Posted on 04/04/2010 5:46:30 PM PDT by Library Lady
bookmarking this
Dan is a friend of mine. This was actually a letter written by him to U. S. Representative John Spratt. He graciously allowed me to post it here.
Cordially,
Spratt is a RAT here in SC. Please be sure to post his reply, assuming there is one. Mr. Spratt will be out of a job in Nov. He is being targeted by the Tea Party Patriots.
The following was the first part of the message from Dan which explains why the letter was written:
“Today, through a totally serendipitous series of events I found myself having a late lunch at the Ebenezer Grill in Rock Hill, SC seated at a table next to US Representative John Spratt and two of his aides. I was highly amused with the table talk which was easily overheard as they seemed oblivious to my presence. During lunch, a couple of men came over to kiss-up and introduce themselves. A third man made an obvious reference to healthcare, stating that he was so glad that the Congressman voted as he did. The Congressman seemed somewhat surprised but expressed his appreciation to the gentleman. He laughed nervously and jokingly suggested that his aides make a note of the man’s name, phone and address so he could properly thank him for his support. Immediately, a lady seated nearby seized the opportunity to express her disapproval and stated flat out: “Well, I think it is horrible” and gave him a piece of her mind. The Congressman made the mistake of asking: “what don’t you like about it - the cost”? I was intrigued that he immediately zeroed in on the cost, since he chairs the House Committee on the Budget - if I remember correctly. She appeared to be energized by his question and quickly rattled off a list of objections. The Congressman made reference to his daughter’s (a physician) anecdotal experience that sick people are routinely be denied essential medical services. He attempted to offer that as justification for his support of the legislation. The lady was not persuaded, interrupted him and stated “I don’t believe it. It’s just not true. Most if not all hospitals have a well-publicized policy not to deny medical treatment on the basis of the person’s ability to pay. I recently saw such a sign at the hospital that clearly stated the policy”. The Congressman seemed flustered and stated that obviously the two of them could not agree and excused himself. By the way, he did not look well. He seemed tired and appears to have aged a great deal.
That little episode got me to thinking about the question: “what is wrong with the healthcare legislation that I don’t like”? So I sat down this afternoon and collected my thoughts while the experience was still fresh. Since I did not seize the opportunity to express my personal disapproval to the good Congressman, I intend to write him a letter.
The first part of the letter to Congressman Spratt stated:
“Congressman, I suspect that you and I have at least one thing in common. Neither of us had the opportunity to read the final bill in its entirety before the vote was cast. If that is true, it is a sad commentary about the lack of sunshine in this piece of legislation.
Yes, I am upset, even mad. But let’s forget about my righteous indignation and outrage for a moment. I would like to explain in my own words and ask that you objectively consider:
What Is Fundamentally Wrong With The So-called Healthcare Legislation?”
This was followed by the article I posted.
If Dan shares any response he receives, I will post it here.
Pay a fine or go to jail. THAT’s what’s wrong with it!
Thank you for the update. Now your original post makes more sense.
Members of Congress do not participate in Social Security.
That IS NOT A FALSE CLAIM.
And .. if they did participate .. you can bet they would have made it solvent A LONG TIME AGO .. INSTEAD OF STEALING ALL THE FUNDS FROM IT.
Why don’t you read it for yourself - and find out it’s true.
Afraid to find out your messiah is a liar.
Page 58Where do you find, "** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual’s bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts."(C) be comprehensive, efficient and robust, requiring minimal augmentation by paper transactions or clarification by further commu nications;
(D) enable the real-time (or near real time) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card;
(E) enable, where feasible, near real-time adjudication of claims;
(F) provide for timely acknowledgment, response, and status reporting applicable to any electronic transaction deemed appropriate by the Secretary;
(G) describe all data elements (such as reason and remark codes) in unambiguous terms, not permit optional fields, require that data elements be either required or conditioned upon set values in other fields, and prohibit ad ditional conditions; and
Page 59
(H) harmonize all common data elements across administrative and clinical transaction standards.
(3) TIME FOR ADOPTION.—Not later than 2 years after the date of implementation of the X12 Version 5010 transaction standards implemented under this part, the Secretary shall adopt standards under this section.
(4) REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC STANDARDS.
The standards under this section shall be developed, adopted and enforced so as to(A) clarify, refine, complete, and expand, as needed, the standards required under section 1173;
(B) require paper versions of standard ized transactions to comply with the same standards as to data content such that a fully compliant, equivalent electronic transaction can be populated from the data from a paper version;
(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance ad vice;
The only reference to bank accounts is in section C on page 59 and that has to do with eft between the provider and the insurance company, which is a part of "electronic insurance claims," (which have been around for 20 years) which is part of the HIPAA standards (which were released in 1996).
Lest you think I'm blowing smoke, I owed a company that wrote software for Drs offices to do electronic claims. I sat on a voluntary board with other vendors that advised HIPPA on implemention procedures.
This section of the law is, for the most part, a restatement of some of the original guidelines in HIPAA. These guidelines are now 14 years old.
Members of Congress elected since 1984 participate in Social Security. 6.2% of their pay is taxed subject to the income limits. The federal government contributes another 6.2%.
Please provide evidence to counter my assertion. Perhaps you are twisting the meaning of participate.
It’s quite simple actually. The Social Security (retirement) fund is tapped out so a new source of revenue (healthcare) is needed to funnel money to their “associates and supporters”. It’s modeled just like corresponding private sector union-mobster retirement and healthcare embezzelment scams. And they play it the same way.
Once again you are dead wrong. Maybe wikianswers can help enlighten you.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_congress_pay_social_security_taxes
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.