RUSH: A Duke Professor Explains WHAT THE HEALTH CARE BILL ACTUALLY SAYS

www.rushlimbaugh.com ^ | Wednesday, August 12, 2009 | Rush Limbaugh

[Yosemitest]

RUSH: This is a must-read written by an ordinary citizen.

A Duke Professor Explains What the Health Care Bill Actually Says
August 12, 2009

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, what I have here is very long.
I cannot read the entire thing. But there are summaries that I can read.
This is a piece entitled,
"What the Health Care Bill Actually Says,"
and it was put together by John David Lewis.
It is from the website Classical Ideals.
John David Lewis is a professor of classics at Duke University,
and here is how he introduces his analysis:
"What does the bill, HR 3200, short-titled 'America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,' actually say about major health care issues?
I here pose a few questions in no particular order,
citing relevant passages and offering a brief evaluation after each set of passages.

"This bill is 1017 pages long.
It is knee-deep in legalese and references to other federal regulations and laws.
I have only touched pieces of the bill here.
For instance, I have not considered the establishment of
(1) 'Health Choices Commissioner' (Section 141);
(2) a 'Health Insurance Exchange,' (Section 201), basically a government run insurance scheme to coordinate all insurance activity;
(3) a Public Health Insurance Option (Section 221); and similar provisions.
This is the evaluation of someone who is neither a physician nor a legal professional.
I am citizen, concerned about this bill's effects on my freedom as an American.
I would rather have used my time in other ways
-- but this is too important to ignore.
We may answer one question up front:
How will the government ... pay for all this?

"Higher taxes, more borrowing, printing money, cutting payments, or rationing services
-- there are no other options.
We will all pay for this, enrolled in the government 'option' or not."
So, when we talk about how we're going to pay for it,
"How will the government ... pay for all this?"
it's all of the following:
"Higher taxes, more borrowing, printing money, cutting payments, or rationing services
-- there are no other options" to pay for it.
"We will all pay for this, enrolled in the government 'option' or not."
The first question that he wanted to discover here is:
"Will the plan ration medical care?"
Then he cites the relevant passages from the bill
and then evaluates the passages in real language,
not the legalese that he found.
This section, rationing medical care:


"1. This section amends the Social Security Act.
2. The government has the power to determine what constitutes an 'applicable [medical] condition.'
3. The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.
4. This determination will be made by statistics:
when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted."
In other words, there's nothing personal about this.
That's why Obama's answer to the woman with the 100-year-old mother,
"Are you gonna take into account the spunk and spirit, the will to live?"
was,
"I don't think we can do that."
It's going to be statistic based.
"5. This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up."


There is no other way to analyze this section of the bill.
"6. There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts."
All this language is in this piece.
The language from the bill is from the piece.
I'm not just going to read that to you.
I'm reading his evaluation, stripping away the legalese, what it all means.
"7. The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission:
page 317-318."
The next question that the classics professor at Duke researched is:
"Will the plan punish Americans who try to opt out?"
and then he gives the relevant portions from the bill as it's written
followed by his evaluation.
Number one... Remember the question here is:
"Will the plan punish Americans who try to opt out?
... 1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.
"2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax."

Now, this we know.
We've seen this ourselves.
"3. The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan,"
as written in this bill.
The IRS will be a major enforcer.
The next section that he analyzed:
"What constitutes 'acceptable' coverage?"
Because, in the previous passage the bill said:
"Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax"
So, what is "'acceptable' coverage"?
Here are the relevant passages, sentences from the bill.
"Evaluation of the passages.
1. The bill defines 'acceptable coverage' and leaves no room for choice in this regard.
2. By setting a minimum 70% actuarial value of benefits,
the bill makes health plans in which
individuals pay for routine services,
but carry insurance only for catastrophic events,
(such as Health Savings Accounts)
illegal."


Let me read that again:
"1. The bill defines 'acceptable coverage' and leaves no room for choice in this regard.
2. By setting a minimum 70% actuarial value of benefits,
the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services"
out of their own pockets,
"but carry insurance only for catastrophic events ... illegal."
That is one of the solutions to the problem we have now.
Pay for what you want
-- a standard checkup, a standard visit to the doctor
-- and catastrophic insurance for when that could break your bank.
Doing that will be illegal in the House bill.
In other words, paying for your own routine day-to-day services
but only having insurance for catastrophic events will be illegal.
The next section that our classics professor, an average citizen, was curious about:
"Will the PLAN destroy private health insurance?"
Here is what it requires, for businesses with payrolls greater than $400,000 per year.
(The bill uses 'contribution' to refer to mandatory payments to the government plan.)


"Pages 149-150, SEC. 313, EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE,"
and then the relevant passages from the bill.
Here is the evaluation of those passages.
Again, what we're talking about here is:
"Will the PLAN destroy private health insurance?"
"1. The bill does not prohibit a person from buying private insurance.
2. Small businesses -- with say 8-10 employees -- will either have to provide insurance to federal standards,
or pay an 8% payroll tax.
Business costs for health care are higher than this, especially considering administrative costs.
Any competitive business that tries to stay with a private plan
will face a payroll disadvantage against competitors who go with the government 'option.'"
Now, let me explain this.
Small businesses, say eight-to-ten employees, will either have to provide insurance up "to federal standards."
If they don't, they will pay an ADDITIONAL 8% payroll tax.

"Business costs for health care are higher than [what will be charged], especially considering administrative costs.
Any competitive business that tries to stay with a private plan
will face a payroll disadvantage against competitors who go with the government 'option.'"
If they go to the government option, they're fine.
If you don't and you stay private, you're going to pay a penalty.
The penalty will make it ridiculous and stupid business-wise to stay with your private plan.
Therefore, you will -- your small business will -- be forced out of private insurance onto the government option.
"3. The pressure for business owners to terminate the private plans will be enormous,"
the financial pressure, the business pressure.
"4. With employers ending plans,
millions of Americans will lose their private coverage,
and fewer companies will offer it."


Now, none of this is anything new.
Everybody showing up at these town halls knows this.
This is nothing that has already been learned when discussing it.
That's why when Obama is saying,
"If you like your plan you can keep it",
it's not true,
because the meat and potatoes of the bill is going to make it impossible.
If your private plan is from an employer,
your employer is going to find it very difficult
to hold onto private insurance and remain competitive with businesses
that opt out and go in the government option.
When Barney Frank or Obama himself says,
"We can't do this immediately.
It's going to take 10 to 15 years,"
this is what they're talking about:
Eventually forcing small businesses and others out of private insurance
because they won't be able to remain competitive with competitors who go the public option.


"5. The Commissioner (meaning, always, the bureaucrats) will determine
whether a particular network of physicians, hospitals and insurance is acceptable"
even if you do stay private.
many people enrolled in the government 'option'
will have no place else to go" if they don't like it.
So all this talk from Obama about adding to competition
is the exact opposite,
which is what everybody who's read this understands
and which is why they know he's lying to them
when he says,
"If you like your plan you can keep it."
Another way to look at that,
"If you like your plan, you can keep it,"
is:
What if everybody decided to do that,
but he says the health care plan, the system we have now is unsustainable.
It's horrible.

Yet if you like your plan you can keep it?
How do those two go together?
The next question that our classics professor at Duke wanted to figure out by reading the bill:
"Does the plan TAX successful Americans more THAN OTHERS?
Here is what the bill says, pages 197-198,
SEC. 441. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS
'SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS,"
and then it has the legalese.
Here's the evaluation of what it says:
"1. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code.
2. Tax surcharges are levied on those with the highest incomes.
3. The plan manipulates the tax code to redistribute their wealth.
4. Successful business owners will bear the highest cost of this plan."
Successful small business owners, will bear the HIGHEST cost of this plan.


"Does THE PLAN ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO set FEES FOR SERVICES?
What it says, page 124,
Sec. 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES,"
and then the legalese of the bill.
The analysis or the evaluation:
"1. The government's authority to set payments is basically unlimited.
2. The official" commissioner, bureaucrats "will decide
what constitutes 'excessive,' 'deficient,' and 'efficient' payments and services.
Will THE PLAN increase the power of government officials to SCRUTINIZE our private affairs?
What it says, pages 195-196,
SEC. 431. DISCLOSURES TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUBSIDIES,"
then the legalese in the bill.

The evaluation:
"1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.
2. The bill OPENS UP income tax return information to federal officials.
3. Any stated 'limits' to such information are circumvented by item (v),
which allows federal officials to decide what information is needed.
4. Employers are required to report whatever information the government says it needs to enforce the plan,"
meaning your medical records, your employment records,
how you're living your life,
what kind of risk that's posing to the health care system.
Next:
"Does the plan automatically enroll Americans in the GOVERNMENT plan?
What it says, page 102,
Section 205, Outreach and enrollment of Exchange-eligible individuals and employers in Exchange-participating health benefits plan,"
then the legalese.
Here's the evaluation:
"1. Do nothing and you are in" the government plan.
"2. Employers are responsible for automatically enrolling people who still work.
Does THE PLAN exempt federal OFFICIALS from COURT REVIEW?

"What it says, page 124,
Section 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES,"
then the legalese and the evaluation.
"1. Sec. 1123 amends the Social Security Act,
to allow the Secretary to identify areas of the country
that underutilize the government's plan 'based on per capita spending.'
2. Parts of the plan are set ABOVE THE REVIEW of the courts."
So the question,
"Does THE PLAN exempt federal officials from court review?"
and parts of the plan do.
This is Mr. Lewis again.
His name is John David Lewis, professor of classics at Duke University.
He's a common, average citizen.
He's not a lawyer, not a doctor.
What this goes to show is,
just about anybody can figure out what's in this bill
if they just take the time to read it.
And a lot of people have,
and the people showing up at these town hall meetings saying "NO,"
already know what this bill says and the elements to it, or of it,
that I just shared with you.

END TRANSCRIPT

Read the Background Material...


Classical Ideals: The Health Care Bill: What HR 3200, 'America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009'- John David Lewis

Sweetness & Light: What The Health Care Bill Actually Says


*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.

[ForGod'sSake]

I've bigger foes to fight against...than you. And you do also.....

True enough and Freepers are nothing if not opinionated. I have no intentions of flogging a dead horse, but just what is the single largest problem conservatives face right now, or at any time for that matter? An out of control feral government? There's no question the federales have overstepped their constitutional limitations. However, that in and of itself is NOT the problem. It's what they have done as they overreached that is the problem. Primarily social(ist) engineering and social(ist) programs. The largest of which coincidentally is Medicare. Medicaid is running a close second and Social Security a distant third. These programs ARE the problem. Do we allow our masters in DC to continue placing bandaids on a gaping wound???

And you're right, I do rag on Freepers from time to time, but my brother and I still get into heated arguments occasionally also. And we're NOT spring chickens.

And good luck to you and yours.

[mojitojoe]

Great post! I copied them, will post them all over the internet. I hope others do the same.

[ForGod'sSake]

The federal government shouldn’t be involved in healthcare, since that would violate the 10th Amendment.

Just so, and would I be presumptious in assuming that to include Medicare?

Each state legislature should pass a law that would limit the amount that a person may sue, in malpractice lawsuits. If that happens, health insurance premiums, for patients, would decrease, and malpractice insurance premiums, for doctors, would decrease.

All of which I agree with. The individual states could do cradle to grave if they choose to, and some have essentially done that. It hasn't worked out so well from most accounts. Of course the lawyers are not going to do anything that would cut into their take. The situation I noted from reading another article on the subject is that there is something here called the American Law(?) that allows ANYONE to bring suit against anybody for just about anything. And the defendants always must pay for their own defense regardless of the merits OR the outcome of the suit. Even THAT wouldn't be nearly the problem it is were it not for the poor's ability to access free legal services from a plethora of sources.

[screaminsunshine]

We must get the Federal Government out of it 100%. The answer is...there is no government solution. Obama will lead us to the Cuban model. Everything is free but there isn’t any.

[AuntB]

“Woo HOO!! Go Gov. Goodhair!!”

Perry seems to be moving in the right direction on some things, I hope he keeps going.

[Osage Orange]

Many times in my years....I've thought, "Dagnabit, YOU should be doing more..because I am working my tail off!!"

When I find that everyone "runs" at different speeds....

Yeah, your points are totally noted. I actually think that SSI, and MediCare with THE Feds in "control" of it...have bankrupt the Government..among hundreds of other things...

And now THEY are lashing out....because THEY have screwed it up...but will NEVER admit it.

I just think there are way more FReepers out here...that totally get it. And it does no good to harp on them.....

Peace, Love, and Bobby Sherman...........

[TalonDJ]

And it does no good to harp on them.....

Exactly. As conservatives it is fair to assume most of us want to cut most of the federal government. Medicare, Medicaid, Social security, Welfare... the works. No sense in attacking us just because we don't list the programs we would like to see cut in every post.

[11th Commandment]

Behind the scenes this bill is scary. I have been reading and listening to Betsy McCaughey. What stands out about her is that the left actually attacks her and responds to her comments. In my mind that means she is on to something and they want to shut her up.... a lot like Palin.

Her most alarming warning is that this Bill is the most significant transfer of power from the legislative branch to the Executive Branch in US History. And now I read in this post that citizens will have no recourse in the Judicial Branch.

Health Care "Reform" is Obama's Enabling Act.

[oneamericanvoice]

“Based on the lack of response to your post it doesn’t look like even here on FR there are many who want to take a look behind the curtain.”

I think that Freepers are fired up just like alot of other people across the country. The seemingly small response should not be taken as contradictory to their passion and engagement.

[Lorianne]

Thank you very much for posting this.
I’ve been trying to find a source that deciphers the plan (with out hyperbole or sarcasm).

Thank you Dr Lewis.

[TheOldLady]

Thanks for the ping and the reference to wastoute's excellent post as well. My thoughts exactly, and Hubby and I are on it.

"Come and take them."

[Neil E. Wright]

"Based on the lack of response to your post it doesn't look like even here on FR there are many who want to take a look behind the curtain."

LISTEN you arrogant, condescending little prick, DO NOT presume to judge who gets it and who doesn't based on replies to a thread.

I've been fighting the beast for over 20 years. I've been arrested and gone to jail for my beliefs. WHAT THE F**k have you done for FREEDOM, besides pound your f&&&ing keyboard from your momma's basement????

Take me OFF your f'ing ping list. I don't need some snot nosed little puss like you contacting me further.

[rlmorel]

I wouldn’t draw that conclusion based on response to a thread. There is a lot going on and this is just one thread. Thanks for the ping, but your conclusion about reluctance to look behind the curtain is flawed.

[ForGod'sSake]

We must get the Federal Government out of it 100%. The answer is...there is no government solution.

Pretty much the way I see it. It's the same MO the left has used since, well, forever I suppose. Create a strawman problem, initiate an unconstitutional fix, allow it to grow to unsustainable levels, thereby requiring the need for another unconstitutional fix; rinse and repeat.

[ForGod'sSake]

You’re very gracious. Thank you.

[ForGod'sSake]

Health Care "Reform" is Obama's Enabling Act.

Would seem. The tentacles from this beast of a program reach into just about everything we can or will be involved in for the rest of our natural lives. I'm sure it would include low flush toilets were they not already mandated by the feral government.

[grey_whiskers]

I heard about this on Rush Limbaugh yesterday and didn't think anything else needed to be added...

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

I heard about this on Rush Limbaugh yesterday and didn't think anything else needed to be added...

Cheers!

[Pajamajan]

Thanks Rush. You da man!

[ForGod'sSake]

The seemingly small response should not be taken as contradictory to their passion and engagement.

Point taken. I guess maybe my frustration goes back a number of years on FR when this same subject was broached and received a collective yawn at best. I mean, there's a galactically large Medicare elephant sitting in the middle of the room that WILL bankrupt this country. I'll admit I could be overly sensitive about it, but I just wonder, where's the outrage?