I was watching a TIVO'd C-SPAN Booknotesepisode ("Economics does not lie", on Gagdad Bob's buy list, looks very interesting and is soon to be in my library), and as it ended the news was on, and it was smack dab in the midst of the Memorial service for Teddy Kennedy, mid way into son Joseph's speech.
I have no remaining fondness for Ted Kennedy, my early hero worship of JFK & RFK long since eroded by understanding the meaning of their actions, they retain no aura to shelter him with in my thoughts, and he has generated a deep, deep guilt of wrong doings, political and personal, all his own. The words "Good riddance" comes tantalizingly to mind.
But.
It brought home to me again, the importance of remembering that the principles you grasp, are not necessarily all of the principles involved; the facts you plainly perceive, are not necessarily all of the facts involved; nor is your perception - right though it maybe in its context - the only perception available and justified (though his son Patrick's sailing anecdote about his Dad's pursuit of the details of rules as a way around a rule, sums up my perspective of him, his party, and much more).
I doubt I have any need to detail the many, many points of disagreement, if not downright revulsion, I have for the figure I know of as Ted Kennedy, but it seems likely and proper to remind myself, and us all, that though he can properly be roundly condemned for his actions, he was a person, something which is captured neither well nor fully, in a profiles portrait, or in any series of pictures.
Watching the service, it is obivous that his children and family obviously saw something much more than we did.
(Ugh... Obama is on now... trying to get through without the TOTUS... reminding me of both what I dislike about him... and, yes, the point of this post at the same time.)
Because someone is obviously wrong, does not mean that they willfully turn away from the truth. Because someone does evil, does not mean that they recognize the evil they are doing. Because someone hurts and wrongs people horribly, does not mean that they did not also treat others with deep love and affection.
People are amazingly Deep creatures, capable of an infinite number of facets... and our philosophies will never thoroughly plumb those depths. A single misperception, unwitting or self deceptive, can mis-draw the world and what is Right and True, into an elaborate and seeming real cognitive illusion, every bit as apparently true, though actually false, as any mere optical illusion you could produce.
We are well justified condemning a person and calling them on accounts for deeds they've done, delivering whatever punishments are justified by their actions. We have no need to leaven our condemnation of him for those actions we are so well aware of.
But.
But we are foolish, we deceive ourselves, when we think that we know all that there is, or needs to be known, about someone we know only from a distance - or even close at hand.
I will tell you why; so shall my anticipation prevent your discovery, and your secrecy to the king and queen moult no feather. I have of late--but wherefore I know not--lost all my mirth, forgone all custom of exercises; and indeed it goes so heavily with my disposition that this goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory, this most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o'erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire, why, it appears no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours. What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? man delights not me: no, nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.
ROSENCRANTZ
My lord, there was no such stuff in my thoughts.
HAMLET
Why did you laugh then, when I said 'man delights not me'?
ROSENCRANTZ
To think, my lord, if you delight not in man, what lenten entertainment the players shall receive from you: we coted them on the way; and hither are they coming, to offer you service.
HAMLET
He that plays the king shall be welcome; his majesty shall have tribute of me; the adventurous knight shall use his foil and target; the lover shall not sigh gratis; the humourous man shall end his part in peace; the clown shall make those laugh whose lungs are tickled o' the sere; and the lady shall say her mind freely, or the blank verse shall halt for't. What players are they?
ROSENCRANTZ
Even those you were wont to take delight in, the tragedians of the city.
HAMLET
How chances it they travel? their residence, both in reputation and profit, was better both ways.
ROSENCRANTZ
I think their inhibition comes by the means of the late innovation.
HAMLET
Do they hold the same estimation they did when I was in the city? are they so followed?
ROSENCRANTZ
No, indeed, are they not.
HAMLET
How comes it? do they grow rusty?
ROSENCRANTZ
Nay, their endeavour keeps in the wonted pace: but there is, sir, an aery of children, little eyases, that cry out on the top of question, and are most tyrannically clapped for't: these are now the fashion, and so berattle the common stages--so they call them--that many wearing rapiers are afraid of goose-quills and dare scarce come thither.
HAMLET
What, are they children? who maintains 'em? how are they escoted? Will they pursue the quality no longer than they can sing? will they not say afterwards, if they should grow themselves to common players--as it is most like, if their means are no better--their writers do them wrong, to make them exclaim against their own succession?
ROSENCRANTZ
'Faith, there has been much to do on both sides; and the nation holds it no sin to tarre them to controversy: there was, for a while, no money bid for argument, unless the poet and the player went to cuffs in the question.
HAMLET
Is't possible?
GUILDENSTERN
O, there has been much throwing about of brains.
HAMLET
Do the boys carry it away?
ROSENCRANTZ
Ay, that they do, my lord; Hercules and his load too.
HAMLET
It is not very strange; for mine uncle is king of Denmark, and those that would make mows at him while my father lived, give twenty, forty, fifty, an hundred ducats a-piece for his picture in little. 'Sblood, there is something in this more than natural, if philosophy could find it out.
"It is our shame, and our fault. We are the malfeasant ones. We are to blame."
From an excellent post by The Gunslinger, and Yes, it is our fault and we are to blame for the chaos enveloping us.
We The People gave it up, grandparents, parents and definitely ourselves, bit by bit, thinking we were getting something for nothing, free education (but 'educated' into ignorance of what was worth knowing and vitally important to be known), for govt provided services and care (but at the expense of our right to our lives and property and self responsibility), for govt stepping in and making us behave civilly (but at the expense of our no longer understanding what the meaning and requirements of civil behavior are)... but there is no freeFree.
As dire as things are in the face of Obamacare's threat of total governmental control of our lives, there is a bright light, people are finally beginning to wake up across this country, finally beginning to see the peril we've let gain power over us... and that spreading awareness, if we will each work to keep it burning bright, we can turn it around.
Yes! We! Can!
As to the oft heard plaints "But the constitution says govt has the power to provide for the general welfare of the United States ...", the Preamble NEVER meant what it has been twisted into, a blank check for doing anything any petty politician pines for. If you have doubts of that, or are unsure of how to argue against such notions, read the Preamble here, and then scroll down and read what ideas informed the Founders, what understanding and concerns they had, and how such liberality was argued against before the Supreme Court, and particularly how an outstanding early Supreme Court Justice, Joseph Story, dealt with it, such as:
"§ 462. And, here, we must guard ourselves against an error, which is too often allowed to creep into the discussions upon this subject. The preamble never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government, or any of its departments. It cannot confer any power per se; it can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the legitimate source of any implied power, when otherwise withdrawn from the constitution. Its true office is to expound the nature, and extent, and application of the powers actually conferred by the constitution, and not substantively to create them. . . ."
Or the link from President Monroe,
"...The people, the highest authority known to our system, from whom all our institutions spring and on whom they depend, formed it. Had the people of the several States thought proper to incorporate themselves into one community, under one government, they might have done it. They had the power, and there was nothing then nor is there anything now, should they be so disposed, to prevent it. They wisely stopped, however, ..."
And the Commerce ClauseNEVER was meant to allow govt to take control of all commerce related activities within the Nation, it was in response to the chaotic recriminations between one state and another in the original Confederacy (which brought several to the brink of war) which the Constitution corrected and replaced. As Madison stated,
"... separate attempts to raise revenue by duties on imports, soon appeared in Representations from her Merchts., that the commerce of the State was banished by them into other channels, especially of Maryd., where imports were less burdened than in Virginia. (See do. 1786).
Such a tendency of separate regulations was indeed too manifest to escape anticipation. Among the projects prompted by the want of a federal authy. over Comerce, was that of a concert, first proposed on the part of Maryd. for a uniformity of regulations between the 2 States, and commissioners were appointed for that purpose. It was soon perceived however that the concurrence of Pena. was as necessy. to Maryd. as of Maryd. to Virga., and the concurrence of Pennsylvania was accordingly invited. But Pa. could no more concur witht. N. Y. than Md. witht. Pa. nor N. Y. witht. the concurrence of Boston &c.
These projects were superseded for the moment by that of the Convention at Annapolis in 1786, and forever by the Convn at Pha in 1787, and the Consn. which was the fruit of it."
There Is No More Vital Action that you can take, now, today, than to read, study and come to understand our Constitution, and then talk to others about it, demand that YOUR elected officials explain how and why they don't understand it, or if they do, then demand of them to explain their acting contrary to it.
We're already seeing the destruction which change for changes sake can do, now it is time to put some effort into understanding what real change requires, and is required of us.
Leftist ideas are attacking our Liberty and Freedom, it is only the ideas of our Founding Fathers which can defend us against them. Learn what the Constitution of the United States of America means. Learn it and spread your understanding. America is the only nation ever formed upon Ideas, and the field of Ideas is the ONLY battleground upon which we can fight to can save it from destruction.
Obamacare? Hello America, this is Cassandra calling...
Anyone recall the brouhaha over the one time dreaded HMO's? Remember how, this was what, the early 90's? Where everyone wanted to be sure that their insurance plan did not restrict them to HMO's? Remember how if you couldn't afford a plan that gave you the ability to pick your own Dr's (what a concept), we at least wanted to have PPO's instead?
Don't you remember why?
Oh yes, it was the early 90's... as a matter of fact, it was about '93 when the fear that Hillarycare was going to look like an HMO which sunk Clinton's national healthcare proposal during that go around.
Anyone remember WHY the HMO's were so dreaded at that time? If you don't remember, there were lawsuits and biter complaints flying right and left over things like:
malpractice suits,
hours and hours of waiting in crowded (seated lines) in doctors offices,
an inability to get the more effective treatments and medications,
bottom of the barrel physicians - even in many cases incompetent,
Why?
What brought those issues about? It's a simple question, and there is a simple answer.
Because Doctors were not free to practice Medicine in the way the Doctor's would choose to practice it! And at that time, this was mostly due to private rules - imagine how things will be when they are being told what to do by Federally mandated rules! Here's a summary of what takes place in the physicians mind (and here a much fuller explanation of not only the issues, but of the immorality behind them) who is not free to make his own decisions,
"Today, in one form or another, the following also has to enter that brain: 'The DRG administrator [in effect, the hospital or HMO man trying to control costs] will raise hell if I operate, but the malpractice attorney will have a field day if I don't -- and my rival down the street, who heads the local PRO [Peer Review Organization], favors a CAT scan in these cases, I can't afford to antagonize him, but the CON boys disagree and they won't authorize a CAT scanner for our hospital -- and besides the FDA prohibits the drug I should be prescribing, even though it is widely used in Europe, and the IRS might not allow the patient a tax deduction for it, anyhow, and I can't get a specialist's advice because the latest Medicare rules prohibit a consultation with this diagnosis, and maybe I shouldn't even take this patient, he's so sick -- after all, some doctors are manipulating their slate of patients, they accept only the healthiest ones, so their average costs are coming in lower than mine, and it looks bad for my staff privileges.' ..."
In part, the uproar over HMO's (and the fear of hyper-HMO's that Hillarycare would've mandated (which pales in comparison to Obamacare)) was due to what the:
Insurance companies policies and existing govt regulations,
would and wouldn't allow their Dr's to do or offer,
the hours they shecheduled them to work,
the time they'd allow per patient visit,
the 'allowed' diagnosis' and tests they would pay for
Or as one of the Insurance companies sites today that is promoting both HMO's and PPO's describes some HMO considerations as,
"That means your costs stay lower - but there will be restrictions on how you receive your care....HMOs and PPOs differ in two main ways: cost and access... The tradeoff for these low costs is that your HMO plan comes with restrictions on when you can receive care - and who you can receive it from."
What seems to slip peoples awareness, is that these factors came about in an environment where there were free market 'controls' of consumer choice (also called competition) in effect.
Ok, anyone remember where HMO's came from? Or why? Did they come from the free market? Well ... sort of... at one time. Originally HMO's were little different from company co-ops, a pooling of patients for lower costs from Dr's willing to systemize there fee's onto a schedule of limited services. They weren't all that popular, and had pretty much died out in the free market for lack of interest, on the party of either party, due to general dissatisfaction in both receiving AND giving care.
Almost dissappeared. Why not completely? Well....
Along came something called the "Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973", a govt plan to keep pesky medical care costs from rising (at which point of course they rose even faster), and it was signed into law by the proregressive republican President Richard Nixon. Passed in typical little 'r' washington republican fashion, as a 'moderate' way of countering a leftist's proposal that 'we put a gun to our heads and pull the trigger', with an offer for a less extreme compromise of 'how about we inject ourselves with a slow acting poison instead'?
Oh, and guess who the 'gun to the head' option was sponsored by? Oh, come on, guess!
Correct! Sen. Ted Kennedy. I just can't wait to receive both barrels of his wisdom, fermented now for 36 years!
It bears all the hallmarks of proregressive, leftist, policy making: Experts create panels of experts to lay out the most 'scientifically' sensible plans for managing (always a key term) all potential issues beforehand, which expert 'healthcare professionals' aka bureaucrats, can then use to direct and manage the healthcare process, smoothly, efficiently, and for lower costs.
What was the predictable result of this proregressive leftist washington wisdom?
patient dissatisfaction,
doctor dissatisfaction,
rising malpractice suits,
hours and hours of waiting in crowded (seated lines) in doctors offices,
an inability to get the more effective treatments and medications,
bottom of the barrel physicians - even in many cases incompetent,
a shortages of doctors able to cover the hours they shecheduled them to work,
rationed time allowed per patient visit,
inflexible and often inappropriate 'allowed' diagnosis' and tests they would pay for
Sounds like I've heard those warnings somewhere before (... oh, hello there Cassandra)
Ladies and Gentlemen, HMO's were the creation of the federal government, created to FIX THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM that was working far better then, than it was after the FIX was applied.
I don't know about you, but I can easily foresee what will happen when the entire healthcare system becomes one big HMO, when the 'Insurance policies' are written by the govt and are immune to any pesky concerns over competition or 'consumer' complaints.
Does anyone have any reason, any evidence, any track record to hearken to, in order to believe that the Federal Government, this time, will make things better, instead of worse?
Not enought? How about a little recollection on previous promises of how things would turn out, things like,
Income Tax was promised to be - a temporary tax for current (circa WWI) defense related costs, that's all , what it was promised it would never exceed "1 percent tax on net personal incomes above $3,000 with a 6 percent surtax on incomes of more than $500,000", and who it would NEVER apply to - only one-half percent of Americans would EVER pay taxes, only the richest people would ever be taxed! Ever! How'd that bit of hope and change work out for ya?
Social Security - was promised to be only a tax of 1% each on the employer and the employee, on the first $3,000 of earnings, and originally, Social Security benefits were not taxable income, it was sold as an "Insurance Plan", a 'Trust Fund' but was from the very start a 'pay as you go' ponzi type scheme.
Medicare - When passed in 1965, it was confidently forecast that it would cost only 9 Billion in 1990. As is typical of Govt forecasts, that was a bit shy of the mark, it was 66 Billion in 1990 (don't ask, it's projected to become insolvent by 2017).
People - COMPARE THE HISTORY OF FEDERAL PROMISES AND ACTUAL FACTS!!!
Perhaps a few reminders from the past might yet help us keep Cassandra at bay: 1996 1999 2000 2003 2003 2004 2004
I recently received an email from a friend of mine (you know, one of those biter clingers, bent on manufacturing astroturf, without pay, and only to be malicious and promote extremism) that listed several disturbing aspects of congress's healthcare proposal. Today this article in politico was brought to my attention, it noted that:
"President Barack Obama is warning Americans not to believe “rumors” that the health reform initiative he’s pushing will lead to a government-run health care system or push Medicare recipients to die rather than running up a hefty tab for medical services. "
, and I heartily concur. Don't believe rumors, check them out. See for yourself whether or not they are true.
Here's one rumor that needs quashing right off the bat, coincidentally it is one begun by daprez himself:
"Let me start by dispelling the outlandish rumors that reform will promote euthanasia, or cut Medicaid, or bring about a government takeover of health care. That's simply not true," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address released Saturday morning."
Simply Outlandish! How can he say such a thing?
Well, if his positions on healthcare reform are anything like his positions on economic reform, the answer is simple: He's a Marxist. He cares nothing for facts, let alone principles. His concern is solely for advancing his agenda, which boils down to: what he wants to be true, he demands that we accept as being true. He knows nothing of the principles of economics (let alone of liberty), or of the massive economic disruptions that are caused by govt interfering in peoples choices, or the stifling effects to real freedom and liberty that follows from such actions by an interventionist government.
He knows not, and he cares not (for a truly revealing look at the full meaning of nObama Care, see this from my local St. Louis Tea Party and summed up by Gateway Pundit here).
He knows even less about that 1/7th portion of our economy (which, btw, 'economy' refers to the decisions and actions of free people making choices in their lives, within a free market - aka Liberty and Freedom) which is referred to as Healthcare.
Now, actual facts are abundantly available, as are the principles which elucidate them, principles which brings the seeming random cacophony of disintegrated data into intelligent relief (See Bastiat's "What is seen and what is not seen" or Adam Smith and many more), he knows nothing of the real facts of European (see Theodore Dalrymple's recent "Is there a 'Right' to Healthcare" for the euro-perspective of a 'healthcare' provider) and Canadian (Krugman dis's himself) healthcare which clearly point to the results he here denies as 'outlandish'.
He no's only what he wants to believe. He is, in fact, one of those modern children of Descartes I referred to earlier who see conspiracies everywhere, who thinks that what he believes deeply and sincerely, must obviously be true, as he could imagine it being no other way.
Øbama said "This isn’t about putting government in charge of your health insurance; it’s about putting you in charge of your health insurance. Under the reforms we seek, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan,” Obama insisted."
Uh-huh. Perhaps if he actually read some of the reform bill he supports he wouldn't be so quick to 'behave stupidly'.
Let's make sure we don't fall into the same trap, ya with me? Ok then, let's refer him to those pages in 'his' healthcare bill which refute his platitudes in the lingo of governmentalese black 'n white, shall we?
First from my friends hit parade of citations:
""Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get"
When we look at that page (linked to above), we find the following text:
"SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. 12 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.— 13 (1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a pri 14 vate-public advisory committee which shall be a 15 panel of medical and other experts to be known as 16 the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to rec 17 ommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, 18 and premium plans."
It then goes on to list the numbers of people who will either be Federal Employees, or not Fed employees, but appointed by the President or the Comptroller, or other functionaries of the Federal Government. Nice useful distinction there, don't you think? I somehow miss out on the 'Private' decision making nature of that apparatus.
No matter, reading a bit further on, down at the bottom of Pg 31, and carrying over to the next page, we find this section describing what sort of people these non-federal employees, who are appointed by federal employees, are to be:
"(5) PARTICIPATION.—The membership of the 24 Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall at least 25 reflect providers, consumer representatives, employ-
1 ers, labor, health insurance issuers, experts in health 2 care financing and delivery, experts in racial and 3 ethnic disparities, experts in care for those with dis 4 abilities, representatives of relevant governmental 5 agencies. and at least one practicing physician or 6 other health professional and an expert on children’s 7 health and shall represent a balance among various 8 sectors of the health care system so that no single 9 sector unduly influences the recommendations of 10 such Committee."
My oh my, I don't know about you, but my concerns about a govt committee deciding what is best for me, about it ceasing to remain a private decision, are fully alleviated by the portion that says "...and at least one practicing physician or other health professional and an expert on children’s health and shall represent a balance among various sectors of the health care system...", isn't that comforting!? At least One Practicing Physician (... OR...) health professional (you might want to look up just what is meant by a 'health professional'... unless you have an aversion to administrators and bureaucrats being involved in your health care, that is) will certainly balance out any undue influence caused by those pesky non-federal employees, who are appointed by federal employees.
And don't you just love the inclusion of "...experts in racial and ethnic disparities..."? Isn't it comforting to know that Gov't Committee's on the make up of healthcare services will be sure to move beyond any chance of acting stupidly and letting issues of race or ethnicity, become involved in our healthcare concerns? I just feel warm and tingly all over.
A little further down, we find this,
"11 (b) DUTIES.— 12 (1) RECOMMENDATIONS ON BENEFIT STAND 13 ARDS.—The Health Benefits Advisory Committee 14 shall recommend to the Secretary of Health and 15 Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the 16 ‘‘Secretary’’) benefit standards (as defined in para 17 graph (4)), and periodic updates to such standards. 18 In developing such recommendations, the Committee 19 shall take into account innovation in health care and 20 consider how such standards could reduce health dis 21 parities."
Ladies & Gents, this "...shall take into account innovation in health care and consider how such standards could reduce..." should strike fear into your hearts. If not, pull your head out of your ... er... the sand... and look at the long and pitiful history of govt 'helping' any portion of any industry to innovate and reduce its problems.
You should seriously be beginning to flag in your mind whenever seeing the word "Healthcare" to consciously begin seeing the word "Healthcontrol", because that is what will be done, every aspect of will fall under govt standards and controls, and what always results from such measures, will assuredly result in your declining health.
Some things that should pop into peoples minds are the other things gov't has done to care for other sectors of the economy - remember telephone 'service' under the governmental 'one provider' policy of Ma Bell? Remember the wage and price controls of Richard Nixon? Remember the gas station lines of Jimmy Carter?
Or how about this, in the 1930's, gov't mandated regulations to improve the security of banks, peoples access to them, and their reliability. The results? There were huge numbers of panicked runs on banks, and thousands of U.S. Banks collapsed along with their patrons assets. Across the border in Canada, which had no such 'govt help' and attention in their banking system during the same worldwide economic crisis? Zero bank runs, and zero bank collapses (See: FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression).
You had better get busy forecasting the same lesson being applied to healthcare. Thomas Sowell points out in a recent article:
"An old advertising slogan said, "Progress is our most important product." With politicians, confusion is their most important product. They confuse bringing down the price of medical care with bringing down the cost. And they confuse medical care with health care.
Nothing is easier than for governments to impose price controls. They have been doing this, off an on, for thousands of years-- repeatedly resulting in (1) shortages, (2) quality deterioration and (3) black markets. Why would anyone want any of those things when it comes to medical care?
Refusing to pay the costs is not the same as bringing down the cost. That is why price controls create these problems. When developing a new pharmaceutical drug costs roughly a billion dollars, you are either going to pay the billion dollars or cause people to stop spending a billion dollars to develop new drugs."
"When we are talking about applied economic policies, we are no longer talking about pure economic principles, but about the interactions of politics and economics. The principles of economics remain the same, but the liklihood of those principles being applied unchanged is considerable reduced, because politics has its own principles and imperatives."
If anyone thinks that they will be able to separate their govt aided health and medical care from the state of our govt aided economic care, I submit that you are mortally mistaken. Buy Sowell's book, pay particular attention to Chp. 3 "The Economics of Mecidal Care", or at least take a gander at his article "Alice in Obama Medical Care Land".
For myself, I hereby willingly and knowingly 'dis' Obama'shealthcare information.
I'll leave it up to your own judgment whether or not you should do the same. Here are some helpful study guides for you, passed along from my friend David. Do yourself, and our future, a favor - read them - if even 1% of them mean what it seems they mean, and they are passed, we are doomed.
This is not a healthcare bill, it is a lifecontrol bill.
This is not a bill to argue on the merits of whether it will accomplish this or that at more or less cost, this is a bill to be identified and fought on moral grounds of Right and Wrong. The govt has no right to intrude into and control our lives in such ways.
This thing means evil to our lives and liberties, pure and simple. Read it. Identify it. Fight it.
As David would say Make a Difference!
***UPDATED*** Congressmen/Physician lays out "... a charade that will destroy healthcare in America":
(all links are to that page in the actual house bill).
22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!
30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get
29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!! You can only get so much "care" per year
42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits 4 you. You have no choice!
50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise
58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access to individs finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued!
59HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access 2 your banks accts for elective funds transfer
65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).
72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange to bring private HC plans under Govt control.
84 Sec 203 HC bill - Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs for private HC plans in the Exchange
85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs for Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration your Healthcare!
91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services..... Example - Translation for illegal aliens
95HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps to sign up individually for Govt HC plan
85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs of Benefit Levels for Plans. #AARP members - your Health care WILL be rationed
-102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Indiv. will be automat.enrolled in Medicaid. No choice
124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt Monopoly
127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ #AMA - The Govt will tell YOU what you can make.
145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public opt plan. NO CHOICE
126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families.
149 Lines 16-24 ANY Emplyr w payroll 400k & above who does not prov. pub opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll
150 Lines 9-13 Biz w payroll between 251k & 400k who doesnt prov. pub. opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll
167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesnt have acceptable HCaccrdng to Govt will be taxed 2.5%
170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (You and I will pay for them)
195HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access to ALL Americans financial/personal recds
203 Line 14-15 HC - "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" Yes, it says that
239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor will be very affected
241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors, doesnt matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same
253 Line 10-18 Govt sets value of Dr's time, professional judgments, etc. Literally value of humans.
265 Sec 1131Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries
268 Sec 1141 Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs
272 SEC. 1145. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!
Page 280 Sec 1151 The Govt will penalize hospitals for what Govt deems preventable readmissions.
317 L 13-20 OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Drs. what/how much they can own.
317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand
321 2-13 Hospitals have oppt to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can you say ACORN?!! Pg335 L 16-25
341 Lines 3-9 Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Adv Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing all into Govt HC plan
354 Sec 1177 - Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs
379 Sec 1191 Govt creates more bureaucracy - Telehealth Advisory Cmtte. Can you say HC by phone?
425 Lines 4-12 Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life. Seniors will be interviewed every year for health issues and decisions made as to what care they can or can't receive (This was even too much for the Washington Post:"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.") 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory!
425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Govt provides apprvd list of end of life resources, guiding you in death
427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Govt has a say in how your life ends
429 Lines 1-9 An "adv. care planning consult" will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates
429 Lines 10-12 "adv. care consultation" may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV
429 Lines 13-25 - The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.
430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life
469 - Community Based Home Medical Services=Non profit orgs. Hello, ACORN Medical Services here!!? Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG. 1 monthly payment to a community-based org. Like ACORN?
489 Sec 1308 The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt into your marriage
494-498 Govt will cover Mental Health Svcs including defining, creating, rationing those services 838 - sections 440 and 1904 "Dirty secret No. 1 in Obamacare is about the government's coming into homes and usurping parental rights over child care and development."(Editorial online)
