Government Healthcare LOL

“OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO peps is going to hate you now....”

“Pour sternOpOOH !!”

“�jesus stovie, shut up.�
dizzybtch
10:42:52 AM
9/01/09

�jesus stovie, shut up.�
dizzybtch
10:42:52 AM
9/01/09

�jesus stovie, shut up.�
dizzybtch
10:42:52 AM
9/01/09”

“http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death.

Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.


So here is the game plan when the libbies get Obamamammama care.

You commit a heinous crime. Obviously the crying libbies will never let it happen. So we just move you to >Government Medical Care> Then you declare them "terminally Ill" and BOOM just keep the pain drip on till they cross the line.”

“You showing off a new tattoo?”

“Let the boo hooing for poor, abused private industry begin...

WASHINGTON � Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe broke with her party Tuesday and said she will vote for a Democratic health care bill, handing President Barack Obama a much-sought boost in his quest to expand access to medical coverage to all Americans.

Approval of the legislation by the Senate Finance Committee was a foregone conclusion going into Tuesday's vote, since Democrats outnumber Republicans 13-10 on the panel. But Snowe's decision gave the vote a significance that transcends partisan divisions. For months, congressional Republicans have been virtually unanimous in denouncing the Democratic bills as an unwarranted expansion of government influence.

The Maine senator kept virtually all of Washington guessing about how she would vote until she announced it late in the Senate Finance Committee debate Tuesday. She told her colleagues she has misgivings about the bill, but "when history calls, history calls."

Democrats, aware that Snowe could be the only Republican in Congress to vote for their health care overhaul, have spent months addressing her concerns about making health care affordable and how to pay for it.”

“The Repugs were threatening to strip her of her committee assignments if she didn't follow their orders.

She needs to quit those losers.


You clowns can have Leiberman, LOL

”

“Snowe is a Republican????”

“I thought there was an anti-semite thread for people to use? Hint: try the search feature.”

“This analysis shows that the cost of the average family coverage is approximately $12,300 today and could be expected to increase to approximately:

- $15,500 in 2013 under current law and to $17,200 if these provisions are implemented.

- $18,400 in 2016 under current law and to $21,300 if these provisions are implemented.

- $21,900 in 2019 under current law and to $25,900 if these provisions are implemented.

This analysis shows that the cost of the average single coverage is $4,600 today and could be expected to increase to:

- $5,800 in 2013 under current law and to $6,400 if these provisions are implemented.

- $6,900 in 2016 under current law and to $7,900 if these provisions are implemented.

- $8,200 in 2019 under current law and to $9,700 if these provisions are implemented.

Just think about that, folks. The cumulative increase for a typical family would be over $20,000 over the next ten years. What could you do with that money? What could you invest in with that money? What could you purchase? Instead, it will be wrapped up in paying more for your healthcare just so some ego-driven politician can get his picture at a signing ceremony for this healthcare bill. Just so he can buy votes from the moocher class that will allow him to stay in office with all the perks and the prestige he currently enjoys.”

“Who paid for that "study", strat?

You can't really be that gullible, can you?”

“And the increases to private insurance regardless of any pending laws would be what? You need to put it in perspective, Dood. Medical costs are skyrocketing regardless of any federal plan.”

“GULLIBLE? from one of THE ONE's boot licking followers?

Please just give me ONE major POSITIVE he has done?

Stimulus? MAJOR INCREDIBLE FAILURE
Defense? Now they are REALLY predicting attacks...and on and on”

“If you think healthcare's expensive now, just wait till it's free...”

“GREAT solution!!!”

“Anything has to be better than what I just paid for my wife to have her gall bladder out. We hardly use our insurance, this was the first time she has been to a Dr. since Charlie was born and I have not been to one in years.

Got the bill's yesterday. Have 2 kids cost less than having her gall bladder out.”

“The Baucus Prescription: Higher Taxes and Higher Premiums (Updated)
by Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN)

Today, the Senate Finance Committee is scheduled to vote on Senator Max Baucus’ health care overhaul. Like most Americans, I believe that our health care system needs to be reformed. However, this bill is a tax and spending bill masquerading as a health reform bill. It gives government bureaucrats far too much power and encroaches on freedom more than any legislation since LBJ’s Great Society experiment. It is bad for the country and bad for the economy.

Senate Democrats are pushing a vote on the 1,000-page bill now because the Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the bill cost “only” $829 billion over the next 10 years. In truth, the bill raises taxes immediately, but the benefits do not kick in for another four years, so the 10-year numbers are distorted. This is an expensive experiment that cuts Medicare, and exacerbates state government budget problems by dramatically expanding Medicaid without providing additional funding.

Public-Opinion-Supports-New-Proposal-in-Health-Care-Reform_large

How do the Democrats propose to pay for the rest of the new spending? There are a massive amount of tax increases in the bill, including over $200 billion in tax increases on insurance premiums, new taxes on individuals and employers, and over $120 billion in new taxes on medical device makers and other health care businesses. All of these tax increases concern me, but the latter category does so especially: My state is the home of Medtronic, Boston Scientific, 3M, St. Jude Medical and other medical technology makers that employ 60,000 Minnesotans and save and improve countless lives. Increasing taxes on these businesses would not only be an unwise burden on these employers, but would siphon money otherwise spent on research and development. It would also risk the cost of increased taxes being passed on, directly or indirectly, to those who rely on such devices or who cover their cost.

The Democrats are proposing these tax increases to offset the costs of mandating and subsidizing the purchase of health care by every American. Expanding health care access to all Americans is an admirable goal and one that I share – but one that also cannot be accomplished without addressing the root cause of America’s health care crisis, something the Baucus bill fails to do.

Expanding access is important, but achieving that goal, and doing so in a fiscally sound manner, requires that we focus on the forces driving up health care costs. Otherwise costs will continue to grow in an unsustainable way, and, as we’ve seen in other states, government mandates will only shift the burden of exploding costs onto the shoulders of taxpayers and ordinary Americans unable to cover them.

There are many bipartisan ideas that would actually cut health care costs, like medical liability reform, allowing employees to keep their insurance when they switch jobs, standardizing health information technology, and allowing consumers to purchase insurance across state lines. In Minnesota, we’ve passed reforms that made price and quality more transparent for patients, moving the health care system towards paying for and achieving better health care outcomes, and empowering patients themselves to help drive down costs.

Congress should look at what we are doing in Minnesota, among the healthiest states in the nation, where we have the highest concentration of health savings accounts in the country and other market-based reforms that are containing costs. A vote for the Baucus bill today is a move in the opposite direction – towards higher premiums, higher taxes, and more government.”

“There are many bipartisan ideas that would actually cut health care costs, like medical liability reform, allowing employees to keep their insurance when they switch jobs, standardizing health information technology, and allowing consumers to purchase insurance across state lines. In Minnesota, we’ve passed reforms that made price and quality more transparent for patients, moving the health care system towards paying for and achieving better health care outcomes, and empowering patients themselves to help drive down costs.

This is the solution??? Gimmie a break.”

“UNSHUN

Yes, and none of them involve another bloated Government bureaucracy or take over any part of the private sector. The State line restriction is ridiculous and if they really were concerned with competition they would drop it like it's hot.

RESHUN”

“'The State line restriction is ridiculous and if they really were concerned with competition they would drop it like it's hot.'

You better stop and think. When the state lines are gone then the federal gov. has to control the biz instead of the state, it's in the Constitution. You think state insurance boards are corrupt, wait.”

“The objection to that is there would be a race to the bottom. States with weak regulations would find all the health insurers operating from their state. You'd have none operating from states with tough regulations. You'd be at the mercy of insurance regulators in Delaware or South Dakota. No thanks.”

“That's what's happening anyways dood. They are taking the biz....stright up stealinf it the way they did GM and Chrysler and the mortgage industry....

This suicide by lunacy”

“No strat. Each state has its own insurance regulators. An insurance company has to be licensed to sell insurance in a state and abide by the state regulations.”

“They could be standardized....and then we could choose from 1,300 companies instead of only 7”

“the federal gov. has to control the biz instead of the state, it's in the Constitution.
salebored

Just curious, can't say I've ever noticed this statement in the US Constitution; please show.
last edited: 10/13/09 8:04:46 PM”

“Article 1, section 8, clause 3, I think.”

“IRS rules woman with double mastectomy cannot deduct cost of infant formula. Washington will no doubt be equally compassionate with your health care, citizen

http://www.taxgirl.com/infant-formula-not-a-medical-expense/”

“All five bills have now passed out of their respective committees and are proceeding toward reconciliation.”

“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.

Nope that's not it. Nothing I know of implies the forcing of the federal gov't's control based on statelines. Although fed regulations may regulate, it will still be up to the state by what business operate therein. Millions of businesses operate everyday accordingly.”

“I heard Chuck Schumer explaining that if Harry Reid puts the public option in the merged Senate bill, it would take 60 votes to remove it.

I'm no expert in these maneuvers, but I sure like what I'm hearing.”

“We're coming down the stretch and the 'health' corporations are about to flood the airwaves with more crap.

You might find these stats to be of interest (the corporations certainly won't):

US v. UK v. France v. Singapore

”

“Why are you trying to hide your source, t*lty?”

“They have no morals on any other issue so why would this be any different.”

“LOL
Morals from a want to be child killer.”

“Too bad there isn't a way to just fry the great-grandchildren of people who talk the coalmining industry line. � Everybody loses, unfortunately.�
Tilt
7:26:43 PM
8/20/07

http://www.thebackpacker.com/trailtalk/thread/48714,-1.php”

“You Will Get Health Insurance at DMV—Literally (It’s in the Bill)
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey


The most revelatory passage in the so-called “plain English” version of the health care bill that the Senate Finance Committee approved on Tuesday (without ever drafting the actual legislative language) says that in the future Americans will be offered the convenience of getting their health insurance at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

This is no joke. If this bill becomes law, it will be the duty of the U.S. secretary of health and human services or the state governments overseeing federally mandated health-insurance exchanges to ensure that you can get your health insurance at the DMV.

You also will be able to get it at Social Security offices, hospitals, schools and “other offices” the government will name later.

Page 19 of the committee’s “plain English” text says: “The Secretary and/or states would do the following: ... Enable customers to enroll in health care plans in local hospitals, schools, Departments of Motor Vehicles, local Social Security offices, and other offices designated by the state.”

This is the bill’s most revelatory passage because it sublimely symbolizes the bill’s true aim: a government takeover of the health care system.

You do not get food at the DMV. You do not even get auto insurance at the DMV. But under what The Associated Press inaptly calls the Finance Committee’s “middle-of-the-road health care plan,” you will get health insurance at the DMV.

What will the DMV and health care have in common if this bill is enacted? Government will control both.

A couple of weeks ago, the Finance Committee voted down the public option—a health insurance plan run directly by the government. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and all three House committees working on the bill had included the public option in their versions. So, the establishment media made much of the fact that the Finance Committee did not.

But the omission is almost meaningless.

The public option is only one lane on the road to socialized medicine. Government subsidies and government regulations are two others—and they run like a super highway through the Finance Committee bill.

The bill orders all states to create an “exchange” where companies offering government-approved plans can sell health insurance. Americans earning up to 400 percent of the poverty level ($103,000 for a family of five) would be eligible for federal subsidies in the form of a refundable tax credit to buy health insurance—but only if they buy one of the government-approved plans in the government-created exchange.

The government will not pay this subsidy to the individuals purchasing insurance. The U.S. Treasury will pay it directly to the government-approved insurance providers.

“The Treasury would pay the premium credit amount to the insurance plan in which the individual is enrolled,” says the committee’s “plain English” text.

Four different levels of insurance plans will be available in the exchange—Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum. But every year, the secretary of health and human services will determine what services need to be offered by these government-approved and government-funded plans.

“The Secretary of HHS,” says the “plain English” text, “would be required to define and update the categories of covered treatments, items and services within the benefit classes no less than annually through a transparent and public process that allows for public input, including a public comment period.”

Under this bill, the government commands individuals to secure insurance for themselves and their dependents. “In order to insure compliance, individuals would be required to report on their Federal tax return the months for which they maintain the required minimum health coverage for themselves and all dependents under age 18,” says the text.

The government would enforce this mandate with a fine. “The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax of $750 per adult in the household,” says the text.

The bill does not similarly order businesses to provide employees with health insurance. However, people who get insurance through their employer will not be eligible for the federal subsidies.

And here is the whip the government will use to drive most Americans into government-approved, government-subsidized, government-controlled health insurance: An employer that decides not to provide health insurance for its workers will be required to pay a fee to the government for each of its workers that receives a federal subsidy. But the total paid to the government by any employer will be capped at $400 times the total number of that employer’s workers.

Even though this fee will not be tax deductible, it will be far cheaper for a business to pay the government $400 per worker than to pay a private insurance company thousands per worker for an insurance plan.

The Finance Committee has created an irresistible incentive for American businesses to drop their workers off at the DMV where they can enroll in government-funded, government-approved, government-regulated health insurance plans.”

“Government board tells women to stop getting mamograms so often, they are too expensive..... Err, I mean, they do not work”

““Government board tells women to stop getting mamograms so often, they are too expensive..... Err, I mean, they do not work”
Stovie
8:23:23 PM
11/17/09

Funny, because my mother`s private health insurance told her the same thing and they said they wouldn`t pay for them as they were not necessary.”

“thats really gonna hurt this guys business:

”

“Is that Joe The Plumber?”

“Joe The Plunger?”