posted on September 3, 2009 10:09:21 PM new
DEMOCRATS’ GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER GIVES UNCHECKED POWER TO NEW “HEALTH CARE CZAR”
DETAILED ANALYSIS: DEMOCRATS’ GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER GIVES UNCHECKED POWER TO NEW “HEALTH CARE CZAR”
September 1, 2009 | House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
One of the most potentially frightening – and little understood – concerns about House Democrats’ government takeover of health care is the unprecedented power given to a new federal bureaucrat, the “Health Choices Commissioner.” As the name implies, rather than giving more choices to the American people, the Democrats’ bill lets a government employee make choices that should be made by families and doctors. House Republican Leader John Boehner made the following comment:
“The American people want two things from health care reform: lower costs and more choices. Yet Democrats have done exactly the opposite, coming up with a bill that actually raises costs – increasing the deficit by $240 billion – and letting a new federal bureaucrat make health care decisions that should be left to patients and their doctors. President Obama should make it clear he doesn’t support this ill-conceived legislation, and work with Republicans to craft a bipartisan bill that accomplishes the American peoples’ goals.”
The House Democrats’ bill gives unchecked power to a new “Health Choices Commissioner” who will be so powerful that his or her title is referenced 182 times in the House Democrats bill. This bureaucrat would have the power to:
Pages 84-87; Section 203 - Decide which treatments patients could receive and at what cost.
Page 42; Section 142(a)(1) - Decide which private plans would be allowed to participate in the Exchange.
Page 40; Section 134 - Regulate all insurance plans, both in and out of the Exchange.
Page 80; Section 202(e) - Determine which employers would be allowed to participate in the Exchange.
Page 82; Section 202(f) - Determine how many and which Americans will be allowed to choose health coverage through the Exchange.
Page 90; Section 204(b) - Decide which physicians and hospitals participate in the government-run plan and in private plan provider networks.
Page 111-115; Section 208 - Determine which states are allowed to operate their own Exchange and to terminate a previously-approved State Exchange at any time.
Page 87; Section 203(d) - Override state laws regarding covered health benefits.
Page 42; Section 142(a)(2) - Determine how trillions of taxpayer and employer dollars would be spent within the Exchange.
Page 42; Section 142(a)(3) - Determine who qualifies for premium assistance.
Page 97-99; Section 205 - Automatically enroll Americans into the Exchange if they don’t have coverage, including potentially forcing these individuals into the government-run plan.
Democrats should stop ignoring the will of the American people. They need to scrap this government takeover and work on common sense reforms to lower health care costs and increase access. Let’s hope after a long, hot summer back in their Congressional Districts, Democrats will be willing to do just that.
posted on September 4, 2009 01:52:40 AM new
Like we're better off with some CEO that see's our treatment as an unneeded expenditure which comes off their bottom line.
How much cash did Boner accept from big pharma's lobbyists.
Dave (not some C&P talking point memo provided by partisans)
Claim: Page 42: The “Health Choices Commissioner” will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
False: The new Health Choices Commissioner will oversee a variety of choices to be offered through new insurance exchanges. The bill itself specifies the “minimum services to be covered” in a basic plan, including prescription drugs, mental health services, maternity and well-baby care and certain vaccines and preventive services (pages 27-28). We find nothing in the bill that prevents insurance companies from offering benefits that exceed the minimums. In fact, the legislation allows (page 84) any company that offers an approved basic plan to offer also an “enhanced” plan, a “premium” plan and even a “premium plus” plan that could include vision and dental benefits.
posted on September 4, 2009 08:34:56 AM new
As Davebraun says, insurance companies have been making health care decisions for years. They deny physician-recommended treatment or meds which are not in their "formulary" all to benefit their bottom line. The cost for individual and even group coverage is off the chart. Many people cannot afford health insurance, but their income is too high to qualify for Medicaid. Coming up with $300-$500/month for coverage is next to impossible for middle class families.
How any American could not support a bill which allows all its citizens to obtain decent health care is the big question. That there are men, women and children in America who do not have good medical care available to them is inexcusable and is certainly not in keeping with the world image we Americans like to project.
The accusations and scare tactics used in discussing this health care bill will help no one and is reminiscent of the "birthers" campaign to turn lies into the truth.
[ edited by coach81938 on Sep 4, 2009 08:42 AM ]
posted on September 4, 2009 09:08:55 AM new
DETAILED ANALYSIS: HOUSE DEMOCRATS’ GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE PLAN LIMITS CHOICES FOR PATIENTS
HOUSE DEMOCRATS WILL LET GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS MAKE PERSONAL MEDICAL DECISIONS ONLY PATIENTS AND DOCTORS SHOULD MAKE
August 21, 2009 | House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
Patients and doctors should make personal medical decisions. That’s a fundamental principle of the ongoing health care debate with which nearly every American agrees. But the House Democrats’ government takeover of health care paves the way for something quite different: it would allow government bureaucrats to intercede and make decisions for patients and their doctors. That limits choices for patients and reduces overall quality of care. Is a new layer of federal bureaucrats what middle-class Americans already fed up with health care bureaucracy really want? House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) says no:
“A relationship between a patient and his or her doctor is one built on trust and honesty. Placing a government bureaucrat in the middle of that relationship undermines it and limits choices for patients and their families. That’s not ‘reform.’ That’s a prescription for declining quality of care. Republicans have offered a better solution that expands Americans’ access to affordable care and keeps patients and doctors in charge of personal medical decisions. Democrats should shelve their government takeover of health care and work with us on a plan that delivers the reforms Americans expect.”
A detailed analysis of the Democrats’ government-run plan makes clear how bureaucrats will limit choices for patients:
Page 97; Section 205 – The bill requires the “Health Choices Commissioner” to automatically enroll exchange-eligible individuals into a government sanctioned plan with rationed care. The bill says the Commissioner may enroll people in to plans through a “random assignment.” In reality, the Commissioner has every incentive to enroll people into the government-run plan. Since the Commissioner can auto-enroll Exchange eligible individuals who have not elected coverage to any plan in the Exchange, this provision is a de facto method for signing millions of Americans up for the government-run plan.
Page 102; Section 205 – The bill requires that the Commissioner enroll Medicaid eligible individuals who have not elected to be part of the program into Medicaid.
Page 115; Section 208 – The measure allows states to establish their own exchange or join together with other states in a multi-state exchange. The bill, however, also gives the Commissioner the authority to tell states what their state or multi-state exchanges can and cannot do.
Page 128; Section 241; Page 740; Section 1701 – The bill expands Medicaid eligibility to all individuals up to 133 percent of poverty and “low income” subsidies can go to a family of four making more than $88,000. This will shift even more Americans onto the government rolls.
Page 424-430; Section 1233(a)(1)(B) – One troubling provision of the House bill makes available to seniors a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care. The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and “the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.”
Page 16; Section 102(a)(2) – The bill pays lip-service to allowing individuals to remain in the “grandfathered” private plans, but the requirements to qualify for the grandfathering are so stringent, they will soon force individuals into the government-run health plan. As soon as anything changes in the plan – such as a change in co-pay or deductibles or even added benefits or coverage of a new life-saving drug or treatment, which many insurers change every year – you will be forced out of that coverage and be forced into a government-approved qualified plan instead.
Page 146; Section 312 – The bill not only requires employers to provide coverage for their employees that the government deems “acceptable” but it also requires that employers pay for a specific amount of the employees’ premium costs – 72.5 percent for individual plans and 65 percent of family plans – or pay a new eight percent tax.
Page 9; Section 100(c)(6) – The measure defines “employment-based health plan” as including governmental plans, which includes TRICARE. It then provides a five-year grace period for current employment-based health plans (section 102(b)(1)(A) (page 17) before the plan has to meet the requirements of a qualified health benefits plan under section 101. Section 101 requires qualified health benefits plans to meet the requirements of subtitle B (relating to affordable coverage), subtitle C (relating to essential benefits), and subtitle D (relating to consumer protection). This means that the bill would subject TRICARE to any future requirements on employer-based health plans.
Pages 26-27; Section 122 – The bill requires government-approved benefits be equivalent to average prevailing employer coverage. By requiring that the future “essential benefits package” of any “qualified health benefits plan” include benefits equivalent to the current prevailing average employer-sponsored coverage, this section necessarily raises the average scope of health benefits covered by future health plans. Businesses will not be free to vary the mix of benefits available to determine which ones help attract quality employees; instead, they will be forced to offer a certain minimum level of health benefits regardless of the demonstrated preferences of their employees (for higher salaries in lieu of pricier health benefits for example).
Democrats appear poised to go it alone and pass their government takeover of health care with no bipartisan support. Don’t Americans deserve a strong patient-doctor relationship – one free of a massive government bureaucracy?
As Davebraun says, insurance companies have been making health care decisions for years. They deny physician-recommended treatment or meds which are not in their "formulary" all to benefit their bottom line. The cost for individual and even group coverage is off the chart. Many people cannot afford health insurance, but their income is too high to qualify for Medicaid. Coming up with $300-$500/month for coverage is next to impossible for middle class families.
How any American could not support a bill which allows all its citizens to obtain decent health care is the big question. That there are men, women and children in America who do not have good medical care available to them is inexcusable and is certainly not in keeping with the world image we Americans like to project.
The accusations and scare tactics used in discussing this health care bill will help no one and is reminiscent of the "birthers" campaign to turn lies into the truth.
posted on September 4, 2009 12:17:08 PM new
Actually, it reminds me of one who's been poking around here lately. It must be getting boring over at the Roadshack or whatever they call it.
Coach, these tactics not only remind me of the birthers, I have no reason to believe they aren't coming from the same people.
vintageu: Would you mind posting a link to all your C/P stuff? Or did somebody forward it to you?
posted on September 4, 2009 01:33:13 PM new
I agree, Profe. The tactic of fear, which was perfected by the Bush administration, continues. If you can't persuade people with facts, scare the bejeezus out of them.
The health care bill, as is, is not perfect. It needs to be worked on some, but it is important that some sort of health care reform be passed. I still believe that the majority of Americans want this, though there are louder voices in the opposition.
posted on September 4, 2009 04:22:35 PM new
As August Congressional Recess Concludes, Polls Show Seniors, General Public Strongly...
"As August Congressional Recess Concludes, Polls Show Seniors, General Public
Strongly Opposed to Medicare Cuts in Congressional Health Reform Plan, Says
AHCA"
posted on September 4, 2009 07:43:56 PM new
I'm on medicare and also Blue Cross as a secondary. Blue Cross costs me $1400.- per month for my wife and myself. Medicare costs me a pittance.
Blue Cross gets in the way of my treatment. They tell my doctors how much and what drugs the can prescribe. If I need something done they require pre-authorization. My government run plan does not interfere to the degree of the private.
I have serious health issues (9 years post liver transplant)as well as kidney failure.
The only people who like their insurers are those who never tried to use their insurance for anything serious (costly)
So long as the entire political establishment is beholden to the Insurance industry, your insurance company will continue to screw over you. And those who are denied a policy or cannot afford a policy will die.
Health care as a basic human right cannot exist while private profit of the Insurance Industry is the primary concern.
posted on September 5, 2009 05:24:35 PM new
It is the cost of sustaining/prolonging life.
People are living longer now ,thanks to higher standard of living,good food and technology but this physical body of ours is not programmed to last forever.
There is no such thing as eternal life aka physical eternal life.
The physical body will cease to function and return to dust and if some of you believe we have a soul and spirit inside this physical body,then they are free upon death.
The ancient Egytian believe the kA stays on this earth and the BA goes to heaven.
The Irish rejoice and throw a party at the wake to celebrate,the soul is now free of this crappy earthly life!
The Chinese and the Egyptians both understand the KA needs to be fed and so they offer food ,some folks who are clairvoyant have seen them eating at the table.
Modern men are not as spiritual as their ancient brothers,we are surrounded by material goods and we strive in a material world,we have no imagination where we will be going after death.
Since we have no clue where we go and what will we do once we get there,we cherish staying in this physical material world ,hence a large sum of medical expenditure occurs in the later part of our life.
But sadly unless someone can come up with that elixir of eternal physical life,our physical body will succumb to failure no matter what the insurance terms are and what the consitutions said .
We see it in plants,we see it in animals and there is no fellow plant or animal of the same specie standing there waving an insurance policy over them.
When it is time to go,it is time to go,have courage ,there may just be a better life awaiting us !
*
There is no 'Global savings glut',only wild horses and loose bankers.
[ edited by hwahwa on Sep 5, 2009 05:27 PM ]
posted on September 5, 2009 06:25:23 PM new
helenjw posts "Health care as a basic human right cannot exist while private profit of the Insurance Industry is the primary concern."
Now searching for something to cut/paste. Just checked the Greek, Roman and modern philosophers. Nothing like that there.
Must search for writings of Marx, Lenin, and Tolstoy. Perhaps Stalin, wrote something about basic human rights.
That thought must have come from one of today's enlightened thinkers. Someone like Van Jones.
posted on September 5, 2009 07:56:56 PM new
There is a generally an accepted hierachy of needs and rights recognized by most people throughout the world such as those defined by Abraham Maslow. Those basic needs are safety, food and water and basic healthcare.
It's outrageously wrong that in our country there are millions of people who don't have access to health care which is a basic right of all people.
Without a search and a copy paste, I'm sure that you must agree with that simple truth.
posted on September 5, 2009 08:19:22 PM new
Try checking out the Constitution---"the right to LIFE,Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness." Life is an inalienable right, and to sustain life you need decent health care.
The sad part of all this is that people are looking for rules or laws to convince them that health care is a right. How about relying on a little humanity? Love thy neighbor. How about providing sick children with good health care so they can grow up to persue life, liberty and happiness? You know it is the right thing to do.
posted on September 5, 2009 09:22:28 PM new
"the right to LIFE,Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Life is an inalienable right, and to sustain life you need decent health care.
Does that mean that an unborn child has a right to life? Does that mean that a senior, who many in our society believe should have a living will, and bail out at the time of suffering, does not have the right to life?
Does that mean that when the cost of health care to all becomes too expensive, we should not take the steps necessary, to allow an older person to live, because it is too expensive and we have to preserve the inalienable life of younger citizens?
What about the inalienable right to life for neonatal children requiring millions of dollars of health care at birth and untold dollars of care after birth? Who is going to pay for that?
coach just who has that inalienable right? Who is going to pay for the inalienable right for all to live? Remember this is a health care plan designed to cut the cost of health care, while increasing the number of people who use it. That means while we are inflating the balloon, we are constricting it size.
helenjw what level will suffer from this? Level three or four? Will we have the will and finances to allow the weakest of our society to reach the level of esteem?
Many of these decisions will be made by the panel or agency designated by the proposed health care bill. Nameless strangers who do not have to answer to "relying on a little humanity" will decide what that humanity will cost, and if our society can afford humanity.
posted on September 6, 2009 05:28:22 AM new
My parents never have insurance,they pay for their medication,tests,doctor visit and hospital stays from their savings.
They dont complain they are getting less or paying too much,they just quietly bear the burden,they have been waiting for this moment to come and save diligently.
But where they live,healthcare is still affordable compared to USA,my father 's last hospital bill was US 40k,if it were in this country,it would easily be 400k.
I dont know why it is so expensive in this country,a land where we can shop made in China,made in Haiti,made in Korea at a low low price and yet we cannot afford healthcare?
You would think all the savings from buying cheap foreign goods ,we will be able to enjoy life and save a bundle as well?
Dont listen to the politicians who tell us other developed countries are doing a good job providing healthcare,they are not doing a good job,they are going broke !
*
There is no 'Global savings glut',only wild horses and loose bankers.
posted on September 6, 2009 06:46:31 AM new "Vint said, "helenjw what level will suffer from this? Level three or four? Will we have the will and finances to allow the weakest of our society to reach the level of esteem?"
Vint, your message is unclear. Are you finally realizing that after funneling exorbitant profits to the insurance industry that our capitalistic model is not working, leaving the United States as the only developed country unable to afford a basic health care program for all citizens?
If so, you are beginning to understand the problem.
posted on September 6, 2009 07:18:52 AM new
vintageu--Where do you get the idea that we will not take care of the elderly when they are sick? This ridiculous "death panel" mentality obfuscates health care reform issues. All decisions on health care, no matter what age, are up to the patient. No one will withhold treatment if the patient wants it. End of life counselling does not mean euthanasia. It means setting up a Living Will, Health Care proxy or Power of Attorney and dealing with other end of life issues---if you wish to! When you are 20, you are at the beginning of your life span. When you are 80 you are at the end of your life span. The term is figurative, not literal.
Expense should not determine who gets medical care. If someone needs/wants treatment and wants to live, they should receive it, regardless of the cost, be it neonatal, end of life or anything in between. Worried about health care reform being too expensive? Why not worry about the billions we spent in Iraq? Or to support dictators around the world? Or building bridges to nowhere. At least health care is worth the expense.
posted on September 6, 2009 08:03:55 AM new
hwahwa writes, "I dont know why it is so expensive in this country,a land where we can shop made in China,made in Haiti,made in Korea at a low low price and yet we cannot afford healthcare?"
A public option plan would serve to compete with greedy insurance companies thereby lowering the cost of health care.
posted on September 6, 2009 09:39:36 AM new
well,if govt is going to be a provider and offer better service for less,I will say let the govt gets into the arena and compete with private providers!
I pay $359 a month for healthcare with a 5k deductible,the last time I submitted a claim was in 1984.
*
There is no 'Global savings glut',only wild horses and loose bankers.
posted on September 6, 2009 09:50:04 AM new
I dont know why you call insurance co greedy?
Did you ever study their annual report,quarterly statements,10k and 10Q filed with SEC?
If they are making huge profits as you imply,their stock would have been bidded up much higher and they would be paying their shareholders a higher dividend?
Do you sell on Ebay?
How long have you been selling on Ebay?
I remember the good old days where a 75 cents pendant got bidded up to 50 dollars,a brass cat picked up in the driveway got bidded up to 27 dollars,a piece of carving bought in a flea market for 7 dollars got bidded up to 700 dollars.I have no qualm accepting the payment,is that greed>Or do we pat ourselves on the shoulders and brag about how smart we are?
How many of us brag about something we found in the attic or garage sale,paid 25 cents for it and sold on Ebay for 1000%-10,000% more!!
Is that greed or is it good fortune or do we heap praises on ourselves for having the acumen to find these items?
Or should the right thing to do is to make a sizable refund,apologise to the bidder that the item aint worth what they paid for?
*
There is no 'Global savings glut',only wild horses and loose bankers.
posted on September 6, 2009 09:54:21 AM new
Sorry to rain on your parade on 'Greed'- as a lowly bronze power seller on Ebay,I am more profitable than any health insurance co.
*
You must have heard the saying-dont accept collateral which eats and get sick and the insurance companies do just that,how can they be profitable?
There is no 'Global savings glut',only wild horses and loose bankers.
[ edited by hwahwa on Sep 6, 2009 09:55 AM ]
posted on September 6, 2009 10:03:29 AM new
Liberals always complain about "greedy" businesses etc. They feel companies "owe them". Too bad they are really just picking the pockets of millions of their neighbors. Liberals in general have a huge laundry list of things they "deserve" or are "owed". That's the innate problem. There is also no concern for individual responsibility. Buy a house you can't afford? No problem, you "deserve" ME buying it for you. What? you lost your home in the flood and didn't have insurance? No problem, we'll buy you another. Meanwhile, all the schmucks like me who don't buy what they can't afford and protect themselves against calamity have to take it in the neck. And the BEST thing? This generosity is extended to all mankind, not just your fellow citizens. There is no corresponding feeling of indebtedness. Only the unfailing need to do "the right thing" as they decide it to be for themselves and everybody else.
The health care proposal is a boondoggle waiting to happen. They will do to it what decades of Democratic administrations have done to Social Security. Figuring out the new legions who are "entitled" to whatever they can think up. Without safeguards to prevent the riff-raff from abusing it and the politicians from inflating it, this should be fought tooth and nail as the biggest sinkhole ever conceived by the mind of man. It has to be blocked until the coming elections.
[ edited by desquirrel on Sep 6, 2009 10:20 AM ]
posted on September 6, 2009 11:14:47 AM new
Unfortunately, according to Business Week, The health insurers have already won. Without a public option, they prepare to profit from "health reform".
Do you suppose the greedy bastards will toss a few crumbs to the poor?
