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]

You’re welcome!

[ForGod'sSake]

Geez Neil, I realize I may have struck a nerve but don’t you think your response is a little over the top.

[ForGod'sSake]

Thanks for the ping, but your conclusion about reluctance to look behind the curtain is flawed.

I'll admit I could be wrong about this; it wouldn't be the first time. I'm going to search for a drop-dead article on the subject and post it to FR just to see what kind of response there is. Any bets?

[Yosemitest]

We know it's about control.
But DEMOCRATS NATIONAL SOCIALISTS can't handle the truth about health care.
So let's beat them to death with their own bill!!!

And just in case they forget who's fault it is ... that it's broken ...

Obama: "I Don't Want the Folks who Created the Mess to do a lot of Talking" "

Okay, then the DEMOCRATS need to shut up!!!

Lets review:

Who was it that moved Medicare Trust Funds out of the "trust box" and into the General Revenue, replacing them with Government I.O.U.s?
"In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson [DEMOCRAT] made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a"unified budget." "

Who was it that expanded Medicare and Medicaid to cover many, many more people than it was originally designed to cover?

The History of Medicare

In 1965, the Social Security Act established both Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare was a responsibility of the Social Security Administration (SSA), while Federal assistance to the State Medicaid programs was administered by the Social and Rehabilitation Service (SRS). SSA and SRS were agencies in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). In 1977, the Health Care Financing Administration was created under HEW to effectively coordinate Medicare and Medicaid. In 1980 HEW was divided into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The first U.S. President to propose a prepaid health insurance plan was Harry S. Truman [DEMOCRAT]. On November 19, 1945, in a special message to Congress, President Truman outlined a comprehensive, prepaid medical insurance plan for all people through the Social Security system. The plan included doctors and hospitals, and nursing, laboratory, and dental services; it was dubbed "National Health Insurance." Furthermore, medical insurance benefits for needy people were to be financed from Federal revenues.

Over the years, lawmakers narrowed the field of health insurance recipients largely to social security beneficiaries. A national survey found that only 56 percent of those 65 years of age or older had health insurance. President John F. Kennedy [DEMOCRAT] pressed legislators for health insurance for the aged. However, it wasn't until 1965 that President Lyndon B. Johnson signed H.R. 6675 (The Social Security Act of 1965; PL 89-97) to provide health insurance for the elderly and the poor.

On July 30, 1965, President Johnson signed the Medicare and Medicaid Bill (Title XVIII and Title XIX of the Social Security Act) in Independence, Missouri in the presence of former President Truman, who received the first Medicare card at the ceremony; Lady Bird Johnson, Vice-President Hubert Humphrey, and Mrs. Truman also were present. President Johnson remarked: "We marvel not simply at the passage of this Bill but that it took so many years to pass it."

Medicare extended health coverage to almost all Americans aged 65 or older. About 19 million beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare in the first year of the program. Medicaid provided access to health care services for certain low-income persons and expanded the existing Federal-State welfare structure that assisted the poor.

The 1972 Social Security Amendments expanded Medicare to provide coverage to two additional high risk groups disabled persons receiving cash benefits for 24 months under the social security program and persons suffering from end-stage renal disease.

...(continued at link)

So Democrats,

YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE
FOR INSURING THE FAILURE
OF THE MEDICARE/MEDICAID PROGRAM!!!

So DEMOCRATS ... SHUT UP!!!

You have no integrity!!!

[ForGod'sSake]

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

Understood but I was more soliciting opinions about what to do about the impending Medicare train wreck. Not to mention medicaid, SS, etc. Should some or all of them be phased out, or is that even a viable option? Going cold turkey would most certainly create all manner of havoc.

[Yosemitest]

Cheers to you, too!

[rlmorel]

No, but it is a bit off topic for the substance of the thread itself, so you should be careful you don’t hijack the thread.

You start a lot of threads (much higher, I would guess than my stats) so I would suggest starting a new one and framing the issue more precisely.

I was simply taking issue with your assertion that a lack of hits indicated a lack of interest. You have to look at the time of the day the thread started, etc.

Things that get posted when people are tying up work stuff and going home might not generate as many hits until much later or at all if it rolls off the bottom.

By the way, I do appreciate your pings. State’s rights have become more important over time, and one of the factors is your ping list. (I think some people just didn’t appreciate the generalization)

[nascarnation]

I’m with you on this topic.

As millions of baby boomers like myself transition from taxpayers (often at the top of our career level earning power and thus top of our tax paying amounts) to payment receivers, the Social Sec and Medicare programs are in big trouble.

I paid the max SS tax for nearly 40 years and now I’m going to be paying in nothing and collecting.

The “hundreds of billions” that AARP says are in the “trust funds” are bookkeeping entries only, a promissary note from a broke government.

[ForGod'sSake]

Good post. I know there's plenty more where that came from. So, is there anything that can be done to actually fix the problem before we are completely, not just technically, backrupt. The one thing I'm almost certain of, cold turkey is not the answer; the immediate suffering would be unimaginable.

[ForGod'sSake]

Thank you for your gracious response.

[ForGod'sSake]

As millions of baby boomers like myself transition from taxpayers (often at the top of our career level earning power and thus top of our tax paying amounts) to payment receivers, the Social Sec and Medicare programs are in big trouble.

I made the transition a couple of years ago; my timing couldn't have been worse. Fact is, I was tired and ready to kick back, so I'll live with the consequences. I have no obligations outside of local taxes, so it could have been worse.

[Yosemitest]

To fix it...

Start by locking up all the thieves responsible for getting us into this mess.
They'll be no Democrats left in office, and few Republicans.
Then get government OUT of health care.
Then do tort reform.

All the criminals taken from the guilty,
confiscate everything they have, sell their organs for money,
and send them to HELL!!!

[screaminsunshine]

People are not so opposed to some government funding as they are to government controlling and gatekeeping. With Medicare people can go to whatever doctor they want. They do not need “permission” from a gatekeeper”.

[ForGod'sSake]

Well, a bit harsh, but it may be the ONLY fix.

Another Freeper made a simple but elegant point on another thread on a different topic: The damage caused by getting us back to our founding principles will at least leave us with a country worth having after the rubble is cleared away. If we continue on the present path, we'll be left with an America unfit to live in.

[ForGod'sSake]

People are not so opposed to some government funding as they are to government controlling and gatekeeping.

I think our Founders were keenly aware of human nature and their propensity to vote themselves goodies given the opportunity. I think they were also keenly aware of a "general" government's propensity to go prospecting for those people. In spite of themselves they created a document that would bar the general government from doing just that. The states were not under the same restrictions and could have implemented all the nanny state foolishness they figured they could get away with - and could pay for. What went wrong? The "general" government violated their part of the compact anyway and proceeded to take us down the garden path. A centralized government will NEVER rein itself in! They will continue to consolidate power and control until they're stopped.

With Medicare people can go to whatever doctor they want. They do not need “permission” from a gatekeeper”.

Do you approve of Medicare?

[Yosemitest]

"The damage caused
by getting us back to our founding principles
will at least leave us with a country worth having
after the rubble is cleared away.

If we continue on the present path,
we'll be left with an America unfit to live in."

He stated the issue very well.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks ForGod’sSake.

[screaminsunshine]

I did until I saw ads on tv to givet fat people free scooters paid for by medicare. Als why should a working stiff who can not afford insurance pay for a multi-millionares insurance?

[combat_boots]

Someone posted a graphic somewhere that the last actual budget surplus was in 1957. I had thought JFK spent the last piece. Your point about what will happen is well taken. Spending like this is criminal; it’s like DC is trying to get set to take the money and run.

IIRC, our actual total fiscal exposure is over $600T, $24T of that by the end of this year.

48% of 7-Yr Fed Notes were bought back after a few days recently. That’s a whirlpool if ever there was one.

Ticker guy & Peter Schiff are all over this.

He who controls the debt controls everything.

[ForGod'sSake]

Understood. So you never really gave much thought to the justification, nay, the authority under which Medicare, etc came into existence? If in fact these programs are truly unconstitutional abominations, what if anything should or can be done about it now? Or do we simply muddle along in hopes the printing presses hold up longer than we do? One heck of a legacy for our kids and grandkids isn’t it?