wants the federal government to put Cash-for-Clunkers out of its misery immediately.NADA surveyed nearly 800 dealers and the results may be the Obama administration’s worst nightmare:
97% of dealers who responded, say the government is not reimbursing fast enough
13% of dealers have dropped out the program because the government is not reimbursing fast enough and overall concern payment problems
87% percent of dealers are concerned the money will be exhausted
3% of CARS program deals have been reimbursed
66% of dealers have not received one payment from the government
25% of dealers are experiencing servere cash flow problems that require short-term loans to fix
11% of submitted applications have been approved (though dealers still are waiting for the money)
16% of submitted applications have been rejected
55% of dealers are not confident they will get reimbursed for every deal
40% do not want the program to continue, even if changes are made to the CARS program
IHateTheMedia.com source story and picture
Internet Alert!
!!! If you get an email titled "Nude photo of Nancy Pelosi," don't open it.... It contains a nude photo of Nancy Pelosi. !!!
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Cash For Corpses, may be new program....
The rough economy is inflicting hardship on people even in death.Coroners and funeral directors in several cities say the number of people seeking government-paid funerals, cremations and burials is spiking. Most counties and states will use public money to cremate or bury people who are too poor to pay for private services.
"People just aren't in a position to pay $7,000 for a private funeral and burial," says Lt. David Smith of the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office, where the number of people seeking county burial has nearly doubled since last year.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Uncle Ralph's Rants!
Like most folks in this country,I have a job. I work,they pay me.I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck in my case, I am required to pass a random urine test(with which I have no problem). What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.
So, here is my Question: Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?
Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their butt - doing drugs, while I work. . . . Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
I guess we could title that program, 'Urine or You're Out'.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
What Went Wrong?
There is a growing realization that Obama enticed voters last summer with the flashy lure of discontent. But now that they are hooked, he is reeling them in to an entirely different — and, for many a frightening — agenda. Nothing is worse for a president than a growing belief among the public that it has been had.
Read More....
Obama's Health Care Whoppers
Peter Ferrara- FOXNews.com
- August 17, 2009
Obama's Health Care Whoppers
If you take the partisan blinders off, sometimes it gets downright scary.
At his town hall meeting on health care on Saturday in Colorado, President Obama told the audience:
"I just want to be completely clear about this; I keep on saying this but somehow folks aren't listening -- if you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan."
That is, unless your health care plan is Medicare Advantage -- the private insurance options that almost one-fourth of seniors have chosen for their coverage under Medicare. Republicans enacted this choice for seniors, and many, many seniors have chosen one of these private insurance options because they get better benefits from it than from standard Medicare.
President Obama's health plan targets these Medicare Advantage private plans for $177 billion in cuts in what he misleadingly calls "subsidies"and "sweetheart deals for insurance companies that don't make anybody any healthier."At a minimum, these cuts will force these plans to cut back on the benefits they provide to seniors. Or the Medicare Advantage plans may just go out of business altogether, dumping all the seniors who have made that choice because they think they are getting a better deal from those plans.
Read more....
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/08/17/peter-ferrarra-health-care-obama/
Monday, August 17, 2009
Democrats Retreat!
FOX Nation Victory! Obama Backs Down From Gov't-Run Health Care!
President Barack Obama is willing to embrace insurance cooperatives over a government-run plan as the White House faces mounting opposition to its broad overhaul of the nation's health care system. Bowing to Republican pressure and offering political cover to fiscally conservative Democrats, Obama's administration signaled on Sunday that it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance. The shift leaves open a chance for compromise with Republicans that probably would enrage Obama's liberal supporters but could deliver a much-needed victory on a top domestic priority.
President Barack Obama is willing to embrace insurance cooperatives over a government-run plan as the White House faces mounting opposition to its broad overhaul of the nation's health care system. Bowing to Republican pressure and offering political cover to fiscally conservative Democrats, Obama's administration signaled on Sunday that it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance. The shift leaves open a chance for compromise with Republicans that probably would enrage Obama's liberal supporters but could deliver a much-needed victory on a top domestic priority.
Is Congress Listening?
Overhauling health-care system tops agenda at annual meeting of Canada's doctorsBy Jennifer Graham
SASKATOON — The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.
Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made.
"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.
"We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Only in America
Did you know that the ACLU has filed a suit to have all military cross-shaped headstones removed and another suit to end prayer from the military completely. They're making great progress.. The Navy Chaplains can no longer mention Jesus' name in prayer thanks to the retched ACLU and our new administration.
Obama misspeaks again@
http://
We agree with President Obama on the importance of prevention. However, a recent example used to illustrate his important point was misleading. Surgeons are not paid $30,000 to $50,000 to amputate a diabetic’s foot.
Medicare pays a surgeon, on average, from $541.72 to $708.71 for one of two procedures involving a foot amputation. It is possible that the total bill, hospital stay, rehabilitation, prosthesis, etc. may approach the larger amount mentioned.
In the case of tonsillectomies, a patient is referred to a surgeon after medication therapy has proven to be ineffective. Actually, the medical profession itself recognized questions about utilization and appropriateness of tonsillectomies and took action by developing clinical guidelines, which has resulted in a sharp decline in the rate of tonsillectomies.
These types of examples create the impression that physicians are motivated by payment levels rather than what is best for patients.
The AMA will continue to stress to our elected leaders that physicians are dedicated to putting patients first and optimizing health care quality.
We agree with President Obama on the importance of prevention. However, a recent example used to illustrate his important point was misleading. Surgeons are not paid $30,000 to $50,000 to amputate a diabetic’s foot.
Medicare pays a surgeon, on average, from $541.72 to $708.71 for one of two procedures involving a foot amputation. It is possible that the total bill, hospital stay, rehabilitation, prosthesis, etc. may approach the larger amount mentioned.
In the case of tonsillectomies, a patient is referred to a surgeon after medication therapy has proven to be ineffective. Actually, the medical profession itself recognized questions about utilization and appropriateness of tonsillectomies and took action by developing clinical guidelines, which has resulted in a sharp decline in the rate of tonsillectomies.
These types of examples create the impression that physicians are motivated by payment levels rather than what is best for patients.
The AMA will continue to stress to our elected leaders that physicians are dedicated to putting patients first and optimizing health care quality.
Unions benefit "big time" from Health Care Bill
Health Care Bill bails Unions out of lapsing Employer Policies.......The American Taxpayer will pick up the tab!
"Evil Mongers!" The Kettle calling what?
Town hall protesters are "evil-mongers," says Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)Reid coined the term in a speech to an energy conference in Las Vegas this week and repeated it in an interview with Politics Daily.
Such "evil-mongers" are using "lies, innuendo and rumor," to drown out rational debate, Reid said.
Health Care Bill Details
The Health Care Bill: What HR 3200, ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” Says
John David Lewis
August 6, 2009
What does the bill, HR 3200, short-titled ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” actually say about major health care issues? I here pose a few questions in no particular order, citing relevant passages and offering a brief evaluation after each set of passages.
This bill is 1017 pages long. It is knee-deep in legalese and references to other federal regulations and laws. I have only touched pieces of the bill here. For instance, I have not considered the establishment of (1) “Health Choices Commissio0ner” (Section 141); (2) a “Health Insurance Exchange,” (Section 201), basically a government run insurance scheme to coordinate all insurance activity; (3) a Public Health Insurance Option (Section 221); and similar provisions.
This is the evaluation of someone who is neither a physician nor a legal professional. I am citizen, concerned about this bill’s effects on my freedom as an American. I would rather have used my time in other ways—but this is too important to ignore.
We may answer one question up front: How will the government will pay for all this? Higher taxes, more borrowing, printing money, cutting payments, or rationing services—there are no other options. We will all pay for this, enrolled in the government “option” or not.
(All bold type within the text of the bill is added for emphasis.)
1. 1. WILL THE PLAN RATION MEDICAL CARE?
This is what the bill says, pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS:
‘(ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN READMISSIONS.—For purposes of clause (i), with respect to a hospital, excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital.
and, under “Definitions”:
‘‘(A) APPLICABLE CONDITION.—The term ‘applicable condition’ means, subject to subparagraph (B), a condition or procedure selected by the Secretary . . .
and:
‘‘(E) READMISSION.—The term ‘readmission’ means, in the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time period specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge.
and:
‘‘(6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of— . . .
‘‘(C) the measures of readmissions . . .
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
1. This section amends the Social Security Act
2. The government has the power to determine what constitutes an “applicable [medical] condition.”
3. The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.
4. This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted.
5. This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up.
6. There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts.
7. The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318.
2. Will the plan punish Americans who try to opt out?
What the bill says, pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE:
‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. . . .”
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:
1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.
2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.
3. The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.
3. what constitutes “acceptable” coverage?
Here is what the bill says, pages 26-30, SEC. 122, ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED:
(a) IN GENERAL.—In this division, the term ‘‘essential benefits package’’ means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 124 to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security . . .
(b) MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED.—The items and services described in this subsection are the following:
(1) Hospitalization.
(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services . . .
(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.
(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician’s or a health professional’s delivery of care . . .
(5) Prescription drugs.
(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.
(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.
(8) Preventive services . . .
(9) Maternity care.
(10) Well baby and well child care . . .
(c) REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO COST-SHARING AND MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE . . .
(3) MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The cost-sharing under the essential benefits package shall be designed to provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 70 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package described in subparagraph (B).
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
1. The bill defines “acceptable coverage” and leaves no room for choice in this regard.
2. By setting a minimum 70% actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services, but carry insurance only for catastrophic events, (such as Health Savings Accounts) illegal.
4. Will the PLAN destroy private health insurance?
Here is what it requires, for businesses with payrolls greater than $400,000 per year. (The bill uses “contribution” to refer to mandatory payments to the government plan.) Pages 149-150, SEC. 313, EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE
(a) IN GENERAL.—A contribution is made in accordance with this section with respect to an employee if such contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of the average wages paid by the employer during the period of enrollment (determined by taking into account all employees of the employer and in such manner as the Commissioner provides, including rules providing for the appropriate aggregation of related employers). Any such contribution—
(1) shall be paid to the Health Choices Commissioner for deposit into the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, and
(2) shall not be applied against the premium of the employee under the Exchange-participating health benefits plan in which the employee is enrolled.
(The bill then includes a sliding scale of payments for business with less than $400,000 in annual payroll.)
The Bill also reserves, for the government, the power to determine an acceptable benefits plan: page 24, SEC. 115. ENSURING ADEQUACY OF PROVIDER NETWORKS.
5 (a) IN GENERAL.—A qualified health benefits plan that uses a provider network for items and services shall meet such standards respecting provider networks as the Commissioner may establish to assure the adequacy of such networks in ensuring enrollee access to such items and services and transparency in the cost-sharing differentials between in-network coverage and out-of-network coverage.
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
1. The bill does not prohibit a person from buying private insurance.
2. Small businesses—with say 8-10 employees—will either have to provide insurance to federal standards, or pay an 8% payroll tax. Business costs for health care are higher than this, especially considering administrative costs. Any competitive business that tries to stay with a private plan will face a payroll disadvantage against competitors who go with the government “option.”
3. The pressure for business owners to terminate the private plans will be enormous.
4. With employers ending plans, millions of Americans will lose their private coverage, and fewer companies will offer it.
5. The Commissioner (meaning, always, the bureaucrats) will determine whether a particular network of physicians, hospitals and insurance is acceptable.
6. With private insurance starved, many people enrolled in the government “option” will have no place else to go.
5. Does the plan TAX successful Americans more THAN OTHERS?
Here is what the bill says, pages 197-198, SEC. 441. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS
‘‘SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.
‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to—
‘‘(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,
‘‘(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and
‘‘(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:
1. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code.
2. Tax surcharges are levied on those with the highest incomes.
3. The plan manipulates the tax code to redistribute their wealth.
4. Successful business owners will bear the highest cost of this plan.
6. 6. Does THE PLAN ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO set FEES FOR SERVICES?
What it says, page 124, Sec. 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority to correct for payments that are excessive or deficient, taking into account the provisions of section 221(a) and the amounts paid for similar health care providers and services under other Exchange-participating health benefits plans.
(e) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as affecting the authority of the Secretary to establish payment rates, including payments to provide for the more efficient delivery of services, such as the initiatives provided for under section 224.
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
The government’s authority to set payments is basically unlimited.
The official will decide what constitutes “excessive,” “deficient,” and “efficient” payments and services.
7. Will THE PLAN increase the power of government officials to SCRUTINIZE our private affairs?
What it says, pages 195-196, SEC. 431. DISCLOSURES TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUBSIDIES.
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, upon written request from the Health Choices Commissioner or the head of a State-based health insurance exchange approved for operation under section 208 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, shall disclose to officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, return information of any taxpayer whose income is relevant in determining any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Such return information shall be limited to—
‘‘(i) taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer,
‘‘(ii) the filing status of such taxpayer,
‘‘(iii) the modified adjusted gross income of such taxpayer (as defined in section 59B(e)(5)),
‘‘(iv) the number of dependents of the taxpayer,
‘‘(v) such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof), and
‘‘(vi) the taxable year with respect to which the preceding information relates or, if applicable, the fact that such information is not available.
And, page 145, section 312, EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT COVERAGE:
(3) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.—The employer provides the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable, with such information as the Commissioner may require to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this section.
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:
1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code
2. The bill opens up income tax return information to federal officials.
3. Any stated “limits” to such information are circumvented by item (v), which allows federal officials to decide what information is needed.
4. Employers are required to report whatever information the government says it needs to enforce the plan.
8. 8. Does the plan automatically enroll Americans in the GOVERNMENT plan?
What it says, page 102, Section 205, Outreach and enrollment of Exchange-eligible individuals and employers in Exchange-participating health benefits plan:
(3) AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT OF MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS INTO MEDICAID.—The Commissioner shall provide for a process under which an individual who is described in section 202(d)(3) and has not elected to enroll in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is automatically enrolled under Medicaid.
And, page 145, section 312:
(4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES.—The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection (c).
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
1. Do nothing and you are in.
2. Employers are responsible for automatically enrolling people who still work.
9. 9. Does THE PLAN exempt federal OFFICIALS from COURT REVIEW?
What it says, page 124, Section 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:
(f) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review of a payment rate or methodology established under this section or under section 224.
And, page 256, SEC. 1123. PAYMENTS FOR EFFICIENT AREAS.
‘‘(C) LIMITATION ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, 1878, or otherwise, respecting—
‘‘(i) the identification of a county or other area under subparagraph (A); or
‘‘(ii) the assignment of a postal ZIP Code to a county or other area under subparagraph (B).
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
1. Sec. 1123 amends the Social Security Act, to allow the Secretary to identify areas of the country that underutilize the government’s plan “based on per capita spending.”
2. Parts of the plan are set above the review of the courts.
John David Lewis
August 6, 2009
What does the bill, HR 3200, short-titled ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” actually say about major health care issues? I here pose a few questions in no particular order, citing relevant passages and offering a brief evaluation after each set of passages.
This bill is 1017 pages long. It is knee-deep in legalese and references to other federal regulations and laws. I have only touched pieces of the bill here. For instance, I have not considered the establishment of (1) “Health Choices Commissio0ner” (Section 141); (2) a “Health Insurance Exchange,” (Section 201), basically a government run insurance scheme to coordinate all insurance activity; (3) a Public Health Insurance Option (Section 221); and similar provisions.
This is the evaluation of someone who is neither a physician nor a legal professional. I am citizen, concerned about this bill’s effects on my freedom as an American. I would rather have used my time in other ways—but this is too important to ignore.
We may answer one question up front: How will the government will pay for all this? Higher taxes, more borrowing, printing money, cutting payments, or rationing services—there are no other options. We will all pay for this, enrolled in the government “option” or not.
(All bold type within the text of the bill is added for emphasis.)
1. 1. WILL THE PLAN RATION MEDICAL CARE?
This is what the bill says, pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS:
‘(ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN READMISSIONS.—For purposes of clause (i), with respect to a hospital, excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital.
and, under “Definitions”:
‘‘(A) APPLICABLE CONDITION.—The term ‘applicable condition’ means, subject to subparagraph (B), a condition or procedure selected by the Secretary . . .
and:
‘‘(E) READMISSION.—The term ‘readmission’ means, in the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time period specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge.
and:
‘‘(6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of— . . .
‘‘(C) the measures of readmissions . . .
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
1. This section amends the Social Security Act
2. The government has the power to determine what constitutes an “applicable [medical] condition.”
3. The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.
4. This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted.
5. This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up.
6. There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts.
7. The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318.
2. Will the plan punish Americans who try to opt out?
What the bill says, pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE:
‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. . . .”
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:
1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.
2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.
3. The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.
3. what constitutes “acceptable” coverage?
Here is what the bill says, pages 26-30, SEC. 122, ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED:
(a) IN GENERAL.—In this division, the term ‘‘essential benefits package’’ means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 124 to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security . . .
(b) MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED.—The items and services described in this subsection are the following:
(1) Hospitalization.
(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services . . .
(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.
(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician’s or a health professional’s delivery of care . . .
(5) Prescription drugs.
(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.
(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.
(8) Preventive services . . .
(9) Maternity care.
(10) Well baby and well child care . . .
(c) REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO COST-SHARING AND MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE . . .
(3) MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The cost-sharing under the essential benefits package shall be designed to provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 70 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package described in subparagraph (B).
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
1. The bill defines “acceptable coverage” and leaves no room for choice in this regard.
2. By setting a minimum 70% actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services, but carry insurance only for catastrophic events, (such as Health Savings Accounts) illegal.
4. Will the PLAN destroy private health insurance?
Here is what it requires, for businesses with payrolls greater than $400,000 per year. (The bill uses “contribution” to refer to mandatory payments to the government plan.) Pages 149-150, SEC. 313, EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE
(a) IN GENERAL.—A contribution is made in accordance with this section with respect to an employee if such contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of the average wages paid by the employer during the period of enrollment (determined by taking into account all employees of the employer and in such manner as the Commissioner provides, including rules providing for the appropriate aggregation of related employers). Any such contribution—
(1) shall be paid to the Health Choices Commissioner for deposit into the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, and
(2) shall not be applied against the premium of the employee under the Exchange-participating health benefits plan in which the employee is enrolled.
(The bill then includes a sliding scale of payments for business with less than $400,000 in annual payroll.)
The Bill also reserves, for the government, the power to determine an acceptable benefits plan: page 24, SEC. 115. ENSURING ADEQUACY OF PROVIDER NETWORKS.
5 (a) IN GENERAL.—A qualified health benefits plan that uses a provider network for items and services shall meet such standards respecting provider networks as the Commissioner may establish to assure the adequacy of such networks in ensuring enrollee access to such items and services and transparency in the cost-sharing differentials between in-network coverage and out-of-network coverage.
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
1. The bill does not prohibit a person from buying private insurance.
2. Small businesses—with say 8-10 employees—will either have to provide insurance to federal standards, or pay an 8% payroll tax. Business costs for health care are higher than this, especially considering administrative costs. Any competitive business that tries to stay with a private plan will face a payroll disadvantage against competitors who go with the government “option.”
3. The pressure for business owners to terminate the private plans will be enormous.
4. With employers ending plans, millions of Americans will lose their private coverage, and fewer companies will offer it.
5. The Commissioner (meaning, always, the bureaucrats) will determine whether a particular network of physicians, hospitals and insurance is acceptable.
6. With private insurance starved, many people enrolled in the government “option” will have no place else to go.
5. Does the plan TAX successful Americans more THAN OTHERS?
Here is what the bill says, pages 197-198, SEC. 441. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS
‘‘SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.
‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to—
‘‘(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,
‘‘(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and
‘‘(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:
1. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code.
2. Tax surcharges are levied on those with the highest incomes.
3. The plan manipulates the tax code to redistribute their wealth.
4. Successful business owners will bear the highest cost of this plan.
6. 6. Does THE PLAN ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO set FEES FOR SERVICES?
What it says, page 124, Sec. 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority to correct for payments that are excessive or deficient, taking into account the provisions of section 221(a) and the amounts paid for similar health care providers and services under other Exchange-participating health benefits plans.
(e) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as affecting the authority of the Secretary to establish payment rates, including payments to provide for the more efficient delivery of services, such as the initiatives provided for under section 224.
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
The government’s authority to set payments is basically unlimited.
The official will decide what constitutes “excessive,” “deficient,” and “efficient” payments and services.
7. Will THE PLAN increase the power of government officials to SCRUTINIZE our private affairs?
What it says, pages 195-196, SEC. 431. DISCLOSURES TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUBSIDIES.
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, upon written request from the Health Choices Commissioner or the head of a State-based health insurance exchange approved for operation under section 208 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, shall disclose to officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, return information of any taxpayer whose income is relevant in determining any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Such return information shall be limited to—
‘‘(i) taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer,
‘‘(ii) the filing status of such taxpayer,
‘‘(iii) the modified adjusted gross income of such taxpayer (as defined in section 59B(e)(5)),
‘‘(iv) the number of dependents of the taxpayer,
‘‘(v) such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof), and
‘‘(vi) the taxable year with respect to which the preceding information relates or, if applicable, the fact that such information is not available.
And, page 145, section 312, EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT COVERAGE:
(3) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.—The employer provides the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable, with such information as the Commissioner may require to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this section.
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:
1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code
2. The bill opens up income tax return information to federal officials.
3. Any stated “limits” to such information are circumvented by item (v), which allows federal officials to decide what information is needed.
4. Employers are required to report whatever information the government says it needs to enforce the plan.
8. 8. Does the plan automatically enroll Americans in the GOVERNMENT plan?
What it says, page 102, Section 205, Outreach and enrollment of Exchange-eligible individuals and employers in Exchange-participating health benefits plan:
(3) AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT OF MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS INTO MEDICAID.—The Commissioner shall provide for a process under which an individual who is described in section 202(d)(3) and has not elected to enroll in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is automatically enrolled under Medicaid.
And, page 145, section 312:
(4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES.—The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection (c).
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
1. Do nothing and you are in.
2. Employers are responsible for automatically enrolling people who still work.
9. 9. Does THE PLAN exempt federal OFFICIALS from COURT REVIEW?
What it says, page 124, Section 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:
(f) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review of a payment rate or methodology established under this section or under section 224.
And, page 256, SEC. 1123. PAYMENTS FOR EFFICIENT AREAS.
‘‘(C) LIMITATION ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, 1878, or otherwise, respecting—
‘‘(i) the identification of a county or other area under subparagraph (A); or
‘‘(ii) the assignment of a postal ZIP Code to a county or other area under subparagraph (B).
EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:
1. Sec. 1123 amends the Social Security Act, to allow the Secretary to identify areas of the country that underutilize the government’s plan “based on per capita spending.”
2. Parts of the plan are set above the review of the courts.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
Sunday, August 9, 2009
The Public deserves the same Healthcare!
Senators, House Members and Administration Elite Share this all inclusive Health Care Plan.A choice of 10 healthcare plans that provide access to a national network of doctors, as well as several HMOs that serve each member’s home state.
By contrast, 85% of private companies offering health coverage provide their employees one type of plan — take it or leave it.
Lawmakers also get special treatment at Washington’s federal medical facilities and, for a few hundred dollars a month, access to their own pharmacy and doctors, nurses and medical technicians standing by in an office conveniently located between the House and Senate chambers… Why can’t everyone enjoy the same benefits as members of Congress?
The answer: The country probably couldn’t afford it…
The plan most favored by federal workers is Blue Cross Blue Shield, which covers a family for about $1,030 a month.
Taxpayers kick in $700, and employees pay the rest.
Seeing a doctor costs $20.
Generic prescriptions cost $10.
Immunizations are free.
There is no coverage limit…
There is no such thing as a preexisting condition…
Friday, August 7, 2009
Read The Health Care Bill!
Pages 15,53, and 425 Very Interesting reading...
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf
Taxpayers shell out $6000 for each $4500 Clunker Rebate!
When the government's costs of running the program are totaled up, each clunker is likely to cost taxpayers around $6,000 per car.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
The Pope and Nancy Pelosi...Could Happen...
The Pope and Nancy Pelosi are on the same stage in front of a huge crowd.The Pope said, "Did you know that with just one little wave of MY hand I can make EVERY person in the crowd go crazy with joy?
This joy will not be a momentary display like that of your subjects, but will go deep into their hearts, and they will forever speak of this day and rejoice."
Pelosi seriously doubts this, and says, "One little wave of your hand, and all people will rejoice forever?? Show me," she said.
So the Pope slapped her.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Monday, August 3, 2009
Another Government "Scam!"...."Cash For Clunkers"
General Motors, Toyota Motor (TM) Chrysler Group, Honda Motor (HMC) and Nissan (NSANY) all reported drops in sales compared to a year ago, but sales rose sharply from June. That allowed industrywide sales to reach nearly 1 million vehicles in JulyGM estimated that Cash for Clunkers boosted industrywide sales by 118,000 vehicles, with two-thirds of the purchases coming from buyers turning in clunkers, and the rest from people who came to dealers because of the program and decided to buy a new car even though they didn't have a clunker that qualified.
How many's cars can you buy with 1 billion dollars at $4500 per car the most . 1 billion is 1 thousand millions divided by $4500 is 10000000000 / 4500 = 2222222.2222... That's two million, two hundred and twenty two thousand, two hundred and twenty ... Hmmm. Where did the money go?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
