Today, President Obama called for an 'honest debate' on healthcare, but there are some of the things he's not telling you. The information you see below is based on the Senate version of the healthcare reform bill and has been provided to me by a friend, who happens to also be a doctor.
Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit the books of all employers that self insure!!
Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.
Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!
Page 42 of HC Bill:The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you. You have no choice!
Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise.
Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals finances & a National ID Health card will be issued!
Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to your banks accounts for elective funds transfer.
Page 65 Sec 164: is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community organizations: (ACORN).
Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the Exchange.
Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration your Healthcare!
Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. Translation: services for illegal aliens.
Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.
Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. AARP members - your Health care WILL be rationed.
Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.
Page 124 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt Monopoly.
Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association - The Govt will tell YOU what you can make! (salary)
Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public option plan. NO CHOICE!
Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families.
Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option pays 8% tax on all payroll.
Page 150 Lines 9-13: Business's with payroll btw 251k & 401k who doesn't provide public option pays 2-6% tax on all payroll.
Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.
Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay)
Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access to ALL Americans finances /personal records.
Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" Yes, it says that!
Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors, low income and poor are affected.
Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors, doesn't matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same!
Page 253 Line 10-18: Govt sets value of Doctor's time, profession, judgment etc. Literally value of humans.
Page 265 Sec 1131: Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries.
Page 268 Sec 1141: Federal Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs.
Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!
Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever Govt deems preventable re-admissions.
Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors, treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission -Govt will penalize you.
Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Doctors what/how much they can own!
Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand.
Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. Can u say ACORN?!!
Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: Govt mandates establishment of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing.
Page 341 Lines 3-9: Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing people into Govt plan.
Page 354 Sec 1177: Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs people! Unbelievable!
Page 379 Sec 1191: Govt creates more bureaucracy - Tele-health Advisory Committee. Can you say HC by phone?
Page 425 Lines 4-12: Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life patients.
Page 425 Lines 17-19: Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!
Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: Govt provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death (assisted suicide)
Page 427 Lines 15-24: Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Govt has a say in how your life ends.
Page 429 Lines 1-9: An "advanced care planning consultant" will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates.
Page 429 Lines 10-12: "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOVT!
Page 429 Lines 13-25: The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.
Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life!
Page 469: Community Based Home Medical Services = Non profit organizations. Hello, ACORN Medical Services here!!?
Page 472 Lines 14-17: PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORIGINATION. 1 monthly payment 2 a community-based organization. Like ACORN?
Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt into your marriage.
Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, rationing those services.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Congressman Pence's Response to "Cap and Trade"
Below is the response I received from Congressman Pence regarding the "Cap and Trade" legislation that passed the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this year.
I appreciated Congressman Pence's opposition to the legislation. This legislation will trample the individual liberties of Americans by preventing them from determining what is right for their individual industries, neighborhoods and households.
I continue to be concerned by the stance members have taken on both sides of the isle in regards to Global warming and environmental policy. Many whom I had hoped would not give up fighting the propaganda of "Global warming", have. Proposing changes from the top down with flawed presuppositions will only cause the worst kind of economic and moral decline.
-------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Wamsley:
Thank you for contacting me regarding proposals to curb the emission of greenhouse gasses, including "cap and trade." It was a pleasure to hear from you.
On February 26, 2009, President Barack Obama released the first budget proposal of his administration that called for a 14% reduction of 2005 greenhouse gas levels by 2050. A "cap and trade" system essentially puts a price on greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon "credits" would be auctioned off by the Climate Change Credit Corporation that could then be bought, sold, exchanged, or transferred under the guidance of the Carbon Market Efficiency Board. Revenue from the sale of these carbon "credits" would then be used to fund low-carbon energy development, as well as an incentive program for advancing vehicle fuel technology.
The "cap and trade" approach is a proposal that seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by requiring producers to purchase carbon credits for any emissions beyond the cap. Forcing businesses to purchase carbon credits for everyday energy activity imposes a burden upon both consumers and businesses. This would lessen the incentive for doing business in America. At a time where many businesses are shrinking and shedding jobs, I fear this policy would cause the departure of more American jobs to countries with less stringent regulations.
This, in turn would cause the plan to fail to achieve the goal of protecting the environment. Countries such as China and India, both of whom have relaxed environmental laws and a growing workforce will stand to gain the manufacturing jobs that will be pushed out of the United States. This would essentially negate any possible emissions reductions by transporting pollution to another part of the world.
In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, President Obama stated that under a "cap and trade" plan, electricity rates would skyrocket, as the costs associated with such a policy would be passed on to the consumer. According to an April 2007 study by MIT, a "cap and trade" policy would cost each American household more than $3,000 each year. With American families having to stretch their budgets just to make ends meet, I do not believe we should enact policies that will result in additional taxes for every household. According to the Energy Information Administration, Indiana would be one of the hardest hit states in the nation because 94 percent of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
While this plan may have been crafted with good intentions, it clearly does more harm than good. The onerous costs that will result from this legislation will only push unemployment up further as small businesses and factories will be forced to cut jobs and even close their doors for good. Those businesses and factories that survive will do so only by passing their increased energy costs onto consumers, forcing them into a bigger financial burden.
I believe that there is a better way forward. We can protect our environment without punishing those in the Midwest and other parts of the country that depend heavily on fossil fuels. We can work towards a cleaner atmosphere while still promoting economic growth and job creation. And we can be good stewards of the Earth without imposing a national energy tax on almost every Hoosier.
The best way forward is an "all of the above" energy solution which produces American energy made by American workers while encouraging greater efficiency, conservation, promoting the use and development of alternative fuels and allowing for increased use of clean and safe nuclear energy which does not emit carbon. This plan would create jobs, grow the economy and move our nation in the direction of energy independence.
Again, thank you for contacting me. It is an honor to serve in the United States House of Representatives and have the benefit of your advice. If you would like more information on this or any other issue, please visit my website at http://mikepence.house.gov.
Warmest regards,
Mike Pence
Member of Congress
I appreciated Congressman Pence's opposition to the legislation. This legislation will trample the individual liberties of Americans by preventing them from determining what is right for their individual industries, neighborhoods and households.
I continue to be concerned by the stance members have taken on both sides of the isle in regards to Global warming and environmental policy. Many whom I had hoped would not give up fighting the propaganda of "Global warming", have. Proposing changes from the top down with flawed presuppositions will only cause the worst kind of economic and moral decline.
-------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Wamsley:
Thank you for contacting me regarding proposals to curb the emission of greenhouse gasses, including "cap and trade." It was a pleasure to hear from you.
On February 26, 2009, President Barack Obama released the first budget proposal of his administration that called for a 14% reduction of 2005 greenhouse gas levels by 2050. A "cap and trade" system essentially puts a price on greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon "credits" would be auctioned off by the Climate Change Credit Corporation that could then be bought, sold, exchanged, or transferred under the guidance of the Carbon Market Efficiency Board. Revenue from the sale of these carbon "credits" would then be used to fund low-carbon energy development, as well as an incentive program for advancing vehicle fuel technology.
The "cap and trade" approach is a proposal that seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by requiring producers to purchase carbon credits for any emissions beyond the cap. Forcing businesses to purchase carbon credits for everyday energy activity imposes a burden upon both consumers and businesses. This would lessen the incentive for doing business in America. At a time where many businesses are shrinking and shedding jobs, I fear this policy would cause the departure of more American jobs to countries with less stringent regulations.
This, in turn would cause the plan to fail to achieve the goal of protecting the environment. Countries such as China and India, both of whom have relaxed environmental laws and a growing workforce will stand to gain the manufacturing jobs that will be pushed out of the United States. This would essentially negate any possible emissions reductions by transporting pollution to another part of the world.
In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, President Obama stated that under a "cap and trade" plan, electricity rates would skyrocket, as the costs associated with such a policy would be passed on to the consumer. According to an April 2007 study by MIT, a "cap and trade" policy would cost each American household more than $3,000 each year. With American families having to stretch their budgets just to make ends meet, I do not believe we should enact policies that will result in additional taxes for every household. According to the Energy Information Administration, Indiana would be one of the hardest hit states in the nation because 94 percent of our energy comes from fossil fuels.
While this plan may have been crafted with good intentions, it clearly does more harm than good. The onerous costs that will result from this legislation will only push unemployment up further as small businesses and factories will be forced to cut jobs and even close their doors for good. Those businesses and factories that survive will do so only by passing their increased energy costs onto consumers, forcing them into a bigger financial burden.
I believe that there is a better way forward. We can protect our environment without punishing those in the Midwest and other parts of the country that depend heavily on fossil fuels. We can work towards a cleaner atmosphere while still promoting economic growth and job creation. And we can be good stewards of the Earth without imposing a national energy tax on almost every Hoosier.
The best way forward is an "all of the above" energy solution which produces American energy made by American workers while encouraging greater efficiency, conservation, promoting the use and development of alternative fuels and allowing for increased use of clean and safe nuclear energy which does not emit carbon. This plan would create jobs, grow the economy and move our nation in the direction of energy independence.
Again, thank you for contacting me. It is an honor to serve in the United States House of Representatives and have the benefit of your advice. If you would like more information on this or any other issue, please visit my website at http://mikepence.house.gov.
Warmest regards,
Mike Pence
Member of Congress
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Peter Schiff Beautifully Lays Out The Problem With Health Care
This just shows that the President and Congress have not smartly thought this thing through, or for that matter, they probably haven't thought about it at all. All of their ideas are high end and don't even get at the true problem. The only way you are going to find a smart solution is to find the problem.
In this clip Peter Schiff does an excellent job drilling down to the problem and providing good evidence to prove his point.
In this clip Peter Schiff does an excellent job drilling down to the problem and providing good evidence to prove his point.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Sen. Lugar's Response to H.R. 2454
Friends,
Below is a response I recently received from Sen. Lugar concerning H.R. 2454. I appreciate and support his stand against the bill. The only exception I would make towards his response is that I do not believe nor deem it legal that Congress regulate or legislate climate control in any form.
Thank you,
Sam Wamsley
Senator Lugar's Response is enclosed below:
Dear Mr. Wamsley:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the issue of climate change. I appreciate this opportunity to respond.
On June 26, 2009, the United States House of Representatives passed H.R. 2454, also known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. I oppose this legislation as it is an extraordinarily expensive bill with very little positive impact on our environment.
The House bill requires greenhouse gas emissions be reduced by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050 from 2005 levels. To accomplish these goals the legislation would create a tradable system of credits or permits that allow an entity to generate greenhouse gasses. These credits would be allocated according to past emissions as well as auctioned. Over time, the total number of credits would be reduced.
On a related note, I also oppose any effort by the Environmental Protection Agency to unilaterally regulate greenhouse gases without Congressional legislative approval.
While I do believe that Congress must address the issue of climate change, the solutions must be realistic and sustainable and also mindful of our current economic conditions. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate on this important issue. Again, thank you for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Richard G. Lugar
United States Senator
RGL/cga
Below is a response I recently received from Sen. Lugar concerning H.R. 2454. I appreciate and support his stand against the bill. The only exception I would make towards his response is that I do not believe nor deem it legal that Congress regulate or legislate climate control in any form.
Thank you,
Sam Wamsley
Senator Lugar's Response is enclosed below:
Dear Mr. Wamsley:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the issue of climate change. I appreciate this opportunity to respond.
On June 26, 2009, the United States House of Representatives passed H.R. 2454, also known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. I oppose this legislation as it is an extraordinarily expensive bill with very little positive impact on our environment.
The House bill requires greenhouse gas emissions be reduced by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050 from 2005 levels. To accomplish these goals the legislation would create a tradable system of credits or permits that allow an entity to generate greenhouse gasses. These credits would be allocated according to past emissions as well as auctioned. Over time, the total number of credits would be reduced.
On a related note, I also oppose any effort by the Environmental Protection Agency to unilaterally regulate greenhouse gases without Congressional legislative approval.
While I do believe that Congress must address the issue of climate change, the solutions must be realistic and sustainable and also mindful of our current economic conditions. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate on this important issue. Again, thank you for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Richard G. Lugar
United States Senator
RGL/cga
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
