Healthcare Bill: Now law, but fraudulent

There were lots of pleas for compassion going into the healthcare debates.

Every scenario has anecdotal evidence, that is, specific examples that seem to prove whatever the speaker wants to prove. Any businessperson knows that no decisions should ever be made solely on anecdotal evidence. Yes, there are people that have had huge bills due to lack of health insurance.

But did you know that most of the examples we've been given have not been accurate? Some of them have been made up, and others were blown way out of context?

Examples:

The President said that people who want to get insurance on their own pay three times of that through an employer. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that's not so.

The President told the story of a man who had cancer, lost his insurance, couldn't get chemotherapy, and died. Not true -- the newspaper author of the story retracted it, but the President continued to tell the story after the retraction.

Lots of people say that people can't get medical care if they don't have insurance. They can get whatever care they need -- the law doesn't allow care providers to refuse care based on ability to pay. True, the person may get billed huge amounts (which they may never pay off, and which cannot legally be passed to inheritors), but they do get the care. Chemotherapy, heart transplants, whatever.

And just before the Congressional vote, the President introduced a small boy whose mother died of cancer after she couldn't get treatment without insurance.

Two problems with that. First, the mother was a member of a group dedicated to getting people to meet the needs of others by sharing from their own resources (a system some refer to, more-or-less accurately, as "communist"). But they wouldn't even meet the needs of one of their own members. You see, they wanted the government to meet the need, and not themselves personally, despite what they say.

But the government? That directly brings up the second point. She QUALIFIED FOR MEDICAID! But MediCaid didn't help her. She qualified for government healthcare assistance, but still didn't get it.

Yes, it's a tragic story. But the government-provided healthcare was already available, and this government-provided healthcare failed her.

And they want this already-failed system to be enforced on everyone else?!?!

Healthcare: They'll "Do Whatever It Takes"

Well, President Obama and Speaker Pelosi have exposed a little more about themselves.

They have both said that they'll do "whatever it takes" to pass comprehensive government-regulated healthcare.

The problem is what it is "taking: things that are unconstitutional, and things that used to be considered illegal.

Things that are unconstitutional, like:

Requiring everyone to purchase something just for being a citizen.

Everyone makes the comparison with car insurance, but that's not accurate. For one, the law (which is state law, by the way, not federal) does not require comprehensive insurance; only other people are protected, not the owner. On the side of health care, other people were already protected from an individual's actions -- under criminal and tort law.

Secondly, auto insurance does not include wear-and-tear on the vehicle. That's the range of warranties and "extended warranties", and no state requires a car owner purchase or maintain an extended warranty on his or her car.

And things that are illegal, like:

Giving Congressmen Federal jobs if they promise to vote the "right" way. One Congressman has been promised the ambassadorship to NATO. One has been promised the administration of of NASA (they have an "administrator" rather than a "director").

These aren't "iffy" things like pork benefits to the Congressman's district that indirectly benefit the Congressman him/herself -- these are things that reasonably have cash value, since a job, even a cushy, appointed job, involves a salary. In fact, the cushy ones tend to have more monetary value than the others, since they also tend to have perks. NATO is based in Belgium -- a nice spot for a vacation home, from what I understand. And a vacation home paid for by other people that is, us, the tax-payers) is so-much-the-better.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has promised to "kick through the door" to pass this regulation. The problem is that it's the door to someone else's house. And she knows it. And she doesn't care -- she wants in. And she wants everything you've got, so she can give it all away to her friends.

Get ready -- she's kicking on your door, and she's got a freight truck with her.

Promised Transparency? Clear as Concrete...

President Obama promised that all healthcare discussions would be televised live on C-SPAN.

The Congress did not do that, but the President could not control whether or not they would comply with his own promise.

This week, President Obama had healthcare meetings at the White House. This was his opportunity to fulfill his promise. Did he? Were all discussions carried on C-SPAN?

Not only were the meetings NOT televised, but no reporters -- at all -- were even allowed in the room.

But we know one thing that came out of the meeting. The unions were promised that they will be exempted from the taxes on "high-value" health insurance that everyone else will have to pay.

Letter to my Congressman and Senators: If the health care bill has any favors, please vote against it.

Letter to my Congressman and Senators:
--------------------
If the health care bill has any favors, please vote against it.

The previous version had favors for Louisiana and Nebraska for the federal government to pay the state portions of Medicare and Medicaid.

President Obama has negotiated favors for the unions, opting them out of taxes that apply to everyone else.

If the health care bill has any favors, please vote against it.

Forwarded email: "Maxine on Health Care!"

I don't normally pass on forwarded emails, but this one is both funny and true.

--------------------

Maxine on Health Care!


Let me get this straight.

...we're going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it,

passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it,

to be signed by a president that also hasn't read it and who smokes,

with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,

all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese,

and financed by a country that's nearly broke.

What could possibly go wrong?

Letter to my Senators: "Please REJECT the current healthcare bill."

I just sent this letter to my Senators, Jim Webb and Mark Warner.

--------------------

Please REJECT the current healthcare bill.

The current healthcare "reform" bill does NOTHING to reform malpractice suits, frivolous or otherwise, which are the major cause of increasing healthcare costs.

The bill requires, for the first time in US history and with neither legal nor Constitutional precedent, that all citizens purchase a product or service for simply living, and provides steep penalties for those who choose not to have the service.

The bill includes heavy taxes on the healthcare industry, which will further increase costs as these taxes are passed on to the customers.

The bill requires government-sponsored insurance "options", which inherently and unfairly compete against existing insurance companies, since the government plans have no need to operate at a profit, to break even financially, or to provide good customer service once the existing insurance has been run out of business.

The bill does not provide for private competition, as existing prohibitions against purchasing services from companies in other states are still in effect.

The bill continues biases against personal insurance coverage by not allowing tax deductibility unless the insurance is provided through an employer.

The bill includes government bureaucratic oversight, contrary to promises that "no government bureaucrat will come between you and your doctor."

As an example:

A "task force" has already been established that now "recommends" women who were previously recommended to get mammograms every year after age 40 now only get them every other year and then only after age 50. Just to be clear, the data has not changed, only the recommendations.

Right now, the United States has the best cancer survivorship in the world. If this healthcare plan is instituted, many thousands of women will die who would before have survived, and thousands of women who would have had a simple treatment and rapid recovery will now have to endure long, complex, painful (and expensive) treatments, because their cancer was not caught early.

In summary, this plan causes more problems without solving the existing ones.

Please both vote and speak against this horrendous plan.

Cancer, Rationing, Broken Promises

President Obama said that "no government bureaucrat will come between you and your doctor."

Really?

The healthcare community has long recommended that women over 40 get mammograms every year. But now, as Congress and Senate try to pass a government takeover of healthcare, a government "task force" has just recommended that be changed. Just to be clear, the data has not changed, only the recommendations.

They now say that only women over 50 should get mammograms, and then only every other year.

Right now, the United States has the best cancer survivorship in the world. If the government enforces this "recommendation" as part of its new healthcare plan, many women will die who would before have survived, and many women who would have had a simple treatment and recovery will now have to endure long, complex, painful (and expensive) treatments, because their cancer was not caught early.

Well, that last part, "expensive," may not come. European countries with government-controlled healthcare don't allow expensive treatments for people over 60. That means that those who are over 60 and get cancer don't get treatment - they get management. Pain therapy. Don't treat the problem; manage the symptoms.

Guess what? It's not (for the most part) the Republicans who are telling people to "die quickly". It's those who are pushing for this government takeover of what is right now the best healthcare system in the world.

It's not perfect, and it can use some tweaks (mostly protection from already overbearing government, like allowing frivolous lawsuits and outrageous penalties), but it's the best anyone has.

Senator Edward Kennedy and Health Care

Senator Edward Kennedy died last night.

He has had a year and a half of treatments trying to save his life.

If the healthcare plan he has pushed passes, other people will not be able to get similar care. They will be given pain treatments instead.

This is not my opinion; Health Czar Dr. Ezekial Emanuel says that care will be provided based on "quality-adjusted life years." That means that if treatment costs more than $50,000 per anticipated year of quality life, the treatment will be denied.

It also means that if treatment will not significantly improve either length or quality of life, the treatment will be denied - for instance, if the procedure will just reduce pain (say, back surgery or knee/hip replacement), they'll just give pain treatments instead.

Of course, the current Democratic healthcare plan exempts the Congress and Senate members from itself; it only applies to "regular people"...

Our Federal Government is Financially Irresponsible

Our federal government can't handle $1 billion for Cash for Clunkers. The money was supposed to last 5 months, but it was gone in the first weekend.

Their response? Triple the funding. As it turned out, that only lasted a few more weeks. The Cash for Clunkers program, which was supposed to last until November 1, will now end on Monday, August 24.

A simple rebate requires 30 pages of paperwork, which has 136 pages of documentation. Rebate forms are being returned unpaid for simple spelling mistakes. The user agreement on the government website (though it was later changed after people complained) said that any computer that accessed the site became the property of the federal government and all information on it could be copied and any communications could be monitored and all information could be shared with any government entity, national or international.

Car dealers aren't getting reimbursed. They are giving out $3500-4500 per customer out of their own pockets (literally - most dealerships are sole proprietorships), but a month later, the government has only repaid 2% of the amount they've promised. Dealerships are stopping using the program because they can't afford it. And some in positions to know such things suggest that if the federal money runs out, the dealerships will just be out of luck on getting repaid at all.

Our federal government can't handle $1 billion for Cash for Clunkers.

But the same government, with the same legislators and the same bureaucrats, says they want $1.5 trillion for healthcare. They say they'll improve things. They really expect us to trust them?


With healthcare, the $1.5T will be spent in just as short a time. Then they'll just pass increases. Of course, they won't be able to just end the program once they've dismantled our current system, so they'll have to increase the funding again. Obviously, this means taxes. They've already long forgotten the campaign promises for no tax increases of any kind on anyone making less than $250,000/year, so there's no telling where things will head at that point.

There's no telling how much paperwork will be involved for a simple checkup, an x-ray of a suspected broken leg, a cut that needs stitches. Will the doctor be required to complete the 30 pages (or 300 pages, the way things are heading) before giving someone a drug for a heart attack? Or will the patient be expected to complete the paperwork himself before he can receive any treatment?

Will costs be unreimburseable if the form has a spelling mistake? Will coverage be denied if an emergency procedure isn't approved in advance by a government bureaucrat? Will doctors have to wait months for reimbursement? Will doctors stop accepting the government "insurance" plan like car dealers are doing with Cash for Clunkers, even if it means moving out of the country?

Unreasonable? Yes. But remember, the people passing the regulations won't have to deal with it themselves. Congress has already exempted themselves; they have their own plan for themselves and their families.

Healthcare "Reform" - mandatory abortion coverage

The current healthcare "reform" plan requires - REQUIRES - all insurance plans, public or private, to pay for abortion.

There are many problems with this.

One, I'm a single man. Why should I have insurance for childcare, whether killing the baby or live birth? And why should my parents in their senior years be required to have childcare insurance coverage?

Two, I don't want to pay for other people's elective abortion. And most people agree with me; a Zogby poll last year says 71% of Americans don't want insurance to be required to cover abortion.

Three, I believe abortion kills babies. 82% of Americans believe there should be at least some limits on abortion, and 11% believe all elective abortion should be illegal.

In contrast, President Obama is part of the only 9% of Americans (Harris) that believes that abortion should be legal for any reason at any point in the pregnancy. But more than that, he wants it paid for at taxpayer expense.

Why? Some experts believe that the purpose is population control. This will come in two ways.

One, many people will choose abortion over children. Some women will gladly take the simplicity of a minor surgical procedure (nevermind that only one of the two patients will survive the process) to the extended difficulty of a pregnancy followed by the pain of the birth. And some people, given the choice between meeting their obligations as human beings and actually caring for their own children or discarding their own offspring as "inconvenient" will take the easy way out. Then factor in that they don't actually have to pay for even the abortion themselves, and you have a "no-brainer".

Two, we will soon see encouragement to reduce childhood disorders. We will see efforts to reduce issues like Down's Syndrome, autism, and the 2% of all children who are technically "mentally retarded". How will these be reduced? Simple - fetal tests. And if the baby, that is, "fetus" has signs of a concern, the mother will be advised to abort the child. Later, this "advice" may become stronger. Parents have recently become legally criminal for not having their children vaccinated as instructed; parents may soon become required to kill "substandard" children. Obviously, these steps will require that the abortion be funded.

There may be portents of a third step to come later. Obama's "Science Czar", John P. Holdren (director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy) has written (another reference) that he does not believe a child to be a "human being" until he, excuse me, "it", is several years old, and then only if "given the opportunity to develop properly" including "essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food". Those who don't "develop properly"? They are never deemed human at any age, and as such can be eliminated without consequence. You know, Christians, Jews, homosexuals, conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians - anybody the ruling authority deems to have a negative influence in society. I would hope that one individual with radical ideas will not unduly influence the rest, but you never know.

I would have hoped that the second phase would not come in my lifetime, if at all. This is the stuff of science fiction, and not the good kind. But experts are now expecting this to come soon. Phase One within months, if the current "reform" passes, and Phase Two soon afterward. On the other hand, it has only been sixty-some years since the third phase was used extensively in Europe.

Cash for Clunkers Fiasco

Cash for Clunkers was supposed to run July 1 to November 1, four full months. But the money ran out after four days. Now they are trying to add another $2B to the $1B that was already used.

The program was supposed to start on July 1. But the program details weren't finalized until July 24.

The application form is 30 pages long, and the instructions are 136 pages.

The privacy policy said that using the CARS system will cause your (the car dealer's) computer and any networked systems to become property of the Federal government, and any information in this system, including usernames and passwords, can be copied and any communication can be monitored, and any of this can be sent to any government organization, either national or international. (This policy has since been changed, due to the loud feedback.)

Do we really want these people in charge of out healthcare?