Health Care Reform line by line

“Caveat ...Nothing in Snopes I could find, but this is a purported letter from an MD in Indianapolis to his senator:

Finally a MEDICAL DOCTOR in Indianapolis took time to read ALL ~500 pages of Obama's proposed "Heath Plan for America".

We already knew how he felt about "abortion". Now find out how he plans to "terminate life" for THE REST OF US by DENYING MEDICAL ASSISTANCE.

Read the synopsis below, referenced by page.

--- Here is a letter I sent to Senator Bayh. Feel free to copy it and send it around to our other representatives.

Stephen Fraser

July 23, 2009

Senator Bayh,

As a practicing physician I have major concerns with the healthcare bill before Congress. I actually have read the bill and am shocked by the brazenness of the government's proposed involvement in the patient physician relationship. The very idea that the government will dictate and ration patient care is dangerous and certainly not helpful in designing a healthcare system that works for all. Every physician I work with agrees that we need to fix our healthcare system, but the proposed bills currently making their way through congress will be a disaster if passed.

I ask you respectfully and as a patriotic American to look at the following troubling lines that I have read in the bill. You cannot possibly believe that these proposals are in the best interests of the country and our fellow citizens.


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 Healthcard will be issued!

Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to you ur banks 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 for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration your Healthcare!

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

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.

Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option pays 8% tax on all payroll.

Page 150 Lines 9-13: Business's with payroll btw 251k & 401k who doesn't provide public option pays 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 HC Admin (GOVT) will have access to ALL Americans finances /personal records.

Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" Yes, it says that!

Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors, low income and poor are affected.

Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors, doesn't matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same!

Page 253 Line 10-18: Govt sets value of Doctor's time, proffession, judgment etc. Literally value of humans.

Page 265 Sec 1131: Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries.

Page 268 Sec 1141: Federal Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs.

Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!

Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever Govt deems preventable re-admissions.

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

Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Doctors what/how much they can own!

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

Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. Can u say ACORN?!!

Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: Govt mandates establishment of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing.

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

Page 354 Sec 1177: Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs people! Unbelievable!

Page 379 Sec 1191: Govt creates more bureaucracy - Tele-health Advisory Comittee. Can you say HC by phone?

Page 425 Lines 4-12: Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life patients.

Page 425 Lines 17-19: Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!

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

Page 427 Lines 15-24: Govt mandates program for orders for 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 patients health deteriorates.

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

Page 429 Lines 13-25: The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.

Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life!

Page 469: Community Based Home Medical Services = Non profit organizations. Hello, ACORN Medical Services here!!?

Page 472 Lines 14-17: PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORIGINATION. 1 monthly payment 2 a community-based organization. Like ACORN?

Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt into your marriage.

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


Senator, I guarantee that I personally will do everything possible to inform patients and my fellow physicians about the dangers of the proposed bills you and your colleagues are debating.

Furthermore, If you vote for a bill that enforces socialized medicine on the country and destroys the doctor/patient relationship, I will do everything in my power to make sure you lose your job in the next election.

Respectfully,

Stephen E Fraser MD”

“Finally a MEDICAL DOCTOR in Indianapolis took time to read ALL ~500 pages of Obama's proposed "Heath Plan for America".



do you think obamy realy wrote any of that shyte?”

“Looks like the bill for the price of getting elected.”

“What I found it good for is a line reference for all the Anti HC arguments...get the bill, read the lines referenced and draw your own conclusions....”

“But sir, the message is somewhere under that pile of fighting messengers.”

“There's no end to how often these LIES will be repeated huh.

Non-partisan politifact looked at it.

Most of what the e-mail says is wrong. In fact, it's a clearinghouse of bad information circulating around the Web about proposed health care changes, so we thought it would be helpful to address a bunch of its claims.

Finally, we consulted with Jennifer Tolbert, an independent health care analyst at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan foundation that studies health care reform. Tolbert has read and analyzed all the major health proposals, including those of the Republicans, and the foundation provides point-by-point analyses of the plans on its Web site.

"It's awful," she said. "It's flat-out, blatant lies. It's unbelievable to me how they can claim to reference the legislation and then make claims that are blatantly false."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/30/e-mail-analysis-health-bill-needs-check-/”

“Do you guys know it's been dismissed as a pack of lies before you cut and paste - or are you paying so little attention to the wider debate that you have no idea that it's a pack of lies?”

“Page 379 Sec 1191: Govt creates more bureaucracy - Tele-health Advisory Comittee. Can you say HC by phone?

we've got tele-health--it's really good! saved me quite a few trips to emerg with kids. especially when it's one of those 'my-kid-stuck-a-pea-up-his-nose-what-do-i-do' situations.
ours is not a substitute for the doc/hospital; most of the time the nurse councils you and then directs you to follow up with emerg immediately or your doc within 36 hours, depending on the severity of the situation. the point is, it helps weed out what can wait for the GP v.s. what needs to be dealt with asap.”

“helinka, there is no question there are many "neat" things in the bill that anybody would love to have. That's not the problem. The problem is there are certain things both in the bill, and proposed by Obama's advisors, that limit freedoms and would ultimately lead to a financial disaster.”

“i'm still waiting for a well-researched and non-partisan summary of the reform bill. links to blogs that are very one-sided in their views don't help to clarify the situation.

every gov't reform plan will have it's good points and it's bad points. and the middle ground never satisfies anyone.”

“The Kaiser Family Foundation is offering a lot of details of it. There's almost too much info on it though.”

“if it has bad points, it should not be done - specifically when we're talking about THESE kinds of "bad" points.

Freedom won't be put back in a bag. "Compromise" is a great word for telling kids to share crayons, but not for everything. You don't compromise on building a bridge with taxpayer money. You either build it, or not. Building half a bridge is useless. Giving government rights it shouldn't have should NEVER be done. If 1 side wants to give them 100 rights they shouldn't have, and another 0, a compromise is not to give them 50. With either 100 or 50 unconsitutional powers, you've just lost the battle from a free society point of view.

Compromise is not an acceptable solution.”

“is the US basing their plan on another country's healthcare system? if so, is it a successful system in that country?

or did they develop this plan to accommodate what is already in place(private insurance) instead of forcing a complete overhaul?”

“The congress is not qualified to write one of Stovies cartoons, so why are they writing this bill. Let United Healthcare Group write this like they wrote the Medicare drug bill a few years ago, but this time, give every citizen a thousand shares of its stock and we'll all be flying our private jets up to bomb Capitol Hill.”

“http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/11/obamacare-the-post-office-of-health-care-plans/

1.) The U.S. Post Office is the only entity allowed by federal law to deliver first class mail to your mailbox. In fact, Fedex and UPS are strictly prohibited from delivering �non-urgent� letters. If the government can fairly compete and is setting fair rules, wouldn�t the post office be open to competition at your mailbox?
2.) If Americans were offered �free� postage paid for by massive government spending and tax hikes, would Fedex and UPS still exist?

3.) The Post Office is on track to lose a staggering $7 billion this year alone. How will a government-run health care plan manage taxpayer resources more efficiently?

4.) Postmaster General John Potter says he lacks the �tools� necessary to run the Post Office effectively like a business. Would a government-run health care system have the tools it needs to run as effectively as the private sector entities it is replacing?

5.) On the one hand, the President remarks how great his public health care plan will be. On the other hand, he notes it won�t be good enough to crowd out your private insurance, i.e. the Post Office comparison. So which is it Mr. President? Will it be so great that private insurance disappears or so awful that it isn�t worth creating in the first place?

6.) But the most important question is this: if you have an urgent piece of mail you need delivered, life or death, who are you going to call? Everyone saying the government�please raise your hands. (crickets)

The most frightening line from Joe Nocera�s New York Times piece is this: �As for Mr. Potter himself, while he may want more freedom to run the Postal Service like a real business, he, too, seemed surprisingly wedded to outmoded ideas about mail service in America. �This country needs to have and to protect universal service,� he said.�

Protecting universal service at the expense of cost, innovation, and quality of care. Sound familiar?”

“LOL...Hammering the Liberal lies

Explain how exactly this is 'hammering the liberal lies??????


In your strange lil world maybe. But then liberals are already always lying in that aren't they?”

“So let me get this straight: liberals protest war; conservatives protest health care. Ok. Just wanted to be clear.”

“Kleetn...I think Conservatives protest Government Control”

“Conservatives protest gov. control over americans( they only say that), but they sure like control over the rest of the world.”

“Hope it tanks. I have health care, I don't need it. You want it, get a job.

Go out and buy Wellpoint stock!”

“WHAT??? WK? Did I misjudge you? (LOL)

I think some of the other plans that include "Tort Reform, portability, and eliminate restrictions (i.e. increased freedom) would work."”

“I think I'll post all 2,000 pages on TT....”

“Obama puts forward $1 trillion health care plan
Feb 22, 10:01 AM (ET)

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR



WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama is putting forward a nearly $1 trillion, 10-year health care plan that would allow the government to deny or roll back egregious insurance premium increases that infuriated consumers.

Posted Monday morning on the White House Web site, the plan would provide coverage to more than 31 million Americans now uninsured without adding to the federal deficit.

It conspicuously omits a government insurance plan sought by liberals.

But it's uncertain that such an ambitions plan can pass, since Republicans are virtually all opposed and some Democrats who last year supported sweeping health care changes are having second thoughts. After a year in pursuit of his top domestic priority, Obama may have to settle for a modest fallback.



WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama is making a fresh attempt to rescue his health care overhaul by proposing a measure that would allow the government to deny or roll back egregious insurance premium increases that infuriate consumers.

Coming just days before a White House health care summit with congressional leaders of both parties, Obama's legislative proposal, which will be unveiled later Monday, likely represents the president's last chance to salvage his signature issue.

A White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity because details have not yet been officially released, said the insurance rate proposal would give the federal Health and Human Services Department - in conjunction with state authorities - the power to deny substantial premium increases, limit them, or demand rebates for consumers.

In this initiative, the administration seemingly is playing directly to the same kind of public skepticism that has endangered the medical care system remake all along. Health care reform was a front-burner issue for Obama and majority Democrats in Congress until a little known Republican, Scott Brown, shocked the political establishment last month by defeating Massachusetts Democrat Martha Coakley in a special election to choose a successor for the late Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Recent premium hikes of as much as 39 percent sought by Anthem Blue Cross in California have given Obama a new argument for his sweeping health care remake, stalled in Congress since Democrats lost their 60th Senate seat in a special election last month in Massachusetts.

The proposal for tighter oversight of insurers is modeled on legislation proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and will be part of a broader plan the White House plans to post on its Web site at 10 a.m. Monday, ahead of Thursday's health care summit.

Until now, Obama has argued what should and should not be in a health care overhaul, but the legislation itself has largely been left up to majority Democrats in Congress to draft. It's the most detailed proposal yet to come from Obama.

His plan is expected to require most Americans to carry health insurance coverage, with federal subsidies to help many afford the premiums. Hewing close to a stalled Senate bill, it would bar insurance companies from denying coverage to people with medical problems or charging them more. A tax on high-cost health insurance plans objected to by House Democrats - and labor unions - would be scaled back. The expected price tag is around $1 trillion over 10 years.

Republicans have already served notice they'll continue to oppose it. They want Obama to start over with the goal of producing a more modest bill that tries to curb costs and helps small businesses and people with health problems secure coverage.

The summit at Blair House, the White House guest residence, will be televised live on C-SPAN and perhaps on cable news networks. It represents a risky and unusual gamble by the administration that Obama can save his embattled overhaul through persuasion - on live TV.

Brown's victory in Massachusetts reduced the Democrats' majority in the Senate to 59 votes, one shy of the number needed to knock down Republican delaying tactics.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Sunday he would participate, but insisted Obama and congressional Democrats would be wrong to push the bills they wrote in the House and Senate.

"The fundamental point I want to make is the arrogance of all of this. You know, they are saying: 'Ignore the wishes of the American people. We know more about this than you do. And we're going to jam it down your throats no matter what.' That is why the public is so angry at this Congress and this administration over this issue," said McConnell, R-Ky, speaking on "Fox News Sunday."

Thursday's meeting will take place nearly a year after Obama launched his drive to remake health care - a Democratic agenda item for decades - at an earlier summit he infused with a bipartisan spirit. The president will point out that Republicans have supported individual elements of the Democratic bills.

Under the Obama plan, regulators would create a competitive marketplace for small businesses and people buying their own coverage. The plan would be paid for with a mix of Medicare cuts and tax increases. It would also strip out special Medicaid deals for certain states, while moving to close the Medicare prescription coverage gap and making newly available coverage for working families more affordable.

Oversight of insurance companies has traditionally been a state responsibility. The proposal for a new federal role calls for setting up a new seven-member Health Insurance Rate Authority that would monitor insurance industry behavior and issue an annual report. States that beef up their consumer protection programs would be eligible for a share of $250 million in federal grants.

People buying insurance coverage on their own would stand to gain the most, since big company plans are now exempt from state oversight.”

“I need my Wellpoint stock back up where it was 2 years ago. Won't happen if anything goes through with this reform bull#&%!$”

“Here I'll give you a 39% raise, lean over now.”

“I'll take 45%”

“Our group's premium went up 45% over last year's for the same exact plan. I can't imagine why anyone thinks we need to reform this. Its a perfect #&%!$ing system.”

“I want free stuff.”

“Bring in competition, control Attorney's in lawsuits and you will see the prices drop.”

“I'd like to see proof of Vio-progressive's statement....


White House Contradicts CBO, Misleads on Insurance Rate Increases
by Morgen Richmond



The President’s health care proposal this morning includes an FAQ section for various audiences – seniors, small business owners, the uninsured, etc. Here is one of the questions and answers for individuals who currently purchase insurance directly on the individual market (click for source):

I fall into this category myself, and it is a pretty important question for a couple of reasons. One, because there are an increasing number of individuals and families (18+ million) who buy health insurance coverage on the open market as opposed to receiving it through an employer. Secondly, because everyone, including the millions currently uninsured, would be legally required to have some form of insurance based on the mandate included in the President’s proposal and both the House and Senate bills

Obviously it would not help the cause of Democrats trying to pass this bill if the millions of people who buy insurance directly, and the millions more who are forced to do so by the insurance mandate, end up paying even higher premiums than they would under current law.

But here’s the thing – many of them will. At least according to the CBO. And the White House is deliberately and irresponsibly misleading the public by claiming otherwise.

Here is what the CBO had to say about this question in their analysis of the Senate bill from which the President’s proposal is largely based (emphasis added):

CBO and JCT estimate that the average premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law. About half of those enrollees would receive government subsidies that would reduce their costs well below the premiums that would be charged for such policies under current law.

And the impact will be even worse for families who obtain coverage on the direct market as highlighted by this passage from the CBO:

Average premiums per policy in the nongroup market in 2016 would be roughly $5,800 for single policies and $15,200 for family policies under the proposal, compared with roughly $5,500 for single policies and $13,100 for family policies under current law.

For people like myself who obtain insurance coverage for their families directly, this means that according to the CBO we will face costs which on average are 16% higher compared to what they would be if the Democrats’ health reform bill is not passed.

This also means that the answer to the question of whether individuals and families who obtain insurance directly will pay more than they are paying today should undoubtably be “yes”. Directly contradicting the information provided by the White House.

Now I would be remiss if I did not point out that the primary reason for the increased costs projected by the CBO is that insurers would be legally required to provide more generous benefit plans under the Senate (and House) bills. Some of these cost increases, in fact, would be offset by the efficiencies gained from the insurance mandate, which would result in larger and healthier (i.e. younger) population pools. In other words, costs would increase, but so also would the average value of the benefit plans offered based on the CBO’s analysis.

But this is not the argument offered by the White House, which instead chose to falsely and simplistically claim that no one would pay more. The key to their slipperiness on their answer to this question is the phrase “if you buy coverage like you have today“. Since their plan mandates more comprehensive coverage than what these individuals may have today, at a higher cost. Even more slippery, the source of the claim that premiums are expected to drop by “14 to 20 percent” appears to be an unnamed “Senate Democratic staff” member. In other words, a completely partisan source, not the CBO.

This issue also highlights one of the key arguments made by opponents of the President’s plan, which is that it is largely based around costly government mandates at the expense of consumer choice.

What if those of us who purchase insurance directly do not want the more generous but more expensive plans mandated by Democrats? What if we prefer to actually assume more responsibility for our families’ healthcare expenses using high-deductible plans in exchange for lower monthly premiums? And why should younger and healthier people be mandated to obtain such comprehensive (and expensive) coverage?

Most of all, why does the White House persist in providing such false and misleading information about even basic details such as these?

They seem to be under the impression that the public is largely opposed to reform because they do not understand the details. I think the reason is much simpler than this. We are sick and tired of being misled, and as a result we do not trust the President or Democrats in Congress to enact legislation which will impact healthcare for all of our families. We have had enough.”

“AND OH ... THOSE OBSCENE HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY PROFITS
By
Neal Boortz
@ February 23, 2010

Just to remind you ... while The Community Organizer is talking about putting price controls on the evil, profit-gobbling health insurance companies ... the average industry profit margin is under 4%. Yeah ... these insurance companies are really sucking down the obscene profits, aren't they?

As I pointed out, this bill is not identical to the Senate version that passed on Christmas Eve. The president did have to make some changes in order to appease the House.

* Eliminating the Nebraska FMAP provision (the Cornhusker deal). He did this by essentially expanding this deal to all of the states. That makes the plan even more expensive. In the meantime, the Louisiana Purchase remains in the bill.
* Closing the Medicare prescription drug "donut hole" coverage gap by implementing a Medicare payroll tax increase on upper-income earners. For the first time, Medicare taxes would be assessed on investment income, not just wages. Sounds like wealth redistribution to me. Higher taxes ... such an easy road to take.
* Increasing the threshold for the excise tax on the most expensive health plans from $23,000 for a family plan to $27,500 and starting it in 2018 for all plans; The plan dramatically scales back a Senate tax on high-cost health insurance plans objected to by House Democrats -- and labor unions. Instead of raising $150 billion over 10 years, it would bring in just $30 billion, the administration said. But it would not take effect until 2018. You do see what Obama is doing here, don't you? He's taking that sweetheart deal he carved out for the unions and applying it to everyone. That way he doesn't make the unions mad. Can't do that, you know.
* Improving insurance protections for consumers and creating a new Health Insurance Rate Authority to provide Federal assistance and oversight to States in conducting reviews of unreasonable rate increases and other unfair practices of insurance plans. Fact is, every state already has this process in place. Federal involvement isn't necessary. What we're really seeing here is the implementation of price controls at the federal level.
* The penalties for employers who have more than 50 workers and do not provide health insurance coverage would go from $750 in the Senate bill to $2,000. Now that's the way to get out there and encourage hiring, don't you think?”

“MORE GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS
By
Neal Boortz
@ February 23, 2010

How about this new federal authority that the White House wants to give to the Health and Human Services Department? Obama's new plan would give the federal government the power to regulate the health insurance industry as if it were a public utility. The Health and Human Services department would be able to deny a private insurance company from increasing premium rates without getting permission from the federal government. This would be done by creating ... another government agency! The Health Insurance Rate Authority would be a seven-member panel that would be responsible for monitoring industry practices and issuing annual reports.

Quick question ... from what part of our Constitution does this new agency derive its power to treat health insurance as a public utility?

You do know what this is, don't you? This is your virtual federal takeover of the health insurance industry. We will have a situation where the health insurance companies will remain in private hands, but will be controlled tightly by the government. There's a name for this type of economy ... and that name is "fascist."

Obama's ultimate goal is to change the very economic nature of the United States, from a market-based economy to a centrally planned economy completely managed by anti-capitalist activists in Washington DC.

That's change I don't particularly believe in.”

“Obama Destroys Pledge to Allow Americans To Keep Their HC Plans

By Philip Klein on 2.22.10 @ 12:33PM

Throughout the health care debate, President Obama has insisted that Americans who liked their health insurance could keep it.

“If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period,” he declared in a speech to the American Medical Association last June. “No one will take it away, no matter what.”

While a number of provisions in the existing House and Senate health care bills would undermine that pledge, the proposal Obama unveiled today takes a sledgehammer to it.

The Senate bill has a measure to protect so-called “grandfathered plans,” which would allow policy holders to maintain coverage in plans that may not abide by all of the requirements imposed on new individual plans offered on the government-run exchanges.

But Obama’s new proposal changes all of that. Here’s how the White House explains the new provisions:

The Senate bill includes a “grandfather” policy that allows people who like their current coverage, to keep it. The President’s Proposal adds certain important consumer protections to these “grandfathered” plans. Within months of legislation being enacted, it requires plans to cover adult dependents up to age 26, prohibits rescissions, mandates that plans have a stronger appeals process, and requires State insurance authorities to conduct annual rate review, backed up by the oversight of the HHS Secretary. When the exchanges begin in 2014, the President’s Proposal adds new protections that prohibit all annual and lifetime limits, ban pre-existing condition exclusions, and prohibit discrimination in favor of highly compensated individuals. Beginning in 2018, the President’s Proposal requires “grandfathered” plans to cover proven preventive services with no cost sharing.

All of the new requirements proposed by Obama would increase premiums, and by definition, alter the composition of those insurance plans. The White House would argue that it is changing the policies for the better. But the entire point of having “grandfathered plans” was to protect a class of policies from changes imposed by the new legislation. Put another way, the provision to allow people to keep their “grandfathered plans” is rendered meaningless when the federal government is dictating what is in them.”

“"Profit margins" are one thing.

The difference is in Overhead Costs.”

“Profits can be cut with more corporate jets and more thousand dollar lunches or even more advertising(especially the new SCOTUS type). You know the deduction will go up ,up ,up.”

“


LOL..not holding breath for apology.”

“You want proof Stratdood? You expect me to post a copy of my pay stub or something? The increases are very hard for my small company and our families to afford. It equates to a difference of more than $300 in my monthly take-home pay. Seems a bit high to me.

Mine is not an isolated instance. I've read about people all over the country receiving shocking premium increases. Don't be surprised when your company renews.”

“Good thing you work for a great company that pays part of it for you.

You could start putting more money away each month to pay for your medical procedures (just skip the insurance company altogether) or, as a short term jumpstart, you could go deep into debt and then your kids can pay it off years from now.

BTW, I was hoping to get an eye exam and some new glasses this year so if you would be so kind as to forward me a little cash I would appreciate it. Mmmkay? Thanks.”

“Vio-progressive, Sorry you have a crappy job, but it's not my fault and more importantly taking over the entire industry and screwing all of us in the process isn't the answer. Nor should I have to be burdened with your medical expenses...It's not governments job to provide you or me with health care. If the neo-progressives would allow you to shop across state lines and instill reasonable tort reform, the free market would provide a much better deal. Government intrusion is clearly the problem, not the solution.”

“I'm not asking for you to pay my medical expenses ass-hole. I'm not asking for the government to pay my medical expenses, either. I'd like the option to buy into Medicare. Idiot.”

“By the way - if you're so concerned about somebody getting over on someone else, please ask your state representatives to reduce the amount of federal money you receive. Neo-progressive northeastern taxpayers are tired of subsidizing your redneck asses.”

“My company has seen an increase in Health insurance...the last time this REALLY happened was 1993...wanna know why Vile?

Apparently many Insurance Companies see that they will be taking it in the Shorts. Here is a neat plan, end state mandates, open the insurance companies to compete across state lines.

Heck at this point in my life I don't need an OB rider, I don't need lots of things. If we could set our own plans and companies could compete for patients....That would bring the price down.”

““I'm not asking for you to pay my medical expenses ass-hole. I'm not asking for the government to pay my medical expenses, either. I'd like the option to buy into Medicare. Idiot.”
vioLiN
1:49:27 PM
2/23/10


If you think you're the only one that would be paying for it, why don't you just save your money and buy healthcare as you go?”

“Or companies would set up shop in states with the weakest insurance regulations and there would be a race to the bottom as states competed to have the most business friendly regulators.

I can't see the flaw.”

“Or the federal government could control it. I can't see any flaw there either.”