this is why folks are concerned about the health bill

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

THE REAL TRUTH

lawyer has read the entire proposed healthcare bill. Read his conclusions and pass this on as you wish. This is stunning!









http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/connelly.asp



The Truth About the Health Care Bills - Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney





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



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



The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.



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



The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.



The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.



This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide...



If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.



So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law It doesn't stop there though.



The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;



The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.



I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights... Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution." If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.



For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.



Michael Connelly

Retired attorney,

Constitutional Law Instructor

Carrollton , Texas
 
While all this hysteria is dramatic and fun to read, the actual facts may be found to be a bit less exciting.

Closing the "donut hole" in the Medicare Part D program (2003) means that companies that provide retiree prescription drug benefits for seniors previously in this hole in the original legislation also changes how employers will structure their Medicare/Medicaid based retiree benefit plans going forward because the Federal programs are now going to close that hole that left so many out of the program before. This is what is meant when we read a sentence like "analysts say that this could mean changes being made to benefit plans." Of course these plans have to change, why would AT&T or any other benefit provider pay twice for drugs that a patient is eligible for through a Federal program? In many cases as with my parent's AT&T retiree benefit program, the plans will be changed to reflect these new changes.

Now let's look closely at the $1 billion charge that AT&T announced. The "cost" to AT&T will be incurred by the removal of the loophole tax-write off that they were getting for the portion of the Part D reimbursement (28%) by the Federal government (more socialism!) to corporations. Instead of being able to deduct 100% of the program, including the 28% that we the taxpayer reimbursed AT&T for, now they can only deduct their actual expenses. Thus the need for an allocable expense "charge" on the books. This NON-CASH expense is the equivalent of setting aside a reserve fund for future tax liability an obvious impact of this bill. Now if we look at the very last sentence of the article in question, AT&T's stock did quite well last week despite the ignorant poutrage (hay-making?) about it's impact on the poor, beleaguered corporations riding on our coattails? Why would the stock go up instead of down on the news of perceived lower earnings? By taking this "book-charge" all at once gives a great write off of 1/3 of the first-quarter income is a big plus for investor's confidence in a traditionally well-performing stock. I would think conservative-valued Americans would be praising this victory for the tax-payers of this country instead of turning it into a wedge and using to scare people with, but, here we are.

Corporate tax attorneys have been pouring over the language of this bill for months now so none of this any surprise, they knew it was coming when they got it back in 2006.

Now then, does anyone want to argue that the loophole should remain open and put the many thousands of seniors without retiree benefit programs back into the donut hole as well as giving back this corporate handout that should never have occurred in the first place? Run on a promise to repeal that part of the new bill. Dare ya!
 
Yes, the "donut hole" should have been closed, but in truth it never would have existed if Congress had man up'd when it passed the first Medicare drug benefit.

Both Bush and now Obama seem intent on pussyfooting around drug and health companies and the result is the law we now have.

A more simple and rationale solution would have been for the federal government to set up a formulary (as does every single insurance company has), and use it's vast power as the largest purchaser of medications and medical treatments to get the best price.
 
Take the money out of politics!

Laundress, you are absolutely correct about the pricing and volume buying power that even our previously existing health service systems could be doing, or should be doing more of!

While I do see some great accomplishments in this bill, there are some things that really burn me - most of these are the "pussyfooting" around the corporate barons the way they (have all) done. I fully understand that the U.S. health system is vast and extremely complex and intertwined. I've been enthralled with this enormous problem, the debate (after wading through the shrieking nonsense on the TV machine) and the endless possible solutions to so many interrelated problems.

I've linked to this site before but it's a wonderful resource for health industry studies, commentaries and analyses - Wall Street Journal, NYT, WashPo, many in the industry itself, etc. are among the organizations that depend on Health Affairs for reliable information. Some of the video I've watched and briefs I've read have been a wealth of knowledge. In many of the briefs, they seem to make a great effort to present both sides of the "arguments" they put forth.

Loading…

www.healthaffairs.org
 
For All The Rage Going On

This new law as passed doesn't do that much at once, and many of the other benefits do not kick in until 2014.

Also there are bound to be changes over the next years, decades as the scheme unwinds. Obama, and by extension democrats had to get something passed, otherwise the president would have failed and looked weak. Again, the man has stated he does not care if this is his only term in office, and needs something besides being the first "black" American president under his name in the history books.

Make no mistake about it, as currently written this law does nothing to slow or even decrease healthcare costs, oh there are some vauge provisions about setting up commissions and looking for "best care practices", but that is about all.

What the law does do is shift vast costs or healthcare onto an already bloated federal budget. As more businesses digest what the law means to their bottom line, it would be foolish for anyone to expect all will absorb any increased costs out of the "better good" for society, especially insurance companies. The later were given a huge boost by this law in so many ways, including the promise of an increase in healthy young customers, but even there that may not pan out as planned.

For sometime now employment in the United States has been moving from large businesses to small ones, and or some sort of self-employment. Many of the later are in some form or another cash businesses. Landing an already overworked IRS with yet another task will create more confusion and probably not lead to collection of as much of the non-insured "fine" as hoped. Young and or otherwise healthy persons many not shell out vast sums per year for what they think is an un-necessary expense, especially if enforcement is weak.
 
It'll also encourage....

...more outsourcing to countries that don't have US requirements for this, and lower taxes.

We have higher corporate taxes than almost every other country on earth, including Sweden.
 
Yeabut

On paper, yes the USA does have a very high corporate tax rate, but check corporate tax filings; few if any especially large multi-nationals pay anywhere near the 30% or so. Various tax credits and loop-holes mean the real taxes paid are anywhere from <20% to nil, heck some companies even get back large refunds.

As for moving business out of the United States, pretty much the only places left with cheap labour are China/Asian countries, maybe India and some South American countries and Mexico. However this may change soon as well as those places move from rural to industrial societies. It may take years or even decades,but sooner or later they will confront the same problems.
 
The sooner we can get away from employer provided healthcare, the better off we'll be. Back when many Americans worked at large corporations and had long-term employment it made sense. Now that this has changed it doesn't make sense. Healthcare shouldn't be seen as a nice perk to be provided by an employer like the use of a car, or daycare, or extra vacation time.
 
Health insurance for members of congress and staffers

I have seen this in print several times, first in The Hill Newspaper, but was not sure if I was correctly interpreting what I was reading based on the great hue and cry over the faults of the new law, but I heard The President spell this out this afternoon. It is what I thought I understood so I am posting this here to clear up confusion. When the insurance exchanges are set up in 4 years, members of congress and their staffers will have to buy their insurance through the exchanges. They have not exempted themselves from the new insurance program. I would imagine that it is a sort of guarantee that at least some of the insurance offered through the exchanges will be comparable to what they have now. Granted their might be policies of greater and lesser expense, but having these people have to purchase their coverage this way does seem to be a safety check on the process.
 
But.

MUST they buy insurance? If they live and breathe in this country are they REQUIRED to buy insurance? That is the part that is absolutely WRONG!! Health care for all is grand. But, it comes with cost. If the "rich" or the corporations are taxed, don't think it won't be passed on to us!!
 
It is not wrong. If you participate in the health care system as a human being who has a chance to need medical care you are a fool not to have insurance. You have to have people of all degrees of need in the pool to spread out the risk. The very fact that there are so many who could not qualify for or afford health insurance because of shennanigans by the big insurance companies speaks to why we need to make coverage universally available and enroll as many as possible. Most of us pay into Medicare for decades before we need it, but when we reach 65 it is there for us. I just don't buy this bullshit that you don't need health insurance. I dare say that those who are leading the protesters are not without health insurance yet they are "organizing" pawns to go out and demonstrate against providing insurance to those who do not presently have it. Why should the local tax bills and insurance premiums of those of us with insurance go up to cover the care of treating indigents at the county hospitals because they don't have insurance? Maybe if you are a hermit in a cave who will never see a doctor and will die where you live and be recycled into the environment by animals and microbes, yes, but for most of us, health insurance is a boon, not a bane and if we had been raised in a society where universal health care was the norm, the situation that has existed in the US would be unthinkable. Even dental insurance saves me a huge amount of money. Maybe not every year, but if a crown or, G-d forbid, an even more expensive procedure might be needed, the insurance picks up a huge part of the expense. The rants against health insurance coverage are neither rational nor humane, but they are being financed by concerns with huge financial resources who do not give a damn about any of us, unless we have a vote they can buy in a legislative body.
 
The lack of health insurance has been causing a huge emergency room problem: uninsured people often show up at emergency rooms to get treatment that should take place in clinics or at doctor's offices. This places an enormous burden on hospitals serving poorer areas. At best it leads to longer wait times for those with true emergencies, and at worst many hospitals have been forced to close their emergency rooms due to the associated costs. This isn't a minor problem as getting proper care quickly after an emergency is often a major determinant of how well, or if, a patient recovers. Below is a quote from an article in 2004 about the problem. It hasn't gotten any better since then, as most of the closed hospitals and emergency rooms remain closed. I've also linked the full article, which notes that for some hospitals in more affluent areas emergency rooms can sometimes be very profitable - the key is whether or not patients have insurance.

"As more hospitals shutter their emergency rooms because of increasing operating costs and demands by the uninsured, others will have to carry the load, potentially creating a domino effect where hospital after hospital closes as the burden of providing care becomes greater.

If that happens, both the insured and uninsured would have to travel farther and farther to receive care, which would most certainly lead to an increase in deaths and malpractice suits as the quality of care is diminished, health experts warn.

All have put the blame on rising health care costs, the increasing ranks of the uninsured who flock to ERs often for minor problems, the closure of community clinics used to treat and prevent ailments, and the decrease in reimbursement rates by insurance companies and the state.

“If I had to give a a diagnosis [of Los Angeles County’s network of emergency medicine] it would be critical; definitely a guarded prognosis,” said Dr. Thomas Garthwaite, chief medical officer and director of the county’s Department of Health Services who has been blasted by community activists and elected officials for recommending the closure of the trauma unit at King/Drew Medical Center. Garthwaite last month recommended the closure to protect the hospital from going under, which would further exacerbate the ER crisis.

“When you see middle-sized and larger hospitals struggling and major sell-offs of hospitals by private companies ... when you see people leaving hospitals because the wait to see a physician can take hours and even days ... you know that this system is not a healthy one, but one that is struggling.”

Loading…

news.ncmonline.com
 
That is EXACTLY what is happening in This area

and several have ALREADY closed THE ERS
 
but when we reach 65 it is there for us

Wanna BET? I have a aunt who is in the hospital right now and yesterday we were told that beacuse of her age she has nothing left to offer and that some have to die so that others may live.. I made a complaint with Admin. and was told he was sorry but things are different now than they were a few years ago and "understands my pain.. BS BS BS
 
sudsman, sorry to hear that, may be a Texas thing. My 94 y/o father has gotten the best possible care. Partial hip replacement a few months back and continuing phys. therapy and visiting nurses since. he has been denied no care. Any test the dr. requested was done and what ever he needs to recover is there.

I have to ask, is there more to the story? Is it a terminal illness?
 
New York Times

Because I still subscribe to a newspaper, The Sacramento Bee, I read the story that rebutes this. A column by Gail Collins, from the New York Times, writes that the $1 Billion Charge involves no longer allowing big corporations to take a tax deduction for spending money we gave them. As usual Gansky was right.

She also points out that the new reform is quite similar to the Massachusetts bill that Mitt Romney signed. Of course the Repubs are running from that as fast as they can.

As far as I am concerned, in hindsight, President Obama should have passed healthcare the first week he was in office, with no republican votes. I believe he was trying to seek bi-partisan solutions. In fact the final bill does have many ideas from the Republicans. I just think their behavior is rude, and disrespectful. Of course the darn thing won't work if not everyone has to have insurance. I just wished they had passed single payer, with, of course the option that you could have additional coverage if you wanted to.

I will say that I have my long term health care directive signed. When I am in a coma from which I will never recover, pull the plug!

When I was 30 years I bought my own health insurance. Many others did not. Kaiser in those days (1976) was $25.00 a month. I was so glad to have the coverage when I had a serious illness, which I still have. I had surgury 4 times and was hospitalized for many weeks. I kept that coverage until I had an employer who offered to pay for my Kaiser, in 1997. Kaiser, being a non-profit HMO, is an example of an integrated service provider, able to keep costs down, because the doctors are on salary, as are the Mayo Clinic doctors. I am very happy with my coverage. As I said, everyone should have this coverage or the equivalent, with the option to purchase coverage that allows wider doctor choice, for instance.

We will see how the dust settles, but this is a first step in the right direction. Any law can be modified, I just wish we didn't live in such a devisive society, with so many poorly informed loud voices in the media. There is so much more work to be done for our country, and we really need to all work together.

Loading…

www.nytimes.com
 
Persons Both With and Without Insurance Go To The ER

For many reasons, and this law while in theory should lessen the financial burden for hospitals, will not make the situation totally go away.

In the first place many persons go to the ER because they do not have a primary care doctor, or any access to other forms of medical care. Others both with and without insurance go to, or are in some cases even sent to the ER because it is out of hours for their primary care doctor and he/she can't be reached or bothered.

A bulk of the newly covered persons under this law will be on Medicaid, which pays less than Medicare and much less than private insurance. In short most doctors and hospitals try to limit the amount of patients covered under that plan, because they "loose" money.

Because of federal and local laws, once a person is admitted or at least seen in a hospital's ER, they essentially "own" that patient. The laws require that medical conditions regardless if they are the ones which initally brought the person to the ER are treated and or "stablised" .

A non-insured/under insured person may arrive at the ER complaining of a "headache" and after a CAT scan and other expensive tests it is revealed he has a serious clot in his brain which requires major surgery. Well now the hospital has two choices, they can try and "fudge" things and or transfer him to a charity hospital, however if something happens such as the patient having a major stroke or dies, they risk a lawsuit and or legal action from federal or state. Their only other option is to treat the blood clot and any other medical problems discovered and try to find the funds somewhere to pay, or write the care given off as a loss.

Next, consider a major part of the uninsured are illegal immigrants who are in theory not covered by this law. However if such a person is employed they probably will get coverage that way, but a bulk of the illegal population is still without any sort of insurance, and will probably continue to use ERs as medical "clinics".
 
So, in the eyes of some people here it is wrong to make peop

So there is no such thing as compulsory insurance cover anywhere in the US?

What about if I buy a car? Here in Australia I don't have to insure my car, but I am obligated to buy third party property/personal damage insurance to get it registered. So when I accidentally plough into a group of pedestrians or someone's property, this insurance provides cover for their damages, injuries and loss of life. This insurance cover is provided by private companies and I am free to shop around for the best premium. Though, in order to be able to register my vehicle, I am obligated by law to have third party insurance cover.

You have to register your cars over there as well and ensure that they are in compliance with legislated roadworthiness standards. Surely there must be some kind of requirement for third party liability insurance cover in the US as well. I can't imagine that it is still a free for all, especially not this day and age.

Olav
 

Similar threads

ronhic
Health Care and the US
2 3
Replies
43
Views
44
hunter
H

Latest posts

Back
Top