Obama willing to compromise on health insurance?

[AztecWilliam]

Perhaps I should start a section devoted entirely to health-related issues. For now, I'll bring this piece on that very topic to your intention in this section of AztecMesa.

Kondracke points to what seems clear; namely, that our President is out to "get" private health care plans. Is that a good idea? I don't think so, but others may disagree. Here is Kondracke's piece on this:

www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/30/obama_unfairly_targets_insurance_97701.html

AzWm

[aztecwin]

Jul 30, 2009 11:47:42 GMT -8 AztecWilliam said:

Perhaps I should start a section devoted entirely to health-related issues. For now, I'll bring this piece on that very topic to your intention in this section of AztecMesa.

Kondracke points to what seems clear; namely, that our President is out to "get" private health care plans. Is that a good idea? I don't think so, but others may disagree. Here is Kondracke's piece on this:

www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/30/obama_unfairly_targets_insurance_97701.html

AzWm

I just hope we don't go to fast on this issue. If there is a "government option" or any type of government board to decide what will be covered we are going to both ration care and squeeze out private health insurance. The cost will be enormous and care will deteriorate.

One thing I notice is that AARP is for ObamaCare. This is not the first time that AARP has come out on the side of issues that are not in the best interest of their membership. I was a member of AARP for a few years mainly for the discounts you were able to get when traveling. No more. They work for things that do not benefit and in fact are detrimental to their membership. If you belong, I would examine why.

We need reform, but it must be in areas that streamline care delivery, include some tort reform, and are near revenue neutral.

[aztecwin]

Here is a scary bit of information:

This has a link to the actual bill:

frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.pdf

(If you can not open the webpage, please copy the above URL and paste to your address bar. This is a PDF copy of the bill)

A Peek Inside the ObamaCare Bill

Chairman Zero wants to ram his gargantuan healthcare bill down our throats before anyone realizes what's in it. What doesn't he want us to see? Some examples, from a quick inventory by Family Security Matters:

Pg 22 of the HC Bill mandates the Government will audit books of all employers that self insure.

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill ? a Government committee (good luck with that!) will decide what treatments/benefits a person may receive.

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill ? YOUR HEALTHCARE WILL BE RATIONED!

Pg 42 of HC Bill ? The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you. [HC = health care]

PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill ? HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise.

Pg 58 HC Bill ? Government will have real-time access to individual' s finances and a National ID Healthcard will be issued!

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Government will have direct access to your bank accts for election (or electronic?) funds transfer.

PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community organizations (read: ACORN).

Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Government will create an HC Exchange to bring private HC plans under Government control.

PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill ? Government mandates linguistic appropriate=2 0services. Example ? Translation for illegal aliens.

Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Government will use groups, i.e. ACORN & Americorps, to sign up individuals for Government HC plan.

PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill ? Specifics of Benefit Levels for Plans. AARP members ? your Health care WILL be rationed.

PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill ? Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.

pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue Government on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Government Monopoly.

pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill ? Doctors/ AMA ? The Government will tell YOU what you can earn.

Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public option plan. NO CHOICE.

Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families.

Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.)

Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin ( the GOVERNMENT) will have access to ALL Americans' finances and personal records.

PG 203 Line 14-15 HC ? "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" Yes, it says that.

Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Government will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected.

Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill ? Doctors ? doesn't matter what specialty ? will all be paid the same.

PG 253 Line 10-18 Government sets value of Doctor's time, professional judgment, etc. Literally, value of h umans.

PG 265 Sec 1131 Government mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries.

Pg 317 L 13-20 OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Government tells Doctors what/how much they can own.

Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion ? Government will mandate hospitals cannot expand.

Pg 354 Sec 1177 ? Government will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs people!

PG 425 Lines 4-12 Government mandates Advance Care Planning Consultations. Think Senior Citizens end of life prodding.

PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Government provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in how to die.

PG 427 Lines 15-24 Government mandates program for orders for end of life. The Government has a say in how your life ends.

PG 429 Lines 10-12 "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from the Government to end a life! [Abortion is for the pre-born; what is for the too old to be needed?]

Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION. 1 monthly payment to a community-based organization. (Like ACORN?)

There's plenty more. See for yourself: PDF.

This bill would drive unemployment, taxes, and the deficit through the stratosphere. It would turn hospitals into the DMV, dramatically reduce our access to healthcare, let bureaucratic slime decide when it's time for us to die, and guarantee that no one in his right mind goes to medical school. As for the damage this would do to individual liberty ? let's just say that any doubts about the Moonbat Messiah being a socialist have been put to rest.

If this nightmare bill isn't Obama's Waterloo , then it's America 's.

[Bob Forsythe]

Try this:

docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

However, there's more than one bill in the House, Pooh, so your condemnation is quite premature. Also, I question whether you've read the entire bill or are just offering a summary off some right-wing website.

=Bob

[Bob Forsythe]

Jul 30, 2009 15:54:32 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

Jul 30, 2009 11:47:42 GMT -8 AztecWilliam said:

Perhaps I should start a section devoted entirely to health-related issues. For now, I'll bring this piece on that very topic to your intention in this section of AztecMesa.

Kondracke points to what seems clear; namely, that our President is out to "get" private health care plans. Is that a good idea? I don't think so, but others may disagree. Here is Kondracke's piece on this:

www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/30/obama_unfairly_targets_insurance_97701.html

AzWm

I just hope we don't go to fast on this issue. If there is a "government option" or any type of government board to decide what will be covered we are going to both ration care and squeeze out private health insurance. The cost will be enormous and care will deteriorate.

One thing I notice is that AARP is for ObamaCare. This is not the first time that AARP has come out on the side of issues that are not in the best interest of their membership. I was a member of AARP for a few years mainly for the discounts you were able to get when traveling. No more. They work for things that do not benefit and in fact are detrimental to their membership. If you belong, I would examine why.

We need reform, but it must be in areas that streamline care delivery, include some tort reform, and are near revenue neutral.

I see. So no cost containing measures, no caps on insurance company premiums for doctors, just some streamlining and tort reform. That's so totally worthless that it's not worth taking seriously. Of course, it doesn't matter to you since you've been living under socialized medical care for your entire adult life.

=Bob

[aztecwin]

Jul 30, 2009 17:14:11 GMT -8 Bob Forsythe said:

Jul 30, 2009 15:54:32 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

I just hope we don't go to fast on this issue. If there is a "government option" or any type of government board to decide what will be covered we are going to both ration care and squeeze out private health insurance. The cost will be enormous and care will deteriorate.

One thing I notice is that AARP is for ObamaCare. This is not the first time that AARP has come out on the side of issues that are not in the best interest of their membership. I was a member of AARP for a few years mainly for the discounts you were able to get when traveling. No more. They work for things that do not benefit and in fact are detrimental to their membership. If you belong, I would examine why.

We need reform, but it must be in areas that streamline care delivery, include some tort reform, and are near revenue neutral.

I see. So no cost containing measures, no caps on insurance company premiums for doctors, just some streamlining and tort reform. That's so totally worthless that it's not worth taking seriously. Of course, it doesn't matter to you since you've been living under socialized medical care for your entire adult life.

=Bob

I don't think that I limited my suggestions to just those things. Other areas can be improved. We just have to be careful not to give ourselves less care for more money.

[AztecBill]

Jul 30, 2009 17:14:11 GMT -8 Bob Forsythe said:

I see. So no cost containing measures, no caps on insurance company premiums for doctors, just some streamlining and tort reform. That's so totally worthless that it's not worth taking seriously. Of course, it doesn't matter to you since you've been living under socialized medical care for your entire adult life.

=Bob

It is not a power given to the Federal government. They should butt out.

Anyone who thinks the goal is not to drive out of business all health insurance is naive. You can keep you own insurance if you want...but it won't be there...hehehe

We are in this mess beause the government came into the health care industry and distorted the market. And they keep coming back saying let me fix it for you. And now they will just take the whole thing over. Typical.

[Bob Forsythe]

Jul 30, 2009 11:47:42 GMT -8 AztecWilliam said:

Perhaps I should start a section devoted entirely to health-related issues. For now, I'll bring this piece on that very topic to your intention in this section of AztecMesa.

Kondracke points to what seems clear; namely, that our President is out to "get" private health care plans. Is that a good idea? I don't think so, but others may disagree.
AzWm

Kondracke asks the question, but he does not state that Obama is out to get the industry. Mostly he wants to see the stuff the industry is promising put into law. While it may be personal, his mother is a damn good example. Her insurance company wanted to stop her cancer treatment on the basis that she had fallen off her bicycle as a kid and broke a bone or some such.

=Bob

[Bob Forsythe]

Aug 11, 2009 11:51:18 GMT -8 AztecBill said:

Jul 30, 2009 17:14:11 GMT -8 Bob Forsythe said:

I see. So no cost containing measures, no caps on insurance company premiums for doctors, just some streamlining and tort reform. That's so totally worthless that it's not worth taking seriously. Of course, it doesn't matter to you since you've been living under socialized medical care for your entire adult life.

=Bob

It is not a power given to the Federal government. They should butt out.

Then why shouldn't they also butt out when it comes to tort reform?

=Bob

[aztecwin]

Aug 11, 2009 13:10:07 GMT -8 Bob Forsythe said:

Aug 11, 2009 11:51:18 GMT -8 AztecBill said:

It is not a power given to the Federal government. They should butt out.

Then why shouldn't they also butt out when it comes to tort reform?

=Bob

See if you can get back on the turnip truck that you have obviously just fallen from. How naive!

[AlwaysAnAztec]

Aug 12, 2009 17:57:25 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

Aug 11, 2009 13:10:07 GMT -8 Bob Forsythe said:

Then why shouldn't they also butt out when it comes to tort reform?

=Bob

See if you can get back on the turnip truck that you have obviously just fallen from. How naive!

I thought it was a valid question. If you truly want smaller government then it works both ways.

[aztecwin]

Aug 13, 2009 8:22:34 GMT -8 AlwaysAnAztec said:

Aug 12, 2009 17:57:25 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

See if you can get back on the turnip truck that you have obviously just fallen from. How naive!

I thought it was a valid question. If you truly want smaller government then it works both ways.

It would be a valid question if there was not a difference between making law changes that restricted litigation brought and huge awards based on things like John Edwards was involved in and the direct interference of the Federal Government in the system. =Bob knows the difference, but just wants to argue or he is in fact that dense. I don't think it is dense.

[aztecwin]

Here is that Craigs list link about jobs trying to save ObamaKare. =Bob or someone said they could not find it.

washingtondc.craigslist.org/doc/npo/1299047025.html

[Bob Forsythe]

Aug 13, 2009 10:41:25 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

Aug 13, 2009 8:22:34 GMT -8 AlwaysAnAztec said:

I thought it was a valid question. If you truly want smaller government then it works both ways.

It would be a valid question if there was not a difference between making law changes that restricted litigation brought and huge awards based on things like John Edwards was involved in and the direct interference of the Federal Government in the system. =Bob knows the difference, but just wants to argue or he is in fact that dense. I don't think it is dense.

Actually, I think it was a quite cogent question. The more radical libertarians would argue in favor of most everything being settled in courts, albeit courts where private judges are selected by both parties. Seems to me you're not all that "libertarian" if you want one sector to be restricted but don't want the other sector restricted. Just makes you a fan of big business, which, given your bragging about your investments, doesn't surprise me.

But then again, you still have offered no response to my comments about the fact that California and Texas have engaged in tort reform but insurance industry premiums have not reflected that decline. Until you can offer a decent answer to that, you have no argument.

=Bob

[aztecwin]

Aug 15, 2009 18:20:58 GMT -8 Bob Forsythe said:

Aug 13, 2009 10:41:25 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

It would be a valid question if there was not a difference between making law changes that restricted litigation brought and huge awards based on things like John Edwards was involved in and the direct interference of the Federal Government in the system. =Bob knows the difference, but just wants to argue or he is in fact that dense. I don't think it is dense.

Actually, I think it was a quite cogent question. The more radical libertarians would argue in favor of most everything being settled in courts, albeit courts where private judges are selected by both parties. Seems to me you're not all that "libertarian" if you want one sector to be restricted but don't want the other sector restricted. Just makes you a fan of big business, which, given your bragging about your investments, doesn't surprise me.

But then again, you still have offered no response to my comments about the fact that California and Texas have engaged in tort reform but insurance industry premiums have not reflected that decline. Until you can offer a decent answer to that, you have no argument.

=Bob

I have suggested that tort reform and insurance company premiums and practices should be addressed at the same time.

[aztecwin]

Here is evidence of another chink in the ObamaKare proposal that is sinking fast.

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

Will there be more?

[aztecwin]

Obama Cuts Deal With Drug Lobby, Dents Halo
By Rich Galen
The New York Times had an amazing front page story yesterday which I would have thought would have jumped to the top of every cable news cycle except for the Senate's confirmation of Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

The headline of the story was: "White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost" by David Kirkpatrick.


I want you to read the lead paragraph very slowly:


Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.

Whoa! Check Please!

How can the words "industry lobbyists" and "White House" be in the same sentence? We have been told - to the point of needing Compazine (an anti-nausea drug) - that this administration was, is, and will always be a lobbyist-free zone.

Yet, here it is; in the newspaper of record. The White House had reached a secret deal with the pharmaceutical industry to put a ceiling on the amount of money the government could save by negotiating for lower drug prices. In the words of the NY Times, the White House "had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the [health care] overhaul" but "had never spelled out the details of the agreement."

Oh, here we are in graf seven:


The new attention to the agreement could prove embarrassing to the White House, which has sought to keep lobbyists at a distance, including by refusing to hire them to work in the administration.

Embarassing? Ya think, DiNozzo? (To quote Leroy Jethro Gibbs).

It turns out that there is a quid pro quo for keeping the drug companies out of the rough and tumble world of free markets. Again, from Mr. Kirkpatrick's piece:


Failing to publicly confirm [the drug lobby's] descriptions of the deal risked alienating a powerful industry ally currently helping to bankroll millions in television commercials in favor of Mr. Obama's reforms. [emphasis mine]

So... let me walk through this. In strange world in which Obamaville is located, lobbyists are bad only if and until the White House needs them to do things like run ads in favor of nationalized health care and then lobbyists are good.

So, what if the previously dreadful, greedy, self-serving oil companies sent their lobbyists in to cut a deal with Obama to support a cap-and-trade bill though heavy advertising? Might they trade for removing any caps on their profits?

I think I'm beginning to get how this works.

It works like ... Chicago !

Unfortunately for Da Mayor of all the American People, the U.S. Congress isn't likely to roll over like a bunch of in-his-pocket Aldermen. The co-chairman of the House progressive caucus, Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz) was not thrilled to find out that while he has been working the halls of Congress, the White House has been working the watering holes of K Street .

Mr. Grijalva whined to the Times:


"Are industry groups going to be the ones at the table who get the first big piece of the pie and we just fight over the crust?"

Well, not to put too fine a point on it but ... yes, Raul, put in your Sunday teeth and learn to enjoy the crust. It's all you're getting.

The insurance companies, who have been a recent talking point in Obama's speeches, have not lined up to cut a deal the way the drug guys have. Thus, they are being singled out.

Will the insurance companies get any help from the pharmas? Yea, right. According to the Times piece, having made its own deal, the drug industry's "lobbyists acknowledge privately that they have no intention of fighting" nationalized health care.

I don't blame the drug companies for making a deal. That's what lobbyists are paid to do. I do think that Mr. Obama might use his summer vacation to straighten that halo just a little bit.


Rich Galen has been a press secretary to Dan Quayle and Newt Gingrich. He was a senior adviser to Fred Thompson's presidential campaign and writes at Mullings.com.

[AlwaysAnAztec]

Just goes to show how powerful the industry lobbyists are. Figured that out when they refused to even discuss a single payer system and Obama's decision to back off of a government sponsored plan.

Oh, well. At least they got 80 billion back from Bush's deal.

[aztecwin]

Aug 18, 2009 7:41:33 GMT -8 AlwaysAnAztec said:

Just goes to show how powerful the industry lobbyists are. Figured that out when they refused to even discuss a single payer system and Obama's decision to back off of a government sponsored plan.

Oh, well. At least they got 80 billion back from Bush's deal.

Now Obama's own party is split and part is organizing against him. For the looney far left, the public option is the backbone of reform while Obama now says it is just a sliver of the plan.

I will be suprised if anything gets done unless Obama just goes along with his looney bin base and rams a bill through on just a party line. If that happens, it better work and work fast or they are all sitting "dead in the water".