Posted on 07/24/2009 3:12:23 PM PDT by CMS
I posted that section when the bill first came out. Let me go see if I can find my post.
I see someone pointed to the bank account info. What I had posted a while back was about how they are going to be able to access your IRS records and whatever else they want in the guise of trying to determine if you are eligible. If interested it is here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2295163/posts?page=84#84
Thanks for putting this together...and ruining another night’s sleep. Just kidding.
Nice work.
I doubt you’ll find many “sheep” on FR. I’ve read the entire bill, have you? If you had you’d realize that being a nurse in no way qualifies you to interpret the legalese that our legislation is written in, somehow better than the rest of us can. Everyone of the author’s points can be found in the bill. I recognized every bullet point, and took the time to go to that section of the bill and verify. They did an excellent job of summarizing what this bill will create. We SHOULD be very scared, and if you’re not, then you just might be one of those sheep. I’ve lived under socialized medicine and spent two years in a wheelchair that I shouldn’t have had to, while I waited for a surgery that I was told was too expensive. The only reason I got that surgery (and the surgery needed to fix what they botched in the first one) was because I happened to be friends with the V.P. of the AMA. He had friends in the right places that got me the surgery I needed. Without that help, I’d still be in that wheelchair or, probably worse. Government control of any part of our healthcare IS scary. My husband would also tell you that the V.A.’s socialized medical system causes these same kind of horror stories over and over again. They are understaffed, underpaid, and over regulated, and people die because of it. Or they get the wrong leg removed in a botched surgery. That happened at the VA here just recently. Have a lawyer walk you through the bill if you think there is nothing scary in there.
Appreciate the article, and it is frightening. The key piece of information is the bill number from which this was distilled. I found seven bills on this topic that had been introduced in the House and referred to committee. I would like to know which this came from, if you know.
I am generally opposed to having the government involved in the health-care business, but I have been unable to make any informed decisions based on the hyperbole and diatribe in the media, so I began looking for information about HR 3200, including the bill itself. In the process, I came across your post, which was “recommended” by another site because it was written by someone “who can translate government double-speak”. Indeed, your “gems” are succinct and direct, and quite frightening, leading me with even greater urgency to the bill itself. I have not yet read the entire legislation, but I did research the “gems” which you had highlighted in red, as they seemed to be more urgent.
Unfortunately, I have found so far that you are doing the same thing that the media is doing with this: taking items out of context or otherwise giving them a “spin” of your own. You are certainly entitled to your opinion and your own interpretation of the contents of this bill, but your “authoritative” style in this post is, sadly, misleading. Note that I am not saying that I support the legislation, but allow me to point out where I believe that you have given incomplete or inaccurate assessments of the bill’s provisions.
Page 59 says that the containing section is to be used to develop guidelines and standards “so as to... enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice”. This sounds to me like the government paying the health care provider, not having “access to all individual bank accounts”.
On page 203, you have fun with the line, “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax”. Although it does say that, it says more, which you seem to have omitted. It says that the tax imposed *under this section* shall not be treated as tax imposed *by this chapter* *for the purposes of determining... any credit*”. In other words, in the middle of a chapter describing a particular tax and related credit is a section which describes a completely different tax, one which is *not* to be treated as contributing toward the calculation of the credit. It’s technical, but your version is not just simpler, it is incomplete and therefore misleading.
Page 427 is in the middle of a long and complex section, but I do not see where in it that “the government dictates how [my] life ends”. Rather, it amends the Social Security Act by adding a new definition of a service that is available (not mandated): that of Advance Care Planning Consultation. The “orders” described in this section are the wishes of the patient, put into official legal and medical form, and signed by the physician. Many people do this already (i.e. living wills); this seems to me to just make it an official part of the Medicare Act so that it is available under a covered individual’s insurance.
This applies to your comment about page 429 as well, on which it clearly states (line 17) that such an order, “effectively communicates the *individual’s* preferences regarding life sustaining treatment”. This is similar to a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) order or a living will, just formalized into the official text and provisions of the Medicare Act.
In summary, I thank you for what I am sure are well-intentioned efforts to help people understand a complex piece of legislation, but I am afraid that your summaries have not helped me, and I will continue to read the bill itself and make my own decisions about what it does or does not provide.
If anyone would like to actually read the bill and make an educated opinion for themselves, here is the link. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.pdf
It is actually unbelievable that people read this stuff and believe it without checking the information for themselves. One of the highlighted portions of this list states, “’The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.’ Yes, it really says that.” This is completely true. What is left out is that the “tax” is a tax on individuals that are not already covered by insurance and refuse to get coverage from either public or private insurance providers. The tax is a 2.5% tax on gross adjusted income for those that refuse the choice to get coverage. The tax then goes into the Health Insurance Trust Fund to provide affordability credits for those on a need-based sliding scale—that is why it is not deemed a tax since it goes directly to funding health care, not to the Treasury. Basically, those who are taxed are paying for the insurance of others that sign up for affordability credits, so they might as well be paying for their own insurance with the money instead of getting taxed for something they are freely choosing to deny.
This is just one fact out of the list that is misleading. I’m neither for or against the bill right now, but I look up the facts and make a decision for myself. I hope that everyone else in America will do the same. I suggest you find your own qualms with the bill, create an educated argument against the sections you find unworthy, and send it to your representative so that they can fix it.
Good shootin’, Jim
I read through all of these and if this is true we are in for a world of hurt. But, are these really true? I asked my doctor 3 days ago about the item “all doctors get paid the same regardless of their speciality” and he said that was not true.
So my questions is this: Where can I find and download the real healthcare bill so I can double check all of these bits of information?
When you come on to a new forum, it’s not a good idea to start the conversation by shouting invectives.
I have a job, four children and am an OCS candidate. I do *not* have time to read a 1000+ bill. I know what the issues are with our healthcare system and understand from those I trust, including my representative who I know personally, that this law does not address those issues.
If you want to debate, start out with a reasonable discussion. Starting by shouting at those on this site is rude and unacceptable.
Apparently what the American people want no longer matters...unfortunately.
Well, I expalined just a few of the "benefits" such as IRS access to their bank account, senior "life counciling", higher taxes, rationing, etc. She became very pale and said she had no idea and never heard any of this on TV news.
I replied, "Why would the news media give you the negative information about obamaCare?"
I think she's beginning to get the fact communism is on the way....
Can’t afford to “kick the can down the road”! Health care now!
Sincerely,
Ellie Light
/OFA
LOL
Nice job bumping a thread from last year, ye who signed up on March 14.
zot time
NC stands for No charge Donna? Funny!
sigh...
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.