Do you believe the Constitution has been violated?

[TXMary2]

Now see, this is a perfect example of individual opinions.

 

To YOU the first list is Constitutional. To ME healthcare is as equally Constitutional. (if not more so! Gasp! :ohmy:) Many Americans do feel that helping to provide healthcare to it's citizens is VERY Constitutional. :001_smile:

 

nm

[FairProspects]

It does not benefit ME to pay for YOUR health insurance

 

It absolutely does benefit you! Health is a public good - we all benefit from healthy, productive workers with a better national economy. It is far better to have healthy citizens working, than to have sick citizens unable to get well and work because they cannot afford their medical care. Would you rather pay for healthcare so people can get back to work or bankruptcies for reasons beyond their control?

 

Also, it levels the playing field somewhat, in that U.S. employers are not as hobbled by their employees health care costs and can compete better in a global marketplace.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

:scared: WHAT????

 

It does not benefit ME to pay for YOUR health insurance and it does not benefit ME to be forced to enter a contract with a private or governmental run business without my express desire to do so. It is unconstitutional to force me to do so. But what difference does the constitution make? You know..... that old fashioned nonsense that evry American used to have to read and understand and we were willing to die to defend.

 

What you are talking about is facism...maybe you need to read some of the documents of the 20th century (namely the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf to be exact.) Millions upon millions were murdered for the "Good of Everyone." and laws enacted for the "good of the people." Read about Stalin and Hitler.

 

Now, maybe millions upon millions will become bankrupted to help the few who may be bankrupted due being FORCED to purchase something I may not want or need. Maybe next we will all be forced into purchasing cars for our neighbors because they can't AFFORD ONE...AND OUR GOVERNMENT OWNS THIS NICE CAR CORPORATION AFtER ALL, AND EVERYONE SHOULD BE EQUAL YA KNOW...AND IT IS FOR THE GOOD OF ALL......

 

As for people being put in jail for doing their own will...? :001_huh: HUH???

 

~~Faithe

 

There is actually a religious exemption for participating in this health care reform:) I, for one, am ecstatic that this bill passed:) Finally, many will have peace of mind and access to health care and thank God for that IMHO.

 

As far as communism and fascism, I do not know any Democrats who want or desire that at all and that includes me:tongue_smilie: Frankly, it is insulting IMHO to say that half of your fellow Americans are jack-booted thugs who want to impose a state of tyranny in America:001_huh:.

 

Geez, social security and medicare never caused tyranny and have helped millions of Americans including loved ones of mine. I thank God for social security and medicare. In addition, the dis-abled have been helped by medicare and medicaid, a government run program.

[astrid]

 

Well, abortion IS baby killing and that is an accurate description. Screaming it an individual who may or may not have ever participated in abortion was uncalled for. I watched C-SPAN on Sunday and I watched Democrat after Democrat stand up telling anecdotal sob stories one after the other. That is fear mongering. As for what the Republicans rebutted with- they were mostly FACTS. I don't like politicians much on either side, but I especially don't like the blatant liars that have shoved this bill down the throat of the american public. It is shameful, shameful, shameful.

 

But, this bill includes no federal funding for abortion. That was removed. Furthermore, for every person who thinks abortion is baby killing, I can show you another one who doesn't. That's your opinion, and certainly another can of worms entirely.

 

Where are the citations for the "mostly facts" that the Republicans used in their rebuttals? Could you provide links to support your claim? Because those "Death Squad" comments they were flinging about certainly were good examples of fear mongering, by nearly anyone's definition. Which just proves my, ahem, point. That the same tactics have been used by both sides; regardless of which side you align yourself, it hasn't been a pretty thing to watch.

 

astrid

[mommyrooch]

Do you mean to say that NO ONE in the ER even gave you the name of an Oncologist to see outside of the ER? That would be highly unusual. Everytime we have ever visited an ER there was always a referral to another Dr. to see for followup care. EVERY TIME.

 

You're kidding, right? :confused:

 

Of course they gave us a name of an Oncologist!! What the heck good do you think that did us in regards to actually obtaining that care? What the heck did that do for us in regards to actually PAYING for the 3+ years of treatment he required?

 

They did NOTHING for us. I could have found the name of an Oncologist in my local yellow pages!!! Do you really qualify a physician referral as doing "enough" to help save people like my son? :confused:

[astrid]

You're kidding, right? :confused:

 

Of course they gave us a name of an Oncologist!! What the heck good do you think that did us in regards to actually obtaining that care? What the heck did that do for us in regards to actually PAYING for the 3+ years of treatment he required?

 

They did NOTHING for us. I could have found the name of an Oncologist in my local yellow pages!!! Do you really qualify a physician referral as doing "enough" to help save people like my son? :confused:

 

 

mommyrooch, just wanted to send you one of these :grouphug: and say that I share your outrage.

 

astrid

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

It absolutely does benefit you! Health is a public good - we all benefit from healthy, productive workers with a better national economy. It is far better to have healthy citizens working, than to have sick citizens unable to get well and work because they cannot afford their medical care. Would you rather pay for healthcare so people can get back to work or bankruptcies for reasons beyond their control?

 

Also, it levels the playing field somewhat, in that U.S. employers are not as hobbled by their employees health care costs and can compete better in a global marketplace.

 

:iagree: Plus, it is a fact, that almost all of us will be customers of medicine someday due to the fact that our bodies wear down:( Now, of course, one can refuse modern medicine, but I suspect when the chips are down that most will choose modern medicine.

[Granny_Weatherwax]

NM

Edited March 25, 2010 by The Dragon Academy

[Mommyfaithe]

There is a huge difference between "affordable and obtainable to all" and forced on all. This bill will make health care forced on us all, not obtainable.

Melissa

 

Affordable and obtainable is VERY GOOD!!!! I need to decide those things for my own family...I decided I can not pay for our prescription coverage any longer...I wish it were "affordable" but it isn't for us this year,,,,however, I do not think it is someone elses job to pay for it. If enough people deemed it UNAFFORDABLE, the rate would have to be lowered making it AFFORDABLE. Insurance companies sell a product. If the overprice it, and no one buys it...they have to lower the price...supply and demand....this bill stinks!

 

I am all for affordable healthcare....OUTLAW the Insurance Companies!!

 

~~Faithe

[Mrs Mungo]

But, this bill includes no federal funding for abortion. That was removed. Furthermore, for every person who thinks abortion is baby killing, I can show you another one who doesn't. That's your opinion, and certainly another can of worms entirely.

 

Where are the citations for the "mostly facts" that the Republicans used in their rebuttals? Could you provide links to support your claim? Because those "Death Squad" comments they were flinging about certainly were good examples of fear mongering, by nearly anyone's definition. Which just proves my, ahem, point. That the same tactics have been used by both sides; regardless of which side you align yourself, it hasn't been a pretty thing to watch.

 

 

:iagree:

 

You're kidding, right? :confused:

 

Of course they gave us a name of an Oncologist!! What the heck good do you think that did us in regards to actually obtaining that care? What the heck did that do for us in regards to actually PAYING for the 3+ years of treatment he required?

 

They did NOTHING for us. I could have found the name of an Oncologist in my local yellow pages!!! Do you really qualify a physician referral as doing "enough" to help save people like my son? :confused:

 

:grouphug:

[TXMary2]

 

But, this bill includes no federal funding for abortion. That was removed. Furthermore, for every person who thinks abortion is baby killing, I can show you another one who doesn't. That's your opinion, and certainly another can of worms entirely.

 

Where are the citations for the "mostly facts" that the Republicans used in their rebuttals? Could you provide links to support your claim? Because those "Death Squad" comments they were flinging about certainly were good examples of fear mongering, by nearly anyone's definition. Which just proves my, ahem, point. That the same tactics have been used by both sides; regardless of which side you align yourself, it hasn't been a pretty thing to watch.

 

astrid

 

It has not been removed - unless that happened today and if it did I'd appreciate a link- but if you are referring to the "Executive Order" that Obama promised Stupak- it means squat.

 

On Sunday watching C-SPAN I don't recall anyone using the words "Death Squad." I would suggest You Tube- because surely if someone said that on Sunday then it is posted there.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

You're kidding, right? :confused:

 

Of course they gave us a name of an Oncologist!! What the heck good do you think that did us in regards to actually obtaining that care? What the heck did that do for us in regards to actually PAYING for the 3+ years of treatment he required?

 

They did NOTHING for us. I could have found the name of an Oncologist in my local yellow pages!!! Do you really qualify a physician referral as doing "enough" to help save people like my son? :confused:

 

:iagree:

My mother was told if she could not pay at each visit, then she could not get chemotherapy:001_huh:. We helped her of course and the whole ordeal was quite a hardship. I have read of numerous stories of people unable to get chemo or radiation or even operations to remove the cancer since they are un-insured:(. There are some charity services but not enough to go around:( If charity was the answer, then why are all of these people falling through the cracks?

[mommyrooch]

mommyrooch, just wanted to send you one of these :grouphug: and say that I share your outrage.

 

astrid

 

Thanks astrid but it's really not outrage so much as it is sheer frustration. :banghead: Our country is saturated with case after case of patients and their families falling through the cracks in our healthcare system yet it seems like so few are willing to stand up and take a stand against it! Or even worse, they argue that there isn't really as big of a crisis as there is. I just can't comprehend that. :confused:

 

I am so thankful that my president cared enough about families like mine that he was willing to take a stand. I now can at least have hope that my son will be able to get health insurance for his children someday and that he has a chance of not loosing everything because he was uninsurable because of his d**n Leukemia diagnosis.

 

Thanks again. It made me feel better. Now I need to take a breather. :D

[Slartibartfast]

 

It has not been removed - unless that happened today and if it did I'd appreciate a link- but if you are referring to the "Executive Order" that Obama promised Stupak- it means squat.

 

Several Catholic health care workers came out FOR the bill and stated it didn't contain anything that would provide funding for abortion.

 

Linking is not allowed.

 

 

On Sunday watching C-SPAN I don't recall anyone using the words "Death Squad." I would suggest You Tube- because surely if someone said that on Sunday then it is posted there.

She means "death panels"

 

The "Death panels" thing was not true and fear mongering.

[astrid]

I cannot imagine going to sleep each night and living day to day, KNOWING that the cancer cells in my tumor are multiplying like wildfire and there is NOTHING I can do about it because I cannot afford to save my own life, or that of my child. And you know what? A few weeks of that and cancer would be the least of my problems because I'd be stark raving mad at that point.

The very thought of that kind of helplessness makes me weep. Talk about playing God. There is something very messed up there.

 

astrid

[Slartibartfast]

Thanks astrid but it's really not outrage so much as it is sheer frustration. :banghead: Our country is saturated with case after case of patients and their families falling through the cracks in our healthcare system yet it seems like so few are willing to stand up and take a stand against it! Or even worse, they argue that there isn't really as big of a crisis as there is. I just can't comprehend that. :confused:

 

I am so thankful that my president cared enough about families like mine that he was willing to take a stand. I now can at least have hope that my son will be able to get health insurance for his children someday and that he has a chance of not loosing everything because he was uninsurable because of his d**n Leukemia diagnosis.

 

Thanks again. It made me feel better. Now I need to take a breather. :D

:grouphug:

[astrid]

Several Catholic health care workers came out FOR the bill and stated it didn't contain anything that would provide funding for abortion.

 

Linking is not allowed.

 

She means "death panels"

 

The "Death panels" thing was not true and fear mongering.

 

Ahhh....yes! Thanks for the correction, Sis. Death panels. Sorry....I'm posting at work while one of my clients tries to pass a math test with one crying newborn on her lap and her toddler running in circles around the room! :willy_nilly:

 

But I'm thrilled she showed up; I haven't seen her in a few weeks and was beginning to worry about her.

 

astrid

[Mrs Mungo]

It has not been removed - unless that happened today and if it did I'd appreciate a link-

 

There are current insurance plans that include abortion coverage. These insurance plans will be allowed to put their plans into the new insurance marketplace but government subsidies are not allowed to go toward abortion coverage (this is already a federal law and therefore a moot point). Therefore, if people want that sort of coverage then they have to pay for it separately, out of pocket.

 

On Sunday watching C-SPAN I don't recall anyone using the words "Death Squad." I would suggest You Tube- because surely if someone said that on Sunday then it is posted there.

 

Maybe you don't watch enough cspan? Search Sarah Palin and death panel or Charles Grassley (an Iowa senator) and death panel, for example. You must not follow any political blogs, either because this misstatement won "lie of the year" last year on one fact checking blog.

[TXMary2]

There are current insurance plans that include abortion coverage. These insurance plans will be allowed to put their plans into the new insurance marketplace but government subsidies are not allowed to go toward abortion coverage (this is already a federal law and therefore a moot point). Therefore, if people want that sort of coverage then they have to pay for it separately, out of pocket.

 

 

 

Maybe you don't watch enough cspan? Search Sarah Palin and death panel or Charles Grassley (an Iowa senator) and death panel, for example. You must not follow any political blogs, either because this misstatement won "lie of the year" last year on one fact checking blog.

 

I am referring to Sunday on the floor of the House when the so called debate over this bill was happening. I stated that more than once.

 

Also, Sarah Palin is now a pundit and not an elected official. I don't care what she says.

[mcconnellboys]

Yes, as many states attorneys' general also believe. Just one point of the bill, for instance, which requires all Americans to purchase health insurance is a main point of contention right now. If they do not purchase the appropriate level of insurance, which as I understand it will be monitored by the IRS, then they will be subject to a fine for failure to do so. Now, if the language is changed to *tax* them for refusing to purchase, it might fly. But I don't believe they can be forced to purchase insurance or required to pay a fine if they do not. But we'll see. Our court system has been enjoying making law for at least the past 50 years or so, why stop now?

[WagsWife]

I just disagree. There are not millions of people dying due to lack of insurance! It is such a blatant lie! People can get treatment. If someone CHOOSES not to be treated because they don't want to pay for the cost of the medical treatment that is their perogative. CARE is available everywhere across the U.S. and not everyone can be saved or cured from what ails them.

 

As for medical bills I know for a fact and from personal experience that many, many doctors and medical facilities will work with patients on reasonable, interest free payment plans. Also, many hospitals have charity departments and care gets paid for by that. In fact that woman (Natoma??) that Obama keeps mentioning is getting her care paid for by the charity department of the hospital she is being treated at!!!! There are solutions available, but it takes a little effort to find them. The fear mongering over american "dying from lack of insurance" needs to stop.

 

Exactly! My FIL died of cancer. It started at lung cancer which then went to his brain. When my SIL finally forced him to the doctor, they sent him to a public hospital in Indianapolis. There, he was was not denied any treatment! If I was to blame anyone for his death it would be FIL...one for smoking in the first place, but also for being so stubborn about going to a doctor. It would NOT be because of lack of medical treatment!

[Mrs Mungo]

I am referring to Sunday on the floor of the House when the so called debate over this bill was happening. I stated that more than once.

 

Also, Sarah Palin is now a pundit and not an elected official. I don't care what she says.

 

And the Senator in question? It doesn't matter what he says unless it was last Sunday? We don't care what people in Iowa think? Just trying to figure out the rules of this game.

[Gretchen in NJ]

Now see, this is a perfect example of individual opinions.

 

To YOU the first list is Constitutional. To ME healthcare is as equally Constitutional. (if not more so! Gasp! :ohmy:) Many Americans do feel that helping to provide healthcare to it's citizens is VERY Constitutional. :001_smile:

Well no, since I am reading from the Constitution. If our founding fathers wanted healthcare to be a Constitutional right, they would have listed it in the Constitution.

[momzilla333]

Well no, since I am reading from the Constitution. If our founding fathers wanted healthcare to be a Constitutional right, they would have listed it in the Constitution.

 

But there are a lot of things in existence now that just didn't exist when the constitution was written. How could they possibly have been addressed at that time?? Or even imagined by those people living then :confused:

[Hockey Mom]

But there are a lot of things in existence now that just didn't exist when the constitution was written. How could they possibly have been addressed at that time?? Or even imagined by those people living then :confused:

 

*sigh*

 

The Founding Fathers were about limited government.

 

Doesn't matter what the issue of the day is called. The Founders would have never allowed for government to be in every nook and cranny of our lives (literally). It goes completely against their intent.

[LisaKinVA]

But there are a lot of things in existence now that just didn't exist when the constitution was written. How could they possibly have been addressed at that time?? Or even imagined by those people living then :confused:

 

I think, if one reads not only the Constitution, but the Federalist, the Anti-Federalist, Ben Franklin's Silence Dogood letters, to name a few... one can definitely see the "spirit" of what was intended by the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

 

Those powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Gov't were reserved for the states.

 

There is a historical account regarding a widow of the Revolutionary War, please forgive the very rough re-telling here, and the body of Congress was debating whether or not to award her a gift/charity from the U.S. Treasury... one of the Congressmen stood up and said that while the widow was certainly in need, it was not the place of Congress to take other people's money and give it to the widow... however, if it was that important each member of Congress should be willing to reach into their own pocket and donate to support her cause.

 

Then, you can go to read the historical accounts of the "New Deal" and see just how much of this was passed. If I recall (and it's been years), Roosevelt got some legislation passed, which the SCOTUS deemed unconstitutional. To remedy the problem, Roosevelt ADDED additional justices to the bench who supported his progressive views. Now that the court was "stacked" so-to-speak, the new SCOTUS then rubber-stamped his legislation, reinterpreting the Constitution far beyond the range ever done before.

 

Strict interpretationists -- people who want to go back to the world conceived by the founders, and what they pretty well laid out -- don't merely believe the chipping away of our Constitution happened over night, it has been a steady progression for well over 100 years.

 

While there is much today that was not known in the early days, the principles, and spirit of the Constitution are still valid.

[mommyrooch]

Well no, since I am reading from the Constitution. If our founding fathers wanted healthcare to be a Constitutional right, they would have listed it in the Constitution.

 

They did! Does the phrase "provide for the general welfare" ring a bell?

 

Like I said, some don't interpret that to include things like social services but others strongly feel that this does cover them. I am one of those that strongly believes "provide for the general welfare" was meant to include social services that actually "provide for the general welfare" of American Citizens. :001_smile:

[lionfamily1999]

They did! Does the phrase "provide for the general welfare" ring a bell?

 

Like I said, some don't interpret that to include things like social services but others strongly feel that this does cover them. I am one of those that strongly believes "provide for the general welfare" was meant to include social services that actually "provide for the general welfare" of American Citizens. :001_smile:

Then we should provide medical care, not force people to buy a product ;)

[Spy Car]

Then, you can go to read the historical accounts of the "New Deal" and see just how much of this was passed. If I recall (and it's been years), Roosevelt got some legislation passed, which the SCOTUS deemed unconstitutional. To remedy the problem, Roosevelt ADDED additional justices to the bench who supported his progressive views. Now that the court was "stacked" so-to-speak, the new SCOTUS then rubber-stamped his legislation, reinterpreting the Constitution far beyond the range ever done before.

 

 

This is not correct. FDR did draft a bill which would have added seats to the Court in part out of his frustration that make-work programs and other New Deal leglislation was being declared unconstitutional, but the bill never passed and there was no "court-stacking."

 

And Roosevelt took a deserved political hit for his heavy-handedness.

 

Bill

[KnitWit]

They did! Does the phrase "provide for the general welfare" ring a bell?

 

Like I said, some don't interpret that to include things like social services but others strongly feel that this does cover them. I am one of those that strongly believes "provide for the general welfare" was meant to include social services that actually "provide for the general welfare" of American Citizens. :001_smile:

 

And...this is an interesting point when you go back and read about how the society functioned during the time the Constitution was written. There was much coming together of community.

 

However, I do believe, even then, there was little tolerance for a man who just did. not. work.

[Cammie]

Well no, since I am reading from the Constitution. If our founding fathers wanted healthcare to be a Constitutional right, they would have listed it in the Constitution.

 

There are those of us who believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document capable of addressing all our current and future needs. It is just a different point of view but one that is certainly not extreme.

[mommyrooch]

There are those of us who believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document capable of addressing all our current and future needs. It is just a different point of view but one that is certainly not extreme.

 

:iagree:

[Spy Car]

Then we should provide medical care, not force people to buy a product ;)

 

The preamble to the Constitution actually says one of the reasons for establishing the Constitution was to promote the general Welfare, not to "provide" the general Welfare.

 

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

 

Bill

[FairProspects]

There are those of us who believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document capable of addressing all our current and future needs. It is just a different point of view but one that is certainly not extreme.

 

:iagree:This is why the Founding Fathers established a Congress with a government process for future legislation and Constitutional amendments.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

I can't help but think of the Puritanical Ethic here.

 

"I am wealthy because God has smiled on me. You are poor because you have been cursed by God."

 

I believe that THAT attitude is at the heart of some of the discontent here. (Here in America not "here" as in WTM)

 

I keep hearing this sentiment over and over: If they wanted insurance/healthcare they could just pay for it. That is soooo not true!

 

My stomach turned everytime I read on a message board/on Facebook,etc. "Please pray that this doesn't pass!" as well as the sentiment "It's not MY problem!"

 

I've read the bible. "not my problem" isn't really a phrase I would associate with Jesus so it SHOCKED me that his followers would use it in defense of a bill that is genuinely trying to HELP people.

[mommyrooch]

Then we should provide medical care, not force people to buy a product ;)

 

But that is the point. We are not providing that medical care. Thousands upon thousands find themselves having no hope of being able to "have" the medical care you speak of.

 

You make it sound so simple but it isn't. If we were "providing medical care" to our citizens we wouldn't be in this mess. We aren't, so this bill is an attempt to do just that.

 

You know, I have a feeling that any politician (most likely a democrate ;)) that tried to provide healthcare for all would be shut down. How many times has the proposal for universal healthcare been brought up over the decades? Each and every time it has been shut down because it violates our support of capitialism and private business. Well, then someone tries to go a different way and keep the capitalism and private market alive by offering a public option and then that is shut down. Then they take away the public option but now the bill is unconstitutional.

 

Do you see a pattern here? Like I said, anyone attempting to instate some form of healthcare for all will be shut down. There will ALWAYS be some reason in this country that people fight against providing healthcare to it's citizens! I just don't understand why this is the case. Every other industrialized country has some form of universal healthcare for it's citizens except us. I REALLY believe we (USA) have our priorities severly skewed!

[stripe]

I don't believe the Founding Fathers would have stood for any health care that went beyond leeches and mustard poultices. If George Washington had wooden teeth, then, dang gum it, that's good enough for you and me. I believe anesthesia is unconstitutional. I also believe the right to life ends at birth. So I am deeply troubled by the current state of affairs. The only intent of pursuing happiness was through the process by which one passes on one's genes to women one has enslaved -- NOT in being healthy! What's a little syphilis between friends?

[coralloyd]

Read these. Do any of these seem unconstitutional to you? If so then whole bill is unconstitutional. The problem is that the bill doesn't just help people; it takes away the rights of others to do so.

 

Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit 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 bank 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 of Benefit Levels for Plans -- The Govt will ration your health care.

 

Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. (Translation: 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 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 salary you can make.

 

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. (Employees shouldn't get excited about this as employers will be forced to reduce its work force, benefits, and wages/salaries to cover such a huge expense.)

 

Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option will pay 8% tax on all payroll! (See the last comment in parenthesis.)

 

Page 150 Lines 9-13: A business with payroll between $251K & $401K who doesn't provide public option will pay 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 the GOVT Healthcare Admin.. will have access to ALL Americans' finances and personal records.

 

Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." (Yes, it really says that!) ( a 'fee' instead)

 

Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors. (Low-income and the poor are affected.)

 

Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors: It doesn't matter what specialty you have trained yourself in -- you will all be paid the same!

 

Page 253 Line 10-18: The Govt sets the value of a doctor's time, profession, judgment, etc. (Literally-- the value of humans.)

 

Page 265 Sec 1131: The Govt mandates and controls productivity for "private" HealthCare industries.

 

Page 268 Sec 1141: The federal Govt regulates the rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs.

 

Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients.

 

Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever the Govt deems preventable (i.e...re-admissions).

 

Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors: If you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission -- the Govt will penalize you.

 

Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. (The Govt tells doctors what and how much they can own!)

 

Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion. (The Govt is mandating that hospitals cannot expand.)

 

Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have the opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required.

 

Page 335 16-25 Pg 336-339: The Govt mandates establishment of outcome-based measures.

Page 341 Lines 3-9: The Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. (Forcing people into the Govt plan)

 

Page 354 Sec 1177: The Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of 'special needs people!'

 

Page 379 Sec 1191: The Govt creates more bureaucracy via a "Tele-Health Advisory Committee."

 

Page 425 Lines 4-12: The Govt mandates "Advance-Care Planning Consult." (Think senior citizens, end-of-life patients.)

 

Page 425 Lines 17-19: The Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. (mandatory)

Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: The Govt provides an "approved" list of end-of-life resources; guiding you in death. (Also called 'assisted suicide.')

 

Page 427 Lines 15-24: The Govt mandates a program for orders on "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 a patient's health deteriorates.

 

Page 429 Lines 10-12: An "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans.

 

Page 429 Lines 13-25: The GOVT will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.. (I wouldn't want to stand before God after getting paid for THAT job!)

 

Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end-of-life! (Again -- no choice!)

 

Page 469 Community-Based Home Medical Services = Non-Profit Organizations. (ACORN Medical Services here!?!)

 

Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover marriage and family therapy. (Which means Govt will insert itself into your marriage even.)

 

Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, and rationing those services.

[stripe]

Is it really unconstitutional to ask people -- of all ages! -- to consider their own medical priorities?

 

I have had relatives -- and not just elderly ones -- caught unaware in the middle of a health crisis. If people avoid discussing what sort of interventions they want, relatives are left to guess if that person is incapacitated. Not everyone wants to be given every possible intervention and kept alive no matter what extreme measures are in place. And if you do, it's better to say that.

 

"Comprehensive health insurance is an idea whose time has come in America. There has long been a need to assure every American financial access to high quality health care. As medical costs go up, that need grows more pressing. Now, for the first time, we have not just the need but the will to get this job done. There is widespread support in the Congress and in the Nation for some form of comprehensive health insurance."

 

--Richard Nixon, Feb 6, 1974.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Yes, it still sounds like more "helping people" than we have now.

 

Mostly that list looks like fear-mongering especially since those were not direct quotes, but condensed versions of what is supposedly on those lines. It still seems like a very "us against them" mentality.

 

POOR PEOPLE ARE NOT OUR ENEMIES.

[Cammie]

Yes, it still sounds like more "helping people" than we have now.

 

Mostly that list looks like fear-mongering especially since those were not direct quotes, but condensed versions of what is supposedly on those lines. It still seems like a very "us against them" mentality.

 

POOR PEOPLE ARE NOT OUR ENEMIES.

 

 

:iagree: Absolutley that list is a partisan take on each and every line. It would have actually been interesting and helpful if it had the actual language of the bill - but then we would have to think for ourselves!

[MSNative]

I can't help but think of the Puritanical Ethic here.

 

"I am wealthy because God has smiled on me. You are poor because you have been cursed by God."

 

I believe that THAT attitude is at the heart of some of the discontent here. (Here in America not "here" as in WTM)

 

I keep hearing this sentiment over and over: If they wanted insurance/healthcare they could just pay for it. That is soooo not true!

 

My stomach turned everytime I read on a message board/on Facebook,etc. "Please pray that this doesn't pass!" as well as the sentiment "It's not MY problem!"

 

I've read the bible. "not my problem" isn't really a phrase I would associate with Jesus so it SHOCKED me that his followers would use it in defense of a bill that is genuinely trying to HELP people.

 

I agree that I haven't seen "not my problem" in the bible, but I could just as easily say that Jesus would want people to help each other voluntarily, not have the gov't take over. I think it might be better to leave religion out of it. We're fiesty enough as is. :001_smile:

 

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned (though I have probably missed some posts - dang but we're a chatty bunch) is that some people are against this bill because they believe the quality of medical care will decrease. I have lived under socialized medicine. It was not good. My sister's emergency cancer appt. was almost a year out. Not really useful. Thank goodness we could bring her to the US to get treatment right away. On more minor issues, I was unable to ever get into see a dr. Just waited til the next visit back to the States.

 

Not saying that the US doesn't have health care problems that ought to be addressed. I think we need to look at the pros and cons of both, not just the real world cons of the current health care system and the idealized pros of the health care bill's system. (and don't anyone try to diagram that sentence. Eek)

[mommyrooch]

I can't help but think of the Puritanical Ethic here.

 

"I am wealthy because God has smiled on me. You are poor because you have been cursed by God."

 

I believe that THAT attitude is at the heart of some of the discontent here. (Here in America not "here" as in WTM)

 

I keep hearing this sentiment over and over: If they wanted insurance/healthcare they could just pay for it. That is soooo not true!

 

My stomach turned everytime I read on a message board/on Facebook,etc. "Please pray that this doesn't pass!" as well as the sentiment "It's not MY problem!"

 

I've read the bible. "not my problem" isn't really a phrase I would associate with Jesus so it SHOCKED me that his followers would use it in defense of a bill that is genuinely trying to HELP people.

 

Absolutely!! This is the part that I just don't understand but unfortunately it doesn't shock me. It seems that many of the people that profess to be Christians are the FIRST in line defending THEIR personal rights and fighting against the unjustices happening to THEM instead of fighting for the unjustices happing to OTHERS!! I also don't think that this is the type of behavior I would associate with Jesus.

 

Why does caring for others HAVE to be something that is forced? Why are we as a nation more concerned about our personal rights and the unjustices happening to US that we are willing to say "it's not my problem". Many Americans are more than willing to let thousand upon thousands of people be hurt than dare have their rights encroached upon. I just don't understand this and I'm certain I never will. :(

 

And you know what is even worse. If (a big hypothetical if here) the government had set up a "voluntary" contribution pool for healthcare the VAST majority of Americans would not give to it becasue it "isn't their problem". If they HAD made this tax "voluntary" (which is what people claim is the unconstitional part) the main people that would contribute to it would be the very same people that don't have a problem with it in the first place! The ones that argue about its uncontitutionality would be the same majority of people that STILL wouldn't give even though the "unconstitutional" part were removed because after all "it's not their problem".

 

It really is a loose, loose situation and can only be helped by making the contributions a requirment because left to their own devices many, many Americans just wouldn't help regardless, resulting in no hope of fixing the problems.

[KnitWit]

I agree that I haven't seen "not my problem" in the bible, but I could just as easily say that Jesus would want people to help each other voluntarily, not have the gov't take over. I think it might be better to leave religion out of it. We're fiesty enough as is. :001_smile:

 

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned (though I have probably missed some posts - dang but we're a chatty bunch) is that some people are against this bill because they believe the quality of medical care will decrease. I have lived under socialized medicine. It was not good. My sister's emergency cancer appt. was almost a year out. Not really useful. Thank goodness we could bring her to the US to get treatment right away. On more minor issues, I was unable to ever get into see a dr. Just waited til the next visit back to the States.

 

Not saying that the US doesn't have health care problems that ought to be addressed. I think we need to look at the pros and cons of both, not just the real world cons of the current health care system and the idealized pros of the health care bill's system. (and don't anyone try to diagram that sentence. Eek)

 

My dh is European and has many relatives the world over. I will admit this is a concern of ours as we have witnessed all the ins and outs firsthand. We have also watched people DESPERATELY try to come up with the funds to *come here* for treatment. All emotional arguments aside, it IS a valid concern.

[momzilla333]

Yes, it still sounds like more "helping people" than we have now.

 

Mostly that list looks like fear-mongering especially since those were not direct quotes, but condensed versions of what is supposedly on those lines. It still seems like a very "us against them" mentality.

 

Yes, I do think fear is being used as a political tool.

And I'm more worried about a private insurance company making decisions concerning our health based on their profit margin, like they already have been doing.

[Spy Car]

Read these. Do any of these seem unconstitutional to you? If so then whole bill is unconstitutional. The problem is that the bill doesn't just help people; it takes away the rights of others to do so.

 

Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self-insure....

 

 

Snopes has a page on this.

 

Their conclusions? It does not pertain to the current legislation, rather to proposals in a 2009 House bill. And that many of the claims are "erroneous."

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/frazer.asp

 

Bill

[mommyrooch]

Yes, I do think fear is being used as a political tool.

And I'm more worried about a private insurance company making decisions concerning our health based on their profit margin, like they already have been doing.

 

You can bet fear is being used as a political tool. Fear is one of the most powerful weapons someone can have in their arsenal.

 

I also agree with you on not wanting some fat cat insurance executive make my medical decisions. This has worked SOOO well so far. :glare: I would MUCH rather a government panel making those choices than the private business that are 100% made for profit and stand to have big financial gains and thick lined pockets by denying my care.

[coralloyd]

Here is the newest version of the bill posted by the House Rules Committee. Line items are a little off because this is the newest version passed by the House on Sunday. They are still in the general vicinity though. Read the actual words and decide for yourself. There are 2310 pages so you might want to take it slow.

 

http://docs.house.gov/rules/hr4872/111_hr4872_reported.pdf

Edited March 24, 2010 by coralloyd

[Mommyof4ks]

Both of my dds have lung issues that would fall under pre-existing conditions. I believe forcing everyone to pay for health care is unconstitutional. If you don't want auto insurance - you don't buy a vehicle. If you don't want homeowners insurance - you don't buy a home. This mandate requires you to pay just because you are alive and I believe that violates our Constitution. There are problems with our health insurance industry but that doesn't make it ok to intrude on our freedoms.

 

:iagree: Only I have a son who just survived a long cancer treatment which will also be a life long pre-existing condition. He should have the right not to have insurance as an adult though if he does not want it without paying a penalty.

[Renee in NC]

Here is the newest version of the bill posted by the House Rules Committee. Line items are a little off because this is the newest version passed by the House on Sunday. They are still in the general vicinity though. Read the actual words and decide for yourself. There are 2310 pages so you might want to take it slow.

 

http://docs.house.gov/rules/hr4872/111_hr4872_reported.pdf

 

I am posting under you because I couldn't find the post where someone questioned being forced onto Medicaid..

 

I read the actual wording of the bill and what it says is that if you applyf for a subsidy to pay for your care and qualify for Medicaid, then you will get Medicaid, not the subsidy. You still have the option of paying for your own without the subsidy.

 

This is true now with the state plans for children. A long time ago when I applied for the state plan in NC (which was through BCBS) I was denied coverage and given Medicaid because our income was too low.

 

You don't have to have Medicaid. You don't have to use it. You just have to be covered or pay the fine. So, if you qualify for Medicaid, you could get coverage that way to avoid the fine and never use it (pay for your own instead.)