Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: B McCaughey

[TCups]

Please read this :
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

The "Stimulus Bill" will likely be passed as an "emergency" measure sometime this week.  Did you know that it contains the basic framework for the laws of socialized medicine for the USA, based on European models and establishes sweeping government controls over everyone's healthcare, and penalties to doctors and hospitals for non-compliance with these guidelines?  Of course, none of this would pass in the light of day as a "Health Care Reform" bill.  Remember Hillary Care and how it went down in flames?

Ref:  H.R. 1 EH
See:  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.+1

Excerpts:

. . . the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further.  One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties.  â€œMeaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541) . . .

Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).   . . .

Once again, may I point out that your stimulus package is on its way, and it will be inserted rectally.  And boy, is it going to be a wake up call!  But unfortunately, the call will come after the train has left the station.  Think your insurance companies are tough to deal with?  Just wait.  I would be LMAO if it weren't so sad.  But hell, I guess that is what "Change" is all about, right?

Have a nice (and cost effective) day.

[riflejunkie]

Our government and politicians are out of control.

[3n00n]

Next up: what new thought crime can they think ofto create?

The sheeple must be controlled - you know?

[erskine]

3n00n - 2/11/2009  3:49 PM  

Next up: what new thought crime can they think ofto create?

The sheeple must be controlled - you know?

"Sheeple". I lived in Texas, "where men are men and sheep run scared" for a long time. I give the "sheeple" more credit than I once did. I'm thinking that, Americans are Americans, pretty much across the board, north, south, east, and west.

I'm thinking that it would be more or less arrogant for me to call my fellow citizens, "sheeple", given that I don't really know them. There will be those who are willing to hand over their rights for a hand out, but you know, there are as many who would never trade any right for a meal if they were starving.

These are interesting times. We have unions that are willing to take down their employers just so that they don't have to take a cut in pay? Which part of that is intelligent? Maybe if *every swinging weiner* in Detroit would STFU and take a fifty percent cut in pay, Detroit could survive this? Maybe if *every swinging weiner* in Manhattan could do the same, Manhattan could survive this? Ditto for every swinging jack ass in the legislature... sadly that is not going to happen, not in the legislature that WE elected.

"Sheeple", is that what we blame this upon? Is it everyone else's fault? Probably not, no it is everyone's fault. Every citizen, votes his own Representative into congress. Every citizen votes his own Senator into congress. Every citizen votes the man or woman who will bring the most PORK home into congress...

Congress is not the problem, it is the symptom of what we have become, anyone who would blame the "sheeple", fails to understand that we are the "sheeple". Those who manipulate us, are not as dumb as we would wish they were. They have tools, TV and the Press, and they use those tools expertly. Evidence the "boiling in oil of the Manhattan bank executives of the last couple of days". Those bank execs were *ORDERED* by congress to make the sub prime loans that got them into trouble... and congress still managed to blame this on the bank execs... Talk to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, ask them about sub prime lending.

This has nothing to do with sheeple, it has everything to do with the thieves and whores that we elect to congress, each and every one of us...

When the people discover that they can elect someone who will give them "largess from the public trough" the republic will fail due to fiscal irresponsibility... I did not originate the quote, but it is definately a true statement.

This has absolutely nothing to do with sheeple. It is about who will give you something for nothing... We can whine on these forums for the rest of our lives, or we can telephone these jack asses and TELL them what to do. If we don't, we are all "sheeple".

Ayup.

[3n00n]

. . . sure they'll listen!

`

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

`

This certainly prooves thattheir listening, huh?

[erskine]

3n00n - 2/13/2009  10:46 AM  

. . . sure they'll listen!

`

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

`

This certainly prooves thattheir listening, huh?

Nice link. Thanks. Well then I guess we should all just throw up our hands in disgust and give up on the rest of humanity.

[3n00n]

BOHICA with sand!

from:

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_health_care_tax/2009/03/16/192352.html?s=al&promo_code=7C3A-1

During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama said rival John McCain’s plan for taxing employee health benefits would represent “the largest middle-class tax increase in history.”

But now the Obama administration is signaling to Congress that he could support such a plan to help pay for overhauling the healthcare system, The New York Times reports.

Since companies began offering group health insurance on a large scale during World War II, the value of that benefit has never been counted as income, reducing workers' taxable earnings by an average of $9,000 a year for family coverage. The average family healthcare plan today costs $12,000, a burden shared by many employers.

Though there are several plans that have been offered by lawmakers who have toyed with the idea of taxing benefits, the Obama administration is unclear about what form of taxation they would support. If benefits were taxed at prevailing income rates, a family making between $30,000 and $49,000 could be looking at a tax increase of $2,500, based on the average savings per tax return calculated by the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. A family or individual earning $75,000 could be looking at an increased tax bill of at least $3,000 while those making above $100,000 could pay about $4,500 if benefits were taxed at the prevailing rate.

Thus far, the Obama adminstration has been quite coy about how far they want to take the idea of taxing benefits. On "Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace," Austan Goolsbee, a key member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, wouldn't dismiss the idea.

"This appears to be coming from — the administration and representatives of the administration went to Congress and said, 'We are open to all ideas to talk about health reform.' He (Obama) put forward a vision. There are some people in Congress who are pushing this, but that is not the president's idea," said Goolsbee.

"The president has laid out a series of clear principles on the health plan that we will do whatever it takes to get affordable quality coverage to all Americans," he added. "And he's outlined a more than $600 billion cost-saving program that will get costs down so that we can afford to reform the health system. And if the — if these ideas can fit in with those principles, then we'll consider them. And if we go through and they don't, then he won't consider them."

It's unclear how much support the idea would have in Congress. Republicans are likely to be against any new tax during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, while Democrats would be slow to embrace a tax on health care when they're trying to make it more affordable for families, not less.

U.S. Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., said, “It would be something we would have to take a very hard look at. I would not support it outright.” Republican Rep. Phil Gingrey, also from Georgia and an obstetrician, said he would consider taxing high-value health care benefits. “During the campaign, [Obama] was highly critical of McCain. Now all of sudden he’s realizing maybe old McCain wasn’t so crazy after all.”

In TV ads last fall, Obama criticized McCain for proposing a tax on all employer-provided health benefits in exchange for giving families a tax credit to subsidize the purchase of healthcare coverage.

Now several Obama aides say that while the president won’t propose a tax on benefits, he won’t oppose the measure if Congress puts it forward.

Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who favors making benefits taxable, asked Peter Orszag, Obama’s budget director, about the issue at a recent Congressional hearing. Orszag said it “most firmly should remain on the table,” according to The Times.

And when Sen. Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat who heads the Finance Committee, spoke in favor of taxing benefits, Treasure Secretary Timothy Geithner said the administration was open to all ideas from Congress.

The latest government figures disclose that 70 percent of the 253 million Americans with health insurance receive at least some of it through their employers. And the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that including health benefits in taxable income could bring in more than $245 billion in additional revenue a year.

But Alan Reuther, legislative director of the United Automobile Workers, told The Times that the move “would represent a tax increase on working families.”

In another possible initiative to aid his healthcare reform goals, Obama last week told business leaders he’d consider cutting the 35 percent corporate tax rate if they cooperate with his overall agenda, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Obama met with 65 CEOs from the Business Roundtable, a chief executives organization, and stressed that he wants the business community’s cooperation in promoting his agenda of overhauling healthcare and the energy sector and expanding the federal role in education.