PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues NRO: Obamacare Isn’t Inevitable


Taco John
03-22-2010, 12:58 PM
Obamacare Isn’t Inevitable

March 22, 2010 12:30 A.M.

‘Nil desperandum” — never despair. That is a sentiment that conservatives need to take to heart now that Congress has narrowly passed a bill that simultaneously undermines life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It takes some ingenuity to add to the costs, inefficiency, and dysfunctions that government has already bequeathed to our health-care system, but the Democrats have proven themselves up to the challenge. Almost nothing about this legislation is free of dispute, but we are convinced that it will increase taxes, increase premiums, and increase debt, while decreasing economic growth, job growth, and the quality of health care.

The Democrats had no mandate to take these steps. In 2008, the president campaigned both against forcing people to buy insurance and against taxing their benefits. The legislation runs counter to the campaign on both points. The president promised to change Washington. He has made its stench more noisome, winning this vote by using every kind of deceit and (legal) corruption, and over the objection of a bipartisan coalition representing most Americans.

We are now being told that the campaign to repeal this legislation is over before it has even begun, that Americans will come to appreciate the benefits that a bountiful government is giving them, and that the growth of the welfare state can never be reversed. We understand the odds against repeal. We understand, indeed, that complete repeal of every provision of the bill is impossible. The doughnut hole — a gap in Medicare’s prescription-drug coverage designed to encourage seniors to economize — has been filled, and it is not going to be re-opened.

But the larger thesis seems as superficially plausible, and as ultimately convincing, as were earlier predictions that state socialism or secularization were our inevitable future. It is quite possible that the majority of America that rejects this legislation will get its way in the next few years — if it is given the right leadership. And it is worth the effort to try.

It is possible, for example, that the results of the legislation will turn out to be unpleasant more quickly than most observers realize. The bill requires insurers to charge people with pre-existing conditions the same as everyone else, and the only reason for people not to game the system — dropping their insurance until they get sick and the insurer has to take them — is because the law requires them to buy insurance or pay a fine. For many people, the fine will be a cheap price to avoid paying high premiums. The effect of the legislation could be to cause the number of healthy people with insurance to fall dramatically — and for premiums to rise, which would cause more people to drop their insurance. If this happens, we can expect liberals to agitate for a single-payer system; but we can also expect the public to blame the Democrats whose health-care system it will now be. A less lopsidedly Democratic Congress is not going to respond to this chaos by enacting single payer or strengthening the fines.

For that matter, the lengthy legislation could turn out to have little time bombs, the nature of which cannot currently be guessed. Nothing about the process that produced the legislation, after all, suggests that it was put together with careful consideration. Conservatives will be able to capitalize on the discrediting of Obamacare, however it takes place, only if they campaign this fall on a pledge to replace this government-heavy system with true reform. Republicans running against Democrats who voted for this legislation will have the easiest task. But even Republicans running against Democrats who voted against it can advance the cause by challenging those Democrats either to advocate repeal and replacement themselves or to expose themselves as false opponents of Obamacare.

Nor have pro-lifers lost the war. Pro-lifers should campaign this fall on a pledge to make the Hyde amendment — the partial ban on government funding of abortion, which now applies to portions of federal spending and has to be renewed each year — a permanent feature of law that applies to all federal spending. The Obama administration and most of liberaldom have pretended over the last year to favor both the principle in general and the Hyde amendment in particular. And the principle is popular. Their posturing, disingenuous though it was, has handed pro-lifers a winning issue.

The Democrats have abused the system, ignoring both the Founders’ design and public opinion. The first step toward undoing that abuse is to make them pay a political price for it.

http://article.nationalreview.com/428841/obamacare-isnt-inevitable/the-editors

orange
03-22-2010, 01:05 PM
Be sure to mention "death panels" and "demonpass." Those were such winners.


"...the effect of the legislation could be to cause the number of healthy people with insurance to fall dramatically — and for premiums to rise, which would cause more people to drop their insurance. If this happens..." it will be more than four years from now. According to Ron Paul, the whole country is dropping into the shitter in three years or less, so who will care?

Dottefan
03-22-2010, 08:55 PM
Repuclicans: For when the only word you know is ...NO.

BucEyedPea
03-22-2010, 10:25 PM
Repuclicans: For when the only word you know is ...NO.

Would you let someone manage your money for you who couldn't say no...but said yes to everything.

That's the word anyone managing money needs to know. Those guys last and prosper. The others end up in the poor house.

alnorth
03-22-2010, 11:53 PM
When you whistle past the graveyard, what tune do you usually go with?

bowener
03-23-2010, 12:11 AM
When you whistle past the graveyard, what tune do you usually go with?

People are strange, by The Doors. Why do you ask?

patteeu
03-23-2010, 08:40 AM
This brings up a point I've been harping on repeatedly over the past couple of years when democrats were critical of GWBush's deficit spending. One of the worst examples of his spending was his prescription drug program. I've repeatedly pointed out that democrats wanted to spend even more at the time and now they've done it by eliminating the so-called doughnut hole. Congratulations democrats. Don't ever talk about GWBush deficits or Republican fiscal irresponsibility again. Thank you.

patteeu
03-23-2010, 08:42 AM
Worth highlighting for the obots among us, but also for the centrists who were duped by Obama's cult of personality campaign:

The Democrats had no mandate to take these steps. In 2008, the president campaigned both against forcing people to buy insurance and against taxing their benefits. The legislation runs counter to the campaign on both points. The president promised to change Washington. He has made its stench more noisome, winning this vote by using every kind of deceit and (legal) corruption, and over the objection of a bipartisan coalition representing most Americans.

The Mad Crapper
07-18-2010, 05:29 PM
U.S. Reps. Jo Ann Emerson of Missouri, Frank Wolf of Virginia, George Radanovich of California, Steve Austria of Ohio, Greg Walden of Oregon, Frank D. Lucas of Oklahoma, Adrian Smith of Nebraska and Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska, are the latest members of Congress to sign on to a plan to repeal Obamacare.

:clap:

BucEyedPea
07-18-2010, 06:20 PM
Be sure to mention "death panels" and "demonpass." Those were such winners.
Not to you are they winners but they are to others. Not everybody thinks like a socialist. But the death panels were true. They just weren't called that. Socialist always cover up their ideas with Newspeak and Doublethink. It's standard operating procedure.

BucEyedPea
07-18-2010, 06:22 PM
U.S. Reps. Jo Ann Emerson of Missouri, Frank Wolf of Virginia, George Radanovich of California, Steve Austria of Ohio, Greg Walden of Oregon, Frank D. Lucas of Oklahoma, Adrian Smith of Nebraska and Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska, are the latest members of Congress to sign on to a plan to repeal Obamacare.

:clap:

Wonderful NEWS! They're finally growing a pair.

banyon
07-18-2010, 06:32 PM
Not to you are they winners but they are to others. Not everybody thinks like a socialist. But the death panels were true. They just weren't called that. Socialist always cover up their ideas with Newspeak and Doublethink. It's standard operating procedure.

The death panels were true. ROFL

Is there any tripe from the Lew/Mises blog you won't swallow?

patteeu
07-18-2010, 08:20 PM
The death panels were true. ROFL

Is there any tripe from the Lew/Mises blog you won't swallow?

What is it about "the death panels" that you think was not true?

banyon
07-18-2010, 08:49 PM
What is it about "the death panels" that you think was not true?

All of it. A) There was no decision making body regarding life and death. b) the end of life counseling services were entirely understandable and optional.

Pretending like it makes sense to blindly have a family spend an infinite amount of money on someone who is not likely to survive long or well rather than to make some practical, hard decisions is completely pie in the sky and just reality-divorced rhetoric for political purposes.

petegz28
07-18-2010, 09:07 PM
All of it. A) There was no decision making body regarding life and death. b) the end of life counseling services were entirely understandable and optional.

Pretending like it makes sense to blindly have a family spend an infinite amount of money on someone who is not likely to survive long or well rather than to make some practical, hard decisions is completely pie in the sky and just reality-divorced rhetoric for political purposes.

So we are calling them "the end of life council"??

orange
07-18-2010, 09:11 PM
So we are calling them "the end of life council"??

I think you're mistaking the words "counsel" and "council." They're quite different.

petegz28
07-18-2010, 09:11 PM
I think you're mistaking the words "counsel" and "council." They're quite different.

So who is going to provide the "counseling"???

BucEyedPea
07-18-2010, 09:17 PM
I think you're mistaking the words "counsel" and "council." They're quite different.

Either could have applied in his case. There could be a council that makes a decision and even counsels.

irishjayhawk
07-18-2010, 09:41 PM
What is it about "the death panels" that you think was not true?

:spock:

ROFL

irishjayhawk
07-18-2010, 09:42 PM
Either could have applied in his case. There could be a council that makes a decision and even counsels.

No, there can't be as it doesn't allow it.

Jebus, not this shit again.

orange
07-18-2010, 09:47 PM
So who is going to provide the "counseling"???

Well, in the case of my mother, for example, it was a registered nurse at the hospice.

petegz28
07-18-2010, 09:51 PM
Well, in the case of my mother, for example, it was a registered nurse at the hospice.

But your Mother was not on Obamacare. I am talking about Obamacare. Who is going to decide when treatment stops and counseling starts?

orange
07-18-2010, 09:54 PM
But your Mother was not on Obamacare. I am talking about Obamacare. Who is going to decide when treatment stops and counseling starts?

No, she was on Humanacare. Humanacare - her insurance provider - sent her to end of life counseling when she was diagnosed with inoperable cancer. Just like your insurance provider will under Obamacare - except not necessarily at the last minute.

Taco John
07-18-2010, 11:34 PM
All of it. A) There was no decision making body regarding life and death. b) the end of life counseling services were entirely understandable and optional.

Pretending like it makes sense to blindly have a family spend an infinite amount of money on someone who is not likely to survive long or well rather than to make some practical, hard decisions is completely pie in the sky and just reality-divorced rhetoric for political purposes.


Who gets to make the "sense" here? I mean, obviously the people paying, right. The "death panel" always represents the people paying, right? In most cases, it's the family. In the case of ObamaCare, it's anonymous strangers.

What does is matter to you if a family "blindly" "spend an infinite amount of money" on someone who is "not likely to survive?"

The way you think is quite scary. You think you're doing this great service for humanity with your way of thought, when what you are really doing is pitting a society against itself. I blame your soul-less economic training. It has poisoned you.

The Mad Crapper
07-19-2010, 06:11 AM
Just like your insurance provider will under Obamacare -

Everything is so much better now that we have a centralized government in control of every aspect of our lives.

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x149/dickeazy/PolPot.jpg

patteeu
07-19-2010, 08:11 AM
All of it. A) There was no decision making body regarding life and death. b) the end of life counseling services were entirely understandable and optional.

Pretending like it makes sense to blindly have a family spend an infinite amount of money on someone who is not likely to survive long or well rather than to make some practical, hard decisions is completely pie in the sky and just reality-divorced rhetoric for political purposes.

Your first paragraph denies their existence but your second one attempts to justify them.

Do you agree that under Obamacare, a government entity will make decisions about which life saving measures will be covered and which ones won't?

patteeu
07-19-2010, 08:17 AM
Who gets to make the "sense" here? I mean, obviously the people paying, right. The "death panel" always represents the people paying, right? In most cases, it's the family. In the case of ObamaCare, it's anonymous strangers.

What does is matter to you if a family "blindly" "spend an infinite amount of money" on someone who is "not likely to survive?"

The way you think is quite scary. You think you're doing this great service for humanity with your way of thought, when what you are really doing is pitting a society against itself.

I agree with this post, except...

Right now, I'd say that in most cases it's the insurance group rather than the family who are represented by existing death panels, but it's a big step in the wrong direction to consolidate these decisions in the central government, IMO.

The Mad Crapper
07-19-2010, 09:40 AM
Your first paragraph denies their existence but your second one attempts to justify them.

Verisimilitude.

LMAO

Taco John
07-19-2010, 11:01 AM
I agree with this post, except...

Right now, I'd say that in most cases it's the insurance group rather than the family who are represented by existing death panels, but it's a big step in the wrong direction to consolidate these decisions in the central government, IMO.


I agree with you, except he said "infinite amount of money." An insurance company is eventually going to make a decision according to the contract that the person signed with them. A rich family member might be willing to spend an "infinite amount of money." Either way, we both agree that moving this in the direction of more government involvment is going to be much worse than either of these options.

banyon
07-19-2010, 08:31 PM
Your first paragraph denies their existence but your second one attempts to justify them.

Do you agree that under Obamacare, a government entity will make decisions about which life saving measures will be covered and which ones won't?

No it doesn't, as the counseling services had no decision-making authority.

I agree that it provides insurance, and that presently just about all insurance companies do in fact make decisions about which life saving measures will be covered and which won't. That fact, of course, has zero to do with the much lampooned "death panels" section of the legislation which you were originally referring to.

banyon
07-19-2010, 08:35 PM
Who gets to make the "sense" here? I mean, obviously the people paying, right. The "death panel" always represents the people paying, right? In most cases, it's the family. In the case of ObamaCare, it's anonymous strangers.

What does is matter to you if a family "blindly" "spend an infinite amount of money" on someone who is "not likely to survive?"

The way you think is quite scary. You think you're doing this great service for humanity with your way of thought, when what you are really doing is pitting a society against itself. I blame your soul-less economic training. It has poisoned you.

I blame your complete lack of reason and common sense. How do you not see that you are complaining about a situation that presently exists with insurance companies? The bill doesn't change anything about that situation. Not anything. In fact, the "public option" that people like myself advocated for wasn't even included, so private insurers will simply be doing the same things they've always done, it's just that a few more people will get coverage. This is like your inability to see that private wealth is a way to amass power just like government.

MadMax
07-19-2010, 11:03 PM
Me so glad him take be care ob me he such um nice young feller I vote for himba gin when he tell me to.I may be Orange or bemaybe Direkshun but i be votin for da boy.

The Mad Crapper
07-20-2010, 06:28 AM
I blame your complete lack of reason and common sense. How do you not see that you are complaining about a situation that presently exists with insurance companies? The bill doesn't change anything about that situation. Not anything. In fact, the "public option" that people like myself advocated for wasn't even included, so private insurers will simply be doing the same things they've always done, it's just that a few more people will get coverage. This is like your inability to see that private wealth is a way to amass power just like government.

I am not surprised to see more verisimilitude from you.

B.O. and the Democrats repeatedly told Americans that if they liked the health plan they have, they can keep it, and they also said that their would be no new taxes—LIES!

Residents in Virginia have already lost access to one health care plan and now many residents in Maine could lose theirs as well. If this trend continues, millions of Americans will lose their health plan -- something nonpartisan experts repeatedly warned would happen under the law.

Virginia-based nHealth announced it was shutting down its operations in response to the Democrats' health law. A letter from the company announcing its exit from the market stated, "As I'm sure you are aware, the new federal health care legislation has created considerable uncertainties in the market for health insurance." nHealth provided affordable health insurance primarily to small employers.

http://www.ourmidland.com/opinion/editorials/d629c087-464a-5ad8-9f24-79a544acbd91.html

In bypassing the standard treatment for presidential appointees, B.O. rammed Dr. Berwick down the throats of the American people. This illustrates the extreme lengths to which this president and his administration are willing to go to establish a single-payer, British-style, socialized-medicine system. U.K. Citizens are diagnosed later and treated later under a one-size-fits-all government health care system that rations care by necessity. U.K. citizens are at the mercy of that country’s health care system. They are 40 percent more likely to die from colon cancer, 88 percent more likely to die from breast cancer and 604 percent more likely to die from prostate cancer than those of us in the U.S.

Federal legislation requiring that every American have health insurance is profoundly unconstitutional, and will expand the already ubiquitous federal government.


What B.O. calls health care "reform" will, over the next few years, make it quite clear who will decide which medicine or surgical treatments you need. It will not be your physician.

I know you have an inborn aversion to the facts, but for everyone else’s sake, let us look at them:


Language in the Affordable Care Act (aka health reform) banning physicians from owning hospitals is unconstitutional. Accountants own their CPA firms and lawyers own law firms. Why should non-physicians have a monopoly on running hospitals?

The so-called benefits of Obamacare do not start until 2014, but the tax increases, misallocated resources and federal regulations start now. The law creates a maze of mandates, federal directives, price controls, tax increases and subsidies. The so-called "Tax on 'Cadillac' health plans" imposes a 40 percent tax on health care plans valued at $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families.

Title IX Revenue Provision Subtitle A: Revenue Offset "(Sec. 9002) Requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer-sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employee's gross income (excluding the value of contributions to flexible spending arrangements)."

Eric Holder's Justice Department has used the Antitrust Division's civil action and criminal prosecution powers to force orthopedists to accept government reimbursement rates for their services. Accepting anything other than the government rate is considered a criminal conspiracy against market pricing.

How is that? The Department of Justice declares that "government prices are market prices." The Idaho Orthopedic Society is guilty of criminal conspiracy to fix prices if its members charge anything other than the price fixed by the government.







http://i768.photobucket.com/albums/xx328/drjohn_bucket/obama-liar-liar.jpg

“No one earning less than $250,000 will see his or her taxes increased.”
~~ B. Insane Obama

Remember when the Commerce Clause challenge to the individual insurance mandate was dismissed by all serious and knowledgeable constitutional law professors, and dismissed by Nancy Pelosi as “frivolous”?

The administration is now apparently telling the New York Times that the individual insurance “requirement” and “penalty” is really an exercise of the Tax Power of Congress.


When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate. Individuals must pay an annual penalty of $695, or up to 2.5 percent of their annual income, if they don't purchase an approved health insurance plan. Penalties on families include an annual penalty of $347 per child, up to $2,250 per family, if parents don't purchase an approved policy.

http://i768.photobucket.com/albums/xx328/drjohn_bucket/obamabullshitdecoderring.jpg

SOURCES:

http://townhall.com/columnists/FloydandMaryBethBrown/2010/07/16/the_bitter_fruit_of_obamacare
http://www.thomas.gov/
http://blogs.forbes.com/sciencebiz/2010/07/the-sleeper-lawsuit-against-obamacare-in-texas/
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/science/healthcare/6007-The-Government-Boot-Your-Doctors-Neck.html
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100716/the-presidents-commitment-to-british-style-of-health-care-made-clear/index.html

patteeu
07-20-2010, 07:34 AM
No it doesn't, as the counseling services had no decision-making authority.

I agree that it provides insurance, and that presently just about all insurance companies do in fact make decisions about which life saving measures will be covered and which won't. That fact, of course, has zero to do with the much lampooned "death panels" section of the legislation which you were originally referring to.

This isn't about the counseling service. This is about the actual government death panels that Obamacare will necessarily employ (as you admit despite your surrounding language of denial). This is about the government deciding when procedures/treatments will be covered and when they won't.

So to recap, the answer to my question about what part of the death panels wasn't true is just the part where someone suggested that they were related to counseling services not the fact that they actually exist.

patteeu
07-20-2010, 07:38 AM
I blame your complete lack of reason and common sense. How do you not see that you are complaining about a situation that presently exists with insurance companies? The bill doesn't change anything about that situation. Not anything. In fact, the "public option" that people like myself advocated for wasn't even included, so private insurers will simply be doing the same things they've always done, it's just that a few more people will get coverage. This is like your inability to see that private wealth is a way to amass power just like government.

This isn't true. In many, if not all, cases, the government is going to set the guidelines for coverage. Laundering these decisions through the private insurance industry doesn't change that any more than laundering drug money through a legit business makes it clean.

Donger
07-20-2010, 07:45 AM
A quick read of this is tells me that Obama supporters just don't like the expression "death panel." They do seem to acknowledge that end of life decisions (e.g., not covering certain procedures) will happen under Obamacare.

The Mad Crapper
07-20-2010, 07:50 AM
A quick read of this is tells me that Obama supporters just don't like the expression "death panel."

Specifically, yes. In general, they simply don't like the truth. The truth gets in the way of their running everything.

Garcia Bronco
07-20-2010, 08:29 AM
Death panels are a reality of any healthcare system. We have them today. It's just not the government. Soon it will be the government AND WHO DO YOU APPEAL TO WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS THE OTHER END OF THE CONTRACT?

NO ONE.

You have no recourse.

WilliamTheIrish
07-20-2010, 08:43 AM
if it's NOT inevitable somebody better tell hospitals of all sizes across the country. I'm watching them lay off people as they position themselves for 2014.

BucEyedPea
07-20-2010, 08:45 AM
Specifically, yes. In general, they simply don't like the truth. The truth gets in the way of their running everything.

Hence the reason Orwell wrote a treatise on changing the language (aka language abuse) as a way to change a society. Hence, his coining new words such as Doublethink and Newspeak in his dystopian novel. This is EXACTLY what left progressives do. It's also what communists were famous for. Biggest liars on the planet.

BucEyedPea
07-20-2010, 08:50 AM
I am not surprised to see more verisimilitude from you.
The most convincing lies are ones that are closer to the truth; that sound plausible. They are protected by sounding reasonable....but it's really a wolf in sheep's clothing—the logo of the Fabian Socialist. This is rampant in our public school system.

banyon
07-20-2010, 09:59 AM
This isn't about the counseling service. This is about the actual government death panels that Obamacare will necessarily employ (as you admit despite your surrounding language of denial). This is about the government deciding when procedures/treatments will be covered and when they won't.

So to recap, the answer to my question about what part of the death panels wasn't true is just the part where someone suggested that they were related to counseling services not the fact that they actually exist.

In the loose sense you are using the term, "death panels" have existed since the first health insurance policies were written. By definition, they are going to have to decide what are and what aren't covered procedures. Again, this bill doesn't alter that basic fact.

And no, government doesn't decide, even in "obamacare". The private insurer does. That's not the way I wanted it, but the public option was successfully scaremongered away.

And when republican critics were referring to death panels, they cited the section of the legislation dealing with the counseling services. And that's what I originally referred to in my first post.

mlyonsd
07-20-2010, 10:04 AM
Death panels are a reality of any healthcare system. We have them today. It's just not the government. Soon it will be the government AND WHO DO YOU APPEAL TO WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS THE OTHER END OF THE CONTRACT?

NO ONE.

You have no recourse.

Will the government, or the lobbyists that control the government also control the death panels?

Oh wait, scratch that, I forgot Obama and the democrats were getting rid of lobbyist control.

banyon
07-20-2010, 10:09 AM
I am not surprised to see more verisimilitude from you.

B.O. and the Democrats repeatedly told Americans that if they liked the health plan they have, they can keep it, and they also said that their would be no new taxes—LIES!

Residents in Virginia have already lost access to one health care plan and now many residents in Maine could lose theirs as well. If this trend continues, millions of Americans will lose their health plan -- something nonpartisan experts repeatedly warned would happen under the law.

Virginia-based nHealth announced it was shutting down its operations in response to the Democrats' health law. A letter from the company announcing its exit from the market stated, "As I'm sure you are aware, the new federal health care legislation has created considerable uncertainties in the market for health insurance." nHealth provided affordable health insurance primarily to small employers.

http://www.ourmidland.com/opinion/editorials/d629c087-464a-5ad8-9f24-79a544acbd91.html

In bypassing the standard treatment for presidential appointees, B.O. rammed Dr. Berwick down the throats of the American people. This illustrates the extreme lengths to which this president and his administration are willing to go to establish a single-payer, British-style, socialized-medicine system. U.K. Citizens are diagnosed later and treated later under a one-size-fits-all government health care system that rations care by necessity. U.K. citizens are at the mercy of that country’s health care system. They are 40 percent more likely to die from colon cancer, 88 percent more likely to die from breast cancer and 604 percent more likely to die from prostate cancer than those of us in the U.S.

Federal legislation requiring that every American have health insurance is profoundly unconstitutional, and will expand the already ubiquitous federal government.


What B.O. calls health care "reform" will, over the next few years, make it quite clear who will decide which medicine or surgical treatments you need. It will not be your physician.

I know you have an inborn aversion to the facts, but for everyone else’s sake, let us look at them:


Language in the Affordable Care Act (aka health reform) banning physicians from owning hospitals is unconstitutional. Accountants own their CPA firms and lawyers own law firms. Why should non-physicians have a monopoly on running hospitals?

The so-called benefits of Obamacare do not start until 2014, but the tax increases, misallocated resources and federal regulations start now. The law creates a maze of mandates, federal directives, price controls, tax increases and subsidies. The so-called "Tax on 'Cadillac' health plans" imposes a 40 percent tax on health care plans valued at $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families.

Title IX Revenue Provision Subtitle A: Revenue Offset "(Sec. 9002) Requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer-sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employee's gross income (excluding the value of contributions to flexible spending arrangements)."

Eric Holder's Justice Department has used the Antitrust Division's civil action and criminal prosecution powers to force orthopedists to accept government reimbursement rates for their services. Accepting anything other than the government rate is considered a criminal conspiracy against market pricing.

How is that? The Department of Justice declares that "government prices are market prices." The Idaho Orthopedic Society is guilty of criminal conspiracy to fix prices if its members charge anything other than the price fixed by the government.







http://i768.photobucket.com/albums/xx328/drjohn_bucket/obama-liar-liar.jpg

“No one earning less than $250,000 will see his or her taxes increased.”
~~ B. Insane Obama

Remember when the Commerce Clause challenge to the individual insurance mandate was dismissed by all serious and knowledgeable constitutional law professors, and dismissed by Nancy Pelosi as “frivolous”?

The administration is now apparently telling the New York Times that the individual insurance “requirement” and “penalty” is really an exercise of the Tax Power of Congress.


When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate. Individuals must pay an annual penalty of $695, or up to 2.5 percent of their annual income, if they don't purchase an approved health insurance plan. Penalties on families include an annual penalty of $347 per child, up to $2,250 per family, if parents don't purchase an approved policy.

http://i768.photobucket.com/albums/xx328/drjohn_bucket/obamabullshitdecoderring.jpg

SOURCES:

http://townhall.com/columnists/FloydandMaryBethBrown/2010/07/16/the_bitter_fruit_of_obamacare
http://www.thomas.gov/
http://blogs.forbes.com/sciencebiz/2010/07/the-sleeper-lawsuit-against-obamacare-in-texas/
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/science/healthcare/6007-The-Government-Boot-Your-Doctors-Neck.html
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100716/the-presidents-commitment-to-british-style-of-health-care-made-clear/index.html

Likewise, I am not surprised to see an irrelevant, disjointed cut and paste from you.

This doesn't address my post at all, much less if I was engaged in proffering any "verisimiltudes" as your newfound word of the day calendar appears to have led you to using.

This article talks about some private insurance companies shutting down their business, which I'm pretty sure they've always been free to do. It was not anything I discussed in any of my posts. Obamacare can't require companies to stay in business that don't want to stay in business. Why are you too stupid to understand that would be even more of the "socialism' that you whine about that you ridiculously clamor for here.

banyon
07-20-2010, 10:11 AM
Death panels are a reality of any healthcare system. We have them today. It's just not the government. Soon it will be the government AND WHO DO YOU APPEAL TO WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS THE OTHER END OF THE CONTRACT?

NO ONE.

You have no recourse.

What do you mean "soon it will be the government"?

Also, why wouldn't it be the same arbitrators, and courts that review health insurance denials now?

Garcia Bronco
07-20-2010, 10:21 AM
What do you mean "soon it will be the government"?

Also, why wouldn't it be the same arbitrators, and courts that review health insurance denials now?

An appointed person, the surgeon general, will have a panel to decide what coverages will be available to the public. This panel specifically, is appointed by the President. Now their mandate in the bill is to make recommendations. This is not out of control, IMO. What's out of control is you have no recourse to appeal what they tell you is afforded to you.

banyon
07-20-2010, 11:45 AM
An appointed person, the surgeon general, will have a panel to decide what coverages will be available to the public. This panel specifically, is appointed by the President. Now their mandate in the bill is to make recommendations. This is not out of control, IMO. What's out of control is you have no recourse to appeal what they tell you is afforded to you.

I'm not familiar with this part of the bill. Do you have a specific reference?

Here is a link to the bill:

http://docs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf

After running a search for the term "Surgeon General" there were only 2 places in the act that it occurs. On page 463 he is made a part of the National Prevention Health Promotion and Public Health Council. The other reference is in connection with an education initiative.

The Council mentioned on page 463 has the following enumerated powers:

(d) PURPOSES AND DUTIES.—The Council shall—
(1) provide coordination and leadership at the Federal
level, and among all Federal departments and agencies, with
respect to prevention, wellness and health promotion practices,
the public health system, and integrative health care in the
United States;
(2) after obtaining input from relevant stakeholders, develop
a national prevention, health promotion, public health,
and integrative health care strategy that incorporates the most
effective and achievable means of improving the health status
of Americans and reducing the incidence of preventable illness
and disability in the United States;
(3) provide recommendations to the President and Congress
concerning the most pressing health issues confronting
the United States and changes in Federal policy to achieve national
wellness, health promotion, and public health goals, including
the reduction of tobacco use, sedentary behavior, and
poor nutrition
(4) consider and propose evidence-based models, policies,
and innovative approaches for the promotion of transformative
models of prevention, integrative health, and public health on
individual and community levels across the United States;
(5) establish processes for continual public input, including
input from State, regional, and local leadership communities
and other relevant stakeholders, including Indian tribes and
tribal organizations;
(6) submit the reports required under subsection (g); and
(7) carry out other activities determined appropriate by the
President.

None of the above duties appear to give this council the power to make or even advise on any decisions about policies available or coverages.

patteeu
07-20-2010, 12:27 PM
In the loose sense you are using the term, "death panels" have existed since the first health insurance policies were written. By definition, they are going to have to decide what are and what aren't covered procedures. Again, this bill doesn't alter that basic fact.

And no, government doesn't decide, even in "obamacare". The private insurer does. That's not the way I wanted it, but the public option was successfully scaremongered away.

The government will still set the acceptable plan limits and standards and when that happens, the private "decisions" will be little more than formalities.

And when republican critics were referring to death panels, they cited the section of the legislation dealing with the counseling services. And that's what I originally referred to in my first post.

Yes, that's why I asked you what part you disagreed with. In the narrow sense that you are using the term, I understand your disagreement.

The Mad Crapper
07-20-2010, 03:34 PM
The most convincing lies are ones that are closer to the truth; that sound plausible. They are protected by sounding reasonable....but it's really a wolf in sheep's clothing—the logo of the Fabian Socialist. This is rampant in our public school system.

And also in the DC Holy Land forum.