Real Meaning of Health Care Vote

Joe Kawfi's picture

JOBS KILLED
TAXES INCREASE
NATIONAL DEBT RISES
FEWER DOCTORS
HIGHER COST OF HEALTH CARE INSURANCE FOR MOST
ILLEGALS GET COVERED (just wait for that)
ABORTIONS ARE COVERED (that too will happen)

I wonder how many of our Representatives in Congress who voted for this monstrosity actually read it. Heck, it wasn't even posted for 72 hours like queen Nancy PROMISED it would be for the American people to read. Of course, we have come to expect lies from Democrats, so what's one more lie?

What the government will require you to do:

• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.

• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.

Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.

• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.

• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.

• Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what's called a "medical home."

The medical home is this decade's version of HMO-restrictions on care. A primary-care provider manages access to costly specialists and diagnostic tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that patients may have to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a physician as the primary-care provider. Medical homes begin with demonstration projects, but the HHS secretary is authorized to "disseminate this approach rapidly on a national basis."

A December 2008 Congressional Budget Office report noted that "medical homes" were likely to resemble the unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago if cost control was a priority.

• Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients.

• Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida.

• Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans (used by 20% of seniors). Advantage plans have warned this will result in reductions in optional benefits such as vision and dental care.

While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability.

• Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community "entities" with no required qualifications except having "documented community activity and experience with community healthcare workers" to "educate, guide, and provide experiential learning opportunities" aimed at drug abuse, poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. "Each community health worker program receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the cultural context most appropriate for the individual served by the program."

These programs will "enhance the capacity of individuals to utilize health services and health related social services under Federal, State and local programs by assisting individuals in establishing eligibility . . . and in receiving services and other benefits" including transportation and translation services.

• Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. This program will train health-care workers to inform Medicare beneficiaries of their "right" to have an interpreter at all times and with no co-pays for language services.

• Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing schools should "give preference to programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population." And secondary-school grants should go to schools "graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities."

Read it and weep folks - America as we know it will be toast if this thing is implemented.

Joe Kawfi's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by Davids mom on Sun, 11/08/2009 - 10:13pm.

The actual bill is on line. It is 1017 pages, but you can check the validity of statements made regarding content for yourself. Google H.R. 3200

Joe Kawfi's picture
Submitted by Joe Kawfi on Mon, 11/09/2009 - 8:43am.

How do you even function from day to day?

The bill that passed by a narrow partisan vote was H.R. 3962, it's 1990 pages long, and it was NOT posted 72 hours before being debated or voted upon. Nancy Pelosi lied again, but that is what we have come to expect from liberal politicians in their unquenchable thirst for power.

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.


Submitted by Davids mom on Tue, 11/10/2009 - 11:07am.

Sorry - made a mistake. However, I hope all citizens take the opportunity to check your 'facts'/'opinion with the actual bill. I'm not the only one here who feels that your opinion of Obama is coloring your objectivity.

meanoldconservatives's picture
Submitted by meanoldconservatives on Tue, 11/10/2009 - 6:37pm.

"I'm not the only one here who feels that your opinion of Obama is coloring your objectivity."

It's a shame that we don't possess that same gift of objectivity, fairness and clarity that the left enjoys. You know what I mean....when you guys didn't let your opinion of Bush color your objectivity all those years. How could we ever forget that "oh so recent" example you all lived?????


Submitted by Davids mom on Tue, 11/10/2009 - 11:07pm.

According to the polls at the end of Bush's term, it wasn't just the left that lost 'objectivity' regarding Bush and his administration. Right?

Joe Kawfi's picture
Submitted by Joe Kawfi on Tue, 11/10/2009 - 12:04pm.

What led you to think that I give a hoot about how you 'feel'?

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.


suggarfoot's picture
Submitted by suggarfoot on Mon, 11/09/2009 - 11:29am.

Children born with birth defects etc., now, can't be excluded. People with preexisting conditions can't be excluded.

If the healthcare industry had not got sooo... greedy..this wouldn't be happening today. To tell a family with a sick child you aren't gonna pay cause the child was born that way, is as low and sick as you can get. It is bad enough to watch a helpless baby suffer, but then have the insurance companies you've paid good money to, turn their back on you is unreal. These people often loose everything they had trying to help that child.

When I was a child, it happened to my family. We were lucky, everything we had was paid for, but, it took our very last dollar to take care of my little brother. It was the only time I ever saw my father almost break. He was a kind, honest man that always paid and never asked for anything, he always took care of everyone else that needed a hand. My brother born with birth defects and the insurance company brought him to his knees. My brother is in his 50s now and we are still paying for most of his needs. I don't wish that on anyone. I hope this bill makes no other family have to go through that.

The Senate will have to do their thing now and it will get tweaked some more. There are so many that are in the back pocket of the insurance companies, I'm surprised the bill has come this far.

If any of you have kept up with what Wendall Potter, the whistleblower from CIGNA has said. He says that what we have now with the bill is not good and feels it is due to the lobbyist and other vested interest groups trying to sabotage it.

He has warned if they take the public insurance option out leaving the insurance companies as they wish, with no competition, it will gut the whole thing. He also says that parts of Dem Senator Max Baucus bill is an 'absolute gift' to the insurance companies.

So rest easy, there is enough money out there trying to keep their strangle hold on your wallet you need not worry. Big bucks will gut it, and you can keep on paying and subsidizing the 100 million plus bonuses for the insurance execs at the expense of some one's child dying.


Cyclist's picture
Submitted by Cyclist on Mon, 11/09/2009 - 12:13pm.

Fisrt, I'm sorry to hear about your bother and I hope and pray for the best outcome.

Now, where do you see the problem? Is it the cost of medical services or is it the insurance companies?

BTW, I'm glad you're back!!
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.


suggarfoot's picture
Submitted by suggarfoot on Mon, 11/09/2009 - 12:27pm.

I think it is possible to have cheaper insurance and better care...and I WANT IT! Not for me, but everyone. I've always had insurance so I'm not deprived but I feel as I said for those that don't. I'm an insurance companies dream, I very rarely go to the doctor, it isn't my bag.

I use to do voluteer work at a hospital back home with the kids that weren't gonna make it. What the parents go through is horrible. To have no insurance and wind up bankrupt in the end is too much just for corporate profits.

I do feel that they will gut this bill, it is just too many trying to do so.


Cyclist's picture
Submitted by Cyclist on Mon, 11/09/2009 - 1:03pm.

Words can not express the grieving a parent goes through when their child has a life threatening illness.

But, is the culprit insurance or medical service cost?

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.


suggarfoot's picture
Submitted by suggarfoot on Mon, 11/09/2009 - 1:18pm.

sick. No insurance, these people can't pay for treatment. They go hand in hand. Most families cannot pay for the surgery or treatment.

AMA and AARP have come out for reform.

But there is no way people are gonna get something out of the finished bill. It will be trashed, or watered down, to prove a point and for profits.


Cyclist's picture
Submitted by Cyclist on Mon, 11/09/2009 - 5:31pm.

So I'm assuming you're saying the underlining cause is medical treatment is too expensive and therefore insurance is needed as means of covering possible expenses.

So I'm curious, do you advocate that the Guv enact wage and price controls throughout the medical industry?
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.


Submitted by Davids mom on Tue, 11/10/2009 - 11:44am.

We see what years of lack of monitoring have done to the price of health care. The insurance industry has operated for years on a 'bottom line' basis. The 'bottom line' has made it impossible for too many citizens to have basic affordable medical care in our country. Lobbyists have more impact on our legislators than the citizens in their districts. Ideally, the implementers of health care would not see the need for drugs/medical treatment to literally cost an arm and a leg - (and the cost is escalating) but we are not operating in an ideal environment. For the 'richest' country on the planet - we have a poor life expectancy rate. There may be many factors that contribute to this. That's why I support the emphasis on preventative aspects of the health care reform. If the insurance companies would self-regulate their charges; etc. - government (the people) would not have to intervene. We have allowed 'government' to mean a select group of people - rather than US. If the select group of people is allowed to get us in a mess that is not benefitting the citizens - then we need to re-select. WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. The majority of citizens in this country voted for meaningful change. If they don’t get it – they will register their opinion at the next election. Health care has been the bane of administrations since Teddy Roosevelt. The insurance industry is open with their attempt to maintain the status quo – and continue to escalate the cost of health care. The AMA and AARP are supporting this attempt to bring the cost of health care into the realm of all Americans. We’re not changing or amending the Constitution – we’re trying to make health care affordable. I personally will not opt for a government program (I already have Medicare) For the almost 40 years that I paid premiums to a medical insurance program - - the only expense to the insurance company was two pregnancies. Many citizens are healthy – and preventive programs would benefit the ‘risk’ factor for the insurance industry. The insurance industry is spending a lot of money to put fear into the citizens of this country. Why? (Not to mention the money being spent by ???? to make sure to Obama fails.)

suggarfoot's picture
Submitted by suggarfoot on Tue, 11/10/2009 - 11:59am.

they are so afraid of competition, or choice, they can't stand it.

But I feel that the insurance companies have invested so much money into sabotaging this that they will in fact, gutt it.

I agree with you too about the lobbyist. They have erroded the power of our vote.

A friend of mine said come election in 2 years, we should vote them all out.


S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Mon, 11/09/2009 - 4:43pm.

The Lords of Entitlement…Link

“The bill is instead a breathtaking display of illiberal ambition, intended to make the middle class more dependent on government through the umbilical cord of "universal health care." It creates a vast new entitlement, financed by European levels of taxation on business and individuals. The 20% corner of Medicare open to private competition is slashed, while fiscally strapped states are saddled with new Medicaid burdens. The insurance industry will have to vet every policy with Washington, which will regulate who it must cover, what it can offer, and how much it can charge.”

“The House also contains a new government long-term insurance program that starts collecting premiums in 2011 but doesn't starting paying benefits until 2016 and then runs out of money in 2029. North Dakota Democrat Kent Conrad called it "a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of" in an interview with the Washington Post in late October. Mr. Cooper has with a single vote made his entire career irrelevant.”

Come follow me to Hell that is Obamacare

btw... That GREED some on here like to point at of the Private Insurers... 2.5% profit margin as an average. Show me another industry that makes so little profit.. Between Government Regulations and the Restrictions it's no wonder they have to have some provisions that excludes the high risk groups..

Solution provide REAL competition.. Open up the Borders.. No not Mexico, but between the States.. Allow for true COMMERCE..

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson


Submitted by Busy Bee on Mon, 11/09/2009 - 1:53pm.

I keep hearing those who say they don't want the government to support deadbeats who expect the government to bail them out from their poor choices - and I agree. BUT - is someone who has worked hard all of their lives and been gainfully employed in a professional job with a college education, but has been laid off in this bad economy a deadbeat? No job, no insurance. Yes, you can pay for COBRA, but it costs around $1800 per month at a time when your income has been eliminated. Too many months of that and your retirement account starts shrinking rapidly. But if you decide to do without insurance you risk having a major health problem occur while you are uninsured. And even if your family eats right, exercises, and does all the right things to stay healthy, there is still no guarantee against having a catastrophic car accident, or a cancer diagnosis, or a brain aneurysm, or some other health disaster that could cost you $250,000, or more. For that matter, most policies have lifetime limits of a million dollars. Sound like a lot? Maybe not if you have heart bypass surgery.

My point is this - we need to change the healthcare system so that all of us are protected. It's not just to support deadbeats who don't want to work. Any one of us is more vulnerable than we think to the effects of being laid off and loosing our health insurance. Do I think the Health Reform Bill proposed by the Democrats is the perfect solution? I doubt it is. But I wish the Republicans would recognize that the current health care system is a mess and start offering solutions instead of just screaming insults about the Democrat's ideas. I'd like to see a real discussion with realistic solutions instead of a shouting match.

Cyclist's picture
Submitted by Cyclist on Mon, 11/09/2009 - 6:11pm.

Is the solution to blame the "evil" insurance companies and have them cover everyone and everything? Heck, we might as well just nationalize all of them and that might happen anyway. Remember, insurance is all about risk management it not designed to operate on a continuous loss and has to balance expenses with revenue.

Health care is expensive from A to Z. As I asked "suggarfoot" do you advocate that the "Guv" enact wage and price controls on this industry?
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.


Submitted by Busy Bee on Tue, 11/10/2009 - 9:30am.

No, I don't advocate wage and price controls. For what it's worth, I consider myself politically to be a moderate, centrist, Independent. In general I believe that the free market is the best way to control costs and improve service. Unfortunately there is no true free market with our current health care system, as compared to say, car insurance. With our employer based health care system, the individual generally has little or no choice in the provider of their health insurance. That choice is made by your employer. If you don't like the way Aetna is handling your claims, you can't just switch to Blue Cross for better service. You are stuck with Aetna. Your only recourse is to complain to your HR department. Car insurance is different. If you think State Farm costs too much you can switch to Geico. Don't like the way Geico handled your claim, switch to Allstate.

By the same token, the individual has little incentive to lower their medical costs. If you have a broken arm, you make your choice of Orthopedist based on what little info you have, maybe a list of preferred providers given to you by your insurance company along with some word of mouth from people you know and a rec. from your primary care doc. Cost never enters into the decision (other than it costs you more to go outside your plan). You don't pay any attention to the charges, other than to make sure your insurance is covering eveything but the deductable. You don't care if it costs $3000 or $5000 as long as Aetna pays for it. It is interesting that the only medical procedures that have decreased in cost are those not covered by insurance, such as elective plastic surgery and Lasik surgery. Steve "Flat Tax" Forbes has long been an advocate for overhauling the health care system to make it more market oriented so that individuals have an incentive to hold costs down.

I understand that our employer based insurance system evolved after WWII when employers were offering incentives to hire good workers. At the time it wasn't too expensive and employees often worked for the same employer for their entire working lives. Well those days are gone. Health insurance is a major cost for businesses and there is no loyalty between employers and employees anymore. Companies are quick to outsource jobs, and workers are quick to change ships when a better offer comes along. But unfortunately their medical insurance is not portable and insurance companies have become more agressive at denying claims as costs rise. And, as I stated, there currently is no free market to keep costs down and improve service. I'm no expert on healthcare other than personal experience as a consumer, but I think we as a country need to address these problems that can affect us all.

suggarfoot's picture
Submitted by suggarfoot on Tue, 11/10/2009 - 10:03am.

"Unfortunately there is no true free market with our current health care system, as compared to say, car insurance."

This is so true, they have had a controled monopoly.


suggarfoot's picture
Submitted by suggarfoot on Mon, 11/09/2009 - 4:59pm.

There are a lot of good people in the streets looking for jobs through no fault of their own. If you or your family needed extensive medical help right now, you would be ruined.

Heathcare excs have made some big bucks denying insurance to the sick and they sleep very well at night. Doesn't bother them a bit. They fancy themselves good businessmen, but in my opion, they are nothing of the kind.

Insurance companies are really po ed right now cause the gov just took away their 60 year old law that made it ok for them to control the market. They are really upset over the idea of having competition. The gov has never been known for doing things cheaply, yet insurance companies are afraid the prices that the government option for health care will cost too little and interfere with their profits. The insurance billionairs are afraid of bcoming millionaires


Joe Kawfi's picture
Submitted by Joe Kawfi on Mon, 11/09/2009 - 3:48pm.

If the President would have concentrated on freeing up the private sector so that jobs would materialize, then some of the millions wouldn't be without health insurance now, would they?

Wouldn't a lower unemployment figure, which is now the highest in decades due to the current administrations policies, be more effective at fixing the problem then just handing out "free" healthcare?

People want jobs, not another government program or handout. This "President" has his priorities in the wrong place. He actually thinks that he can spend this country into prosperity.

Sad, very sad indeed.

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.


suggarfoot's picture
Submitted by suggarfoot on Mon, 11/09/2009 - 10:40pm.

Was it letting a lot of the jobs go over seas? or letting the CEOs boink the workers cause they could?

Wow! With the incredibly good legacy Bush left us, Omaba could have skated on that for a long time.

A few more match maker deals by his lobbyist with forein exiles and who knows, maybe Osama would have come down our chimmeys for Christmas instead of Santa!


Submitted by Bonkers on Mon, 11/09/2009 - 4:20pm.

You two are not fooling anyone with your cover up.

Obama didn't bring any jobs with him and didn't cerate the ones lost.

What on earth do you think he could have done with "freeing up the private sector" in 7-8 months?
Bush gave the stupid banks a trillion to do just that and they kept it!

Admit the idiotic failure of the country's management over the last 8-9 years so we can go about improving it.

We are in for 3-5 more years of this mess no matter what or who tries to stop it.

Joe Kawfi's picture
Submitted by Joe Kawfi on Mon, 11/09/2009 - 9:58pm.

b-b-b-b-b-but Bush! The mantra of the liberals that have lost the argument.

Obama promised that unemployment would not go above 8% if his wastful, pork-laden spending bill passed. Unemployment is now at 10.2% and climbing with no end in sight.

The President is way over his head. He has no idea on how to lead a country. He's born out of old Chicago politics. Admit it, Bonk. He's over-exposed and unqualified.

Oh, and a terrorist attack just took place on American soil as a result of his lax attitude toward terrorists.

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.


Submitted by Bonkers on Tue, 11/10/2009 - 7:03am.

I'm sorry but you are hopeless to discuss anything with!
You despise the President and that is it.
It would take a miracle to straighten out the mess the republicans left in any amount of time.
Cover-up!

Locke's picture
Submitted by Locke on Tue, 11/10/2009 - 2:24am.

The liberals have not lost the argument by blaming Bush. It just a little longer into Obama's term now than it was when your guy ignored the warnings and intelligence briefings that led to the 9/11 attack. And what did the Republicans do? Blamed it on Clinton.

And Obama never promised that unemployment would not go above 8%, he projected that it would not. I'll concede that he grossly underestimated the mess Bush left.

Trying to blame Obama for the attacks is ridiculous. Show me the intelligence briefings that he ignored. Nobody sent him anything like, "Osama Determined to Strike within the United States" for him to consider and decide to ignore.

The fact that you have to stoop to that accusation and that you have to criticize a promise that Obama didn't make shows how bankrupt your argument is.

---------
It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth. John Locke


suggarfoot's picture
Submitted by suggarfoot on Mon, 11/09/2009 - 10:25pm.

"Oh, and a terrorist attack just took place on American soil as a result of his lax attitude toward terrorists."

I went to work very briefly for Homeland Security. Just long enough to realize I wouldn't have my name and theirs mentioned in the same sentence!

That was Bushes baby. You don't know what a lax attitude is!

And while I'm on the subject, don't you think it was a little dumb after 911 when all the planes were GROUNDED...that Bush oked a private jet to come in and land at several cities and pick up Osama's relatives?

Don't you think just one of those 60-70 people might have given us some good leads on where he might be?

But I know, since Bush was buddies with the family, the right thing to do was to let them all fly away as free as little birds, then send out boys in for the LAST SEVERAL YEARS... to be killed while looking for him? Talk about an idiot!


S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Mon, 11/09/2009 - 8:48am.

Facts matter not to Davids Mom.. You can present all the proof in the World that the Earth is indeed round.. She will still come back and say it's flat.. That is if she doesn't lie about it first..

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.