The Attorney Who Read the Entire H.R. 3200 Health Care Bill

Here's the blog of a retired attorney who has read the entire H.R. 3200 The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. The author, Michael Connelly, teaches Constitutional law. (I found the link to his blog from LRC Blog entry by Thomas DiLorenzo - thank you.)

He has 3 posts on H.R. 3200 and health care "reform" (in fact there are only 3 posts in his blog as of today), and his conclusion seems to be: "It is as bad as you think."

The Truth About the Health Care Bills (8/12/09)
More About the Health Care Bills (8/21/09)
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S HEALTH CARE SPEECH (9/10/09)

In his "The Truth About the Health Care Bills", the author says [emphasis is mine]:

"Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

"To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

"However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed."

In his posts he cites several examples which have been also covered by this blog. Nice to know my understanding coincides with the constitutional attorney :) He cites:

Heath Choices Commissioner: Obama appointee who will have access to personal, financial, and other information as he/she deems necessary; clear violation of the 4th Amendment

National health care ID card: whether you have a government plan or private plan. Backdoor national ID cards

Health care provided to illegal aliens (Section 246): all the section says is "that affordability credits to help them get insurance are not available to illegals. It does not say that they can’t participate in the overall program and get reduced cost insurance under the so-called “public option”. Nor is there anything in the bill that requires someone to verify their citizenship to get benefits from the Insurance Exchange in the program."

The last one is the issue that so irked Representative Joe Wilson that he shouted "You lie!" during the unusual Presidential address on health care "reform" on September 9. (U.S. presidents do not normally address the Congress other than at the state of the union address.)

But it doesn't really matter, as one of my friends remarked the other day. She used to volunteer at a local hospital, and said they (illegal aliens, undocumented immigrants, however you want to call them) don't pay a dime anyway. They already enjoy a free health care.

Tweet

More on Section 1233 of H.R. 3200 from Washington Post

(Be sure to read other posts on H.R. 3200 health care "reform" by clicking here.)

With contentious town hall meetings going on around the country on health care "reform" (not in my neck of the woods), one of the aims of the supporters of the bill H.R. 3200 seems to be to attack people who question Section 1233 Advanced Care Planning Consultation.

Not only they paint the "naysayers" as Republican and right-wing (or worse), they insist that it is just an option to help out seniors. Well, is it? Nowhere in the section says this is an option, for a start.

And here's the take from Charles Lane at the Washington Post.

"Undue Influence" (8/8/09 The Washington Post):
[emphasis is mine; my comment in italic]

"About a third of Americans have living wills or advance-care directives expressing their wishes for end-of-life treatment. When seniors who don't have them arrive in a hospital terminally ill and incapacitated, families and medical workers wrestle with uncertainty -- while life-prolonging machinery runs, often at Medicare's expense. This has consequences for families and for the federal budget.

"Enter Section 1233 of the health-care bill drafted in the Democratic-led House, which would pay doctors to give Medicare patients end-of-life counseling every five years -- or sooner if the patient gets a terminal diagnosis.

"On the far right, this is being portrayed as a plan to force everyone over 65 to sign his or her own death warrant. That's rubbish. Federal law already bars Medicare from paying for services "the purpose of which is to cause, or assist in causing," suicide, euthanasia or mercy killing. Nothing in Section 1233 would change that.

"Still, I was not reassured to read in an Aug. 1 Post article that "Democratic strategists" are "hesitant to give extra attention to the issue by refuting the inaccuracies, but they worry that it will further agitate already-skeptical seniors."

"If Section 1233 is innocuous, why would "strategists" want to tip-toe around the subject?

"Perhaps because, at least as I read it, Section 1233 is not totally innocuous.

"Until now, federal law has encouraged end-of-life planning -- gently. In 1990, Congress required health-care institutions (not individual doctors) to give new patients written notice of their rights to make living wills, advance directives and the like -- but also required them to treat patients regardless of whether they have such documents.

"The 1997 ban on assisted-suicide support specifically allowed doctors to honor advance directives. And last year, Congress told doctors to offer a brief chat on end-of-life documents to consenting patients during their initial "Welcome to Medicare" physical exam. That mandate took effect this year.

"Section 1233, however, addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones. Supporters protest that they're just trying to facilitate choice -- even if patients opt for expensive life-prolonging care. I think they protest too much [I agree]: If it's all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what's it doing in a measure to "bend the curve" on health-care costs?

"Though not mandatory [nowhere in the Section says it is optional], as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren't quite "purely voluntary," as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, "purely voluntary" means "not unless the patient requests one." Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that's an incentive to insist.

"Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they're in the meeting, the bill does permit "formulation" of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would "place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign," I don't think he's being realistic.

"What's more, Section 1233 dictates, at some length, the content of the consultation. The doctor "shall" discuss "advanced care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to"; "an explanation of . . . living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses" (even though these are legal, not medical, instruments) [are medical doctors allowed to dispense legal advice??]; and "a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families." The doctor "shall" explain that Medicare pays for hospice care (hint, hint).

"Ideally, the delicate decisions about how to manage life's end would be made in a setting that is neutral in both appearance and fact. Yes, it's good to have a doctor's perspective. But Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party -- the government -- recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don't have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach.

"As it happens, I have a living will and a durable power of attorney for health care. I'm glad I do. I drew them up based on publicly available medical information, in consultation with my family and a lawyer. No authority figure got paid by federal bean-counters to influence me. I have a hunch I'm not the only one who would rather do it that way. "

It is indeed none of the federal government's business. How you want to be treated at the end of your life is a PERSONAL decision that you want make PRIVATELY, without the government interference.

Another reason I feel this section is "not innocuous" is the existence behind the scene of two doctors advising the administration. They, both medical doctors, seem to believe more in cost cutting than saving lives, with doctors deciding who gets what treatment on the basis of cost and (more disturbingly) whether they are productive citizens or not.

Tweet

Local Town Hall Meeting on Health Care "Reform"

Since the place was overflowed with people trying to get in, I gave up, went home, and am listening to the live radio coverage.

The Democratic Congressman and his handlers clearly stuffed the place with supporters (this town doesn't have big enough businesses that have big unions, but it has a large university campus) who yell and cheer and applaud at every full stop.

The Congressman is following the script given by the Democratic Party but doesn't sound very confident. Actually, he's giving out wrong information about the bill. He's cutting off questioners if the questioners are against the bill, and calling every critical comment as "false", with no clarification (like citing the actual sentences in the bill, for example, Congressman?).

(BTW, the Congressman sounds like "George" in "Seinfeld"...)

But no matter. Ever since the university came to town, this town has been transformed into one of the most "progressive" town in the United States. And the audience applaud at the idea that private insurance companies may go bankrupt if this bill gets enacted.

If I were to ask questions to the Congressman:

• If this bill is so good, as you depict, why then are the member of Congress exempt?
• Medicare and Medicaid are bust. Why should the government take on more, when it can't manage these existing programs?
• If the health care is a right, why are we paying for the right? Shouldn't a right be free?

Oh, and one more:

• Do you agree or disagree with Ms. Pelosi that the health care "reform" protesters are "un-American"?

Tweet

Section 3131 of H.R. 3200 Health Care "Reform" Bill - Preventive Care

Looking at various sections of the health care "reform" bill H.R. 3200, you can't help noticing some militaristic terms. You have "National Health Service Corps" (Section 2201) and "Public Health Workforce Corps" (Section 340L). You also have lots of "force" - workforce, task force. And "community organizing" is not forgotten, and there are lots of sections to promote "community"-based health care (whatever it means). Section 2214 Training of medical residents in community-based settings, Section 3132 Task force on community preventive services, Section 3142 Community prevention and wellness research grants, etc., etc.

(By the way, do we, the general public, even know what the government mean by "Community"? The President may know very well personally, as he, as an attorney, represented one such "community organization" (ACORN), but do we know? I haven't find anywhere where the word "community" is defined.)

That aside, here's another "force" in Section 3131 TASK FORCE ON CLINICAL PREVENTIVE SERVICES. Ardent supporters of the bill have said the "reform" will provide easy and low/no cost access to preventive health care. Let's see if that's the case.

`(a) In General- The Secretary, acting through the Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, shall establish a permanent task force to be known as the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services (in this section referred to as the `Task Force').

`(b) Responsibilities- The Task Force shall--
`(1) identify clinical preventive services for review;
`(2) review the scientific evidence related to the benefits, effectiveness, appropriateness, and costs of clinical preventive services identified under paragraph (1) for the purpose of developing, updating, publishing, and disseminating evidence-based recommendations on the use of such services;
`(3) as appropriate, take into account health disparities in developing, updating, publishing, and disseminating evidence-based recommendations on the use of such services;
`(4) identify gaps in clinical preventive services research and evaluation and recommend priority areas for such research and evaluation;
`(5) as appropriate, consult with the clinical prevention stakeholders board in accordance with subsection (f);
`(6) as appropriate, consult with the Task Force on Community Preventive Services established under section 3132; and
`(7) as appropriate, in carrying out this section, consider the national strategy under section 3121.

What an all-knowing Task Force it should be! And who will be the member of this Task Force?

`(d) Membership-
`(1) NUMBER; APPOINTMENT- The Task Force shall be composed of 30 members, appointed by the Secretary.

`(2) TERMS-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall appoint members of the Task Force for a term of 6 years and may reappoint such members, but the Secretary may not appoint any member to serve more than a total of 12 years.

`(B) STAGGERED TERMS- Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), of the members first appointed to serve on the Task Force after the enactment of this title--
`(i) 10 shall be appointed for a term of 2 years;
`(ii) 10 shall be appointed for a term of 4 years; and
`(iii) 10 shall be appointed for a term of 6 years.

`(3) QUALIFICATIONS- Members of the Task Force shall be appointed from among individuals who possess expertise in at least one of the following areas:
`(A) Health promotion and disease prevention.
`(B) Evaluation of research and systematic evidence reviews.
`(C) Application of systematic evidence reviews to clinical decisionmaking or health policy.
`(D) Clinical primary care in child and adolescent health.
`(E) Clinical primary care in adult health, including women's health.
`(F) Clinical primary care in geriatrics.
`(G) Clinical counseling and behavioral services for primary care patients.

`(4) REPRESENTATION- In appointing members of the Task Force, the Secretary shall ensure that--
`(A) all areas of expertise described in paragraph (3) are represented; and
`(B) the members of the Task Force include practitioners who, collectively, have significant experience treating racially and ethnically diverse populations.

In addition to these appointed 30-member Task Force, you get to have "Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board", comprised of undetermined number of "stakeholders":

`(1) IN GENERAL- The Task Force shall convene a clinical prevention stakeholders board composed of representatives of appropriate public and private entities with an interest in clinical preventive services to advise the Task Force on developing, updating, publishing, and disseminating evidence-based recommendations on the use of clinical preventive services.

`(2) MEMBERSHIP- The members of the clinical prevention stakeholders board shall include representatives of the following:
`(A) Health care consumers and patient groups.
`(B) Providers of clinical preventive services, including community-based providers.
`(C) Federal departments and agencies, including--
`(i) appropriate health agencies and offices in the Department, including the Office of the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, the Office of Minority Health, and the Office on Women's Health; and
`(ii) as appropriate, other Federal departments and agencies whose programs have a significant impact upon health (as determined by the Secretary).
`(D) Private health care payors.

`(3) RESPONSIBILITIES- In accordance with subsection (b)(5), the clinical prevention stakeholders board shall--
`(A) recommend clinical preventive services for review by the Task Force;
`(B) suggest scientific evidence for consideration by the Task Force related to reviews undertaken by the Task Force;
`(C) provide feedback regarding draft recommendations by the Task Force; and
`(D) assist with efforts regarding dissemination of recommendations by the Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Now, do you feel secure that you have a easy, timely access to preventive care? I don't. Appointed (=unaccountable) people deciding on the level of preventive care. All I see is bureaucracy heaped on top of bureaucracy. I don't see how this could be low-cost either, because we have to pay for these people. Members of theTask Force will be considered "special Government employees". Members of the Stakeholders Board won't be, but they (and Task Force members) will receive travel expenses and per diem. (Federal per diem rate in District of Columbia is between $229 and $297 max, depending on the time of the year.)

And remember, we don't have money. Just today alone, the U.S. Treasury Department auctioned $72 billion worth of Treasury debts. By the end of this week, the Treasury will have auctioned $210 billion Treasury debts. In one week. Why are we being goaded into this "reform" when we have no money? With government health care (Medicare, Medicaid) already broke, why should we trust the government with the rest of health care? So that the rest of health care can go broke as well? If the argument is that the private health care is broke, why should the government be trusted to fix it, given the sub-steller track record in Medicare and Medicaid?

Tweet

Pelosi: Townhall Meeting Protesters Are Un-American

In an Op-Ed piece in USA Today, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi with the House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer called the protesters at townhall meetings across the country against the government's health care "reform" bill "un-American".

'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate
(Nancy Pelosi/Steny Hoyer, 8/10/09 USA Today)

After paying their lip service to a great American tradition of debate and dissent, the authors say:

"However, it is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue. These tactics have included hanging in effigy one Democratic member of Congress in Maryland and protesters holding a sign displaying a tombstone with the name of another congressman in Texas, where protesters also shouted "Just say no!" drowning out those who wanted to hold a substantive discussion.

"These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades." [emphasis is mine]

Hahaha. Good one, Madam Speaker. Who has been drowning out opposing views? Who's drowning out the facts? I think more people outside Congress have read the actual monstrocity of the bill H.R. 3200 than members of Congress have. A local radio network in my area has been reading the bill page by page for the past few weeks, every single morning.

"The first fact is that health insurance reform will mean more patient choice. It will allow every American who likes his or her current plan to keep it. And it will free doctors and patients to make the health decisions that make the most sense, not the most profits for insurance companies."

Well, I wouldn't call those "the facts". H.R. 3200 will allow Americans who like their current plans to keep them. The hitch is that they are stuck with them and cannot change them if they want to, according to Section 102 of H.R. 3200. Doctors and patients are NOT free to make heath decisions, because Section 141 of H.R. 3200 says the Health Choices Commissioner, a Presidential appointee, will decide benefits.

"Now — with Americans strongly supporting health insurance reform, with Congress reaching consensus on a plan, and with a president who ran and won on this specific promise of change — America is closer than ever to this century-deferred goal.

"This fall, at long last, we must reach it. "

To reach the un-reachable... star... Good luck with that, Madam Speaker, after calling your fellow Americans "un-American" for daring to disagree with you. Your Nixonian rhetoric was ill-chosen and very ironic.

(I don't know which one to grade lower, Pelosi's "un-American", or Barbara Boxer's "they are too well dressed to be sincere".)

Tweet

This Isn't America, Is It?

The White House wants U.S. citizens to be a snitch, a Senator thinks health care protestors are fake because they dress too well, House orders up two more private jets for themselves, and a tabloid king defends "quality journalism".

GOP Senator: White House Encroaching on First Amendment (8/5/09 ABC News)

"A Republican senator is calling for the White House to suspend a new project that asks members of the public to flag “fishy” claims about President Obama’s health care plans, arguing that it raises privacy concerns and will serve to chill free speech.

"Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, is sending a letter to the White House today asking the president to “cease this program immediately” -- or to explain how Americans’ privacy will be protected if e-mails are forwarded to the White House as requested.

"“I am not aware of any precedent for a President asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed ‘fishy’ or otherwise inimical to the White House’s political interests,” Cornyn writes."

Boxer: Protesters too well dressed to be sincere (8/5/09 Hot Air)

"Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) appeared on Hardball last night in support of the Left’s attempt to discredit the people showing up to townhalls in protest of ObamaCare. Boxer says she can tell that they’re fakes, because they’re too well dressed. How does she know that this is a problem? Because well-dressed people apparently told her to get the hell out of Florida in the Bush-Gore recount, too". (The link has the video. See for yourself.)

House Orders Up Three Elite Jets (8/5/09 Roll Call)

"Last year, lawmakers excoriated the CEOs of the Big Three automakers for traveling to Washington, D.C., by private jet to attend a hearing about a possible bailout of their companies.

"But apparently Congress is not philosophically averse to private air travel: At the end of July, the House approved nearly $200 million for the Air Force to buy three elite Gulfstream jets for ferrying top government officials and Members of Congress.

"The Air Force had asked for one Gulfstream 550 jet (price tag: about $65 million) as part of an ongoing upgrade of its passenger air service.

"But the House Appropriations Committee, at its own initiative, added to the 2010 Defense appropriations bill another $132 million for two more airplanes and specified that they be assigned to the D.C.-area units that carry Members of Congress, military brass and top government officials. "

Rupert Murdoch plans charge for all news websites by next summer (8/6/09 Guardian UK)

"The billionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch suffered the indignity of seeing his global empire make a huge financial loss yesterday and promptly pledged to shake up the newspaper industry by introducing charges for access to all his news websites, including the Times, the Sun and the News of the World, by next summer.

"Stung by a collapse in advertising revenue as the recession shredded Fleet Street's traditional business model, Murdoch declared that the era of a free-for-all in online news was over.

""Quality journalism is not cheap," said Murdoch."

That's a good one, coming from Mr. Murdoch. I'm sure this was from his sincere effort for "quality journalism": "Murdoch Tabloid Hacked into Cell Phones of "Hundreds of Celebrities and Politicians" (7/9/09 AP, via Huffington Post).

Tweet

Health Care "Reform" In His Own Words

"I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process..."

Not immediately, that's good to know, isn't it?

Tweet

Health Care "Reform" in the Hands of "Deadly Doctors"?

This blog mentioned Section 141 of H.R. 3200, a.k.a. heath care reform bill, which will set up a Presidential appointee as Health Choice Commissioner with vast authority without accountability. And here are two candidates who should never be considered for the position (and for that reason I have a sinking feeling that it will happen), according to New York Post.

DEADLY DOCTORS - ADVISERS WANT TO RATION CARE
(Betsy McCaughey, 7/24/09 New York Post)

"THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the de cisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.

"Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power."

Who are they?

One of them is the brother of Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel: Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel.

Dr. Emanuel is already working closely with the White House Budget Director on health care reform. (He also happens to be a proponent of VAT, Value-Added-Tax.) What irks New York Post?

"Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

"Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

"Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

"Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96)."

So, Dr. Emanuel wants medical doctors to administer social justice by withholding medical care from the disabled, the non-productive and the old. I think I've seen something similar before. It was called eugenics and it was practiced in the U.S. in early 20th century and in Nazi Germany, among other places.

And who is the other one that New York Post hates to have as the Presidential health care Commissioner?

He is Dr. David Blumenthal.

"He recommends slowing medical innovation to control health spending." And that view is shared by Dr. Emanuel, who criticizes "Americans for being too "enamored with technology" and is determined to reduce access to it", according to the article.

"Blumenthal has long advocated government health-spending controls, though he concedes they're "associated with longer waits" and "reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices" (New England Journal of Medicine, March 8, 2001). But he calls it "debatable" whether the timely care Americans get is worth the cost. (Ask a cancer patient, and you'll get a different answer. Delay lowers your chances of survival.)

"Obama appointed Blumenthal as national coordinator of health-information technology, a job that involves making sure doctors obey electronically deivered guidelines about what care the government deems appropriate and cost effective.

"In the April 9 New England Journal of Medicine, Blumenthal predicted that many doctors would resist "embedded clinical decision support" -- a euphemism for computers telling doctors what to do."

So this good doctor wants to withhold new health care technology from patients and he is in charge of nationally coordinating the health-information technology?

I wonder if he ever heard of Moore's Law.

Tweet

What's In H.R. 3200 Health Care "Reform"

Congress adjourned (mercifully), Congressmen and Senators are going back home and more than half of them (mostly Democrats) will be trying hard to sell us the health care "reform", whose bill, H.R. 3200, you can bet your farm (or windmill or solar panel) that they haven't even read. So, before you go to these increasingly acrimonious townhall meetings with your Congressman/Senator, please educate yourself and know what to ask.

This blog has already discussed in detail two particular sections of the bill, Section 1233 ("advanced care" for senior citizens) and Section 141 (unelected health care Commissar deciding everything for you). I continue to browse the section titles of the actual bill and look in detail if they look "interesting". I was going to write about another section that I found during browsing, Section 163, which will allow the government a direct, electronic access to your bank account, and provides a back-door national ID card system.

I will write a post about Section 163, but for your quick reference I found this list at UrbanGrounds.com. It seems someone else is reading the actual bill, and twittering as he reads. The following list covers about half the bill, which is over 1000 pages. Page numbers may change as they mark up the bill, but section numbers should remain. Here goes:

"There is a man by the name of Peter Fleckstein (aka Fleckman) who is reading it and has been posting on Twitter his findings. This is from his postings (Note: All comments are Fleckman’s):

Pg 16: SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE. lines 3-26 of the HC Bill – OUTLAWS PRIVATE INSURANCE by forbidding enrollment after HR 3022 is passed into law.

Pg 21-22: SEC. 113. INSURANCE RATING RULES of the HC Bill MANDATES the Government will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!

Pg 29: SEC. 122. ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED: lines 4-16 in the HC bill – YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!

Pg 30: SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE of HC bill – THERE WILL BE A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

Pg 42: SEC. 142. DUTIES AND AUTHORITY OF COMMISSIONER of HC Bill – The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you. You have no choice!

PG 50-51: SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE in HC bill – HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, ILLEGAL or otherwise.

Pg 58: SEC. 163. ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION HC Bill – Government will have real-time access to individual’s finances and a National ID Healthcard will be issued!

Pg 59: SEC. 163. ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATIONHC Bill lines 21-24 Government will have DIRECT access to your BANK ACCOUNTS for electronic funds transfer. This means the government can go in and take your money right out of your bank account.

PG 65: SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions and community orgs (ACORN).

Pg 72: SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE; OUTLINE OF DUTIES; DEFINITIONS Lines 8-14 Government is creating an HC Exchange to bring private HC plans under Government control.

PG 84: SEC. 203. BENEFITS PACKAGE LEVELS HC Bill – Government mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the Exchange

PG 85: SEC. 203. BENEFITS PACKAGE LEVELS Line 7 HC Bill – SPECIFICATION OF BENEFIT LEVELS FOR PLANS = The Government will ration your Healthcare!

PG 91: SEC. 204. CONTRACTS FOR THE OFFERING OF EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS Lines 4-7 HC Bill – Government mandates linguistic appropriate services. Example – Translation for illegal aliens!

Pg 95: SEC. 205. OUTREACH AND ENROLLMENT OF EXCHANGE-ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS AND EMPLOYERS IN EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Government will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Government HC plan.

PG 102: SEC. 205. OUTREACH AND ENROLLMENT OF EXCHANGE-ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS AND EMPLOYERS IN EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN Lines 12-18 HC Bill – Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice!

pg 124: SEC. 223. PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES lines 24-25 HC No company can sue the GOVERNMENT on price fixing! No “judicial review” against Government Monopoly!!

pg 127: SEC. 225. PROVIDER PARTICIPATION Lines 1-16 HC Bill – Doctors/ AMA – The Government will tell YOU what you can make.

Pg 145: SEC. 312. EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT COVERAGE Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public option plan. NO CHOICE!!

Pg 146: SEC. 312. EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT COVERAGE Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay 4 HC 4 part time employees AND their families.

Pg 149: SEC. 313. EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE Lines 16-24 ANY Employer with payroll of $400k and above who does not provide public option pays 8% tax on all payroll.

pg 150: SEC. 313. EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE Lines 9-13 Business’s with payroll between $251k – $400k who doesn’t provide public option pays 2-6% tax on all payroll.

Pg 167: SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesn’t have acceptable HC according to Government will be taxed 2.5% of income.

Pg 170: SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is EXEMPT from individual taxes. (Americans will pay)

Pg 195: HC Bill – SEC. 421. CREDIT FOR SMALL BUSINESS EMPLOYEE HEALTH COVERAGE EXPENSES Officers and employees of HC Administration (GOVERNMENT) will have access to ALL Americans financial and personal records!

PG 203: SEC. 441. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS Line 14-15 HC – “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax” Yes, it says that!

Pg 239: SEC. 1121. SUSTAINABLE GROWTH RATE REFORM Line 14-24 HC Bill Government will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected.

Pg 241: SEC. 1121. SUSTAINABLE GROWTH RATE REFORM Line 6-8 HC Bill – Doctors, doesn’t matter what specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same.

PG 253: SEC. 1122. MISVALUED CODES UNDER THE PHYSICIAN FEE
SCHEDULE Line 10-18 Government sets value of Doctor’s time, professional judgment, etc. Literally value of humans.

PG 265: SEC. 1131. INCORPORATING PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENTS INTO MARKET BASKET UPDATES THAT DO NOT ALREADY INCORPORATE SUCH IMPROVEMENTS. Government mandates and controls productivity for private HC industries.

PG 268: SEC. 1141. RENTAL AND PURCHASE OF POWER-DRIVEN WHEELCHAIRS. Federal Government regulates rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs

PG 272: SEC. 1145. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS – Cancer patients – welcome to rationing!

Page 280: SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS The Government will penalize hospitals for what Government deems preventable readmissions.

Pg 298: SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS Lines 9-11 Doctors! Treat a patient during initial admission that results in a readmission? Government will penalize you.

Pg 317: SEC. 1156. LIMITATION ON MEDICARE EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN PHYSICIAN REFERRALS MADE TO HOSPITALS Lines 13-20 OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership and investment! Government tells Doctors what and how much they can own!

Pg 317-318: SEC. 1156. LIMITATION ON MEDICARE EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN PHYSICIAN REFERRALS MADE TO HOSPITALS lines 21-25, 1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion – Government is mandating hospitals cannot expand!

pg 321: SEC. 1156. LIMITATION ON MEDICARE EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN PHYSICIAN REFERRALS MADE TO HOSPITALS Lines 2-13 Hospitals have option to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can you say ACORN?!!

Pg 335: SEC. 1162. QUALITY BONUS PAYMENTS Lines 16-25 Pg 336-339 – Government mandates establishment of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing

Pg 341: SEC. 1162. QUALITY BONUS PAYMENTS Lines 3-9 Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing people into Government plan.

Pg 354: SEC. 1177. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF SPECIAL NEEDS PLANS TO RESTRICT ENROLLMENT – Government will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs people! OMG! My sister has Downs Syndrome!!!

Pg 379: SEC. 1191. TELEHEALTH EXPANSION AND ENHANCEMENTS Government creates more bureaucracy – Telehealth Advisory Committee Can you say HC by phone?

PG 425: SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION Lines 4-12 Government mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life

Pg 425: SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION Lines 17-19 Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!

PG 425: SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Government provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death!

PG 427: SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION Lines 15-24 Government mandates program for orders for end of life. The Government has a say in how your life ends!

Pg 429: SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION Lines 1-9 An “advance care planning consultant” will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates.

PG 429: SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION Lines 10-12 “advance care consultation” may include an ORDER 4 end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV

Pg 429: SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION Lines 13-25 – The Government will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.

PG 430: SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION Lines 11-15 The Government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life.

Pg 469: SEC. 1302. MEDICAL HOME PILOT PROGRAM Community Based Home Medical Services=Non profit organizations. Hello, ACORN Medical Services here!!?

Page 472: SEC. 1302. MEDICAL HOME PILOT PROGRAM Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG. 1 monthly payment 2 a community-based org. Like ACORN?

PG 489: SEC. 1308. COVERAGE OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPIST SERVICES AND MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELOR SERVICES The Government will cover Marriage and Family therapy. Which means they will insert Government into your marriage

Pg 494-498: SEC. 1308. COVERAGE OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPIST SERVICES AND MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELOR SERVICES Government will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, rationing those services.

-------------------------
Most importantly, ask your Congressmen/Senator this: WHY NOW?

The country is in the worst recession since the Great Depression, and it is a recession caused by excess credit and leverage, not by excess inventory. The last time this type of recession happened was the Great Depression. Consumers don't have extra money, the country is utterly broke. WHY are we embarking on a huge, costly project like health care "reform", NOW?

The president's sense of "urgency" seems to coincide with the health care industry lobby's effort. (In case you are not aware, the health care industry is FOR the "reform and is planning on advertisement blitz this summer. That alone would tell you who is going to benefit. Not you and me.) Also remember that Congress would be EXEMPT from their own "reform".

The stock market didn't crash last September because of health care crisis. It crashed last September because of credit problems at world's major banks. The credit problems were caused by the loose monetary policies by the Federal Reserve under the misguided government policy of home ownership as a right (just like what they are saying now, that heath care is a right). That caused a price inflation of all asset classes, most notably real estate; resultant low cost of capital (= low interest rate) led to malinvestment in inefficient sectors with low returns on capital. This recession was caused by financial reasons.

The government and this particular administration don't seem to care what caused it, but care about not wasting this excellent opportunity to shove in "reforms" that are their life-long dreams. They want to put one of the culprits of the financial debacle the Federal Reserve as the head of the sweeping financial "reform". They don't seem to care that the country does not have money; they want to create brave new, enormous projects like health care and climate, on credit (= debt. remember, this country is broke. Just in July, it had to issue over $700 billion worth of Treasuries), in the middle of a credit-driven recession.

What's more, the health care in the U.S. has already been taken over by the government for all intent and purposes, and it is one of the most inefficient sectors of the economy because of that. More money and bureaucracy dumped on top of the inefficient sector, how would that help? If they truly believe it will help lift the country out of recession, they need to have their heads examined.

I wish their summer vacation would last for ever and ever.

Tweet

Subtitle E Section 141 of H.R. 3200 Health Care "Reform" Bill

establishes a Health Choices Administration in the executive branch and an unelected Health Choices Commissioner. [emphasis is mine]

Subtitle E--Governance

SEC. 141. HEALTH CHOICES ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH CHOICES COMMISSIONER.

(a) In General- There is hereby established, as an independent agency in the executive branch of the Government, a Health Choices Administration (in this division referred to as the `Administration').

(b) Commissioner-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Administration shall be headed by a Health Choices Commissioner (in this division referred to as the `Commissioner') who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

--------------------------

Great. An(other) unelected official, a(nother) czar, appointed by and answerable only to, the über-czar, uhh, President, will decide on your health care. His/her mandate? That's in Section 142:

--------------------------

SEC. 142. DUTIES AND AUTHORITY OF COMMISSIONER.

(a) Duties- The Commissioner is responsible for carrying out the following functions under this division:

(1) QUALIFIED PLAN STANDARDS- The establishment of qualified health benefits plan standards under this title, including the enforcement of such standards in coordination with State insurance regulators and the Secretaries of Labor and the Treasury.

(2) HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE- The establishment and operation of a Health Insurance Exchange under subtitle A of title II.

(3) INDIVIDUAL AFFORDABILITY CREDITS- The administration of individual affordability credits under subtitle C of title II, including determination of eligibility for such credits.

(4) ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS- Such additional functions as may be specified in this division.

Basically, the whole aspect of this health care "reform".

Don't turn around.. The Commissar in town, Oh uh...

Here's a take by the Heritage Foundation, posted on 7/29/09.

By the way, does this chart (created by GOP, to be sure) look like the "reform" will save money or reduce cost?

Tweet

Dems Reach A Deal On Health Care

Blue Dogs say they've reached a compromise on health care
(7/29/09 CNN)

"A group of fiscally conservative House Democrats announced Wednesday they reached a deal with the chamber's Democratic leaders on a health care reform bill.

"Ross [Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas] said the deal between four Blue Dogs on the House committee [the Energy and Commerce Committee] , the House Democratic leadership and the White House lowers the cost of the House health care reform plan by $100 billion and also exempts businesses with payrolls below $500,000 from having to provide health coverage for workers. "

The committee chairman (Waxman) wants to take up the bill at 4:00 pm today. (Little wonder the stock market is down; I do believe that the market was buoyed in the last 2 weeks because of perceived delay/defeat of the health care money wasting reform.)

No one knows for sure how much the total cost would be, so "cutting" $100 billion doesn't mean a thing at this point. Exemption of business with payrolls below $500,000 is an improvement from $250,000 originally proposed. And that's a deal for those so-called Blue Dog Democrats??

But wait, the Energy and Commerce Committee of Waxman? What does it have anything to do with health care reform?

I checked around, and found these 5 committees that are involved in crafting the health care "reform".

• the House Committee on Ways and Means (already voted)
• the House Committee on Education and Labor (already voted)
• the Committee on Energy and Commerce (may be voting today)
• the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) (already voted)
• the Senate Finance Committee

Votes in the committees have been strictly partisan, with few Democrats voting no. I don't know for sure whether the Senate is going to use reconciliation process. If they do, all the Senate needs is a simple majority to pass the bill.

And of course, behind these committees, there's the White House with Rahm Emanuel.

With the help of health care industry lobby who's spending $100 million on ad campaigns in support of health care "reform" (that alone tells you who is going to get royally screwed by the legislation - you and me), they are going to ram it through Congress.

Tweet

Health Care Lobbyists Will Save The Day for Obama

according to AP. (Since when are lobbyists praised as a positive force, by a news agency of all people?) Anyway, here's a highly partisan article from such a lobbyist-praising news agency, AP.

Lobbyists the silver lining in health care storm?
(by RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, 7/25/09 AP via Yahoo News)

"WASHINGTON – A strong force, perhaps as powerful in Congress as President Barack Obama, is keeping the drive for health care going even as lawmakers seem hopelessly at odds.

"Lobbyists.

"The drug industry, the American Medical Association, hospital groups and the insurance lobby are all saying Congress must make major changes this year. Television ads paid for by drug companies and insurers continued to emphasize the benefits of a health care overhaul — not the groups' objections to some of the proposals."

Note the word "hopelessly" in the first paragraph. To the writer, it's apparently a hopeless situation when the health care reform bill (H.R. 3200) strongly pushed by none other than President Obama hasn't already passed the House. Those pesky lawmakers. How dare they question the wisdom of the bill?

If doctors, hospitals, insurance companies are all for the so-called "reform", as the article claims as a good, positive thing, that is all the more reason NOT to "reform". I've never heard of an industry lobby lobbying for something other than the industry's own interest. Have you?

Now, let's continue with the PR article:

"President Barack Obama on Saturday continued his full-court press to pass health care reform legislation. In his weekly Internet and radio address, Obama cited a new White House study indicating that small businesses pay far more per employee for health insurance than big companies — a disparity he says is "unsustainable — it's unacceptable."

""And it's going to change when I sign health insurance reform into law," Obama said, adding that he has "a sense of urgency about moving this process forward."

"This time, the health care industry groups see a strategic opportunity. As lawmakers squabble, the groups are focused on how to come out ahead in the end game."

Obama's sense of urgency then is clearly fostered by these well-meaning lobbyists. The writer reveals his bias again in the last paragraph. This time, note the word "squabble". Actually reading the bill (H.R. 3200) and arguing the details is "squabble" to this writer.

AP by the way doesn't write like a news agency anymore, in case you haven't noticed. It seems to have become a PR agency for the administration, as their article demonstrated when the climate bill (H.R. 2454) passed the House in June (remember that bill?). Such a volunteerism.

Tweet

Section 1233 of H.R.3200

(Be sure to read the other posts on health care "reform" by clicking here.)

H.R. 3200 America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 has a section (1233) that will require senior citizens to meet with their physicians/nurse practitioners every 5 years to discuss living wills, durable powers of attorney, end-of-life services (like hospice), orders regarding life-sustaining treatment, and health care proxy.

Even if those senior citizens are active and in perfect health, they will be forced to see their physicians every 5 years to discuss how they are going to end their lives. What could be more depressing and life-shortening experience than that? (And when did physicians get training to double as attorneys?)

What's more, after reading the Section, "orders regarding life-sustaining treatment" does not seem to mean "orders to provide life-sustaining treatment". It seems to say that consultation will be provided so that everyone involved will understand why an order to provide or withhold such treatment is issued.

Here are relevant parts of the Section. If you want to read the whole Section or the whole Bill for that matter, go to the Library of Congress THOMAS, and type in the bill number (H.R. 3200).

Section 1233. Advanced Care Planning Consultation [emphasis is mine]

`(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:

`(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.

`(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.

`(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.

`(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).

`(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.

`(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include--

`(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;

`(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and

`(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 decisionmaker (also known as a health care proxy).

`(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations under clause (i) to consultations furnished in a State--

`(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

`(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).

`(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that--

`(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;

`(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;

`(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment; and

`(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.

------------------------------
[More on "order regarding life sustaining treatment" in the same Section]

`(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--

`(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;

`(ii) effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;

`(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary); and

`(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the individual.

`(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 interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items--

`(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;

`(ii) the individual's desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;

`(iii) the use of antibiotics; and

`(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.'.


I would love to know if the author at Minyanville who painted a rosy health care future for us yesterday still insists that the government is a backstop. He probably will, because he probably will be too busy to be bothered by facts.

Tweet

Obama Not Familiar With House Heath Care Reform Bill

This from the Heritage Foundation.

Morning Bell: Obama Admits He’s “Not Familiar” With House Bill (7/21/09 The Foundry @ the Heritage Foundation) [emphasis is mine]

"With the public’s trust in his handling of health care tanking (50%-44% of Americans disapprove), the White House has launched a new phase of its strategy designed to pass Obamacare: all Obama, all the time. As part of that effort, Obama hosted a conference call with leftist bloggers urging them to pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible.

"During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: “Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?” President Obama replied: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.” (quote begins at 17:10)

"This is a truly disturbing admission by the President, especially considering that later in the call, Obama promises yet again: “If you have health insurance, and you like it, and you have a doctor that you like, then you can keep it. Period.” How can Obama keep making this promise if he is not familiar with the health legislation that is being written in Congress? Details matter.

"We are familiar with the passage IBD sites, and as we wrote last week, the House bill does not outright outlaw private individual health insurance, but it does effectively regulate it out of existence."

This blog covered the issue of private insurance under H.R. 3200 in this post last Saturday, with the actual text of the sections in question. As the Heritage Foundation says, the bill will effectively kill the private health insurance industry with cumbersome new regulations and restrictions and raise the cost to employers and individuals.

And the President, who's clearly back in the campaign mode to sell this piece of monstrocity, doesn't even know what's in it. He probably doesn't know that Congress will be exempt from the very rules that they are crafting right now.

According to the Heritage Foundation, the bill will:

• Approximately 103 million people would be covered under the new public plan and, as a consequence, about 83.4 million people would lose their private insurance. This would represent a 48.4 percent reduction in the number of people with private coverage.
• About 88.1 million workers would see their current private, employer-sponsored health plan go away and would be shifted to the public plan.
• Yearly premiums for the typical American with private coverage could go up by as much as $460 per privately-insured person, as a result of increased cost-shifting stemming from a public plan modeled on Medicare.

And remember that the bill wants to penalize people who don't have health insurance by taxing them on their gross income.

Has the whole country gone crazy or what?

Tweet

Health Care Bill Will Kill Private Insurance Industry

There are people outside Congress who are actually reading 1000-plus pages of the draft health care bill titled "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009" (H.R. 3200). What they are finding out is the exercise in Newspeak - "choice" means "no choice", "protection" means "deprivation".

This is probably one of so many others, and it was picked up by Investors Business Daily (7/15/09).

"Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

"The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"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 the year the legislation becomes law.

"So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers."

The section in question is below. Read it for yourself.

TITLE I-- PROTECTIONS AND STANDARDS FOR QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS
Subtitle A--General Standards
SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

(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:

(a) (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.

(a) (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.

(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 the hell is "an Exchange-participating health benefits plan", you may ask? That's in
TITLE II--HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE AND RELATED PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Health Insurance Exchange
SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE; OUTLINE OF DUTIES; DEFINITIONS.

(a) Establishment- There is established within the Health Choices Administration and under the direction of the Commissioner a Health Insurance Exchange in order to facilitate access of individuals and employers, through a transparent process, to a variety of choices of affordable, quality health insurance coverage, including a public health insurance option.

So, if (or I'd better say when) this monstrocity becomes a law, everyone - individuals, employers, private insurance companies - will have to participate in this merry Health Insurance Exchange controlled by bureaucrats. And with the White House deciding on our Medicare benefit levels, we're all set. Nothing to worry about any more till we die.

Now I know how the administration propose to create jobs. It is by creating bureaucracy that is nightmarish for non-bureaucrats (i.e. private citizens and private businesses) but heavenly for bureaucrats themselves. Endless paper shuffling opportunities for so many people.

Tweet