How many of you are ex-diehard Obama lovers

[Balzac89]

decided to seek out an online copy of the bill to get an idea of how accu­rate Mr. Kithil’s claims might be, as his claims sounded like a load of hog­wash to me. A quick google search turned up a copy of the bill over at OpenCongress.org which I’ve used to make my com­par­i­son of the bill to Mr. Kithil’s claims.

1. “EXACT SPECIFICS, to include page and para­graph in the bill on why this Health Bill is BAD”.
   • Page/paragraph num­bers are use­less for com­par­i­son with­out hav­ing an iden­ti­cal print copy. If Mr. Kithil had legit­i­mate com­plaints with spe­cific parts of the bill, why didn’t he ref­er­ence them all by their Sections/Sub-section head­ings or per­haps even by includ­ing quotes from the bill so other peo­ple could see exactly what part of the bill he was talk­ing about?
   • I also find it inter­est­ing that Mr Kithil appar­ently wrote such an amaz­ing arti­cle against H.B. 3200 that peo­ple are feel the need to for­ward it to every­body they know, and yet they don’t for­ward the entire arti­cle that he wrote.
     • I attempted to do some dig­ging into whether any such arti­cle was writ­ten by a David Kithil of Mar­ble Falls, TX but have not been able to find any­thing except ref­er­ences to this email chain-letter.
2. “it is esti­mated that a fed­eral bureau­cracy of more than 150,000 new employ­ees will be required to admin­is­ter HB3200“
   • If the Far Right was inter­ested in back­ing this bill; this com­ment would instead be about how the bill will help out our strug­gling econ­omy by cre­at­ing jobs. But since they don’t like the bill, it’s about waste. Also, where is Mr. Kithil get­ting this esti­mate from? By fail­ing to quote a source, it makes one won­der if he didn’t just pull a high out of thin air to try and make peo­ple panic over the bill.
3. “Page 50/section 152: The bill will pro­vide insur­ance to all non-U.S. res­i­dents, even if they are here illegally.“
   • Sec­tion 152 is titled PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE and noth­ing in it guar­an­tees cov­er­age to ille­gal aliens. Addi­tion­ally, a later por­tion of the bill, SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS, specif­i­cally for­bids the bill from pay­ing for health-care for ille­gal aliens.
4. “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.“
   • As best as I can tell, Mr. Kithil is refer­ring to SEC. 164. ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION. ‘SEC. 1173A. STANDARDIZE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS. (4) © which reads “enable elec­tronic funds trans­fers, in order to allow auto­mated rec­on­cil­i­a­tion with the related health care pay­ment and remit­tance advice;” And if we apply a bit of thought to what that says, it’s really no dif­fer­ent from using your debit card to buy milk at the gro­cery store. Thanks for point­ing out the obvi­ous there, Mr. Kithil.
5. “Page 65/section 164: The plan will be sub­si­dized (by the gov­ern­ment) for all union mem­bers, union retirees and for com­mu­nity orga­ni­za­tions (such as the Asso­ci­a­tion of Com­mu­nity Orga­ni­za­tions for Reform Now — ACORN).“
   • I will note that sec­tion 164 is SEC. 164. ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION and every­thing I see under it appears to be talk­ing about how the plan is to be run. But there is noth­ing I can find in the bill which seems to sup­port Mr. Kithil’s claim that the plan will be sub­si­dized for union mem­bers, union retirees and for com­mu­nity orga­ni­za­tions. If Mr. Kithil or another oppo­nent of this bill can find me the rel­e­vant por­tion of the bill which makes up the basis of this claim, I’ll be happy to revisit it.
6. “Page 203/line 14–15: The tax imposed under this sec­tion will not be treated as a tax. (How could any­body in their right mind come up with that?)“
   • PART VIII–HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES, Sub­part A–Tax on Indi­vid­u­als With­out Accept­able Health Care Cov­er­age, SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE., (e) Other Def­i­n­i­tions and Spe­cial Rules-, (6) NOT TREATED AS TAX IMPOSED BY THIS CHAPTER FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES — “The tax imposed under this sec­tion shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chap­ter for pur­poses of deter­min­ing the amount of any credit under this chap­ter or for pur­poses of sec­tion 55.” So basi­cally for tax pur­poses, this par­tic­u­lar tax can­not be used in cal­cu­lat­ing tax cred­its. Big whoop, our tax sys­tem is nearly as con­fus­ing and bro­ken as our health-care sys­tem. Is it really any sur­prise that some­thing like this is in the bill?
7. “Page 241 and 253: Doc­tors will all be paid the same regard­less of spe­cialty, and the gov­ern­ment will set all doc­tors’ fees.“
   • Again the lack of proper doc­u­men­ta­tion of Mr. Kithil’s argu­ment, but my best guess is he’s refer­ring to some lan­guage in the bill that the Sec­re­tary must nego­ti­ate rates for health-care items/services such that the gov­ern­ment will not pay less than the rates already set in the Social Secu­rity Act and not more than the aver­age of other QHBP. Again, this is fear-mongering on the part of the Far Right and if they were sup­port­ing the bill; they’d point out this bit as being fis­cally respon­si­ble on their part.
8. “Page 272. sec­tion 1145: Can­cer hos­pi­tal will ration care accord­ing to the patient’s age.“
   • (1 AUTHORIZATION OF ADJUSTMENT FOR CANCER HOSPITALS- What this por­tion of the bill really does is give the Sec­re­tary the abil­ity to study the costs of pay­ments to can­cer hos­pi­tals and if it is deter­mined that these spe­cialty hos­pi­tals are charg­ing more for the same ser­vices as gen­eral hos­pi­tals, then the Sec­re­tary has the author­ity to adjust pay­ments to these can­cer hos­pi­tals to reflect those costs. Which sounds more like this bill would have the gov­ern­ment pick­ing up more of the expense for patients going to a can­cer hos­pi­tal, and that sounds good to me.
9. “Page 317 and 321: The gov­ern­ment will impose a pro­hi­bi­tion on hos­pi­tal expan­sion; how­ever, com­mu­ni­ties may peti­tion for an exception.“
   • I’m shocked as for the first time since I started review­ing Mr. Kithil’s claims, this one appears to be entirely accu­rate. It appears he is mak­ing a ref­er­ence to © PROHIBITION ON EXPANSION OF FACILITY CAPACITY. But where he sees a prob­lem, I see a nec­es­sary step towards reform. When you’re try­ing to restruc­ture some­thing as com­pli­cated as the US health-care sys­tem, you’re much bet­ter off min­i­miz­ing the num­ber of vari­ables you have to deal with. Hence, the pro­hi­bi­tion on expand­ing health-care facilites. How­ever since hav­ing those facil­i­ties can mean life or death to patients; the cre­ators of this bill have included pro­vi­sions for health-care providers to ask for an exemp­tion. Why exactly Mr Kithil finds this to be a prob­lem is not made clear in the email, and I would be happy to dis­cuss his com­plaints on this point if he cares to make them.
   • An alter­nate the­ory as to the rea­sonin behind this sec­tion of the bill, was pro­posed by James in a com­ment:
     
     
     [*]the pro­hi­bi­tion on expan­sion of facil­i­ties is only on physi­cian owned hos­pi­tals. I think the idea being one thing that dri­ves up costs is some less eth­i­cal doc­tors refer­ring patients for unneeded tests and diag­nos­tics at facil­i­ties they owned to get more insurance money.
     ​
10. “Page 425, line 4–12: The gov­ern­ment man­dates advance-care plan­ning con­sul­ta­tions. Those on Social Secu­rity will be required to attend an “end-of-life plan­ning” sem­i­nar every five years.“
    • While there is lan­guage in this bill for advance-care plan­ning which includes men­tion of end-of-life plan­ning; the way it’s writ­ten, it’s clear the inten­tion is to make the patient aware of what pal­lia­tive, hos­pice and other care ser­vices the health-care provider offers which would nat­u­rally be of impor­tance for a per­son reach­ing the end of their life­time. Are those con­sul­ta­tions going to be filled with hap­pi­ness & joy? Prob­a­bly not. Is it a good idea to put infor­ma­tion in the hands of peo­ple who will need? Definitely.
    • It’s also good to point out that under SEC. 138. INFORMATION ON END-OF-LIFE PLANNING, (b) “Noth­ing in this sec­tion shall be construed-“
      • “to require an indi­vid­ual to com­plete an advanced direc­tive or a physician’s order for life sus­tain­ing treat­ment or other end-of-life plan­ning document;”
      • “to require an indi­vid­ual to con­sent to restric­tions on the amount, dura­tion, or scope of med­ical ben­e­fits oth­er­wise cov­ered under a qual­i­fied health ben­e­fits plan; or”
      • “to encour­age the has­ten­ing of death or the pro­mo­tion of assisted suicide.”
11. “Page 429, line 13–25: The gov­ern­ment will spec­ify which doc­tors can write an end-of-life order.“
    • The phrase “end-of-life order” never appears in this bill and after search­ing through the bill, I can­not find any sim­i­lar phrase to indi­cate the gov­ern­ment can have doc­tors write such a thing.
    • On the other hand, there is lan­guage through­out the bill specif­i­cally detail­ing how assisted sui­cide it com­pletely forbidden.

So hope­fully now that you have links to not only the bill itself, but all the rel­e­vant por­tions of the bill, you will take the time to actu­ally read the bill and see if it some­thing you should sup­port or not (rather than blindly for­ward­ing on some­thing with­out research­ing it).


See I can copy and paste too.

 

[meowmix]

thanks
you rawk

....

 

[stumps]

No I could really care less if the bill passes. I for one don't like the feds in my life. and thats the bottom line. Any bill that gives them more power over my life is bad. I would love to see this split the US up. But it won't. all the people that hate the bill will follow just like sheep to the slaughter.

 

[Big P]

He doesnt give a flying fuck about the American people, dats you guys








Limbaugh prompts healthcare calls, ties up House phone lines


By Jordy Yager - 03/16/10 08:15 PM ET
House phone lines were nearing capacity on Tuesday as conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh encouraged fans to call in their objections on healthcare legislation.

The House e-mail system was also deluged in what the House’s technology office called “a very significant spike” in traffic.

The office of the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) sent out a system-wide advisory to member offices at 2 p.m. Tuesday, warning them of the dramatic increase in traffic.

“Our phone system is nearing capacity,” said Jeff Ventura, spokesman for the CAO. “It got critical enough whereby we notified all systems’ administrators throughout the House that the phone systems are overloading.”

At the top of Limbaugh’s website are toll-free and local phone numbers for the Capitol operator, plus the message: “Call the Capitol Switchboard,” followed by “Code Red: Click Here for List of Targeted Congressmen.”

While Ventura said the CAO didn’t have specific numbers of how many calls the House was receiving, he did say that it would have to be “an extraordinary volume” in order for it to clog the system.

Ventura said the surge in calls, which results in occasional busy signals for callers, is likely to persist throughout the week.

The House is preparing for a possible weekend vote on healthcare reform.

Ventura added there’s not much that can be done to alleviate the busy signals and advised callers to keep calling until they get through.

“Unlike computers, which can be scaled to accommodate something like this in real time, phone lines are hard-wired, so you have your capacity and once the capacity is full, you’re going to get the good old-fashioned busy signal,” he said. “And that’s what’s happening.”

A similar deluge of communications from voters came in 2008 when the House had to limit the number of e-mails being sent to lawmakers on the financial bailout bill in order to prevent House websites from crashing.

As a result, some constituents got a “try back at a later time” response if they used the House website to e-mail their lawmakers about the bill that was defeated in the House.

And three years ago, then-CNN anchor Lou Dobbs and conservative talk radio hosts helped to defeat an immigration bill after they urged listeners to call Capitol operators.

The effort overloaded the switchboard, and senators ultimately voted against advancing the immigration measure despite strong bipartisan support and the backing of President George W. Bush.

This article was first posted at 3:08 p.m.



Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/87123-healthcare-calls-deluge-house-phone-lines




if you guys ever get locked up and somone offers you a bag of funyuns dont takem

cuz then hes gonna own you with that



thats why they wanna pass this so bad, and obama has already resigned himself to be the sacrificial lamb to get it through


thats why they wont stop, they wont let us say no to the offer for funyuns, they are gonna shove it down our throat and then start bossing us around

 

[londonfog]

I love funyuns

[youtube]YF5i6QXgR8c[/youtube]

 

[abe23]

Abe, it's always good to have medical coverage or cash when an emergency happens. I'm sure your girlfriends ordeal was scary for both of you. I hope all is well now.

I'm afraid we disagree some on the full meaning of what is "good" though ...

It's also "good" to be able to decide some things for yourself, like if you want or need private coverage or if you'd prefer "no coverage at all."

The no coverage at all "option" doesn't exist in Massachusetts. If you simply decide you want nothing to do with it, you are fined by the state. Seems like that scheme will also be incorporated in the Federal plan.

Do you see anything wrong with fining a person for refusing to purchase a "service"?

How can a forced purchase ever be defined as anything but extortion? It matters not who the extortionist IS, it is the ACT of the extortionist that makes it extortion. Titles do not exempt perpetrators from true meanings of their ACTION despite their wishing it to be so.

In my case it will not be only a fine. Since I will NOT pay any fines, eventually I will be incarcerated. For lack of a better term ACCEPTING intitiated force against me doesn't fit my "religion".

How does the good you hope to achieve through government healthcare justify incarcerating anyone if they simply say no thanks, I'd rather not participate?

The answer is simple... it CANNOT justify it without first RATIONALIZING the use of force.

Over the curse of what seems like dozens of threads I've seen people argue back and forth about the merits of healthcare etc. Yet the underlying issue of the morality of the "solution" is always avoided or rationalized away by those advocating government healthcare. It's a form of cognitive dissonance.

Seriously, what is wrong with allowing a person to decide if they will or will not participate in something affecting their life, liberty and property?

You seem to focus on "fixing" a problem. That's admirable. Your solution, which relies on forcing people to participate in something they may not want is not admirable, it's rotten at the core...think about it.

Rob, awesome post. You're one of the few people who argue against tge healthcare bill based on what's actually in it, rather than on some imagined healthcare deathcamp where the fat lady from the dmv decides on whether or not you get a kidney....

Philosophically, we're actually kind of on the same page. I hate the idea of anyone forcing you to do anything and there's clearly a coercive element in how they want to go about ensuring universal coverage. But in practice, an individuals freedom NOT to purchase health insurance has a heavy cost. If I decide to go without coverage and get into a debilitating accident or contract an illness that leaves me unable to provide for myself, not to mention pay for my medical costs, should I be left to die or starve to death?

I know you don't like taxes much either, but in my view, the insurance mandate amount to about the same in my view although i would rather see something where your employer is required to provide coverage and you split the cost, with help for small business and the self-employed. In my view, it's just the fare of admission for living in modern society. You can probably move somewhere nobody will ever force you to buy insurance or pay taxes, but you'll have a hard time finding a hospital or doctor to begin with, not to mention roads, clean water and electricity.

But really the point is that right now, the way we provide healthcare is inefficient and expensive. There are two ways of fixing that. Get everyone covered or let people croak outside the emergency room. I don't think the latter is good approach.

And yes, my (now ex) girlfriend is fine thanks, but it was a scary thing. Realistically, when you are in your mid-20s and just getting started in life, you rarely have the kind of money of money set aside for a catastrophic health situation. This is exactly why healthcare was and is such a fiery political issue. People in this country become destitute because of medical expenses. That's fucked up.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

Rob, awesome post. You're one of the few people who argue against tge healthcare bill based on what's actually in it, rather than on some imagined healthcare deathcamp where the fat lady from the dmv decides on whether or not you get a kidney....

Philosophically, we're actually kind of on the same page. I hate the idea of anyone forcing you to do anything and there's clearly a coercive element in how they want to go about ensuring universal coverage. But in practice, an individuals freedom NOT to purchase health insurance has a heavy cost. If I decide to go without coverage and get into a debilitating accident or contract an illness that leaves me unable to provide for myself, not to mention pay for my medical costs, should I be left to die or starve to death?

I know you don't like taxes much either, but in my view, the insurance mandate amount to about the same in my view although i would rather see something where your employer is required to provide coverage and you split the cost, with help for small business and the self-employed. In my view, it's just the fare of admission for living in modern society. You can probably move somewhere nobody will ever force you to buy insurance or pay taxes, but you'll have a hard time finding a hospital or doctor to begin with, not to mention roads, clean water and electricity.

But really the point is that right now, the way we provide healthcare is inefficient and expensive. There are two ways of fixing that. Get everyone covered or let people croak outside the emergency room. I don't think the latter is good approach.

And yes, my (now ex) girlfriend is fine thanks, but it was a scary thing. Realistically, when you are in your mid-20s and just getting started in life, you rarely have the kind of money of money set aside for a catastrophic health situation. This is exactly why healthcare was and is such a fiery political issue. People in this country become destitute because of medical expenses. That's fucked up.

Abe, I honestly don't know for sure sure if you understand my position or not. Sometimes I think you do and then other times, well, I just don't know.

To borrow a phrase from the Community Organizer: Let me be clear.

I am not against government health care/insurance per se.

I am against the unconstitutional application mandating any sort of health coverage from the Federal government.

It is strictly a state issue.

 

[ChChoda]

Noncommittal, again...

"Yes, per se... But, probably, no."

 

[stumps]

If you get rid of the doctors then no one will feel intitled to health care. I just don't understand why people think they are intitled to anything. if you want to help out health care make a bill to out law insurance companies.
Then you'll sse most of the high priced doc's go away and you get back to taking care of people. It's all about greed at every level

 

[ChChoda]

If you get rid of the doctors then no one will feel intitled to health care. I just don't understand why people think they are intitled to anything. if you want to help out health care make a bill to out law insurance companies.
Then you'll sse most of the high priced doc's go away and you get back to taking care of people. It's all about greed at every level

Greed (the bad kind) is what makes people like you think that they have a right to others labor.

Greed (the good kind) is what makes a committed doctor slave away for your, and their, benefit.

 

[abe23]

Abe, I honestly don't know for sure sure if you understand my position or not. Sometimes I think you do and then other times, well, I just don't know.

To borrow a phrase from the Community Organizer: Let me be clear.

I am not against government health care/insurance per se.

I am against the unconstitutional application mandating any sort of health coverage from the Federal government.

It is strictly a state issue.

I do understand your position on this and I respect it, Johnny. And honestly, if it weren't for your input this thread would actually be unbearably stupid...

But I do think that you are putting your fundamentalist interpretation of the constitution and your high principals of state rights in front of common sense and pragmatism. The problem with health insurance is a national one and requires a federal response. States can always go above and beyond what is required federally, but you need a set of rules that apply to insurance companies in all 50 states. And honestly, conservatives also love the idea of selling insurance across state lines so if we do that AND let states make their own rules, we will end up with all the insurance companies having their headquarters in delaware, texas or wherever rules are the laxest and you can sell bullshit coverage as insurance. And guess who gets fucked over? You and me.

Anyhow, tell me, Johnny. What would your ideal insurance system look like on the state level? And don't cop out by saying 'that's up for each state to decide, it's about the principle' or something along those lines.

 

[Balzac89]

Greed (the bad kind) is what makes people like you think that they have a right to others labor.

Greed (the good kind) is what makes a committed doctor slave away for your, and their, benefit.

Capitalism's main attribute is greed. It's not a bad thing. I makes people work harder...... but greed also leads to corruption.

 

[stumps]

Not sure what you mean? people like me. I belive in a fair days work for a fair days wage. At all levels. I don't belive big corps or the goverment should come in and take mine or yours money to spred it around so some worthless fuck don't have to work.

 

[ChChoda]

If John was consistent, he'd say that the new health care law should mimic Roe v Wade in its federal application. After all, states shouldn't be involved in passing laws pertaining to the private bodies of individuals (right?). That's the realm of the federal government (right?).

But he's not.

So he can't.

 

[ChChoda]

Not sure what you mean? people like me. I belive in a fair days work for a fair days wage. At all levels. I don't belive big corps or the goverment should come in and take mine or yours money to spred it aroud so some worthless fuck don't have to work.

People like you cling to the word fair like a polar bear clings to a wayward ice berg...

 

[ChChoda]

Capitalism's main attribute is greed. It's not a bad thing. I makes people work harder...... but greed also leads to corruption.

Capitalism's main attribute is pragmatism.

People work hard when there is incentive to work hard. Remove the incentive, and the "capitalist" system stagnates in corruption, eventually morphing into totalitarianism.

 

[stumps]

I guess your intitled to your opinion. Wrong as it is. see me too. I see no incentive to work if the goverment is going to take my wages and give it to others.

 

[ChChoda]

I see no incentive to work if the goverment is going to take my wages and give it to others.

Exactly. You're greedy (by your own standards), because you don't want to share your money with others. Even worse, you're lazy (by my standards), because you refuse to support yourself by working.

 

[stumps]

lol Thanks I think you proved my point.

 

[ChChoda]

lol Thanks I think you proved my point.

Hell, you did all the "leg work"...