Mount Vernon Washington TEA PARTY PATRIOTS WEBSITE
Study: Health Care Reform Mandate Will Punish Employers, Kill Jobs
Under the provision, known as the play-or-pay mandate, another 10.2 million employees will face stunted wages and the loss of their benefits as employers try to find ways to fund the mandates.
A provision in President Obama's health care reform plan that requires businesses to offer health insurance to their workers or face a federal tax would cost employers at least $49 billion dollars a year, putting 5.2 million employees at risk of unemployment or underemployment, according to a new study.
"Health care reform is not going to be free," said economist Mark Wilson, who authored the study, which was commissioned by the conservative Heritage Foundation.
Under the provision, known as the play-or-pay mandate, another 10.2 million employees will face stunted wages and the loss of their benefits as employers try to find ways to fund the mandates.
"Those will be a difficult decision for them to make and they're also going to have to decide to the extent they can raise prices and pass the cost onto consumers," Wilson said.
But supporters of Obama's health reform plan say under the current system, thousands already are losing their health coverage or jobs because of the enormous costs employers are bearing.
"What we need to think about in health reform is how to make the system more efficient, how to make sure the system is protecting jobs, and that's exactly what health reform will do," said Peter Harbage, a health policy analyst with the liberal Center for American Progress.
White House spokesman Bill Burton said Thursday that without health reform the entire U.S. economy faces ruin.
"If we don't do something, not only is health care going to be in crisis, but the deficit will -- we just will not be on a fiscally sustainable path as it relates to the deficit," he said.
And as the financial realities of health reform are coming together there are questions about why tort reform isn't part of the package.
At a town hall hosted by Democratic Rep. Jim Moran this week, one person demanded to know why the threat of medical lawsuits couldn't be reduced.
"There's $200 million dollars in savings over 10 years if we had tort reform and nobody loses but the lawyers," the person said before shouting, "Why have we not even considered that?"
Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, a proponent of health reform, responded that tort reform would create more enemies for lawmakers as they try to pass a reform bill.
"Plain and simple truth," he said.
The president of the American Medical Association says without more protections for doctors in the courtroom they will continue to order tests that may be unnecessary and drive up health care costs simply to protect themselves.
"Health care reform is not going to be free," said economist Mark Wilson, who authored the study, which was commissioned by the conservative Heritage Foundation.
Under the provision, known as the play-or-pay mandate, another 10.2 million employees will face stunted wages and the loss of their benefits as employers try to find ways to fund the mandates.
"Those will be a difficult decision for them to make and they're also going to have to decide to the extent they can raise prices and pass the cost onto consumers," Wilson said.
But supporters of Obama's health reform plan say under the current system, thousands already are losing their health coverage or jobs because of the enormous costs employers are bearing.
"What we need to think about in health reform is how to make the system more efficient, how to make sure the system is protecting jobs, and that's exactly what health reform will do," said Peter Harbage, a health policy analyst with the liberal Center for American Progress.
White House spokesman Bill Burton said Thursday that without health reform the entire U.S. economy faces ruin.
"If we don't do something, not only is health care going to be in crisis, but the deficit will -- we just will not be on a fiscally sustainable path as it relates to the deficit," he said.
And as the financial realities of health reform are coming together there are questions about why tort reform isn't part of the package.
At a town hall hosted by Democratic Rep. Jim Moran this week, one person demanded to know why the threat of medical lawsuits couldn't be reduced.
"There's $200 million dollars in savings over 10 years if we had tort reform and nobody loses but the lawyers," the person said before shouting, "Why have we not even considered that?"
Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, a proponent of health reform, responded that tort reform would create more enemies for lawmakers as they try to pass a reform bill.
"Plain and simple truth," he said.
The president of the American Medical Association says without more protections for doctors in the courtroom they will continue to order tests that may be unnecessary and drive up health care costs simply to protect themselves.
Why The Affordable Health Care Choice Act of 2009 is unconstitutional and unhealthy...
We are not going to "Get Out Of The Way"
Not Get Out of Way
by Roger Kimball
Issue 138 - August 26, 2009 So, the President of the United States wants critics of his plans to socialize American health care to “get out of the way.” His operatives urge you to turn in your friends and neighbors if they say “something fishy” about the administration.
Confronted with spreading grassroots outrage, President Obama instructs his supporters “to punch back twice as hard.” Kenneth Gladney, the 38-year-old black conservative who was hospitalized by union goons, can testify that they are doing just that. (It’s what Obama once called “the Chicago way”: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” he said.)
Why all the Sturm und Drang? What is it about the issue of health care, or, rather, the prospect of a government takeover of health care, that arouses such passions on both sides of the debate? Sure, there are important issues at stake. It is legitimate to ask whether the Democratic plan will led to rationing of health care, especially for senior citizens. It is legitimate to ask whether it will limit choice, impede innovation, and lead to longer waiting times for various procedures. It is legitimate to ask about how the new system will be paid for.
But these concerns, while legitimate, do not really explain the level of passion that the prospect of government run health arouses. The real issue, I believe, concerns freedom.
Back in March, the President warned in a televised forum that if “if we don’t tackle health care, then we’re going to break the bank.” At the time, I noted in this space, that his warning about the need for instant action on health care was reminiscent of his warning a few weeks earlier that if we didn’t give him $800,000,000,000 instantly, right now, today, forget about bothering to read the bill, then the result would “catastrophe.” We gave him the dough. What happened? Let me repeat what I said in March:
Here’s how it works: the President tells you that we have a bad situation, which is true. He then says that spending huge sums of money–which he proposes to procure by extracting more money from (certain) citizens present and future — will solve the problem, which is false.
In the case of health care, the enthymeme is doubly painful, because not only will more government spending not be cure for government spending, but it will also do grave damage to what is still, despite the efforts of squadrons of government bureaucrats for decades, the greatest health care system in the world.
Obama has promised to change that, and judging by the warm fuzziness in evidence at his Potemkin forum on health care recently, I reckon he will succeed. What will we get instead? Obama talks about “universal” health care. He vowed to sign that into law before the end of his first term. If the Canadian experience — so much admired by the Left — is anything to go by, what that will mean is universal access to the government controlled waiting lists for health care. Not quite the same thing as universal health care.
Reflecting on the question of whether the Canadian economy should be a model for the American economy (the answer, by the way, is No), the Canadian journalist Mark Steyn observed that “if you have government health care, you not only annex a huge chunk of the economy, you also destroy a huge chunk of individual liberty. You fundamentally change the relationship between the citizen and the state into something closer to that of junkie and pusher [e.g., Medicare patrons] , and you make it very difficult ever to change back.”
Those are the depressing bits: the loss of freedom and the difficulty of ever getting it back. On all these government expropriations, what we have is essentially a one-way ratchet. Once the government sinks its teeth into you, it is extremely difficult to wiggle free. The income tax and social security tax, we tend to forget, were both instituted as temporary, emergency measures. That’s why 1895 is one of my favorite years in US history: in that banner year the Supreme Court ruled that the income tax was unconstitutional. Needless to say, the ruling didn’t last long.
Looking at the grinning rogues gallery of mountebanks at Obama’s Potemkin forum — Ted “Chappaquiddick” Kennedy, Charlie “tax dodger” Rangel, and the rest — I thought of Ronald Reagan’s warning about how socialists so often use health care as a wedge to extract not only money but also freedom, including freedom of choice, from the citizenry. “One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people,” Reagan observed, “has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.”
The name of that reluctance is compassion. Compassion is a noble human emotion. But it can be exploited by unscrupulous politicians and twisted into self-flagellating feelings of guilt, on one side, and the self-regarding emotion of virtue, on the other.
And this brings me to the even more frightening thing Obama said at the forum. There is, he said, “a moral imperative to health care.” Is there? What he meant was that if you agree with his proposal, you are an upstanding citizen who deserves the warm, self-regarding glow of moral infatuation. If you disagree with him, however, you are a greedy, selfish, unenlightened person who needs . . . well, the President hasn’t gotten around to that part of the scenario yet, except to note that anyone who is solvent can expect higher taxes.
...That is the really sobering thing about the emotional metabolism of abstract benevolence: that the capacity for evil so easily cohabits and feeds upon the emotion of virtue.
I doubt whether most of the people turning up at town hall meetings to express their dismay about the Presidents plans to revolutionize American health care have Robespierre in mind. But the people that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs disparaging referred to as the “Brooks Brothers Brigade” sense that a lot is at stake in the controversy over the future of health care. It’s not just a question of what doctors you can see when, or even what sort of doctors will be available to be seen in a government-run health care system.
No, it’s a question of what Ronald Reagan called “imposing statism” in the name of pursuing a humanitarian project. More and more people are waking up to the fact that statism is what lurks behind (and not very far behind) the Democratic plans for health care. They sense it, and they don’t like it. And that is why, Mr. President, they are not going to “get out of the way,” no matter how hard your “Chicago-way” supporters “punch back.”
Roger Kimball writes Rogers’s Rules at PajamasMedia, where this first appeared.
by Roger Kimball
Issue 138 - August 26, 2009 So, the President of the United States wants critics of his plans to socialize American health care to “get out of the way.” His operatives urge you to turn in your friends and neighbors if they say “something fishy” about the administration.
Confronted with spreading grassroots outrage, President Obama instructs his supporters “to punch back twice as hard.” Kenneth Gladney, the 38-year-old black conservative who was hospitalized by union goons, can testify that they are doing just that. (It’s what Obama once called “the Chicago way”: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” he said.)
Why all the Sturm und Drang? What is it about the issue of health care, or, rather, the prospect of a government takeover of health care, that arouses such passions on both sides of the debate? Sure, there are important issues at stake. It is legitimate to ask whether the Democratic plan will led to rationing of health care, especially for senior citizens. It is legitimate to ask whether it will limit choice, impede innovation, and lead to longer waiting times for various procedures. It is legitimate to ask about how the new system will be paid for.
But these concerns, while legitimate, do not really explain the level of passion that the prospect of government run health arouses. The real issue, I believe, concerns freedom.
Back in March, the President warned in a televised forum that if “if we don’t tackle health care, then we’re going to break the bank.” At the time, I noted in this space, that his warning about the need for instant action on health care was reminiscent of his warning a few weeks earlier that if we didn’t give him $800,000,000,000 instantly, right now, today, forget about bothering to read the bill, then the result would “catastrophe.” We gave him the dough. What happened? Let me repeat what I said in March:
Here’s how it works: the President tells you that we have a bad situation, which is true. He then says that spending huge sums of money–which he proposes to procure by extracting more money from (certain) citizens present and future — will solve the problem, which is false.
In the case of health care, the enthymeme is doubly painful, because not only will more government spending not be cure for government spending, but it will also do grave damage to what is still, despite the efforts of squadrons of government bureaucrats for decades, the greatest health care system in the world.
Obama has promised to change that, and judging by the warm fuzziness in evidence at his Potemkin forum on health care recently, I reckon he will succeed. What will we get instead? Obama talks about “universal” health care. He vowed to sign that into law before the end of his first term. If the Canadian experience — so much admired by the Left — is anything to go by, what that will mean is universal access to the government controlled waiting lists for health care. Not quite the same thing as universal health care.
Reflecting on the question of whether the Canadian economy should be a model for the American economy (the answer, by the way, is No), the Canadian journalist Mark Steyn observed that “if you have government health care, you not only annex a huge chunk of the economy, you also destroy a huge chunk of individual liberty. You fundamentally change the relationship between the citizen and the state into something closer to that of junkie and pusher [e.g., Medicare patrons] , and you make it very difficult ever to change back.”
Those are the depressing bits: the loss of freedom and the difficulty of ever getting it back. On all these government expropriations, what we have is essentially a one-way ratchet. Once the government sinks its teeth into you, it is extremely difficult to wiggle free. The income tax and social security tax, we tend to forget, were both instituted as temporary, emergency measures. That’s why 1895 is one of my favorite years in US history: in that banner year the Supreme Court ruled that the income tax was unconstitutional. Needless to say, the ruling didn’t last long.
Looking at the grinning rogues gallery of mountebanks at Obama’s Potemkin forum — Ted “Chappaquiddick” Kennedy, Charlie “tax dodger” Rangel, and the rest — I thought of Ronald Reagan’s warning about how socialists so often use health care as a wedge to extract not only money but also freedom, including freedom of choice, from the citizenry. “One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people,” Reagan observed, “has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.”
The name of that reluctance is compassion. Compassion is a noble human emotion. But it can be exploited by unscrupulous politicians and twisted into self-flagellating feelings of guilt, on one side, and the self-regarding emotion of virtue, on the other.
And this brings me to the even more frightening thing Obama said at the forum. There is, he said, “a moral imperative to health care.” Is there? What he meant was that if you agree with his proposal, you are an upstanding citizen who deserves the warm, self-regarding glow of moral infatuation. If you disagree with him, however, you are a greedy, selfish, unenlightened person who needs . . . well, the President hasn’t gotten around to that part of the scenario yet, except to note that anyone who is solvent can expect higher taxes.
...That is the really sobering thing about the emotional metabolism of abstract benevolence: that the capacity for evil so easily cohabits and feeds upon the emotion of virtue.
I doubt whether most of the people turning up at town hall meetings to express their dismay about the Presidents plans to revolutionize American health care have Robespierre in mind. But the people that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs disparaging referred to as the “Brooks Brothers Brigade” sense that a lot is at stake in the controversy over the future of health care. It’s not just a question of what doctors you can see when, or even what sort of doctors will be available to be seen in a government-run health care system.
No, it’s a question of what Ronald Reagan called “imposing statism” in the name of pursuing a humanitarian project. More and more people are waking up to the fact that statism is what lurks behind (and not very far behind) the Democratic plans for health care. They sense it, and they don’t like it. And that is why, Mr. President, they are not going to “get out of the way,” no matter how hard your “Chicago-way” supporters “punch back.”
Roger Kimball writes Rogers’s Rules at PajamasMedia, where this first appeared.
The Future Of Your Health Care Is At Stake Now
Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) - Rep. John Shadegg: Media
This is truly shocking! If there is any doubt that Democrat lawmakers want the federal government to take over your health care and to create a system where a federal bureaucrat can tell your doctor how to practice medicine, consider this: On July 24th the House Energy & Commerce Committee markup of H.R. 3200, “The Affordable Health Care Choice Act of 2009,” Democrat lawmakers passionately argued against a simple amendment that would have prevented federal employees from “dictating how a medical provider practices medicine. Here is the actual text of the amendment they rejected: “(k) Construction - Nothing in this section shall be construed to allow any federal employee or political appointee to dictate how a medical provider practices medicine.” The amendment was defeated! You read correctly. The majority rejected this simple amendment! If you want your doctor to be able to “practice medicine” without being told how to do so by a federal employee, I urge you to get involved in this debate NOW!
Please click on this link and watch this video: http://johnshadegg.house.gov/Multimedia/Default.aspx?MediaID=1304
This is truly shocking! If there is any doubt that Democrat lawmakers want the federal government to take over your health care and to create a system where a federal bureaucrat can tell your doctor how to practice medicine, consider this: On July 24th the House Energy & Commerce Committee markup of H.R. 3200, “The Affordable Health Care Choice Act of 2009,” Democrat lawmakers passionately argued against a simple amendment that would have prevented federal employees from “dictating how a medical provider practices medicine. Here is the actual text of the amendment they rejected: “(k) Construction - Nothing in this section shall be construed to allow any federal employee or political appointee to dictate how a medical provider practices medicine.” The amendment was defeated! You read correctly. The majority rejected this simple amendment! If you want your doctor to be able to “practice medicine” without being told how to do so by a federal employee, I urge you to get involved in this debate NOW!
Please click on this link and watch this video: http://johnshadegg.house.gov/Multimedia/Default.aspx?MediaID=1304
The Health Care Organizational Chart Says it all
Senior Death Discount
by Gregory ConkoIssue 138 - August 26, 2009
White House health care policy advisor Ezekiel Emanuel favors allocating fewer health care resources to senior citizens in order to save money. In a medical journal article published earlier this year, Emanuel justified rationing health care services based on the controversial “senior death discount.”
Cost-benefit and comparative-benefit analysis are useful tools and should be used in analyzing regulatory policies. But, when President Obama tells Americans that his health reform proposals, which use the senior death discount, will ensure they get the highest quality care, he’s selling them a bill of goods.
In recent weeks, Democratic members of Congress have criticized Cass Sunstein, nominee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, because Sunstein favors the statistical practice of taking into account years of life expectancy when evaluating the benefits of regulatory proposals, a practice critics deride as the “senior death discount.” However, health policy advisor Emanuel recommends using the same senior death discount policy to ration health care services for elderly Americans.
In a January article published in the British medical journal Lancet, Emanuel and his co-authors advocate a health rationing policy that discriminates against older people. They wrote, “Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination … Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life years is not.” And, “although life-years are equally valuable to all, justice requires the fair distribution of them.”
Current analytical tools don’t take sufficient account of the vast differences among individuals in physiology or value preferences so they should be relied upon much more sparingly where collective decision-making is intended to cut off individual choice. This is a controversial move, but health care reformers are happy to rely on the senior death discount when it can help them book savings for their proposals.
Gregory Conko is a Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, where this first appeared
White House health care policy advisor Ezekiel Emanuel favors allocating fewer health care resources to senior citizens in order to save money. In a medical journal article published earlier this year, Emanuel justified rationing health care services based on the controversial “senior death discount.”
Cost-benefit and comparative-benefit analysis are useful tools and should be used in analyzing regulatory policies. But, when President Obama tells Americans that his health reform proposals, which use the senior death discount, will ensure they get the highest quality care, he’s selling them a bill of goods.
In recent weeks, Democratic members of Congress have criticized Cass Sunstein, nominee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, because Sunstein favors the statistical practice of taking into account years of life expectancy when evaluating the benefits of regulatory proposals, a practice critics deride as the “senior death discount.” However, health policy advisor Emanuel recommends using the same senior death discount policy to ration health care services for elderly Americans.
In a January article published in the British medical journal Lancet, Emanuel and his co-authors advocate a health rationing policy that discriminates against older people. They wrote, “Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination … Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life years is not.” And, “although life-years are equally valuable to all, justice requires the fair distribution of them.”
Current analytical tools don’t take sufficient account of the vast differences among individuals in physiology or value preferences so they should be relied upon much more sparingly where collective decision-making is intended to cut off individual choice. This is a controversial move, but health care reformers are happy to rely on the senior death discount when it can help them book savings for their proposals.
Gregory Conko is a Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, where this first appeared
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=286802-1&showVid=true
http://obamacaretruth.org/
Some facts about the proposed health care bills
A new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. (H.R. 3200 pgs 26-30)
As soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in co-pays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year -- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead. (H.R. 3200 pgs 16-17)
When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars -- as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size -- and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan. (HR 3200 pgs 167-168)
The legislation limits you to a managed-care plan even if you and your employer are footing the bill. (Senate bill, pgs 57-58)
TRUE OR FALSE:
House leaders voted against an amendment offered by Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA) to repeal the prohibition on new enrollees in private individual market plans. TRUE
House leaders voted against an amendment offered by Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA) to ban the Health and Human Services Secretary from forcing providers to participate in the government-run plan. TRUE
House leaders voted against an amendment offered by Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) to better screen applicants for subsidized health care to ensure they are actually citizens or otherwise entitled to it. TRUE
House leaders voted against an amendment offered by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) to strike the job-killing employer mandate. TRUE
House leaders voted against an amendment offered by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) to repeal the government-run plan if wait times exceed certain thresholds. TRUE
When asked "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." TRUE
House Health-Care Bill Would Establish “Medial Homes” for the Elderly and Disabled
July 30, 2009
By Marie Magleby
(CNSNews.com) - The House health-care reform bill proposes to decrease hospital visits by establishing a “medical home pilot program” for elderly and disabled Americans.
Such a medical home would not require a physician to be on the staff, and therefore could be run solely by nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Medical homes also would practice “evidence-based” medicine, which advocates only the use of medical treatments that are supported by effectiveness research.
But physicians’ groups say the legislation could lead to restrictions on which treatments may be used for certain conditions, despite the fact that some patients might require a unique or unconventional approach. It also may lead to dumping Medicare/Medicaid patients in facilities that are not required to have physicians on staff.
The Center for Medicine in the Public Interest (CMPI) expressed its concerns in a report that explains why statistical evidence does not always reflect reality of effective medicine.
“‘One size fits all’ rarely does,” the report said. “From clothes to shoes to hats, few people find that items carrying that label work with their individual bodies. So why do we entrust the health of our bodies -- one of the most important assets we have -- to a one-size-fits-all mentality?”
According to CMPI and individual physicians, however, this one-size-fits-all mentality is just what congressional health-care reform suggests.
“Unfortunately, policies being advanced under the guise of ‘evidence-based medicine’ (EBM) could do just that,” the CMPI report said. “The idea behind EBM, empowering physicians with sound evidence to incorporate into their treatment decisions for individual patients, is a good one.
“Unfortunately, EBM now is being distorted by government bureaucrats and HMOs in ways that impose top-down, one-size-fits-all restrictions on patients and their healthcare providers.”
Rather than enforcing a formulaic approach to medicine based on statistical and clinical research, CMPI says health-care reform should preserve physicians’ autonomy to use the research in conjunction with their experience and knowledge of the patient.
”It is so critically important for the physician to maintain his or her ability to combine study findings with their expertise and knowledge of the individual in order to make the optimal treatment decisions. Evidence-based medicine in its present, distorted form emphasizes just one aspect of the clinical pie over all the others,” the report found.
Kathryn Serkes of the American Association for Physicians and Surgeons echoed the observation.
“There is no typical patient,” Serkes told CNSNews.com. “Every patient is different from a medical perspective. If we have evidence-based medicine that basically says ‘well, we start at treatment one, which leads you to treatment two, to treatment three to treatment four. In practice, that doesn’t work for the patient. That’s the ‘art’ part of the art and science of medicine. That’s what we still need doctors to do, is to figure out what’s right for the patient.”
In the long run, according to CMPI, evidence-based medicine may not even cut costs as Congress suggests it would.
“Evidence-based medicine may provide transitory savings in the short term, but the same patient who takes the cheapest available statin today may very well be the patient costing you -- the taxpayer, the policymaker, the thought-leader, the sister, the spouse -- big bucks when that patient ends up in the hospital because of improperly treated cardiovascular disease,” .
“The repercussions of choosing short-term thinking over long-term results and cost-based medicine over patient-based are pernicious to both the public purse and the public health,” the CMPI report said.
Provisions for the medical home pilot program are an amendment to the Social Security Act, which governs the administration of Medicare and Medicaid services.
The medical home is an approach to medical practice that “facilitates partnerships” between patients and physicians, according to the proposed bill.
The pilot program targets Medicare beneficiaries who have a high medical “risk score” or who require regular monitoring, advising or treatment. This currently applies to more than 22 million Americans, according to Kaiser Family Foundation statistics.
At least $1.5 billion would be redirected from the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund to fund the medical homes, “in addition to funds otherwise available,” according to the bill.
The Senate health-care reform bill also includes provisions for medical homes, although to lesser detail than the House bill.
If this portion of the legislation passes through Congress, medical homes will be part of the greater health-care reform experiment known as "the public (health insurance) option."
According to the committee, the provisions for medical homes will make the public option a stronger competitor against private health insurance companies.
“The public health insurance option will be empowered to implement innovative delivery reform initiatives so that it is a nimble purchaser of health care and gets more value for each health care dollar,” the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s summary says about the bill.
Medical homes are tied to “comparative effectiveness research” via something called “evidence-based medicine.”
“It will expand upon the experiments put forth in Medicare and be provided the flexibility to implement value-based purchasing, accountable care organizations, medical homes, and bundled payments. These features will ensure the public option is a leader in efficient delivery of quality care, spurring competition with private plans,” the committee’s summary also said.
A statement by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) said that the effectiveness of the medical home model should be carefully evaluated before applying the model far and wide.
“There should be more research to demonstrate the benefits and continuing costs associated with implementation of the full (patient-centered medical home) model,” the ACEP statement said.
“Demonstration projects being conducted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services must be carefully evaluated. There should be proven value in healthcare outcomes for patients and reduced costs to the healthcare system before there is widespread implementation of this model.”
The proposal, meanwhile, specifically allows for facilities to be run by staff who do not possess medical degrees – including nurses and nurse practitioners.
A new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. (H.R. 3200 pgs 26-30)
As soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in co-pays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year -- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead. (H.R. 3200 pgs 16-17)
When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars -- as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size -- and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan. (HR 3200 pgs 167-168)
The legislation limits you to a managed-care plan even if you and your employer are footing the bill. (Senate bill, pgs 57-58)
TRUE OR FALSE:
House leaders voted against an amendment offered by Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA) to repeal the prohibition on new enrollees in private individual market plans. TRUE
House leaders voted against an amendment offered by Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA) to ban the Health and Human Services Secretary from forcing providers to participate in the government-run plan. TRUE
House leaders voted against an amendment offered by Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) to better screen applicants for subsidized health care to ensure they are actually citizens or otherwise entitled to it. TRUE
House leaders voted against an amendment offered by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) to strike the job-killing employer mandate. TRUE
House leaders voted against an amendment offered by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) to repeal the government-run plan if wait times exceed certain thresholds. TRUE
When asked "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." TRUE
House Health-Care Bill Would Establish “Medial Homes” for the Elderly and Disabled
July 30, 2009
By Marie Magleby
(CNSNews.com) - The House health-care reform bill proposes to decrease hospital visits by establishing a “medical home pilot program” for elderly and disabled Americans.
Such a medical home would not require a physician to be on the staff, and therefore could be run solely by nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Medical homes also would practice “evidence-based” medicine, which advocates only the use of medical treatments that are supported by effectiveness research.
But physicians’ groups say the legislation could lead to restrictions on which treatments may be used for certain conditions, despite the fact that some patients might require a unique or unconventional approach. It also may lead to dumping Medicare/Medicaid patients in facilities that are not required to have physicians on staff.
The Center for Medicine in the Public Interest (CMPI) expressed its concerns in a report that explains why statistical evidence does not always reflect reality of effective medicine.
“‘One size fits all’ rarely does,” the report said. “From clothes to shoes to hats, few people find that items carrying that label work with their individual bodies. So why do we entrust the health of our bodies -- one of the most important assets we have -- to a one-size-fits-all mentality?”
According to CMPI and individual physicians, however, this one-size-fits-all mentality is just what congressional health-care reform suggests.
“Unfortunately, policies being advanced under the guise of ‘evidence-based medicine’ (EBM) could do just that,” the CMPI report said. “The idea behind EBM, empowering physicians with sound evidence to incorporate into their treatment decisions for individual patients, is a good one.
“Unfortunately, EBM now is being distorted by government bureaucrats and HMOs in ways that impose top-down, one-size-fits-all restrictions on patients and their healthcare providers.”
Rather than enforcing a formulaic approach to medicine based on statistical and clinical research, CMPI says health-care reform should preserve physicians’ autonomy to use the research in conjunction with their experience and knowledge of the patient.
”It is so critically important for the physician to maintain his or her ability to combine study findings with their expertise and knowledge of the individual in order to make the optimal treatment decisions. Evidence-based medicine in its present, distorted form emphasizes just one aspect of the clinical pie over all the others,” the report found.
Kathryn Serkes of the American Association for Physicians and Surgeons echoed the observation.
“There is no typical patient,” Serkes told CNSNews.com. “Every patient is different from a medical perspective. If we have evidence-based medicine that basically says ‘well, we start at treatment one, which leads you to treatment two, to treatment three to treatment four. In practice, that doesn’t work for the patient. That’s the ‘art’ part of the art and science of medicine. That’s what we still need doctors to do, is to figure out what’s right for the patient.”
In the long run, according to CMPI, evidence-based medicine may not even cut costs as Congress suggests it would.
“Evidence-based medicine may provide transitory savings in the short term, but the same patient who takes the cheapest available statin today may very well be the patient costing you -- the taxpayer, the policymaker, the thought-leader, the sister, the spouse -- big bucks when that patient ends up in the hospital because of improperly treated cardiovascular disease,” .
“The repercussions of choosing short-term thinking over long-term results and cost-based medicine over patient-based are pernicious to both the public purse and the public health,” the CMPI report said.
Provisions for the medical home pilot program are an amendment to the Social Security Act, which governs the administration of Medicare and Medicaid services.
The medical home is an approach to medical practice that “facilitates partnerships” between patients and physicians, according to the proposed bill.
The pilot program targets Medicare beneficiaries who have a high medical “risk score” or who require regular monitoring, advising or treatment. This currently applies to more than 22 million Americans, according to Kaiser Family Foundation statistics.
At least $1.5 billion would be redirected from the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund to fund the medical homes, “in addition to funds otherwise available,” according to the bill.
The Senate health-care reform bill also includes provisions for medical homes, although to lesser detail than the House bill.
If this portion of the legislation passes through Congress, medical homes will be part of the greater health-care reform experiment known as "the public (health insurance) option."
According to the committee, the provisions for medical homes will make the public option a stronger competitor against private health insurance companies.
“The public health insurance option will be empowered to implement innovative delivery reform initiatives so that it is a nimble purchaser of health care and gets more value for each health care dollar,” the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s summary says about the bill.
Medical homes are tied to “comparative effectiveness research” via something called “evidence-based medicine.”
“It will expand upon the experiments put forth in Medicare and be provided the flexibility to implement value-based purchasing, accountable care organizations, medical homes, and bundled payments. These features will ensure the public option is a leader in efficient delivery of quality care, spurring competition with private plans,” the committee’s summary also said.
A statement by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) said that the effectiveness of the medical home model should be carefully evaluated before applying the model far and wide.
“There should be more research to demonstrate the benefits and continuing costs associated with implementation of the full (patient-centered medical home) model,” the ACEP statement said.
“Demonstration projects being conducted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services must be carefully evaluated. There should be proven value in healthcare outcomes for patients and reduced costs to the healthcare system before there is widespread implementation of this model.”
The proposal, meanwhile, specifically allows for facilities to be run by staff who do not possess medical degrees – including nurses and nurse practitioners.
Perils of Obamacare: The Three Big Lies
By Michael Tanner
CATO INSTITUTE
In making his case for a government takeover of the US health-care system, President Obama is going far beyond the usual Washington truth-stretching.
Take a look at just a few of the most common claims:
"If you like your current health-care plan, you can keep it." Even White House spokesmen have said that Obama's oft-repeated pledge that you can keep your current insurance isn't meant to be taken literally. The reality is that millions of Americans - perhaps most Americans - will be forced to change insurance plans.
First, the president supports an individual mandate - a requirement that every American buy health insurance. And not just any insurance but insurance that includes all the benefits government thinks you should have. That insurance could be more expensive or include benefits that people don't want or are morally opposed to, such as abortion services.
And that doesn't just affect those without insurance today. The bills now before Congress say that while you won't be immediately forced to switch from your current insurance to a government-specified plan, you'll have to switch to satisfy the government's requirements if you lose your current insurance or want to change plans.
Plus, the president supports the creation of a government insurance program that would compete with private insurance. But because this ultimately would be subsidized by American taxpayers, the government plan could keep its premiums artificially low or offer extra benefit.
In the end, millions of Americans would be forced out of the insurance they have today and into the government plan. Businesses, in particular, would have every incentive to dump their workers into the public plan. The actuarial firm the Lewin Group estimates that as many as 118.5 million people, roughly two-thirds of those with insurance today, would be shifted from private to public coverage.
"You will pay less." The Congressional Budget Office has made it clear that the reform plans now being debated will increase overall health-care costs, yet President Obama on Friday repeatedly said that his reform would reduce costs and save Americans money.
But no matter how many times he says it, the truth is you will pay more - much more - both in higher taxes and in higher premiums.
The final health-care bill is expected to cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. That means much higher taxes, and not just for the wealthy.
If one totals up all the new taxes in the House Democratic health-reform bill - the income surtax, the penalties on businesses and individuals that fail to buy into the government health plan, as well as other fees and taxes - the cost to US taxpayers will top $800 billion. New York City will face marginal tax rates as high as 57 percent.
At a time of rising unemployment and economic stagnation, that is like throwing an anchor to a drowning man.
In addition, the new insurance regulations expected to be part of the final bill are likely to drive up insurance premiums. And, if the new government-run plan under-reimburses doctors and hospitals - as Medicare and Medicaid do - providers would be forced to recoup that lost income by shifting their costs to private insurance, driving up premiums. A study by the Council for Affordable Health Insurance estimates that the president's proposals could increase premiums by 75 to 95 percent.
"Quality will improve." Anyone who thinks a government takeover of the health-care system will improve quality of care has only to look at the health-care programs the government already runs: The Veterans Administration is overwhelmed with problems, Medicaid is notorious for providing poor quality at a high cost - and Medicare has huge gaps in coverage.
Worse, however, on Friday, Obama endorsed the creation of a government board with the power to dictate how your doctor practices medicine and all but endorsed the rationing prevalent in nationalized health-care systems around the world.
In short, when it comes to claims about the wondrous new world of government-run health care, a bit of skepticism might be in order.
Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It. This article first appeared in the New York Post.
Take a look at just a few of the most common claims:
"If you like your current health-care plan, you can keep it." Even White House spokesmen have said that Obama's oft-repeated pledge that you can keep your current insurance isn't meant to be taken literally. The reality is that millions of Americans - perhaps most Americans - will be forced to change insurance plans.
First, the president supports an individual mandate - a requirement that every American buy health insurance. And not just any insurance but insurance that includes all the benefits government thinks you should have. That insurance could be more expensive or include benefits that people don't want or are morally opposed to, such as abortion services.
And that doesn't just affect those without insurance today. The bills now before Congress say that while you won't be immediately forced to switch from your current insurance to a government-specified plan, you'll have to switch to satisfy the government's requirements if you lose your current insurance or want to change plans.
Plus, the president supports the creation of a government insurance program that would compete with private insurance. But because this ultimately would be subsidized by American taxpayers, the government plan could keep its premiums artificially low or offer extra benefit.
In the end, millions of Americans would be forced out of the insurance they have today and into the government plan. Businesses, in particular, would have every incentive to dump their workers into the public plan. The actuarial firm the Lewin Group estimates that as many as 118.5 million people, roughly two-thirds of those with insurance today, would be shifted from private to public coverage.
"You will pay less." The Congressional Budget Office has made it clear that the reform plans now being debated will increase overall health-care costs, yet President Obama on Friday repeatedly said that his reform would reduce costs and save Americans money.
But no matter how many times he says it, the truth is you will pay more - much more - both in higher taxes and in higher premiums.
The final health-care bill is expected to cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. That means much higher taxes, and not just for the wealthy.
If one totals up all the new taxes in the House Democratic health-reform bill - the income surtax, the penalties on businesses and individuals that fail to buy into the government health plan, as well as other fees and taxes - the cost to US taxpayers will top $800 billion. New York City will face marginal tax rates as high as 57 percent.
At a time of rising unemployment and economic stagnation, that is like throwing an anchor to a drowning man.
In addition, the new insurance regulations expected to be part of the final bill are likely to drive up insurance premiums. And, if the new government-run plan under-reimburses doctors and hospitals - as Medicare and Medicaid do - providers would be forced to recoup that lost income by shifting their costs to private insurance, driving up premiums. A study by the Council for Affordable Health Insurance estimates that the president's proposals could increase premiums by 75 to 95 percent.
"Quality will improve." Anyone who thinks a government takeover of the health-care system will improve quality of care has only to look at the health-care programs the government already runs: The Veterans Administration is overwhelmed with problems, Medicaid is notorious for providing poor quality at a high cost - and Medicare has huge gaps in coverage.
Worse, however, on Friday, Obama endorsed the creation of a government board with the power to dictate how your doctor practices medicine and all but endorsed the rationing prevalent in nationalized health-care systems around the world.
In short, when it comes to claims about the wondrous new world of government-run health care, a bit of skepticism might be in order.
Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It. This article first appeared in the New York Post.
MORE Health Care Lies
Are Obama and his friends taking you as a fool?
You have to wonder what they really think about the intelligence of the American people.
Obama repeatedly has out-and-out lied about his healthcare plan.
Here are just 5 of the big whoppers.
Lie #1: 'You Keep Your Doctor, You Keep Your Insurer'
This is a complete fabrication.
Under plans Obama has backed in the House and the Senate, almost any business can opt their employees into the "public option" — the government health plan.
That means you could lose your insurer. And if your doctor is worth his salt, you'll lose him or her as well.
Why? Because great doctors probably will not want to get the very low rates the government will pay private doctors who are part of the new government system.
So, without your consent, you very easily could lose your insurer and your doctor.
Lie #2: The Elderly Will Not Face Rationing or Medicare Cuts
More baloney.
In fact, just last week, The New York Times, a very liberal and very pro-Obama newspaper, admitted that fears of rationing for elderly patients are "not irrational."
The truth is that Obamacare would almost 50 million new patients to government care.
Who would pay for it. You would!
Seniors on Medicare will be the first hit.
Here's what the Times reported: "Bills now in Congress would squeeze savings out of Medicare, a lifeline for the elderly, on the assumption that doctors and hospitals can be more efficient."
This means that faceless bureaucrats will decide the type and quality of your care.
It is a very dangerous thing to give your life and well-being over to government bureaucrats!
Imagine if you or a loved one is older than 80 years and critically needs heart surgery.
Instead of getting the heart procedure, you or that loved one could be informed that you are simply too old.
Lie #3: There Will Be No "Death Panels."
More lies.
Sure, they don't call them "death panels" in the legislation, but that's what their job will be.
These committee members will set guidelines with which faceless bureaucrats will make decisions about you and your healthcare.
They will decide who lives and who dies. They decide who gets critical procedures and expensive medicines.
Again, according to the New York Times, the Democratic plans call for saving money by creating new oversight committees.
The Times says that Medicare and insurers would be expected to follow "advice from a new federal panel of medical experts on 'what treatments work best.'”
Again, this very liberal paper concluded: "The zeal for cutting health costs, combined with proposals to compare the effectiveness of various treatments and to counsel seniors on end-of-life care, may explain why some people think the legislation is about rationing, which could affect access to the most expensive services in the final months of life."
Lie #4: The Obama Plan Contains Costs
Absolute nonsense.
The Obama plan will cost more than $1 trillion in new federal outlays, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
This past weekend, Sen. Joe Lieberman claimed that most of this cost comes from adding 50 million people, currently uninsured, to the government health system.
But as Lieberman pointed out, we just don't have the money to do this right now.
You can add only so many people to the government system by cutting medical care to seniors on Medicare and raising taxes.
Democrats clearly plan to do both.
Lie #5: Illegals Are Not Covered by Obamacare
President Obama has stated time and again that illegal aliens are not covered under his new plan.
Still, Democrats say they want to add almost 50 million uninsured. Yet almost one-quarter of these uninsured are illegal aliens.
None of the Democratic plans excludes illegal aliens.
In fact, when Republicans proposed an amendment to the House plan to block illegals from getting free government healthcare, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her minions soundly defeated the motion.
Keep these facts in mind through the health care debate. They are spending millions on commercials to push their agenda. We must remain steadfast and keep calling, writing, faxing and e-mailing your representatives and senators. We can not afford this "change" !
Stay resolute!
You have to wonder what they really think about the intelligence of the American people.
Obama repeatedly has out-and-out lied about his healthcare plan.
Here are just 5 of the big whoppers.
Lie #1: 'You Keep Your Doctor, You Keep Your Insurer'
This is a complete fabrication.
Under plans Obama has backed in the House and the Senate, almost any business can opt their employees into the "public option" — the government health plan.
That means you could lose your insurer. And if your doctor is worth his salt, you'll lose him or her as well.
Why? Because great doctors probably will not want to get the very low rates the government will pay private doctors who are part of the new government system.
So, without your consent, you very easily could lose your insurer and your doctor.
Lie #2: The Elderly Will Not Face Rationing or Medicare Cuts
More baloney.
In fact, just last week, The New York Times, a very liberal and very pro-Obama newspaper, admitted that fears of rationing for elderly patients are "not irrational."
The truth is that Obamacare would almost 50 million new patients to government care.
Who would pay for it. You would!
Seniors on Medicare will be the first hit.
Here's what the Times reported: "Bills now in Congress would squeeze savings out of Medicare, a lifeline for the elderly, on the assumption that doctors and hospitals can be more efficient."
This means that faceless bureaucrats will decide the type and quality of your care.
It is a very dangerous thing to give your life and well-being over to government bureaucrats!
Imagine if you or a loved one is older than 80 years and critically needs heart surgery.
Instead of getting the heart procedure, you or that loved one could be informed that you are simply too old.
Lie #3: There Will Be No "Death Panels."
More lies.
Sure, they don't call them "death panels" in the legislation, but that's what their job will be.
These committee members will set guidelines with which faceless bureaucrats will make decisions about you and your healthcare.
They will decide who lives and who dies. They decide who gets critical procedures and expensive medicines.
Again, according to the New York Times, the Democratic plans call for saving money by creating new oversight committees.
The Times says that Medicare and insurers would be expected to follow "advice from a new federal panel of medical experts on 'what treatments work best.'”
Again, this very liberal paper concluded: "The zeal for cutting health costs, combined with proposals to compare the effectiveness of various treatments and to counsel seniors on end-of-life care, may explain why some people think the legislation is about rationing, which could affect access to the most expensive services in the final months of life."
Lie #4: The Obama Plan Contains Costs
Absolute nonsense.
The Obama plan will cost more than $1 trillion in new federal outlays, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
This past weekend, Sen. Joe Lieberman claimed that most of this cost comes from adding 50 million people, currently uninsured, to the government health system.
But as Lieberman pointed out, we just don't have the money to do this right now.
You can add only so many people to the government system by cutting medical care to seniors on Medicare and raising taxes.
Democrats clearly plan to do both.
Lie #5: Illegals Are Not Covered by Obamacare
President Obama has stated time and again that illegal aliens are not covered under his new plan.
Still, Democrats say they want to add almost 50 million uninsured. Yet almost one-quarter of these uninsured are illegal aliens.
None of the Democratic plans excludes illegal aliens.
In fact, when Republicans proposed an amendment to the House plan to block illegals from getting free government healthcare, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her minions soundly defeated the motion.
Keep these facts in mind through the health care debate. They are spending millions on commercials to push their agenda. We must remain steadfast and keep calling, writing, faxing and e-mailing your representatives and senators. We can not afford this "change" !
Stay resolute!
HEALTH CARE BILL - PAGE BY PAGE
Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Government will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!
Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!
Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get. 17 people picked by the president, 9 picked by the Comptroller, none of which have any medical background and one physician.
Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner (appointed by the president) will choose YOUR HC Benefits for you. You have no choice!
PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise
Pg 58HC Bill - Government will have real-time access to individuals’ finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued!
Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Government will have direct access to your bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community organizations (ACORN).
Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Government is creating an HC Exchange to bring private HC plans under Government control.
PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Government mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the Exchange
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specifics for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Government will ration your Healthcare!
PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Government mandates linguistic appropriate services. Example - Translation for illegal aliens
Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Government will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Government HC plan
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specifics of Benefit Levels For Plans. #AARP members - Your Health care WILL be rationed
PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice
PG 124 lines 24-25 - HC No company can sue GOVERNMENT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Government Monopoly
Pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ #AMA - The Government will tell YOU how much money you can make.
Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. NO CHOICE
Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees AND their families.
Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Employer with payroll $400,000 & above who does not provide public option pays 8% tax on all payroll
Pg 150 Lines 9-13 Business with payroll between $251,000 & $400,000 who doesn’t provide public option pays 2-6% tax on all payroll
Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesn’t have acceptable HC according to Government will be taxed 2.5% of income.
Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay)
Pg 195 HC Bill -Officers & employees of HC Administration (GOVERNMENT) will have access to ALL Americans’ financial/personal records
PG 203 Line 14-15 HC - "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" Yes, it says that
Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Government will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors. Low income, poor affected
Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors, doesn’t matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same
PG 253 Line 10-18 Government sets value of Doctor's time, professional judgment, etc. Literally value of humans.
PG 265 Sec 1131Government mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries
PG 268 Sec 1141 Federal Government regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs
PG 272 SEC. 1145. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!
Page 280 Sec 1151 The Government will penalize hospitals for what Government deems preventable readmissions.
Pg 298 Lines 9-11 Doctors who treat a patient during initial admission that results in a readmission - Government will penalize you.
Pg 317 Lines 13-20 PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Government tells Doctors. what/how much they can own.
Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Government is mandating hospitals cannot expand
Pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have option to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can you say ACORN?!!
Pg335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339 - Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing
Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc, Forcing people into Government plan
Pg 354 Sec 1177 - Government will RESTRICT enrollment of Special Needs people!
Pg 379 Sec 1191 Government creates more bureaucracy - Tele-health Advisory Committee. Can you say Health Care by telephone?
PG 425 Lines 4-12 Government mandates Advance Care Planning Consultation. Think Senior Citizens end of life planning.
Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Government will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!
PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Government provides approved list of End Of Life resources, guiding you in death.
PG 427 Lines 15-24 Government mandates program for orders for end of life. The Government has a say in how your life ends.
Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An "Advanced Care Planning Consult" will be used frequently as patient’s health deteriorates.
PG 429 Lines 10-12 "Advanced Care Consultation" may include an ORDER for End Of Life plans. AN ORDER from GOVERNMENT!
Pg 429 Lines 13-25 - The government will specify which Doctors can write an End Of Life order.
PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Government will decide what level of treatment you will have at End Of Life.
Pg 469 - Community Based Home Medical Services=Non-profit organizations. Hello, ACORN Medical Services here!!?
Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS. One monthly payment to a community-based organization.
PG 489 Sec 1308 The Government will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Government into your marriage.
Pg 494-498 Government will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, rationing those services.
Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!
Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get. 17 people picked by the president, 9 picked by the Comptroller, none of which have any medical background and one physician.
Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner (appointed by the president) will choose YOUR HC Benefits for you. You have no choice!
PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise
Pg 58HC Bill - Government will have real-time access to individuals’ finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued!
Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Government will have direct access to your bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community organizations (ACORN).
Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Government is creating an HC Exchange to bring private HC plans under Government control.
PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Government mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the Exchange
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specifics for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Government will ration your Healthcare!
PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Government mandates linguistic appropriate services. Example - Translation for illegal aliens
Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Government will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Government HC plan
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specifics of Benefit Levels For Plans. #AARP members - Your Health care WILL be rationed
PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice
PG 124 lines 24-25 - HC No company can sue GOVERNMENT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Government Monopoly
Pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ #AMA - The Government will tell YOU how much money you can make.
Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. NO CHOICE
Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees AND their families.
Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Employer with payroll $400,000 & above who does not provide public option pays 8% tax on all payroll
Pg 150 Lines 9-13 Business with payroll between $251,000 & $400,000 who doesn’t provide public option pays 2-6% tax on all payroll
Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesn’t have acceptable HC according to Government will be taxed 2.5% of income.
Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay)
Pg 195 HC Bill -Officers & employees of HC Administration (GOVERNMENT) will have access to ALL Americans’ financial/personal records
PG 203 Line 14-15 HC - "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" Yes, it says that
Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Government will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors. Low income, poor affected
Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors, doesn’t matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same
PG 253 Line 10-18 Government sets value of Doctor's time, professional judgment, etc. Literally value of humans.
PG 265 Sec 1131Government mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries
PG 268 Sec 1141 Federal Government regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs
PG 272 SEC. 1145. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!
Page 280 Sec 1151 The Government will penalize hospitals for what Government deems preventable readmissions.
Pg 298 Lines 9-11 Doctors who treat a patient during initial admission that results in a readmission - Government will penalize you.
Pg 317 Lines 13-20 PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Government tells Doctors. what/how much they can own.
Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Government is mandating hospitals cannot expand
Pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have option to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can you say ACORN?!!
Pg335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339 - Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing
Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc, Forcing people into Government plan
Pg 354 Sec 1177 - Government will RESTRICT enrollment of Special Needs people!
Pg 379 Sec 1191 Government creates more bureaucracy - Tele-health Advisory Committee. Can you say Health Care by telephone?
PG 425 Lines 4-12 Government mandates Advance Care Planning Consultation. Think Senior Citizens end of life planning.
Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Government will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!
PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Government provides approved list of End Of Life resources, guiding you in death.
PG 427 Lines 15-24 Government mandates program for orders for end of life. The Government has a say in how your life ends.
Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An "Advanced Care Planning Consult" will be used frequently as patient’s health deteriorates.
PG 429 Lines 10-12 "Advanced Care Consultation" may include an ORDER for End Of Life plans. AN ORDER from GOVERNMENT!
Pg 429 Lines 13-25 - The government will specify which Doctors can write an End Of Life order.
PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Government will decide what level of treatment you will have at End Of Life.
Pg 469 - Community Based Home Medical Services=Non-profit organizations. Hello, ACORN Medical Services here!!?
Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS. One monthly payment to a community-based organization.
PG 489 Sec 1308 The Government will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Government into your marriage.
Pg 494-498 Government will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, rationing those services.