Right now, people who can't afford the full value of an insurance plan can't get coverage. So when they get sick or inured, they get bankrupted for it (being unable to pay tens of thousands of dollars). The hospital needs to get money from somewhere, so they pass the costs along to the insured.

What's better--middle-class Americans paying higher premiums to subsidize care for people who can't get coverage, or millionaires paying higher taxes to subsidize coverage?

That is:

Status quo-- we bankrupt uninsured people who can't get coverage, passing the cost along to the insured (the majority of the privately insured are middle-class Americans).

With reform-- we help uninsured people get coverage (they pay a portion based on their income) and pass the cost along to the wealthy who pay higher taxes.

So, whose side are you on--millionaires or working middle-class Americans? I know which side the GOP is on...

Nowhere did I say I was against insurance for all, but that doesn't mean I have to like all aspects of the bill, lighten up I aint no status quo person. I was merely pointing out how they are dipping in to both ends of the pot. Sheeeesh

When the dust settles, they can make the adjustments needed. Like a public option.

Carl just for the sake of argument, simply having insurance means nothing when the hospitals charge about 20 or 30 per cent more than the insurance will pay. Insured people go bankrupt as well. After they're done charging you 20 dollars for an aspirin or running a 5000 dollar MRI when a 200 dollar x-ray would have sufficed, you can end up with thousands of dollars worth of bills that they want to sue you for even though you've religiously paid the sky high premiums. 50 dollars, 500.00 dollars, or 5000.00 is all the same thing when you don't have it. Unless they can find a way to get the out of pocket expenses under control, this trillion dollar boondoggle for the insurance companies isn't going to help those that are in the most need of help and simply bringing more indentured customers into the market isn't going to cut it. Human greed being what it is the insurance companies will do nothing but take advantage of their captive client base to further enrich themselves. I mean, if we're going to go to a socialist form of government anyway, and that's the way things are looking, why not go all the way and get these greedy bastards under control? I know I'm going to hear how unconstitutional it would be to tell these mega-corporations how to set their prices but it's no more unconstitutional than telling me that I am required to buy someone's product even though I might not want or need it. Hey, fair's fair, but then I seriously doubt fairness will rear it's ugly head anywhere around this matter.

This may be the, for lack of better terminology, the MOST un-American statement I've read:

With reform-- we help uninsured people get coverage (they pay a portion based on their income) and pass the cost along to the wealthy who pay higher taxes.

And, 'with reform', ANY that pay taxes are going to pay for those that DON'T do for themselves. Those that CAN'T are already covered, it's called Medicaid.

I'm probably about as P-poor as they come; A family of six with an income of $60K a year. Health insurance through my employer, which a DO pay into, and into an account for a 'what if' comes along (god forbid).

I don't want the government taking care of me, I don't want your or anyone elses tax monies' and I EXPECT to pay when I DO have to go in to the dr.s' (or my wife, or my children). I promote healthy living at home, no flying around on skateboards on quarter pipes because I don't have the money. I don't take my kids in for coughs, pharts, or flus. And, for basics (such as strep when it goes around the schools) the Doc cuts me a break to pay in cash and I don't even involve insurance.

People don't expect the same insane amounts of coverage from their auto insurance (oil changes, new tires or air put in, washer fluid, brake shoes, pads, etc..), but expect that medically, it's a 'free for all'. Personal responsibility goes a long ways.

There's not one single cost reform in this thing, unless some count 'spending less than we were going to' as a savings. And, once again, all this hoopla.......

and HOW MANY still will be uninsured when all's said and done?

lib50, one example, just one, no matter how little, when the government has driven down the cost of anything.

Liberals always state that deregulation has killed our country. Which means you like regulators. What happens when you turn your regulators into the industry, don't you lose your regulators?

Well the cost of healthcare in most of the industrialized world is far less because of their national care. We pay the most and get far less for our money. The care in our country is NOT the best and is too expensive for what we get.

There are a lot of things I don't like in this bill, but since when does anybody get everything they want and nothing they don't want when you have to bring together so many views? Its called compromise.

Why not just address the things that control cost? They are simple. Competition, Proper regulation, tort reform and competition in the drug market (which Obama killed for us).

Why not one small bill at a time, instead of this huge power grab. Don't you understand, they are not fixing anything. The are changing the payoffs from the Republican cronies to the Democrat cronies and in doing so are getting rid of our regulators. When they have all the power and we are getting screwed, where do we turn.

You're right lib50 - maybe we should be like Canada.

I hope you detect the sarcasm, I laid it on pretty thick.

Part of the reason health care is cheaper in smaller countries is that, America ends up footing the bill for r&d for pharma companies, we pay for much of the cost of research for disease etc. etc. etc. So because we pay big bucks, the rest of the world benefits with lower costs. I truly do not see that ending because of this proposal. America is considered the rich cousin that can pay more because we are capitalists. So the next time someone says health care is is better somewhere else because it's cheaper, that's partly due to us and it probably isn't going to change anytime soon. This will never be about saving money, it is about insuring the now uninsured. Do we want to or not should be the only question. The crap they are spewing about it reducing costs in the future or saving our deficit is just that... crap.

Carl - what a knucklehead - there are more Democrat millionaires in Congress than there are Republicans - as a %, not just because there are more of them.

Seriously - Obama handed over about a TRILLION dollars to Wall St and the Banks, and you still think Republican's are the party of the rich?

What a loon.

Lib - pay very close attention.

They save money because they have less equipment 30 - 50% less of every medical device with the same ratio per million of requested use. That means extended delay in receiving diagnosis and treatment. If you want the best results time is of the essences

Many of these countries don't offer much or any micro surgery. It is an up-front high cost item. That's why New Foundlands Governor went to Miami Florida for his surgery. He was done in less than 2 weeks, back to work almost imediately. In Canada, the surgery was cheaper, but he would have to wait 8 weeks to get it and they would have to cut a much bigger hole in his chest to do the same work at a greater risk of infection and a longer recovery.

People in England, who can afford to, buy supplimental insurance for medical procedures that are not covered or so they don't have to wait as long for critcal health care needs.

In Canada they have 1/3 the life-flight teams per million than we do. Why? Central planning won't put life flight in areas were there isn't deemed to be enough people. In the US, Life-flights are everywhere. I was at a Ball game last summer and watched at least 3 life flight landings and take-offs in one game.

No one is turned away, but I will say people do refuse treatment because they are afraid of receiving a bill. My wife got a Mamography this year. Right now we can't pay the the whole deductible part, the hospital (bought out the small company that did the Mamographies) told us of a program, that if our income was a certain amout, the program would pay for the bill.

There is no excuse for not getting needed medical care - especially cancer - the poster child lady in the cleveland clinic's treatment is expected to be paid for by one of the Cleveland Clinic Charities that helps those who cannot afford their treatment.

This New politcal card is beginning to rival the race card some groups like to use.

Have you or anyone ever read this bill? I have. Do you like the idea that the IRS is going to monitor you and your employer to ensure you have the proper insurance or hit you with penalties if you don't, and I believe even being able to take your refund to pay those fines if you don't have govt-approved insurance?

This is a DARK day for America... Remember this day... Tell your children and grandchildren about it... This is the day that our representatives stole our Liberty... For some of you, this is a day that you supported. Make sure when you tell your children how the evil government stole your liberty that you do not lie and say it was against your will and you fought so hard against it. Those of you who support this thievery deserve to lose your Liberty. You deserve the second world economy that will surely follow. You deserve the lingering economic depression that will follow for generations. Those of us who spoke against it and fought against it saw the foolishness and greed in this bill, and we will suffer just as you, but do not deserve to pay for your ignorance and blindness. I can't wait to until the elections so we can vote out all of those who betrayed their country and their fellow Americans. Vote out All the Liberal Progressive Democrats in 2010 and 2012 and let's tale our country back from the Communists.

BLD agree with you but you didn't go far enough. If you don't want to play the government insurance game for whatever reason, the IRS will monitor you and just like not paying your taxes will have the authority to put you in jail if you don't purchase their quality of insurance or pay the fines if you don't play the game.

I just love our free choice society and being forced into paying higher taxes and eventually all insurance will be the government and they know that even if some do not. Once the government has it's hands in the pot; the whole stew is corrupted and if one thinks there is anything good in that stew, well the person who thinks that is just insane.

I cant wait to drop my insurance and get free Health care. Thank you Lord. Praise to you O gr8t One.

Obama just threw his whole party under the bus.

They could have done a much better job than this pork laden crap they just sent through.

A 15 member board?? Let me guess, made up of white collar insurance thieves and lawyers?? This will cost more than any other program out there.

By god, with this health care program we ought to become the country with the most socialism in the whole blankety-blank world... Well, maybe not including China.

As the story states, if you refuse to by it, you get fines $95/year. If you don't follow in lock-step by 2016, it get s bumped to $695 or 2.5% of their income. Then what? Jail??? Three squares, a roof, clothes, a bed and FREE HEALTH CARE!!! Real blankety-blank smart, Obama & Co., real blankety-blank smart.

This is what's gonna happen to everyone as fewer and fewer will be to afford the ever increasing costs, as more and more go to jail, I'm sorry, detention centers. Ever hear of "equal protection under the law"? How about Obama & Co. give up their cushy health plan and join the rest of us?

Frankly I'm kind of happy Obama got elected. At no time in the history of this country have so many everyday people stopped living with their heads in the sand, and started learning about how this thing is SUPPOSED to work. Now "The People" can take this country back. Hopefully, it can be done peacefully... Hopefully...

Dennis: (2.14) What a great comment! If only they would listen to us!

Cutlass, 2.19 - Actually, it will be reps from labor unions and people who specialize in something to do with ethnicity (forget the term), among others. The people they listed who must be included make no sense becuase they do not have medical experience. They are going to be there for their political input. Furthermore, their recommendations on treatments to be covered will be sent to HHS who will make the final recommendations.

2/3 of the doctors in my town will retire in the next 5 to 7 years. We have not been keeping up with training doctors. We are about to encounter a huge doctor shortage in America.

This bill does nothing to contain or control costs in the system. For example Japan pays $500 for a CT scan and in America the same test costs $1200. Unsustainably expensive healthcare that is poorly administered to a population of obese patients is unsustainable.

Bankrupting the uninsured and passing the costs along to the insured in higher & higher premiums is even more unsustainable, and wrong too.

Carl your plan has been tried before no rich no poor just a middle class. Please tell me where it has worked I want to move there ?

you found a place where theres no rich and no poor...sounds great but if you post it there will be many that will want to go there....lol

Regarding the shortage of doctors....

You can bet this REFORM will only make the situation worse. After all, why would anyone want to rack up hundreds of thousands in student loans, spend a decade of their life in med school, only to work as a Doctor and be told by the Democrats that...GUESS WHAT...Your RICH!

Yep, them pesky doctors who studied hard, racked up mass debt are now rich because they earn more than 200k a year, so now you get to pay more (to finance health care) for the street drunk alcoholic your treating, that just threw up his hepatitis infected vomit all over you.

Yep, sure makes me want to be a doctor

ps The dems will be coming after you rich people again to pay for ....social security....the deficit... the debt...etc.

Well Rodney, I may be wrong but that is also covered in the reconciliation. Student loans will now be controled 100% by the government. I have heard that Obama wants to pay for your school in return for 10 years of service. So it costs you -0- to become a doctor. -0- as in "your life is mine!"

This way BHO can tell you which med school you can go to the your course study you can take and where you will work for 10 years. Sounds wounderfull to me. We will have the best medical care any 3rd world country can offer.

Carl out of curiosity just how many Americans declared bankruptcy due to medical costs last year? This is not about that bankruptcy this is about getting even with those who succeed and giving it to those who don't. As always Carl is about class warfare and sanctimonious comments like helping the poor or saving the weak while destroying the country. I gotta say I love you man even if you bore the living feces out if me.

Jan - your clearly biased towards heavy people - what about all the skinny smokers and alcoholics? C'mon, anyone can be unhealthy.

As for Japan - have you been asleep the past 20 years as their economy experienced 4 recessions in the 90's, etc..? As well, they have a declining population, more people are dying than being born - a much more sustainable healthcare situation, well, until they all die off...

John Stossel wrote a great piece about healthcare a few months ago using Singapore as a good example of universal healthcare - using the HSA model, not government control. http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2009/12/23/the-singapore-alternative/

There are good solutions that do not require Nancy, Obama and Harry anywhere near my healthcare.

Take an economics class all your class warriors! Tax the rich heavily and you take money out of the private economy that would be used to build businesses and hire you! As Mitt Romney put it well (and honestly) "There are no wage earners without wage payers."

The wealthy already pay a huge percentage of our taxes. I have read from several that they will take their marbles and go play in more favorable markets if this goes through.

Caterpillar alone will be out $1M. That means in reality they will have to lay off workers or cut their salaries. Wouldn't they be better off just keeping their jobs and paying for their own insurance through the company like now??

Anyone get a good salary from a poor man?

Jan--Nationwide a huge % of Dr.s are pver 50 and we have allowed the AMA to carefully limit the number of would be Dr.'s graduating from medical school. Thus they have maintained scarcity somewhat to keep the price for services up somewhat.

Now I know my uncle, a pediatrician, already just plain decided to hang it up and serve for free in various missions because he wanted to practice medicine that was best for the patient--not what was allowed with Medicaid.

From talking with Dr. friends who are over 50, I would say it seems probably most of them plan to retire if this bill becomes law and if Jan's stats hold up nation wide, we will be reduced to a third world country healthcare wise (and that is a big part of what has made America great) almost overnight.

Stop this madness.

There are some interesting developments here in Seattle a Dr. group is supposedly looking into purchasing a cruise ship or several of them to place in international waters just off of our coasts offering top line typical current health care American Style on a fee for service basis. I think they will perform a great service as well as saving a lot of lives and making a great deal of money (which I praise them for and hope they enjoy it--that is the entrepeneurial spirit that makes America prosperous).

The only people who want to deal with government are those who think they are going to get something from it really cheap or for free!

Juno I applaud you to the highest degree....

Years ago we moved back home for sentimental and family reasons. The majority of the businesses there were factories and most people working there were factory workers. Guess what happened to our small business there? Well, we had to move away from family and all sentiment went out the door when we had to borrow money to move where wealthy people are in order to run a successful small business. What Juno is saying is true. Poor people don't do much business and pinch you for every penny you charge for your services. Wealthy people appreciate quality and in general do not penny pinch but expect to pay for high quality work. Our quality of work was the same at both places so the only thing that changed was the clientele. Point is no one gets paid well from broke folks and if this health care was all that; then the President, Congressmen and Senators would be signing onto it as well.

You don't want to see spending controlled? You just want Medicare to just write checks without knowing what they are writing them for?

That makes a whole lot of sense.

Clarke, you know we have a public hospital here with 3 locations that has been threatening to close 2 down and layoff 4600 people. All because they were not profit orientated. These a-holes did not even bill insurance companies much of the time.

Medicare has been writing checks for years knowing about 5 billion Thats billon a year is fraud. Who is watching the check writers now. Oh I remember it's congress. That gives me comfort to know they will oversee my health care.

How soon we forget the Government panel who said women under 50 do not need a mamograms. How about the 15% of the 40-50 year old women who develop breast cancer,they will die or lose their breasts from going undetected. You people want the government making your health decisions,be prepared to suffer the results... And if you use the Emergency room,tell them you are illegal,there is no penality for them not having health insurance,but as an American there is for you.

Bobby, 4.3 - It's going to be the IRS monitoring health care because they are going to ensure everyone has health insurance. Somehow they are going to monitor on a monthly basis to ensure all people and employers are covered.

What is fundamentally wrong is that healthcare costs take over 17% of GDP. That is crippling in so many ways. This is actually going to help stabilize the economy over the long term, and help millions.

This is actually going to help stabilize the economy over the long term, and help millions.

This is actually going to help stabilize the economy over the long term, and help millions.

This is actually going to help stabilize the economy over the long term, and help millions.

Nope, still doesn't ring true.

lib50 - that dog don't hunt - no way you can add 32 million and have costs go down. Especially when the Federal Government is involved. Is it not clear that the Feds do not have yours or my best interest at heart?

Healthcare should be delivered at the local level period. No Federal involvement.

And if you believe otherwise, explain why the Democrats, having control of Congress for more than 3 years did nothing to control the rampant fraud and abuse that currently exists within Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?

Is it not clear that the Feds do not have yours or my best interest at heart?

Of course they don´t if they did there is no way that they would require you to purchase private insurance or face a penalty...if your insurance is subsidized or not by government they will fine you if you don´t get it...the kicker..folks like myself with pre existing conditions will pay out our butts for insurance...I bet my premium quote is going to be close to $1k a month..wanna bet? I have a chronic condition and a family history of cancer that would make your hair stand on end...yeah they don´t want to insure me...and the bigger thing..I have to carry it anyway even though I will never be able to use it since I live outside the US..but I am a US citizen. So I get the pleasure of handing the insurance company 1k of my money, still pay for my own health care and still have to pay my normal taxes...makes a person want to renounce their citizenship.

Lib50, 5.1 - Did you know that when they were passing Medicare, the govt. had estimated the cost like they are doing today, and the real cost ended up being something like 7 to 10 times more than they projected? You think this is going to be any different? Did you hear the Mass. state treasurer tell how their costs haven't gone down and in fact, premiums have increased 20 to 30%? That the only reason their plan is still afloat is because the fed govt. is subsidizing it? Do you realize that if they get control of the healthcare system (which they will), they will have control and/or ownership of AIG, GM, healthcare, student loans, and banks - which I understand to constitute 48% of the economy. Now THAT is scary and a way to slowly take us into socialism. This president and the lib bullies like Reid and Pelosi are doing nothing but engaging in social engineering to take us into a system we don't want but they believe they think is right. I can't wait till 2010. I hope we get enough of these people out to cripple this liberal agenda and keep Obama in check till we can vote the rest of them out in 2012.

Sounds like you guys think we should not have Social Security and Medicare. Is that right?

Lib, you have only said the same stupid thing about a hundred times now....get a new story....get a brain....after paying into these failed programs you suggest that we just walk away from all the money we have put in for the last 50 years.....??? Could you be more stupid??? What an ass....

This govt. seems to think it can. And it also thinks it can tell states they will have to pay more for Medicaid. That's why they are preparing lawsuits to challenge it on the principle of states' rights and the fact it's not fair that some states get special treatment. I can't wait to see Obama's tantrum if the Court overturns this bill.

I don't like that part either without a public option, but that can be addressed next. This is better than the status quo.

Penalizing the people who live, at best, paycheck to paycheck isn't a benefit to ANYONE. Knowing the way our government works, this will never be changed, either, once the penalty dollars start rolling in, as the government will come up with some reason or another why they can't live without that money.

This is a complete waste of taxpayer money that will serve no purpose.

lib50, this bill will make the status quo permanent!

Health insurance companies are already run like GSE's, the more they spend the more they get. Explanation of why is above.

Our country has proved that capitalism is the best equalizer, why should we abandoned it here? Let competition and capitalism fix the cost. I do not understand how you could grow up in this great country and not grasp that concept!

Lib50--How is this better than the status quo? I have a job. I work and PAY for my insurance. You have a computer, you most likely have a cell phone--are they more important than buying insurance? Doesn't your state provide a state-funded insurance? Most do. You are blinded by the liberal light! This is nothing more than a power grab by the government. The "historic moment" they keep touting is the moment that they can take America into Socialism. I have to tell you it will not improve your life one bit. Look at the failed Socialist experiment in Russia, China, North Korea. . .

Yes GGin...I agreed. Irs will be in charge of making sure you have insurance. They will slap a fine on you. I would think...if you cannot pay the fine or get insurance they will put a lien or garnish your paycheck. They do that now if you cannot pay your taxes, why would they not on proof of insurance.

Livingbarefoot - You are so right, anyone who grew up here in America appreciates capitalism and understands the benefits. Of course, the POTUS did not grow up and does not understand how Capitalism works...Indonesia is one of the major Communist holdouts!

The fines are part of the voodoo economics they are using to show a "savings". This bill is a complete fraud - just look at today's additions to the bill.

Every single change adds more cost that the CBO has not scored yet, or eliminates revenue that they have included in their preliminary estimate.

They only penalize you if your American,and do not have insurance. Since they will not allow illegals to buy health insurance even with their own money,you need to tell the ER doctor your an illegal,so you will not be penalized. How is going to work,Penalize Americans but not illegals, for not having health insurance.

Lib - think about it.

There is no public option - don't need it in the bill. When the insurance companies quit because they are losing money everyone will be begging the government for a public option. The whole reason Kucinich switched his vote from no to yes, when they finally were able to get him to understand that. He couldn't figure that out even though this has been spoken about for years by Obama, Frank, and others for Two Years that that was the plan. I've been laughing at him for over a year about that one.

Heck, the whole game plan was to put the public option in and when it failed those against would celebrate, and not pay attention to what the structure would do in 3 - 5 years after implimentation.

Common Sense-1506918

This is the first I have ever heard of a state funded insurance. Could you give more details so that I might find out about this? Maybe my state don't offer it and that is why I have never heard of it or maybe just a well kept secret, but any info would be appreciated.

Um, I have heard the penalty was $695. Also, the IRS is going to monitor on a monthly basis people and employers. My understanding from reading the bill is that if you don't have it, you will be fined and penalized and the IRS will be able to take your refund to cover it - much like they can do if you have unpaid child support. And THAT is going to creat something like 16,000 jobs I heard at a cost of billions.

Also, how are they going to fine the homeless? And, there is nothing in the bill that prevents those without insurance from using ER's, which they kept telling us was a big problem and reason for high costs. Gee, pay a fine to avoid more cost in premiums, but still use the ER. Does that reduce costs or change anything? NO!

There are what you call "socialist" countries that have a much higher standard of living than the U.S. does.

Only because our lovely government breaks our laws and allows illegals to take away the earning potential of every worker here. From Reagan to Clinton we were doing well.

Most of those countries you can mention will have populations around the size of one or two major cities here.

No other countries have an illegal percentage greater than 1%, we are at 10%, that kills us!

You're right, but the fruit (the actual illegal immigrants) doesn't grow without the root (people who are exploiting their cheap labor).

I am all for immigration reform, but it's like any job lving, if it's there, people will come. And we see so much hatred for the immigrants themselves, which I believe should be directed at the source of their income. After all, they are just trying to make a better life. I'm not justifying illegal entry, just pointing out that they would NOT come without an internal impetus for it.

I will trust the figures from CBO much more than those from Glenn Beck and Rush. Where is your faith in the free market and captalism that you worship? If your claim is true about losing many doctors, the nurse practioners are just a few steps away from becoming doctors. The new bill makes student loans much more accessable. It will help many more students to become doctors.

Anyone that is used to getting paid more than they're worth will scream bloody murder when their pay is adjusted to a realistic figure. There is no place in the world for doctors to get paid more money than they will get right here. They have no place to go. Will they become plumbers?

Why would anyone want to become a doctor when their pay will clearly be going down over the coming years?

I continue to read where more and more doctors are going to choose early retirement rather than continue to have to fight with the government control reducing reimbursements and increasing their cost of doing business.

And seriously - 85% of us have insurance, and some of those who don't just pay cash. There will be plenty of work for doctors for a time, well, at least until Obama & Co get their wish of universal healthcare done the wrong way - with complete government control.

Saul wrote quite a playbook.

Their pay will still be much more than the average American as well it should be. Most people that become doctors is because of a calling. I would pray that my doctor is not only in it for the money. The excellent pay is icing on the cake. There are far too many Americans dying for lack of proper healthcare. Poll your friends, your neighbors and relatives. The poll will tell you that your numbers are seriously wrong unless everyone you know is wealthy. HCR is long overdue. What will you do when 25% of your pay is required for healthcare? Then 30% or 40%? HCR is coming to your community very soon. Be glad, not mad.

Clarke, 9.1 - Tell me what countries those are? And what do you mean by "standard of living"? Many of those countries have very high tax rates to enable the govt. to pay for everything.

Commonsense, 9.6 - Oh, please - tell me where you get your numbers? Is this just some rhetorical statement you heard on MSNBC or out of Nancy Pelosi's mouth? And if you think a doctor is going to be a doctor to earn maybe $50,000 or even $100,000 a year after spending 4 years in college, 4 years in medical school, a number of years as an intern and then resident, and hundreds of thousands of school costs, well, you must live in Wonderland. Tell Alice I said "hi."

Can all you say 1984?

We need to let the politicans know they do not work for,Obama,Reid or Pelosi. They work for us.

Russ, 11 - He wants us all to be the mirror image of the constituents he represented in Illinois. He wants us all to be dragged down instead of helping others rise up.

You hit the nail on the head Jerry, VOTE them suckers out and all their incumbants!!!

Even if everyone that is planning to pay the fine rather paying for insurance, how much will the fines help in paying for health care? I'm sure glad they will be expanding the IRS to oversee all of this. (sarcasm)

Remember, if you like the insurance policy you now have, you can keep it. Tell that to the seniors who have Medicare Advantage.

I heard today that the IRS will expand by 17,000 employees.

Yep! and don't forget the 10 BILLION EXTRA DOLLARS TO FUND THEM. Just the beginning!

Jerry, 13 - Yes you will have to pay for that fine because the IRS is charged with ensuring everyone has govt-approved coverage. I read the bill. They are going to monitor people and employers MONTHLY and from what I understood, they will be able to take your tax refund to cover the fines, etc.

What's 13.2 - And what's even dumber is the fact that those who pay that fine are not precluded from still using the ER. So, those costs they kept throwing up as an example of the dysfunction in the system will still exist. And we will still be underwriting the use of the ER. And, I heard about a study that showed that people with insurance actually use the ER MORE for little things because they have insurance to pay for it. So, I bet the ER use will increase. The only problem is, will we ever hear about these things if they come to fruition, or will the Dems and mainstream media hide the statistics?

Let me see if I can clear up your questions...

1) NO

2) The next sham they have coming down the pipe will take care of the illegal immigrants. The plan is to grant them amnesty and let them stay. That way they will no longer be "illegal" immigrants and, therefore, the libs can say that illegal immigrants are not covered and still keep a straight face. It's called "word games" and the spineless liberals are experts at that game. You just have to really pay attention to what they are saying in order to catch it, oh, and keep one hand on your wallet.

I hope that clears it up for you. Glad I could help.

LMAO step in what.....

I don't really believe your first answer, but #2 would not suprise me AT ALL.

"Sec. 1204. Funding for the territories. Increases federal funding in the Senate bill for Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas Islands by $2 billion. Raises the caps on federal Medicaid funding for each of the territories. Allows each territory to elect to operate a Health Benefits Exchange?"

They are US territories and the people living there are US citizens. Thats what. I suppose you might mistake the Hawaiian Islands to be a foreign country, but, alas it is State and its people are also US citizens.

But since Puerto Rico does not pay federal income tax, Neither do American Samoa, is this fair to us in the United States?

I understand Hawaii, but I am pretty sure that they would pay all the same tax's that we here in America do.

BTW they are not considered US citizens either...they are US Nationals.

"Residents of insular areas do not pay U.S. federal taxes, but most pay taxes to the territorial governments, at the same rates as U.S. federal income taxes. Insular areas do not choose electors in U.S. presidential elections nor do they elect voting members of the U.S. Congress. Goods manufactured in insular areas of the United States can be labeled "Made in USA."

Something about the "territories" is just not right. They are not subject to the same laws, minimum wages, etc. AND can't vote for these morons that we have to deal with.

actually PR is subject to minimum wage and the same laws...called the US constitution....and they cannot vote unless they live on the mainland...however, they do have a representative in congress and the PR governor wants PR to become a state...yet Obama hasn´t mentioned that...oh and they are subject to the selective service and many serve in our US Armed Forces just like our sons and daughters.

PR is just one of the named ones in the bill...what about the others? They get the money too.

Guam is not subject to minimum wages.

mikkey if he is going to require them to have the insurance I suppose he has to provide the funds for them to actually have it.

You are wrong about Guam and other territories not having a minimum wage though the Guam minimum wage is the federal wage 7.25 an hour

http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm

American Samoa has a special minimum wage, but then Georgia(a state) also has a wage that is lower than the federal standard...and some states have no minimum wage law.

Thanks xl for at least a little clarification. All that I read said Guam DID NOT have a minimum wage.

BUT does it state in the bill anywhere that they will be required to have it or it is an option?

Allows each territory to elect to operate a Health Benefits Exchange

They get the money regardless.

And what is YOUR opinion on the illegals that I mentioned?

All I want is clarity on the matter, you are the most respectful one to do that yet, so ty lx

It is required for everyone or you pay a fine. I personally do not know if the bill is going to force illegal immigrants to purchase this obsenity, but why should they be left out if we are all going to get screwed they should too!

This bill will not allow illegals to buy health insurance,but will penalize Americans who do not have health insurance,So what happens at the Emergency room,if your an American and do not have health insurance you are going to be fined,but an illegal can not be, because they are not allowed to buy health insurance? How is that going to work?

Why fix Puerto Rico? I have an employee there that I reimburse for her medical insurance. She pays $139.00 per month for full coverage. She LOVES her policy....wish I could get my other employees on that. This bill will murder our economy. I am disgusted by this administration. Down with socialism!!!

Step-in -14.1 - Someone else who sees through the word games! I am so glad. But why is the rest of the country so stupid to be sucked in?

Curious to know what year the CBO is using to base the income they will get from all the taxes and fees?????

That's what I was thinking too! It changes the CBO's numbers.

They are are hoping that people don't lose jobs or incomes don't drop. And that is one reason why that insurance company had to raise premiums so much. As more and more people lost jobs in Calif. , fewer and fewer are insured so they have less in premiums to cover claims. People in this country don't seem to understand that premiums pay for claims and the company can't pay out more in claims than they have taken in. But when your politicians never ran a business, worked in a business, or took business in college, but are social engineers who operate in theory and hold hands and sing kumbaya, what do you expect?

I wondered that same thing, I have concluded that it makes it look bad that a congressman or women wouldn't vote on something so needed like higher education. So they threw it in to sway Democrats to vote for it, WHICH also included a health care plan too.

Now (if it passes) the Dem's can say that Repubes didn't vote for educational funding.

It's all a political game.

So why isn't the doc fix in there. POTUS stated that doc fix is a separate issue (he inherited) but for sure student loans do not belong in health care.

It's part of the bribery package!

It's part of the reconcilliation package for budgetary issues. It had to go to the Senate under reconciliation because the Republicans in the Senate are threatening to fillibuster the changes to Federal Student Loan sources.

Pegster, 16 - I think he looked at this as a way to push through a program that was not popular and it was the only way he could get it through. Once he takes over student loans and healthcare, the govt. will also have taken over control and/or ownership in AIG, banks, and GM (and others, I think) and will have what control over what I have heard is 48% of the economy when considering all of those businesses.

My God! Explain exactly how President Obama becomes a dictator? Does he subvert the armed forces to overthrow congress and the supreme court? Such drama queens to suggest such a thing over a policy that should have been applied 50 years ago. Fear and lies will get you no where. The Bush administration is proof of it.

Dictator is a bit strong - but when our President says he doesn't really care what process the Congress uses to pass a law with farther reaching implications than any law in the history of this nation, that is troubling.

When the President tells us that his admin will be the most open in history and then negotiates the deal points in this critically important and complex law behind closed doors, it's troubling.

When the President says we will have at least 72 hours to review the law proposed (which is ridiculous for a 2700 page bill) and instead they are still making changes less than 48 hours before voting, on a SUNDAY, that is troubling.

When we learn of the Louisana Purchase, the Florida payoff, the Water Allotment for Central California (winning 2 votes from Democrat reps) and the other sweetheart special deals made to secure votes, it is troubling.

When the House of Representatives don't even want to vote up or down on a bill this important, affecting 95% of American's, this is troubling.

When we found out the authors of this bill were his uber-liberal buddies, it was troubling.

When democrats locked the Republicans out of the room, it was troubling.

Today as we watch them add more cost and eliminate more revenue in order to bribe representatives, it is troubling.

And when Nancy Pelosi says we "have to pass the bill in order to see what's in it", it's not just troubling, it shows all of us that she as one of our leaders is a complete unmitigated idiot.

Dictator - maybe not. Is he an irresponsible liar, lacking leadership skills and disrespecting the Christian nation that he presides over? Yes.

I am a Christian that is very happy to live in a nation that calls itself a free nation with no regard to any particular religion. To lie and call the U.S.A. a Christian nation is a sin according to my bible. If you wish to live in a religious nation, many are available. The Vatican is a Christian nation in it's own right. Oops, that might not work for those "Christians" that can't stand catholics. Do you see the problem? A Christian nation that does not promote your own brand of Christianity would never work. May God bless you and help you understand that government and politics have no business mixing with our religion. By the same logic, religion also has no business mixing in government or politics. Jesus said, "“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”. I have no problem understanding His precise words on this matter. They don't seem to be debatable to me.

Commonsense 17.1 - Let's see, he gets the Dems to shove through legislation that allows him to have unlimited terms. He doesn't care about the Constitution; he said that basically. So, he changes the form of govt. Research and read how some dictators have come into power (e.g., Chavez or even Hitler - I know not a popular example) and you will see it was a gradual consolidation of power onto themselves with the gov. body being disabanded or a sham of a gov. body who just passes laws they are told. Look at Chavez - he was put in by vote but then started nationalizing industries (banks, oil) and look at the mess their country is in. Hitler was voted in and eventually got the gov. body to give him enough power that he consolidated it all unto himself. Even with the Russian Revolution there was a gov. body that was eventually disbanded. People put Castro in because he promised things. Do you think the people in these countries necessarily saw it coming as it was happening? No. That's why it amazes me that we have history to look at and yet people just ignore it. They are not the least bit alarmed.

if you're making 60k/yr with a family of 4 you'll likely be getting a big subsidy. if you get health insurance through your employer nothing will change

That's great sharky, but where did that info come from. Is it solid?

Fools - Health insurance through your employer, what does that mean SHARKY? Does that mean they take $500 a month out of your paycheck and give you health insurance. Doesn't say it will be free to you does it?

Thanks for assuming a family of 4 at 60,000 will get large subsidies. Now show me the facts.

Also let me mention are you talking 60,000 net, adjusted gross or what exactly. Somebody making 80,000 can make it look like they only make 40,000. From what I've read of this bill they have a NEW adjusted gross income value.

Nice now we have to figure a 2nd adjusted gross value on our already complicated tax forms.

That's right Miller, that's where the 400,000 new jobs that will start immediatly will come from...the IRS.

A better question is how much will your rates rise without HCR? Look to the past to see the future. Do you think that it matters to the greedy insurance companies if only the top 10% can afford healthcare? They will make the same or more money with fewer customers thus fewer headaches. This attitude of , "I've got mine, to hell with everybody else" will come back to bite you. The number of people that can't afford healthcare will rise greatly. Soon you will be among those that can't afford it. Until we put the brakes on this monster of snowballing healthcare rates, more and more people will suffer. You only have to look at the last two decades to see the truth of my statement.

The greedy insurance companies have about a 2.5% profit margin.

What about the greedy politicians and all the six-figure government employees who received an average 19% increase in pay in the past 18 months? What about the expansion of government during a recession?

What about all the new costs added today, with more coming?

Yeah, well I paid Glenn Beck to tell all of my customers that I work on a 1% profit so they won't cry when I triple my rates. Too bad I'm not getting paid for a service that means life or death to my customers. I could get by with murder and get rich at the same time.

Mrlump - 18 - you make a good point. You may get subsidies but what are the premiums going to be? Even with a good subsidy, is the cost still going to be too high? And, the IRS is tasked with enforcing and monitoring this. I read the bill and from what I saw, there are going to be monthly reporting requirements so they can ensure people and employers are complying and I believe if you aren't and are fined, they can take your tax refunds.

There not going to tax your baseball card collection. The only people with money that support this are government employees, unions, people with political ties and big pharmacy and probably the insurance companies. Quit your B.S.

they will tax my $100,000/yr in dividends and capital gains.

You must be a true believer in capitalism then?

Or did daddy make the money, because that is a huge cause of anti-capitalistic liberals, guilt!

sharky and if you have a cushy private insurance plan they will land a 40% tax on that too..as well as taxing you at an increased rate on your REGULAR income..see I already fork out 60% of my income in tax, fuel, business expenses, maintenance, hwy use, lumper, etc...I pay enough frankly another 40% is something I cannot afford and guess what..I don´t have health insurance because I have to pay liability and load insurance in the amount of 1 million in coverage every month and I cannot afford it and because of the 125k cap..I also am eliminated from their subsidy..so I will have to pay a fine, take the insurance that I cannot use and will cost me out the rear(I have a pre existing chronic condition)

How much did the insurers donate to Obama´s campaign and the demos in congress?

Taxing,investment capitol will cost jobs,why would anyone want to invest to enlarge a company,if they are going to be taxed more. When they can build in Ireland at 11% compared to 39% here? Taxing capitol gains has the same effect,who will buy market shares to have their profits taxed away. Your 401K's are now indanger,that is where they get their profit from,capitol gains made by corporations.

stormerF 19.5 - No matter what you tell people, they just don't seem to understand. I really don't see the economy getting better as we get into the campaign season, and since this is the second year of the Obama-age, they can't blame Repubs and Bush anymore. So hopefully Dems will have to pay the price and lose enough votes that their liberal causes and president will be kept in check until 2012 when we can vote out Obama and more of them in Congress.

Agree Wholeheartedly!!!

You are certainly right but it is not an excuse to fight HRC. Should we demand that everyone get a healthy life long retirement check for a four year career? Should we insist that we all have the right to vote ourselves pay increases regardless of the economy? Should we all be excused for the same particular crimes that our congress people are immune? If that is your point, write or call your republican representative. Don't hold your breath or get terribly upset if they ignore you.

Commonsense, 20.2 - Why just call your "Republican" representative? If you are implying it is just Repubs, that's a bit disingenuous. It seems to me that it's the Dems who are in the news for not paying taxes and keeping money in their freezer. Why didn't the Dems do anything to cut out the Medicare fraud and waste when they took power in 2006? Why didn't the Dems do anything to regulate Fannie and Freddie when they took power in 2006?

You gotta fight that urge! That's what they want to hear from us. Don't give up and don't give in!!!

Your success depends on many things. Were you fortunate enough to start your adult life in a healthy economy? Were your parents able to pay for higher education? Were you blessed to be born with an exceptional aptitude for science, math or language? Were you lucky enough to be prepared exactly when that rare door of opportunity opened for you? Were you personally responsible for all of the above? If your answer to the last question is yes, you are a liar. You got every break! Without them, your success would be doubtful and many of your peers failed miserably even with all those breaks.

On the other side of the coin. Was it your fault that your adult life began in a depressed economy? Were your parents drunks or drug addicts? Were you genetically altered by the alcohol or drugs that your pregnant mother consumed? Did your mind become confused and your head ache at the mere mention of math, science or language? Did you jump at the opportunity to collect shopping carts at Walmart? Did you aggressively persue that opening at McDonalds to empty the garbage and clean the parking lot after working hard all day at Walmart? If your answer is yes to the last question, you are to be commended and you should be paid a living wage.

Most of us fit somewhere in between the most fortunate and the least fortunate. We didn't make straight A's. We had to work our way thru college if possible or settle for trade school. Some of us had to help our parents support our younger siblings or help our parents if they were elderly. During good times, we were able to afford house and car payments. During bad times we sometimes lost our jobs, our transportation and homes. We are the back-bone of America. The first group are too busy trying to feed themselves to recognize the wheel. The second group own the wheel. We are the ones to make the wheel go around.

All of this explains the need for a progressive tax system. Those that are fighting hunger and homelessness should not pay. Those that face raising families on a modest income should pay a modest share. Those that live a life of luxury and still bankroll most of their income should pay the the highest share of taxes.

Very good post commonsense, it really is...

But the whole problem is who usually gets stuck with supporting the poor, it's not the rich, it's you and I....the middle.

What is the use in striving for something when, in the end, it will just be taken away from you, one little piece at a time.

Mikkey #22 - What does the language say? It's pretty evident - $200,000 for an "individual" (that means 1) and $250,000 for couples filing jointly (that means combined).

I think I am beginning to understand why the American people don't see what a bull@!$%#ter Obama was and how this bill is a debacle and will be bad for the country.....

They will only allow for an additional $50K for a couple. Hmmm....sounds like a successful couple would be better off getting divorced and filing their taxes individually, that way they can keep up to $400K from the fruits of their labor. I don't think the current liberal government cares about preserving the institution of marriage anyway.

Please give me citations for the areas of the health care bill that you are quoting.

"It makes me sick to think that this has become a country where people feel entitled to whatever they want, regardless of what decisions they have made in life to earn it."

Does that statement include children, babies, people who have lost their jobs (and health care with it)? Did they make bad 'decisions'?

"So this bill will soak us with massive new taxes."

I take it you are referring to the Cadillac plans? I have a Cadillac plan, and I would have to pay taxes on about $2,000 a year - I believe that is worth it for over thirty million other people to have health care. But then, it isn't just about us, is it?

My sincere wishes that everything works out well for your daughter, I am the grandparent of a child with cancer. Yet, there are millions of children who do have any access to health care - they fall above the medicaid line and below being able to pay or insurance. I would want their parents and grandparents to feel like there is hope also.

In the end, this isn't a perfect bill, but it is a first step and I hope they have the guts to pass it.

HR3200 - the house bill

Pg 30 sec 123 Government will develop a committee to decide on treatment options for insurance plans to qualify to be in the exchange

Pg 72 - the government runs the exchange

pg 85 government committee is to set specifics of the benefit levels

pg 335 government mandates establishment of outcomes based measures (THIS IS WHERE THEY DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU GET TREATMENT BASED ON YOUR HEALTH ISSUES - THIS IS WHERE THE ELDERLY,& PEOLE WITH CHRONIC CONDITIONS ARE THROWN UNDER THE BUS - ESPECIALLY THE VERY YOUNG WITH SERIOUS ILLNESS)

Pg 145 - employers mush auto enroll employees into a government plan

BTW, they are looking at a 5% surtax on my family, removing the medicare cap, also raising the social security cap, eliminating home mortgage deductions and raising my income tax level, along with the 'cadillac plan' tax.

This has nothing to do with healthcare. It is nothing more than the government jacking up taxes, taking over the healthcare industry via underimbursing docs and hospitals until they have to be 'bailed out'/taken over. Then rationing care while they take everyone's money. In the name of helping the poor people.

We give to charity. We help people in need. But now the government is attacking MY FAMILY in the name of 'helping' other people. All we asked is to be left alone to be responsible for ourselves - which is what our Constitution is supposed to protect. Yes, we actually expect other people to be responsible for themselves and their families if they are of able mind and body. It's not our responsibility to be responsible for other 'grown-ups' and their many children they can't afford, in addition to being responsible for our own family.

Dear global...

Twenty-six Lies About H.R. 3200
A notorious analysis of the House health care bill contains 48 claims. Twenty-six of them are false and the rest mostly misleading. Only four are true.

August 28, 2009

Summary

Our inbox has been overrun with messages asking us to weigh in on a mammoth list of claims about the House health care bill. The chain e-mail purports to give "a few highlights" from the first half of the bill, but the list of 48 assertions is filled with falsehoods, exaggerations and misinterpretations. We examined each of the e-mail’s claims, finding 26 of them to be false and 18 to be misleading, only partly true or half true. Only four are accurate. A few of our "highlights":

• The e-mail claims that page 30 of the bill says that "a government committee will decide what treatments … you get," but that page refers to a "private-public advisory committee" that would "recommend" what minimum benefits would be included in basic, enhanced and premium insurance plans.
• The e-mail says that "non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services" but points to a provision that prohibits discrimination in health care based on "personal characteristics." Another provision explicity forbids "federal payment for undocumented aliens."
• It says "[g]overnment will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals." This provision isn’t about children with learning disabilities; instead, it pertains to restricted enrollment in "special needs" plans, a category of Medicare Advantage plans. Enrollment is already restricted. The bill extends the ability to do that.
• It claims that a section about "Community-based Home Medical Services" means "more payoffs for ACORN." ACORN does not provide medical home services. The e-mail interprets any reference to the word "community" to be some kind of payoff for ACORN. That’s nonsense.

Analysis

This chain e-mail claims to give a run-down of what’s in the House health care bill, H.R. 3200. Instead, it shows evidence of a reading comprehension problem on the part of the author. Some of our more enterprising readers have even taken it upon themselves to debunk a few of the assertions, sending us their notes and encouraging us to write about it. We applaud your fact-checking skills and your skepticism. And skepticism is warranted.

Chain e-mail: Subject: A few highlights from the first 500 pages of the Healthcare bill in congress Contact your Representatives and let them know how you feel about this. We, as a country, cannot afford another 1000 page bill to go through congress without being read. Another 500 pages to go. I have highlighted a few of the items that are down right unconstitutional. ⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full text ⬏

• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure! • Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed! • Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)• Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard. • Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer. • Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN) • Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange. • Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Health care Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans) • Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens • Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan. • Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter. • Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed. • Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages. • Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives. • Page 146: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families. • Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll • Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll • Page 167: Any individual who doesn’t’ have acceptable health care (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income. • Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them). • Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Health care Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records. • Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that. • Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected." • Page 241: Doctors: no matter what specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!) • Page 253: Government sets value of doctors’ time, their professional judgment, etc. • Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries. • Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs. • Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing! • Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions. • Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government. • Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies! • Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval. • Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN. • Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing. • Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc. • Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals. • Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone). • Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia? • Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time. • Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death. • Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends. • Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient’s health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT. • Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life. • Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN. • Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN. • Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage. • Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.

A few readers alerted us to the fact that a state representative in North Carolina, Rep. Curtis Blackwood, published a version of the e-mail in a newsletter to constituents, telling them that while going through e-mail, he came across "some interesting information on the Democrats’ big health care bill, H.R. 3200. … While this is federal legislation and not state, the topic is of enough significance that I thought many of you would be interested in reading it." We’d refer Rep. Blackwood to our special report on viral messages titled, "That Chain E-mail Your Friend Sent to You Is (Likely) Bogus. Seriously."

We can trace the origins of this collection of claims to a conservative blogger who issued his instant and mostly mistaken analyses as brief "tweets" sent via Twitter as he was paging through the 1,017-page bill. The claims have been embraced as true and posted on hundreds of Web sites, and forwarded in the form of chain e-mails countless times. But there’s hardly any truth in them. We’ll go through each of the claims in this message:

Claim: Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!

False: This section merely requires a study of “the large group insured and self-insured employer health care markets.” There’s no mention of auditing employers, only of studying “markets.” The purpose of the study is to produce “recommendations” to make sure the new law “does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure.”

Claim: Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!

False: This section says nothing whatsoever about “rationing” or anything of the sort. Actually, it’s favorable to families and individuals, placing an annual cap on what they could pay out of pocket if covered by a basic, “essential benefits package.” The limits would be $5,000 for an individual, $10,000 for a family.

Claim: Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)

False: Actually, the section starting on page 30 sets up a “private-public advisory committee” headed by the U.S. surgeon general and made up of mostly private sector “medical and other experts” selected by the president and the comptroller general. The advisory committee would have only the power “to recommend” what benefits are included in basic, enhanced and premium insurance plans. It would have no power to decide what treatments anybody will get. Its recommendations on benefits might or might not be adopted.

Claim: Page 42: The “Health Choices Commissioner” will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.

False: The new Health Choices Commissioner will oversee a variety of choices to be offered through new insurance exchanges. The bill itself specifies the “minimum services to be covered” in a basic plan, including prescription drugs, mental health services, maternity and well-baby care and certain vaccines and preventive services (pages 27-28). We find nothing in the bill that prevents insurance companies from offering benefits that exceed the minimums. In fact, the legislation allows (page 84) any company that offers an approved basic plan to offer also an “enhanced” plan, a “premium” plan and even a “premium plus” plan that could include vision and dental benefits.

Claim: Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.

False. That’s simply not what the bill says at all. This page includes "SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE," which says that "[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services." However, the bill does explicitly say that illegal immigrants can’t get any government money to pay for health care. Page 143 states: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." And as we’ve said before, current law prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in government health care programs.

Claim: Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.

False. There is no mention of any “National ID Healthcard” anywhere in the bill. Page 58 says that government standards for electronic medical transactions "may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card,” to show eligibility for services. Insurance companies typically issue such cards already, but if such a standard were issued the cards would need to be in a standard form readable by computers. The word “may” is used to permit such a standard, but it does not require one.

Claim: Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.

False. This section aims to simplify electronic payments for health services, the same sort of electronic payments that already are common for such things as utility bills or mortgage payments. The bill calls for the secretary of Health and Human Services to set standards for electronic administrative transactions that would "enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice." There is no mention of "individual bank accounts" nor of any new government authority over them. Also, the section does not say that electronic payments from consumers is required.

Claim: Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)

Misleading. Page 65 is the start of a section (SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES) that would set up a new federal reinsurance plan to benefit retirees and spouses covered by any employer plan, not just those run by labor unions or nonprofit groups. Specifically, it covers “retirees and . . . spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees” who are covered by “employment-based plans” that provide health benefits. It’s open to any “group health benefits plan that . . . is maintained by one or more employers, former employers or employee associations,” as well as voluntary employees’ beneficiary associations (page 66). Furthermore, the aim of the fund is to cut premiums, copays and deductibles for the retirees. Payment “shall not be used to reduce the costs of an employer.”

Claim: Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.

True. This page begins a section setting up a new, national Health Insurance Exchange through which individuals and employers may choose from a variety of private insurance plans, much like the system that now covers millions of federal workers. Any private insurance plans offered through this exchange must meet new federal standards. For example, such plans can’t deny coverage for preexisting medical conditions (page 19).

Claim: Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Health care Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)

Partly true. Nothing like this appears on page 84. No insurance company is required to sell plans through the exchange if it doesn’t want to. Any employer may choose to buy coverage elsewhere. In fact, the vast majority of employers will still be buying private plans through the normal marketplace, because only employers with 10 or fewer employees are even allowed to buy through the exchange in the first year. The limit rises to 20 employees in the second year. However, new plans sold directly to individuals will only be sold through the exchange. Individuals who currently buy their own coverage can keep those plans if they wish, and if the insurance company continues to offer them.

Claim: Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens

Misleading. It’s true that page 91 says that insurance companies selling plans through the new exchange “shall provide for culturally and linguistically appropriate communication and health services.” The author’s “translation,” however, assumes that anyone speaking a foreign language or from another culture is an illegal immigrant, which is false.

Claim: Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.

False: This page is the start of “SEC. 205. OUTREACH AND ENROLLMENT OF EXCHANGE-ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS AND EMPLOYERS IN EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN.” It says a newly established Health Choices Commissioner “shall conduct outreach activities” to get people covered by private or government health insurance plans. The section says on page 97 that the Commissioner “may work with other appropriate entities to facilitate … provision of information.” But there is no authorization anywhere in the entire section for the Commissioner to pay money to any group to engage in outreach.

Claim: Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.

Partly true. Page 102 says certain Medicaid-eligible persons will be “automatically enrolled” in Medicaid (which is the state-federal program to provide insurance to low-income workers and families) IF they are not already covered by private insurance. That would happen only if they had “not elected to enroll” in one of the private plans offered through the new insurance exchanges, however. So on paper at least, they would have a choice. Also, it’s estimated that one in four persons who lacks health insurance is already eligible for Medicaid or its offshoot, the state Children’s Health Insurance Program, but simply haven’t signed up or been enrolled by their parents.

Claim: Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No “judicial review” is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.

Half true. It’s true that page 124 forbids any review by the courts of rates the government would pay to doctors and hospitals under the new “public option” insurance plan. But there’s no mention of “price fixing” in the bill; that’s the e-mail author’s phrase. It also remains to be seen if the “public option” plan would grow to become a “government monopoly,” as the author predicts.

Claim: Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.

Misleading. Nothing in the bill would “set wages” for doctors in general. Page 127 says the government would ask doctors to accept below-market rates set by the government for their patients who are covered by a new “public health insurance option,” just as they now are asked to do so for patients covered by Medicare. Physicians would still be free to charge what they wish for other patients, and free not to accept patients covered by the new program just as they are now free to refuse Medicare patients. That’s not a choice many doctors make, however, so as a practical matter the government would be setting rates (not “wages”) for many patients. On the other hand, the new “public” plan is aimed mainly at covering people who have no insurance now and can afford to pay doctors little if anything.

Claim: Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.

False. It’s true that employers would be required to sign up their workers for coverage automatically, but it doesn’t have to be the “public plan.” It would be the employer-offered plan “with the lowest applicable employee premium” (pages 147- 148). This would only be the "public option" if the employer was eligible to buy coverage through the Health Insurance Exchange (not likely, at least during the first two years when only small businesses would have access), and the "public option" was the cheapest plan (which would be likely). Furthermore, while the employer isn’t given an alternative, the workers are. They may reject auto-enrollment under an opt-out provision (page 148).

Claim: Page 146: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.

Half true. There’s nothing in this section about part-time employees’ families, but this provision does call for employers to contribute toward part-time employees’ health insurance. The bill says that “for an employee who is not a full-time employee … the amount of the minimum employer contribution” will be a proportion of the minimum contribution for full-time employees. This proportion will depend on the average weekly hours of part-time employees compared with the minimum weekly hours required to be a full-time employee, as specified by the Health Choices Commissioner. (For a point of reference: The minimum contribution for individual plans of full-time employees is not less than 72.5 percent of the premium of the cheapest plan the employer offers.)

Claim: Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll Claim: Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll.

Both Partly True. The bill requires employers either to offer private health insurance coverage or pay a percentage of their payroll expenses to help finance a public plan. The 8 percent payment would indeed apply to employers with payrolls over $400,000 in the previous year, and lesser amounts would apply to smaller firms. Those with payrolls of $250,000 or less would pay nothing. But the penalty isn’t incurred if an employer "does not offer the public option," as the e-mail claims. Rather, it’s a penalty for not offering health insurance to employees.

Claim: Page 167: Any individual who doesn’t have acceptable health care (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.

True. This is the mechanism in the bill to enforce the individual mandate requiring everyone to have insurance. A person who doesn’t have insurance that meets minimum benefit standards (or other acceptable coverage, such as a plan that was grandfathered in) would pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income for the year. The total penalty can’t exceed a national average premium for individual coverage, or family coverage if applicable.

Claim: Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).

False. “Non-resident aliens” are generally those who have spent less than 31 days in the U.S. during the year. The claim that “Americans will pay for them” assumes that such visitors would somehow be getting federal benefits that would cost taxpayers money. In any case, they are not “exempt from individual taxes” at all. Under current law, the Internal Revenue Service says: “If you are a nonresident alien, you must file Form 1040NR (PDF) or Form 1040NR-EZ (PDF) if you are engaged in a trade or business in the United States, or have any other U.S. source income on which the tax was not fully paid by the amount withheld.” All that page 170 says is that non-resident aliens who don’t obtain health coverage don’t have to pay an additional 2.5 percent federal tax that would apply to U.S. workers who fail to get coverage, or to immigrants who are working here legally under green cards and who fail to obtain coverage. The tax is spelled out in subsection (a) starting on page 167.

Claim: Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Health care Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.

False. This section of the bill discusses “Disclosures To Carry Out Health Insurance Exchange Subsidies.” It says that government employees of the health insurance exchange will have access to federal tax information for purposes of determining eligibility for affordability credits available for low- and moderate-income Americans. In other words, in order to qualify for a government subsidy to purchase health insurance, the government needs to confirm your income. And, no surprise, the government already has access to your federal tax information. The bill also says nothing about “ALL … financial and personal records.” Instead it says “Such return information shall be limited to—(i) taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer, (ii) the filing status of such taxpayer, (iii) the modified adjusted gross income of such taxpayer (as defined in section 59B(e)(5)), (iv) the number of dependents of the taxpayer, (v) such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof).” The bill goes on to limit use of this information “only for the purposes of, and to the extent necessary in, establishing and verifying the appropriate amount of any affordability credit … and providing for the repayment of any such credit which was in excess of such appropriate amount.”

Claim: Page 203: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.” Yes, it really says that.

Misleading. What this actually says is: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55,” which deals with the Alternative Minimum Tax. It would limit the ripple effects of the new taxes the bill would impose on individuals making over $350,000 a year.

Claim: Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected. Claim: Page 241: Doctors: no matter what specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)

Both False. Both of these claims pertain to Section 1121, which updates the physician fee schedule for 2010 for Medicare. It doesn’t "reduce physician services for Medicaid" (which wouldn’t pertain to seniors anyway); instead it modifies a section of the Social Security Act that defines physicians’ services. The section also doesn’t say that doctors will be paid the same “no matter what specialty you have.” Instead it sets up two categories of physician services with different growth rates for fees under those categories. As the Kaiser Family Foundation says of this section of the bill: "Allows the revised formula to be updated by the gross domestic product (GDP) plus 2% for evaluation and management services and GDP plus 1% for all other services." The measure will cost $228.5 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation.

Claim: Page 253: Government sets value of doctors’ time, their professional judgment, etc.

Misleading. It’s true that page 253 refers to “relative value units” to be used when determining payment rates for doctor’s services, and that such RVUs would weigh factors “such as time, mental effort and professional judgment, technical skill and physical effort, and stress due to risk.” But this is nothing new; the government already uses RVUs when setting rates it will pay under Medicare. For example, the RVUs assigned to a colonoscopy are currently double the RVUs assigned to an intermediate office visit. In fact, page 253 is part of a section (Sec. 1122) that sets up a process for correcting existing but “potentially misvalued” rates.

Claim: Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.

Misleading. This claim doesn’t even make sense. How can anyone "mandate” that somebody else be productive, or “control” how productive they are? The author has simply misunderstood what this controversial item would do. In fact, page 265 is the start of a section (Sec. 1131) that is among several designed to slow future growth of Medicare payments to help offset the cost of the bill. It would require that “productivity improvements” be taken into account when setting annual “market basket” updates to Medicare rates for hospital-based services. The hospital industry has estimated this would translate into a 1.3 percent cut next year and a total of $150 billion in reduced payments over 10 years, and is opposed to it.

Claim: Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.

Misleading. What page 268 does is to stop Medicare for paying for “mobility scooters,” which have been widely marketed as a Medicare-financed benefit, leading to ballooning costs to the program. They would no longer qualify as a “power-driven wheelchair.” Only a "complex rehabilitative power-driven wheel chair recognized by the Secretary” would be covered. The Congressional Budget Office estimates this will save the government $800 million over 10 years (see page 2).

Claim: Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!

False. This page merely calls for a study of whether a certain class of hospitals incur higher costs than some others for the cancer care they deliver. It also says the secretary of HHS “shall provide for an appropriate adjustment” in payments “to reflect those higher costs.” It’s hardly “rationing” to pay hospitals more to compensate for higher costs.

Claim: Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.

True: This does say that “the Secretary shall reduce the payments” to hospitals with too many “potentially preventable” readmissions of patients that they previously had discharged.

Claim: Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.

False. That section is part of a list of potential physician-centered approaches to reducing excess hospital readmissions. The bill states that the secretary of Health and Human Services will conduct a study on the best ways to enforce readmissions policies with physicians. One of the approaches the secretary must consider is the option to reduce payments to physicians whose treatment results in a hospital readmission. Another is the option to increase payments to physicians who check up on recently released patients. Neither of these approaches is mandated in the bill – what’s mandated is that the secretary consider them, among others.

Claim: Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!

False. It’s already illegal, with certain exceptions, for doctors to refer Medicare patients to hospitals, labs, medical imaging facilities or other such medical businesses in which they hold a financial interest. Page 317 would modify an exception to that “self-referral prohibition” for rural providers, and says doctors can’t increase their stake in an exempt hospital after the bill becomes law.

Claim: Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.

False. Expansion is forbidden only for rural, doctor-owned hospitals that have been given a waiver from the general prohibition on self-referral. It does not apply to hospitals in general. The bill provides for exceptions to even this limited expansion ban (page 321).

Claim: Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on “community” input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.

False. Page 321 says rural, doctor-owned hospitals that are exempt from the Medicaid self-referral prohibition can ask to be allowed to expand under rules that must allow “input” from “persons or entities in the community.” Under that language, anybody in the community could offer their opinion, but nobody – not ACORN or anybody else – would be paid for it.

Claim: Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.

Misleading. This section does deal with establishing quality measures for Medicare. It does not make any recommendations for treatment, or empower anyone to make treatment recommendations based on those measures. The only effect of these outcome-based measures established in the bill would be ranking and potential disqualification of underperforming Medicare Advantage plans – that’s disqualification of the plans, not of any medical procedures.

Claim: Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.

True. The bill allows for the possibility of disqualifying underperforming Medicare Advantage plans, which include Medicare HMOs. Medicare Advantage plans are private health plans that provide Medicare benefits. Under the bill, the secretary of Health and Human Services has the authority to disallow plans that are providing low-quality care under the new quality measures (which include evaluations of patient health, mortality, safety and quality of life). If a plan is disqualified, this will not leave seniors without care. The Kaiser Family Foundation reports that “virtually all” Medicare beneficiaries have access to at least two Medicare Advantage plans, and most have access to three or more. In 2008, 82 percent of beneficiaries had access to six or more private fee-for-service plans, one type of Medicare Advantage plan (along with HMOs, PPOs and medical spending accounts). Beneficiaries are also always free to return to the regular Medicare fee-for-service program.

Claim: Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.

Misleading. Insurance companies already restrict enrollment in so-called “special needs” plans, a special category of Medicare Advantage plans that were created in 2003. Page 354 merely extends the authority to do that beyond the end of next year, when it was set to expire. Furthermore, what’s being restricted isn’t the number of patients, but the type of patients. Plans can be restricted to accepting only those patients who fall into in one or more special categories. These include those who are institutionalized (think, nursing homes), those who qualify both for Medicare and Medicaid (think, both low-income and over age 65) and those with severe or disabling chronic conditions such as diabetes, emphysema, chronic heart failure or dementia. And of course, this has nothing to do with children with learning problems.

Claim: Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).

Misleading. The advisory committee would not be a “bureaucracy” or have any administrative functions, but instead would bring together experts from the private sector to give advice on how Medicare and Medicaid should treat the practice of medicine via telecommunication, something used in rural hospitals and such places as cruise ships, battlefield settings and even on NASA space missions. Pages 380-381 call for the committee to consist of five “practicing physicians,” two “practicing non-physician health care workers” and two “administrators of telehealth programs.”

Claim: Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia? Claim: Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time. Claim: Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death Claim: Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends. Claim: Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient’s health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT. Claim: Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.

All False. These six claims are a twisted interpretation of a provision in the bill that says Medicare will cover voluntary counseling sessions between seniors and their doctors to discuss end-of-life care. Medicare doesn’t pay for such sessions now; it would under the bill. End-of-life care discussions include talking about a living will, hospice care, designating a health care proxy and making decisions on what care you want to receive at the end of your life. Doctors do the consulting, not the "government" or a "bureaucracy." The e-mail author’s assertion that the bill calls for "an ORDER from the GOVERNMENT" for end-of-life plans rests on language about a patient drawing up such an order stipulating their wishes, and having that order signed by a physician. There’s nothing about "an order from the government." The bill defines an order for life-sustaining treatment as a document that "is signed and dated by a physician …[and] effectively communicates the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment." See our article "False Euthanasia Claims" for more on such assertions.

Claim: Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.

False. This section defines the term "community-based medical home" as a "nonprofit community-based or State-based organization" that "provides beneficiaries with medical home services." ACORN does not provide medical home services. The section goes on to say such a medical service is one that "employs community health workers, including nurses or other non-physician practitioners, lay health workers, or other persons as determined appropriate by the Secretary, that assist the primary or principal care physician or nurse practitioner in chronic care management activities." The only thing ACORN has in common with that description is the word "community." It’s a community organization that offers services such as free tax preparation help and first-time home buyer counseling for low- and moderate-income people. It also works to register people to vote, and a few of its canvassers have been investigated for registration fraud, a point of concern during the presidential campaign.

Claim: Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.

False. This section is referring to community-based medical homes.

Claim: Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.

Half true. It’s true that pages 489 and 490 make state-licensed “marriage and family therapist” services a covered expense “for the diagnosis and treatment of mental illnesses.” But the therapists wouldn’t be employed by the government, and there’s no requirement for anybody to receive their help. So the claim that this would mean that “government intervenes in your marriage” is false.

Claim: Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.

Misleading. The provision amends Section 1861 of the Social Security Act laying out what services Medicare will cover. It expands coverage for mental health services, stipulating that a "mental health counselor" who can perform mental health counseling is someone with a master’s or doctorate degree, a state license, and two years of practice as a counselor. Is this the government "defining" mental health services? Well, it’s certainly the government defining what government programs will cover.

http://factcehck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/

Wow wee. Lots of details. The real question for me is, if this bill is so awesome, why can't the Democrats get their own party members to vote for this?

And why is Nancy considering the "Deemed Passed" procedure to avoid appearing like any of them voted for it?

See, when a government needs 2700 pages to "fix" something, and the "fix" was written by an outside group, and the changes they are continuing to make add costs and reduce revenue, I just have a fundamental problem trusting these people.

The HSA model used in Singapore works. Why not simply adopt that model? Way less paperwork, nearly zero government control, no need to add hundreds if not thousands of new Federal Employees during a RECESSION.

No, sorry, criticize the criticizers all you like, this is bad legislation, if it weren't they would have easily passed it last year.

My goodness, factcheck.org. Might as well reference Maddow for all that's worth. It's so full of half truths, it's astonishing. It should be called propagandapush.org or obamacheck.org

For example when you reference that you don't have to go on a government plan, it was left out that the only 'qualifying plans' you can go on are all government plans, with the same government committee controlling the 'qualifying' care you receive.

Nevermind. I must try to remember that the average IQ in the U.S. is 100. There is no reasoning with that. Anyone below 120 can't even understand the implications of this bill, or understand the difference between -- you don't have to pick a government plan, but oops, the only ones you can choose from are ALL government controlled plans, or they don't qualify to be a legal 'option'.

How soon we forget the government panel who recommended women under age 50 not have mamograms,when 15% of women age 40-50 develop breast cancer,guess the government panel will just let them die or lose their breasts instead of paying for un-needed mamograms. You really want the government making your health care decisions? Be ready to suffer the conseqences.

This is the same Government that determines that the death of innocent children in other countries is simply "collateral damage" when they fire missiles down on their homes. I spent 3 decades protecting this country on the streets of America and abroad. I NEVER was taught that it was OK to destroy a home with innocent children inside to get a bad guy. The infamous MAFIA did not allow such indiscriminate killing. Can our government lawfully order the death of foreign innocents, especially children? If it is OK to do this in other countries then why not have the government determine when life shall end in this country? "Humane" abortions and euthanasia are nothing more than sanitized versions of Hitler's actions against "inferiors". If you do not think that a self righteous cabal of faceless government bureaucrats could not and would not conduct "humane" methods of "efficiently" managing our healthcare system then you are both blind and naive.

Human life is the essence of freedom. When the end of our lives is determined by others whether it is by "collateral damage" or "humane" methods the result is the same...the death of freedom.

Maga, 23.3 - You are wrong, he is right. Go to the house bill at pp. 89-90

(b) REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS.—On or after the first day of Y1, a health benefits plan shall not be a qualified health benefits plan under this division unless the plan meets the applicable requirements of the following subtitles for the type of plan and plan year involved:

(1) Subtitle B (relating to affordable coverage).

(2) Subtitle C (relating to essential benefits).

(3) Subtitle D (relating to consumer protection).

Then read:

SEC. 221. COVERAGE OF ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—A qualified health benefits plan shall provide coverage that at least

meets the benefit standards adopted under section 224 for the essential benefits package described in section 222 for the plan year involved.

Then turn to Section 22 beginning on page 104, where it tells carriers what has to be in the plans.

Of course, they are going to tell you it is all spin and lies.

stormerf, you are so right. They were floating those out there to get us ready and gauge response. Just Google Great Britain and healthcare and NICE and find the stories. Not from our press, but from over there. The press releases saying NIH has no longer approved payment for this or will only pay for that. People don't see it coming but you are right - it will. And then they will all scream because they followed these idiot liberal social engineers over the cliff. I wish Tom Daschle had not stepped down as the person Obama had wanted to oversee this overhaul because at least we could point to his book as the example of where they want us to go, which includes the idea that care has to be rationed - just like in Gr. Britain. Emanuel's brother believes the same, if not more radical, but he has been kept in the shadows. If the MSM had done their jobs, they would have investigated more and pushed the issue more instead of gushing over how wonderful and historical this moment is. There are many things that have been historical in the world but only found to be bad in retrospect.

The only good thing - all these Dems and Obama are on tape and video so there is NO WAY to distance themselves when this all goes south and doesn't help the economy. And, when people are discussing the negative effects this bill has had on our country years from now, Obama will be alive to hear it because he is so young today. He will still be around to hear people trashing him.

'

And I took an oath to defend this country against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC (THAT MEANS YOU!!). Go ahead and try. We have a hellfire missle waiting for you.

The Traitors are in Washington and on Wall Street... I probly took that oath to protect the US Constitution... before you were a crappin in your Diaper.

Mark Twain said it best" politicans are like diapers and need to be changed frequently for the same reason".