Universal Health Care for America

[Guest HUMAN]

Rex, the pundits are correct; not until there is a Republican, Congress, Senate and White House will this change for the better and then there really will be Real Health Care Reform.

 

Some of what the Senate passed will stay, most will not. We simply can't have a government that is "For and by the government" for that is what we have right now.

 

Anyhow, Lady who goes by the screen name of "law" only wants to show you the sweet parts of Barack Obamas' "Bill", and as you so well put it.

 

It will wreck havoc upon our medical system.

 

 

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

[Guest HUMAN]

Here is the clincher to a not very well thought out "Bill". You are going to EAT this one like you have never eaten anything else in your lives, and this is EXACTLY in how it WILL play out.

 

Enjoy what you have elected into office!!!!!!! You see when the democrats came into office they thought that they had the advantage, I was hoping that their ego would get the better of them, and it has.

 

I get my revenge on you "The General Public", and on the Democrats. Of course you WILL pay for it all, but that's what you get for not thinking.

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

 

The Taxing of the system itself is also an issue. It’s the overall affect in how the system will be able to handle the surge of patients.

This also does not include the Latinos already here illegally, but it will include them eventually.

 

Though a value added tax will be needed even though taxing education was not such a hot idea.

Because it will damage the delivery of care over all in the country.

 

The democrats are playing the percentages which are? A certain percentage of people will die from this until the system over all corrects the disparities within the delivery of health care.

2 decades at least to correct the amount of medical staff needed? Then the internal infrastructure of the medical system itself “another decade”?

 

The baby boomers will take the brunt of the taxing of the health care system itself with their lives.

 

Not looking at the immediate financial or moral implications of this “Bill”.

Just looking at the bottom line.

[Guest HUMAN]

This scenario will play itself out unless you the general public really have the “WILL” to actually fix what is broken.

 

The one question that I have always wanted to know? DO YOU REALLY HAVE THE WILL TO FIX A REALLY BROKEN SYSTEM????

 

You are really going to have to get involved in the political process for once, because there ARE other scenarios if the LAW is allowed to stand of which I really don't think that you would like me to post about.

 

It would really piss you off beyond your wildest dreams.

 

Government control of the healthcare system. Imagine the horrors awaiting you, if you don't fix it?

 

Less funding going to Nursing homes= Poor service.

Less Funding going to hospitals= Poor service.

Less funding going to out Patient services= Again Poor service.

Less Doctors/Nurses= Poor Service.

 

I am soo hungry to see if people really have the will to do what is right, and not what is easy.

Illegal Immigration was a response to what was easy, and not what was right?

 

Abortion on demand forced Illegal Immigration on all of us whether we liked it or not.

The math is very simple REALLY.

 

With the Retirement of the baby boomers there will be less money coming into the system then being played out. THAT'S THE PRICE THIS SOCIETY PAYS FOR, FOR ABORTION ON DEMAND "NO CHOICE".

 

You really have no other choice in this matter. Again, You have to fix what you have allowed to get broken.

 

Our Manufacturing base is all but gone; We import more than we export. Continue on this path and in less than twenty years this country WILL Implode. Economically no if, no buts, no nothing.

 

You folk’s best get busy; you have a system to fix on many levels.

Economic, Sociol, Infrastructer, Financial, Manufacturing.

 

After this Post I WILL be TERMINATING MY INTERNET CONNECTION FOR LIFE. I've seen enough of reality and done my best to fix it. It's your turn now.

 

Luke GOODBYE.

[Guest American for Progress]

As the Senate prepares to pass a reconciliation package that will make fixes to the Affordable Health Care for America Act and reform student lending, conservative senators are ferociously trying to sabotage the bill with "poison pill" amendments designed to slow down the process or defeat the bill. Passing unpopular amendments may make the reconciliation bill fail in the House, which must now vote again on the package after the Senate parliamentarian struck some parts of the bill because of technical errors. Conservative senators have proposed all sorts of amendments designed to sink it, some of them not even germane to the actual bill. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), in a throwback to an earlier effort that was ruled unconstitutional, introduced an amendment that would bar all federal funding for ACORN, which is already set to dissolve due to lack of funds. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) proposed an amendment to deny erectile dysfunction drugs to sex offenders. Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) introduced an amendment that would require a public referendum in Washington, DC on same-sex marriage even though the DC government put it into law. Reflecting on the conservative obstructionism, the Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart writes, "Would that the Republicans had expended as much energy coming up with real proposals during health-care negotiations as they did these poison pills."

[Guest Alex Jones]

What's really in Obama's health care reform bill? Almost no one knows, and here's why: It's 1,017 pages long and written in an alien form of bureaucratic English that can barely be decoded by earthlings.

Below, we reprint what he found in the health care reform bill. As you read this, keep in mind that some of these translations are a bit loose with the interpretations, but I've personally spot-checked these points, and they are indeed all contained in the bill in one form or another (shrouded in Doublespeak language, of course).

Editor's note: I don't personally agree with every interpretation listed here, and some of the bill's provisions are actually good ideas (like banning doctors from owning stock in health care companies). But overall, this interpretation points out many alarming provisions in the proposed health care reform bill...

From CMS at FreeRepublic.com:

• Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the government option!
• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
• Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (example: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.

[Guest ALWAYS RED]

Senator John McCain:

 

In our fragile economy, we can ill afford increases that place us at a disadvantage versus global competitors that are not similarly burdened.

 

They state:

 

Elements of the legislation would drive up Caterpillar's health care costs by more than 20 percent, over $100 million.

 

The Senator from Illinois is sponsoring legislation that increases costs for one of the largest manufacturers and exporters in America that is going to increase their cost by $100 million. I wonder when he is going to go out and visit headquarters out there in Peoria. I hope it is soon.

 

The fact is, there are things in this legislation that are wrong, and there are things that are left out of this legislation that are wrong, including $100 billion a year that could be saved by medical malpractice reform. Is there anything in those 2,073 pages that have anything to do with medical malpractice reform? That is the dirty little secret. The dirty little secret in this body is that trial lawyers control the agenda, certainly as far as this legislation is concerned.

 

The State of Texas has reduced costs, has reduced premiums, and has increased the number of people who have been able to--lawsuit filings are down from defensive medicine increases for annual costs by 10 percent. Physician recruitment is up. The largest malpractice insurance company in the State has sliced its premiums by 35 percent, saving doctors some $217 million over 4 years in the State of Texas.

 

And I would like to ask my friend from Oklahoma why in the world we would not enact medical malpractice reform if we are truly interested in reducing the cost of health care in America.

 

The Senator from Oklahoma and our other doctor in the Senate, Senator Barrasso from Wyoming, can testify because of their experience of the requirement to practice defensive medicine, which could be as much as $100 billion a year. So here we are, looking at dramatic increases in cost, and the President is going around the country saying that insurance premiums will go down. Individual premiums will go up between 10 and 13 percent. You know, facts are stubborn things.

 

So I would ask my friend from Oklahoma if he might talk a little bit about not only what is in this bill but what is not in this bill, and medical malpractice reform is certainly something that anyone would logically assume would be part of any real reform if you are interested in reducing cost.

 

If you are interested in increasing government bureaucracy, I hear this bill could mean the employment or hiring of some 16,500 new IRS agents. We are trying to track down the facts behind that. So we are now embarked on one of the greatest expansions of government in the history of this country.

[Guest ALWAYS RED]

Why does anyone talk about how the government is going to takeover the student loan program to pay for this bill? Vote NO!

 

Senator Lamar Alexander on the the floor:

 

Wait a minute, I thought we were debating the health care bill. How did we get to student loans? That is a very good question because it just came up over the weekend. Of course, we have talked about student loans. There have been proposals, but there have been no hearings in the Senate, no consideration in the Senate committee of which I am a member. Yet over the weekend, the Democratic majority said: Well, look, while we are at it, let's have another Washington takeover. Let's take over the Federal student loan program. Let's take a program which is working very well, in which 15 million American students have voted with their feet to say they would prefer to get a regular student loan backed by the government, which they get at their college campuses, through their community bank, through a nonprofit institution. Even though they do have an option for a government loan, three out of four students have said they prefer the student loan through the private

 

lender. Yet over the weekend, the Democratic majority has said: While we are at it, let's take over the Federal student loan program.

 

That means that starting July 1, students have no choice. They go to the Federal Government to get their student loan, all 19 million of them, which is a new experience for 15 of the 19 million.

 

The way they are going to do it--and this is all going to be set up in a very short period of time--is they are now going to have to go to four Federal call centers. So instead of going to their local lender or to their nonprofit institution, that can help them with their application form and see what their options are and encourage them as they make their plans for college, welcome to the new government loan program. They have no choice. That is what they are going to do.

 

What are the other aspects of this? Well, other than denying choice to 19 million students on more than 2,000 campuses who prefer the Federal loan program, the Federal Government is going to have to borrow another $ 1/2 trillion in order to make these loans. Let's think about this for a moment. What is the No. 1 issue that most Americans worry about today? It is that we have too much debt. So what did this weekend takeover do? It adds about $ 1/2 trillion to the Federal debt in order to make student loans, at the rate of about $90 billion or $100 billion a year for 4 or 5 years.

 

So we take away choice, we add to the debt, and we also put 31,000 people out of their jobs. These are a lot of loans, and so we have a lot of people in these organizations, such as Edsouth in my State, a nonprofit organization that helps students get their loans. So all these lenders are out of business and we have one big bank--the Federal Government.

 

The Education Secretary is the new banker of the year. He is a very good Education Secretary, but I don't know how good a banker he is going to be.

 

But here is the rub, and this is what my motion is about. The Federal Government is going to be borrowing money at 2.8 percent and loaning it to students at 6.8 percent and taking the difference and spending it on new government programs, including the health care bill. So we are going to be overcharging 19 million students to help pay for the health care bill. And, according to the most recent Congressional Budget Office estimates, about $8.7 billion of the overcharged money is going to go to pay for the health care bill.

 

My friends on the other side have already spent the money, of course. They have announced to everybody that we are going to spend it on this and on that and on this, but what they do not tell you is, where they get the money. Where they get the money is overcharging students--overcharging students.

 

These aren't Wall Street financiers we are overcharging. This might be a single mom going to a community college in Tennessee who has a job but who wants a better job and so she borrows some money to go to the community college and the Federal Government is going to overcharge her to pay for some government program. She might not like that.

 

In fact, I think there will be about 19 million student loan holders across the country who will go to school next year and say: Wait a minute here. You mean you are overcharging me on my student loan to pay for this health care bill and to pay for other government programs? The answer will be: Yes, that is what we are doing, unless my colleagues support this motion.

 

The estimate by our friends on the other side is that their Federal takeover of the Federal student loan enterprise will save $61 billion. If they are correct, let's give it to the students. Let's reduce their interest rate. I mean, $1,700 or $1,800 per student in interest over 10 years is the average amount of savings, and that is a lot of money. It may not seem like a lot of money to Congressmen and Senators in Washington, but to the single mom going to the community college who is borrowing the money to go to school in order to get a better job, $1,700 or $1,800 is a lot of money.

 

So in addition to the higher premium numbers, the higher taxes, the Medicare cuts, and the new cost to States, we are going to be overcharging on student loans. Let me use a specific example from Tennessee, if I may. I was at the University of Tennessee earlier this week. This is the University of which I used to be president. The University of Tennessee has 30,000 students, and 37 percent of them--or 11,251--have Federal private loans today. The average student debt is about $20,000. After July 1, all 11,000 students at the University of Tennessee, with these Federal loans from private lenders, are going to have to switch to the government loans, and the government is going to overcharge 11,000 students who go to the University of Tennessee at Knoxville and use that overcharged money to pay for new government programs, including the health care bill.

[Guest Dave Anderson]

Imagine a country where people could quit their job, pursue their artistic aspirations, receive free drugs, and get patched up on the public dime when they fall down the steps or drive into the ditch.

[JT Allen]

Why does every other civilized, industrialized, first world country have universal health care (aka "Socialized medicine") and are doing quite alright?

Is the USA just such an overwhelmingly fantastic place that we can't learn anything from anyone?

We're that superior? To Italy? To Sweden? To the Netherlands? Really?

 

 

 

 

Rex, the pundits are correct; not until there is a Republican, Congress, Senate and White House will this change for the better and then there really will be Real Health Care Reform.

 

Some of what the Senate passed will stay, most will not. We simply can't have a government that is "For and by the government" for that is what we have right now.

 

Anyhow, Lady who goes by the screen name of "law" only wants to show you the sweet parts of Barack Obamas' "Bill", and as you so well put it.

 

It will wreck havoc upon our medical system.

 

 

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

[Guest Organizing for America]

When Representative Chris Van Hollen, stood up and supported reform, it was a courageous step in the face of insurance-industry attacks -- and it proves that your voice was heard.

 

Now, many in Congress already face well-funded attacks by special interests in retaliation for standing in support of reform. GOP representatives and attorneys general are trying to repeal or overturn the legislation, and deceptive attack ads are hitting the airwaves.

 

In Representative Chris Van Hollen district, reform would:

 

-- Ban discrimination against 11,500 residents with pre-existing conditions;

 

-- Provide tax credits and other assistance for up to 100,000 families;

 

-- Extend coverage to 48,500 uninsured residents;

 

-- Save 800 families from health care related bankruptcy; and

 

-- Get full prescription drug coverage for 90,000 seniors on Medicare.

[Guest LAW]

Congressional Democrats sent the final piece of landmark health care legislation to President Barack Obama Friday before heading home to face skeptical voters.

[Guest GOP]

U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, Chairman of the House Republican Conference, delivered the following remarks today on the House floor:

"Well, here we go again. Last Sunday, defying the will of a majority of the American people, House Democrats rammed their health care bill through the Congress chock full of big government spending, mandates, and backroom deals.

Now, we're being asked to fix the bill by passing some sort of reconciliation measure.

"But Madam Speaker, the bill before us tonight doesn't fix anything. It doesn't fix the fact this is a government take-over of health care. It's going to mandate that every American buy health insurance whether they want it, or need it, or not. It doesn't fix the fact that it includes about $600 billion in job killing tax increases in the worst economy in thirty years. It doesn't fix the fact that this bill provides public funding for elective abortion for the first time in American history.

"Speaker, the American people know there is no fix for Obamacare. We need to repeal this law and start over. If we repeal Obamacare, we can start over with common sense solutions that will lower costs and create jobs. If we repeal Obamacare, we can enact medical malpractice reform and use the savings to cover Americans with preexisting conditions and promote pro-life protections in the law. If we repeal Obamacare, we can reform health care in this country without putting our nation on a pathway to socialized medicine.

"I urge my colleagues in both parties. Heed the voice of the American people. Reject this attempt to fix a government take-over of health care. Work with us to repeal and start over on health care reform that reflects the common sense and the common values of the American people."

[Guest Dan]

you know whats weird, I still don't understand the health care bill.

[Guest ALWAYS RED]

Here is something you can understand. In the first two days after the law was signed, three major companies — Deere & Co., Caterpillar Inc. and Valero Energy — said they expect to take a total hit of $265 million to account for smaller tax deductions in the future.

[Guest NAM]

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) President John Engler issued the following statement regarding House passage of the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (H.R. 3590) and the "Reconciliation Act of 2010" (H.R. 4872):

 

"It is unfortunate that the House of Representatives passed a health care bill that is going to increase costs and make it difficult for manufacturers to continue to offer generous health benefits.

 

Ninety-seven percent of NAM member companies voluntarily provide health care benefits not only to attract a skilled workforce, but because they believe it is the right thing to do for employees. The legislation passed today will stifle manufacturers’ ability to grow and create jobs while competing in a challenging global economy.

 

Manufacturers oppose many of the provisions in this legislation, as they would increase their health care costs, including:

 

* Excise taxes on health insurance plans which would adversely impact many companies with older workforces and/or smaller self-insured plans.

 

* Increase in and expansion of the Medicare hospital insurance (HI) tax, which would increase taxes on investment income and unfairly target some 70 percent of U.S. manufacturers that file taxes at the individual rate.

 

* Limits on Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs) that would curb design flexibility options for manufacturers and place an immediate tax increase on employees that use these tools.

 

* New industry-specific fees that single out particular industries to pay for health care reform.

 

* Repeal of the tax exclusion for prescription drug subsidies, which would significantly increase employers’ costs and make it more difficult for them to continue offering health benefits to their retirees.

 

This legislation is fundamentally flawed. Based on the Congressional Budget Office numbers, the Act could cost as much as $2 trillion over 10 years once it takes full effect. We entered this debate believing health care reform was about reducing costs through legal liability reform, delivery reform and enhancing competition by allowing employers to purchase insurance across state lines.

 

Manufacturing has lost 2.2 million jobs since December 2007; this is no time to place additional burdens on America’s job creators. America’s manufacturers will continue to advocate for real health care reform that lowers costs, improves care and does not impede our ability to create jobs, grow our economy and remain competitive in a global market."

[Guest NIA]

The consequences of Obama Health Care.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chyidfH6Efc

[Guest Eisenburg]

An insurance-less person would have to pony up whichever is greater: $695 annually for each uninsured family member, up to a maximum of $2,085; or 2.5 percent of household income.

 

There are exceptions. Certain people with religious objections would not have to get health insurance. Nor would American Indians, illegal immigrants, or people in prison.

[Guest Literati]

A Pyrrhic victory is a victory with such devastating cost to the victor, it carries the implication that another such will ultimately cause defeat.

 

Briefing by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, 3/24/10

Posted on March 24, 2010 at 03:22 PM EDT

Q Robert, I just wanted to follow up on the question about Israel and keeping that event closed with the Prime Minister. You also have an event today where you’re signing -- the President is signing an executive order on abortion that is a pretty big national issue. Why would that be closed press, no pictures?

 

MR. GIBBS: We’ll put out a picture from Pete.

 

Q But what about a picture from the actual national media, not from --

 

MR. GIBBS: Oh, the picture from Pete will be for the actual event.

 

Q Right, but what about allowing us in, for openness and transparency?

 

MR. GIBBS: We’ll have a nice picture from Pete that will demonstrate that type of transparency.

 

Q Not the same, Robert. Never has been.

 

MR. GIBBS: I know you all disagree with that. I think Pete takes wonderful photos.

 

Q Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, don’t twist this --

 

Q -- not an attack on Pete.

 

MR. GIBBS: Well, I don’t know why you’d want to attack Pete, Chuck, but I’m going to stand up here and defend Pete’s --

 

Q It’s not transparent and it’s a vital issue.

 

MR. GIBBS: And you will have a lovely picture from Pete. Again, I don’t --

 

Q You really think that’s all it’s worth, is a photograph, on an issue this important?

 

MR. GIBBS: No, I think you’ll be able to see the President sign the executive order.

 

Q Not hear anything anybody has to say?

 

MR. GIBBS: You’ll have a nice picture.

 

Q Can I ask on another subject? On another subject I wanted to ask about -- the President has been saying the last few days that one of the biggest benefits of the new health care law is that within six months children will no longer have preexisting conditions, and now various health experts are saying, well, when you read it more closely that’s not true. So was the public misled on that?

 

MR. GIBBS: No, the law is clear, Ed, that insurance companies cannot deny coverage to a child based on a preexisting condition. Under the act, the plan includes -- plans that include coverage for children cannot deny coverage based on a preexisting condition. To ensure that there is no ambiguity on this, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, is preparing to issue regulations next month making sure that the term “preexisting” applies to both a child’s access to a plan and his or her benefits once he or she is in a plan.

 

Q But if health insurance experts are already saying that they don't believe it’s clear enough, then -- and they might not follow with new regulations --

 

MR. GIBBS: Our lawyers are clear and the regulations -- we believe the law is clear. The regulations will clear up any ambiguity from those experts.

 

Q Can I ask one other question about the executive order the President is signing today? Does the President think that this executive order is necessary? Does he think that there was ambiguity in the law? Or does he think that there wasn’t any ambiguity but this was just done because people like Bart Stupak wanted it done?

 

MR. GIBBS: Well, I would say the President believed that the law -- the President has always believed that health care reform should be about that, not about other issues. The President did not, in health care reform, believe we did change the status quo and believes that this reiterates that it’s not changed.

 

Q So he doesn’t think it’s necessary, it’s just reiterating what is already in the law?

 

MR. GIBBS: I mean, it’s an executive order so this isn't -- I mean, it’s not a frivolous thing, Jake.

 

Q No, of course not. But does this executive order change anything that the law already didn't do?

 

MR. GIBBS: It ensures that health care, the law the President signed yesterday, maintains the status quo of the federal law prohibiting the federal use -- the use of federal dollars for abortion.

 

Q So it is needed, that the law was not clear enough?

 

MR. GIBBS: The President reiterated that in the executive order.

 

Q So all he’s doing is repeating what’s in the law?

 

Q So it’s just -- I mean, you can’t have it both ways. Either the executive order is needed to clarify something that’s not --

 

MR. GIBBS: No, I -- again, I would refer you to the executive order and the statements that we made about this over the weekend.

 

Q I read the executive order, and it says that’s a reiteration of what already exists.

 

MR. GIBBS: Well, there you go.

 

Q So it’s not necessary?

 

Q Not legally necessary?

 

MR. GIBBS: We reiterated --

 

Q Might have been necessary for other reasons, but it’s not legally necessary.

 

MR. GIBBS: No, we reiterated the status quo, and we’re comfortable reiterating that status quo.

 

Q -- comfortable for a legal purpose?

 

MR. GIBBS: We’re comfortable reiterating that status quo.

 

Q Doesn’t it diminish the whole purpose of a presidential -- of an executive order if all he’s doing is reiterating what’s already in the law? Why would he do that?

 

MR. GIBBS: No. No. We don’t see that as diminishing --

 

Q Stupak and company, there have been death threats against some of these, and just some -- some children of these people have been used in advertisements. I mean, it really has been extraordinary, some of the attacks some of these people have been coming under. Does the White House -- is the President aware of that and has he had a response to it?

 

MR. GIBBS: I don’t know the degree to which the President has seen some of that coverage, Chip. But, look, I don’t think the President would need to see the coverage to know that, as he has said countless times, regardless of the passion of your views -- he has very passionate beliefs and views, and believes in a country as big and as free as America that people should have a right to those passionate views. But we ought to be -- we ought to exercise those views not in a way that threatens anybody’s safety or security, not in any way that foments violence. We ought to be able to, in a country as proud and as rich in tradition as the United States of America, to have a debate in a way that is civil and in a way that demonstrates both the passion of our beliefs, but in the values that we hold dearly as a country.

 

Q Any of these amendments that Republicans are offering on the Senate floor this week, any of them here that the White House finds that’s a good idea, and you know what, maybe that should be added in?

 

MR. GIBBS: Well, Chuck, we want the Senate to finish the corrections legislation so that the President can quickly sign it.

 

Q Sure, but there are a whole bunch of new amendments. Anything strike the President --

 

MR. GIBBS: I would say this. I think that when you go through the different swing of what these amendments are directed at, I think it’s pretty clear that there’s a lot of game-playing going on.

 

Q So you don’t take these amendments seriously?

 

MR. GIBBS: I think these are intended to create a political distraction. I don’t think they’re intended, quite frankly, relating to the budget deficit, relating to health care, and I think if people find things that they want to correct in the legislation, ultimately we can do that through the regular legislative process.

 

Q Could you clarify exactly why a regulation is needed for the preexisting condition issue for children?

 

MR. GIBBS: All I said was that regulations have to happen regarding a lot of aspects of the legislation in order to ensure that any ambiguity -- if there is any ambiguity, that regulations will clearly denote that somebody that offers a plan that covers children cannot deny anybody coverage based on a preexisting condition.

 

Q Does the White House believe there is ambiguity right now?

 

MR. GIBBS: No. No. But we will seek to ensure that there -- that nobody feels that there is any ambiguity, based on the regulations that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will put forward.

 

Q Is this a particular regulation on this one issue, or a regulation on the whole package that --

 

MR. GIBBS: Look, I think there will be regulations, obviously, surrounding any number of issues in this. This is -- the answer that I gave on that is particular to preexisting conditions for children.

 

Q In the meantime, before the regulation is issued, is the President going to continue talking about that as an immediate benefit?

 

MR. GIBBS: Oh, absolutely. It is an immediate benefit.

 

Q Well, so, to segue from that, Robert, when will this rule kick in for the coverage of --

 

MR. GIBBS: The rules that -- the immediate benefits that I described a couple of days ago -- and I’ll find the exact number of days; there are differences for different things -- keeping your coverage -- a 26-year-old keeping -- staying on their parents’ plan, a small business having --

 

Q How about children with preexisting coverage?

 

MR. GIBBS: Right, well, what I’m saying is, the several immediate benefits that I outlined over the course of the past couple of days phase in at different points in the year 2010.

 

Q Can an insurance company right now refuse to provide coverage for a child with preexisting condition?

 

MR. GIBBS: Again, my understanding is that that -- this will phase in over a certain amount of time. When that phases in, they will not be able to.

 

Q When does that begin?

 

MR. GIBBS: That’s what I said I would check on.

 

Q Thanks, Robert. The deficit savings outlined in the health care bill obviously depend on a series of future actions such as the Cadillac tax going into effect or doctor payments remaining unchanged, for example. And even the CBO has said that Congress rarely follows through on those sorts of fiscal restraint promises. So my question is, does the President plan to veto any bills that would undermine or reduce those cost savings?

 

MR. GIBBS: Well, I’m trying to -- a broader point, it’s interesting the degree to which people either lean on or lean away from CBO based on whether they believe CBO has proved or not proved their point. Setting that aside, the President is confident in what he signed will come to fruition and that we’ll take actions to ensure that that happens. I think many of the team believe that cost saving that CBO can’t look into will actually exceed what has been outlined, as is often the case with legislation that they look at.

 

So the President is confident that we will be on a path toward meeting the more than $1 trillion in deficit savings that the Congressional Budget Office says will happen as a result of the President’s signature over the course of the next two decades.

 

Q So it sounds like he’s ready to stand up for it in case -- you know, if Congress does come to him either now or in the future with a bill that would reduce any of those cost savings, it sounds like he’s prepared to --

 

MR. GIBBS: Look, the President throughout these negotiations was clear even when others either inside or outside of government did not want to be part of cost reductions as part of health care reform. So the President is very focused on ensuring that what he’s outlined comes to fruition.

 

Q How many of the Democrats -- of the 219 Democrats who voted for “Obamacare” have invited the President to campaign for them in their districts this fall?

 

MR. GIBBS: I don't have a political schedule in front of me, Lester.

 

Q Since not one of the Republicans in the House voted for “Obamacare,” and 32 Democrats voted against --

 

MR. GIBBS: Do you mean -- I'm sorry, I'm confused. Do you mean by that the law that the President signed yesterday?

 

Q “Obamacare,” yes.

 

MR. GIBBS: Okay, I just was -- I didn't know if that was the Internet vernacular or the name of the bill, Lester. I was a little confused.

 

Q That's all right. Since not one of the Republicans in the House voted for this and 32 Democrats voted against it --

 

Q Thirty-four.

 

Q -- 34, and it won by only --

 

MR. GIBBS: Thank you. (Laughter.)

 

Q -- seven votes, how can you deny that this is a pyrrhic victory?

 

Q Trick question. (Laughter.)

 

MR. GIBBS: I don't -- I was going to say, Lester, I'm a simple man, but I could not really -- (laughter) --

 

Q You know what pyrrhic victory is, don't you?

 

MR. GIBBS: I do. I have -- I'm going to have -- I'm not doing this on purpose -- I'm going to have Pete print me a very nice picture that shows the President’s signature on a law yesterday that will benefit the lives of millions of people in this country for many, many years to come. I will let anybody decide what they’d like to call that victory. The President believes it was a substantial victory for the safety and security of the American people in knowing that their station in life is not now determined by their access to health care.

 

 

Q Thanks. In 2007, during the campaign, the President said that he does not support the Hyde Amendment and the federal government should not intrude onto a poor woman’s decision whether to carry to term or terminate her pregnancy. So my question today is, as he signs this executive order, which will further enshrine the Hyde Amendment, how does he feel about that?

 

MR. GIBBS: David, I would have to see what -- I don’t know the comment that you’re referring to.

 

Q He was opposed to the Hyde Amendment.

 

MR. GIBBS: Yes, I’d have to --

 

Q It was in a questionnaire, a pro-choice questionnaire.

 

Q It was in a questionnaire --

 

MR. GIBBS: And I’ll have somebody -- I haven’t -- you can just assume I haven’t looked at a questionnaire in quite some time.

 

Q But you stipulate that he opposed the Hyde Amendment, correct?

 

MR. GIBBS: I would stipulate that the President believes in a woman’s right to choose.

 

Glen.

 

Q Robert, you’ve said with a great deal of confidence that you believe that the health reform act will be able to withstand these legal challenges -- Cuccinelli, et cetera. What is -- specifically, can you sort of give us an idea of what’s the basis of your confidence? Have you gotten anything from Holder or the Counsel’s Office?

 

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think you’ve seen the statement that Justice put out yesterday. Obviously this -- the argument of constitutionality was one that was brought up during the debate, but I think the Counsel’s Office here, the Department of Justice, and, quite frankly, legal experts throughout the country believe that the right -- that the law does not -- the law is not unconstitutional based on what these attorneys general are suing for. The notion that -- we believe the President and the federal government does have the ability through the interstate commerce clause to ensure health care.

 

I mean, I -- this was an article today quoting a law professor from Stanford. It says: “It would be surprising if the Supreme Court says Congress can’t regulate people who are participating in the $1 trillion health care market,” said David Freeman Engstrom, a Stanford University Law School professor. “The lawsuit probably doesn’t have legs both as a matter of precedent and as a matter of common sense.”

 

Q Robert, as I’m sure you’re aware, there have been sort of counterarguments and talks about sort of disaggregating various parts, including the individual mandate. Can you provide us, in the interests of transparency, with some of the memos that have been provided to the administration in terms of justifying the legal foundation for your --

 

MR. GIBBS: I’d have to go back and see whether there’s been anything formal that’s been prepared on that.

 

Q Can I follow on this, please, for one second?

 

MR. GIBBS: One more and then I’ll --

 

Q Governor McDonnell in Virginia is signing legislation today to void -- in a sense void his state from having to participate in the health care reforms, et cetera. In a broader sense, though, this is the first piece of legislation perhaps since the civil rights movement that so many states have lined up against. Is there some way of making an analogy on there?

 

MR. GIBBS: I don’t know which attorneys -- I don’t know which attorneys general in the 1960s were running for higher office, so I don’t know if I could draw the direct analogy that I’d like to draw.

[Guest LAW]

Executive Order -- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's Consistency with Longstanding Restrictions on the Use of Federal Funds for Abortion

 

EXECUTIVE ORDER

 

ENSURING ENFORCEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ABORTION RESTRICTIONS IN THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (Public Law 111-148), I hereby order as follows:

 

Section. 1. Policy. Following the recent enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the "Act"), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment. The purpose of this order is to establish a comprehensive, Government-wide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors -- Federal officials, State officials (including insurance regulators) and health care providers -- are aware of their responsibilities, new and old.

 

The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly created health insurance exchanges. Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. 300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, section 508(d)(1) of Public Law 111-8) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

 

Numerous executive agencies have a role in ensuring that these restrictions are enforced, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Office of Personnel Management.

 

Sec. 2. Strict Compliance with Prohibitions on Abortion Funding in Health Insurance Exchanges. The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014. The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires State health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.

 

I hereby direct the Director of the OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this order, a model set of segregation guidelines for State health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act's segregation requirements, established in section 1303 of the Act, for enrollees receiving Federal financial assistance. The guidelines shall also offer technical information that States should follow to conduct independent regular audits of insurance companies that participate in the health insurance exchanges. In developing these model guidelines, the Director of the OMB and the Secretary of HHS shall consult with executive agencies and offices that have relevant expertise in accounting principles, including, but not limited to, the Department of the Treasury, and with the Government Accountability Office. Upon completion of those model guidelines, the Secretary of HHS should promptly initiate a rulemaking to issue regulations, which will have the force of law, to interpret the Act's segregation requirements, and shall provide guidance to State health insurance commissioners on how to comply with the model guidelines.

 

Sec. 3. Community Health Center Program. The Act establishes a new Community Health Center (CHC) Fund within HHS, which provides additional Federal funds for the community health center program. Existing law prohibits these centers from using Federal funds to provide abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), as a result of both the Hyde Amendment and longstanding regulations containing the Hyde language. Under the Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds for Community Health Centers under section 10503 and all other relevant provisions. I hereby direct the Secretary of HHS to ensure that program administrators and recipients of Federal funds are aware of and comply with the limitations on abortion services imposed on CHCs by existing law. Such actions should include, but are not limited to, updating Grant Policy Statements that accompany CHC grants and issuing new interpretive rules.

 

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law or Presidential directive to an agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

 

( b ) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

 

( c ) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees or agents, or any other person.

 

BARACK OBAMA

 

THE WHITE HOUSE,

March 24, 2010.

 

Today, the President announced that he will be issuing an executive order after the passage of the health insurance reform law that will reaffirm its consistency with longstanding restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion.

 

While the legislation as written maintains current law, the executive order provides additional safeguards to ensure that the status quo is upheld and enforced, and that the health care legislation's restrictions against the public funding of abortions cannot be circumvented.

 

The President has said from the start that this health insurance reform should not be the forum to upset longstanding precedent. The health care legislation and this executive order are consistent with this principle.

 

The President is grateful for the tireless efforts of leaders on both sides of this issue to craft a consensus approach that allows the bill to move forward.

 

A text of the pending executive order follows:

 

EXECUTIVE ORDER

 

- - - - - - -

 

ENSURING ENFORCEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ABORTION RESTRICTIONS IN THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (approved March __, 2010), I hereby order as follows:

 

Section 1. Policy.

Following the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("the Act"), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment. The purpose of this Executive Order is to establish a comprehensive, government-wide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors—Federal officials, state officials (including insurance regulators) and health care providers—are aware of their responsibilities, new and old.

 

The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly-created health insurance exchanges. Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, Pub. L. No. 111-8, §508(d)(1) (2009)) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

 

Numerous executive agencies have a role in ensuring that these restrictions are enforced, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

 

Section 2. Strict Compliance with Prohibitions on Abortion Funding in Health Insurance Exchanges. The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014. The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires state health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.

 

I hereby direct the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this Executive Order, a model set of segregation guidelines for state health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act's segregation requirements, established in Section 1303 of the Act, for enrollees receiving Federal financial assistance. The guidelines shall also offer technical information that states should follow to conduct independent regular audits of insurance companies that participate in the health insurance exchanges. In developing these model guidelines, the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS shall consult with executive agencies and offices that have relevant expertise in accounting principles, including, but not limited to, the Department of the Treasury, and with the Government Accountability Office. Upon completion of those model guidelines, the Secretary of HHS should promptly initiate a rulemaking to issue regulations, which will have the force of law, to interpret the Act's segregation requirements, and shall provide guidance to state health insurance commissioners on how to comply with the model guidelines.

 

Section 3. Community Health Center Program.

The Act establishes a new Community Health Center (CHC) Fund within HHS, which provides additional Federal funds for the community health center program. Existing law prohibits these centers from using federal funds to provide abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), as a result of both the Hyde Amendment and longstanding regulations containing the Hyde language. Under the Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds for Community Health Centers under section 10503 and all other relevant provisions. I hereby direct the Secretary of HHS to ensure that program administrators and recipients of Federal funds are aware of and comply with the limitations on abortion services imposed on CHCs by existing law. Such actions should include, but are not limited to, updating Grant Policy Statements that accompany CHC grants and issuing new interpretive rules.

 

Section 4. General Provisions.

( a ) Nothing in this Executive Order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law or presidential directive to an agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

( b ) This Executive Order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

( c ) This Executive Order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees or agents, or any other person.

 

THE WHITE HOUSE,

[Guest Craig]

Hospitals have agreed to contribute to the health care plan about $150 billion over 10 years, mostly by accepting lower payments under the Medicare program. Some analysts say the flood of paying patients will offset that loss. But others worry that the cuts will hit before the expected expansion in coverage, which could stress hospitals, especially in poorer and rural areas.

[Guest Athena]

you know whats weird, I still don't understand the health care bill.

 

Dan,

If you are one of the 7 million illegals that have entered this country. You get no insurance. If you have religious beliefs against it you can opt out.

[Guest Czech]

If you cannot afford insurance, then the govt (IRS) will access you bank account and deduct it from your savings.

[Guest KC]

Once the pre-existing conditions are eliminated I might let the IRS fine me. It will be cheaper than having insurance and I can go to a hospital and they have to accept me.

[Guest ALWAYS RED]

Now it has come right under our noses. National Medical RFID implant chips. It's purpose is to tie together your health records, bank accounts, financial records, criminal history and can track your movements throughout the country.

 

PART 1--IN GENERAL

SEC. 2561. NATIONAL MEDICAL DEVICE REGISTRY.

 

( a ) Registry-

 

( 1 ) IN GENERAL- Section 519 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360i) is amended--

 

( A ) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h); and

 

( B ) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:

'National Medical Device Registry

 

'( g )(1) The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the 'registry') to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that--

 

'( A ) is or has been used in or on a patient; and

 

'( B ) is-- C

 

'( i ) a class III device; or

 

'( ii ) a class II device that is implantable, life-supporting, or life-sustaining.

 

'(2) In developing the registry, the Secretary shall, in consultation with the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the head of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, determine the best methods for--

 

'( A ) including in the registry, in a manner consistent with subsection (f), appropriate information to identify each device described in paragraph (1) by type, model, and serial number or other unique identifier;

 

'( B ) validating methods for analyzing patient safety and outcomes data from multiple sources and for linking such data with the information included in the registry as described in subparagraph (A), including, to the extent feasible, use of--

 

'(i) data provided to the Secretary under other provisions of this chapter; and

 

'(ii) information from public and private sources identified under paragraph (3);

 

'( C ) integrating the activities described in this subsection with--

 

'(i) activities under paragraph (3) of section 505(k) (relating to active postmarket risk identification);

 

'(ii) activities under paragraph (4) of section 505(k) (relating to advanced analysis of drug safety data); and

 

'(iii) other postmarket device surveillance activities of the Secretary authorized by this chapter; and

 

'( D ) providing public access to the data and analysis collected or developed through the registry in a manner and form that protects patient privacy and proprietary information and is comprehensive, useful, and not misleading to patients, physicians, and scientists.

 

'(3)( A ) To facilitate analyses of postmarket safety and patient outcomes for devices described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall, in collaboration with public, academic, and private entities, develop methods to--

 

'(i) obtain access to disparate sources of patient safety and outcomes data, including--

 

'(I) Federal health-related electronic data (such as data from the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act or from the health systems of the Department of Veterans Affairs);

 

'(II) private sector health-related electronic data (such as pharmaceutical purchase data and health insurance claims data); and

 

'(III) other data as the Secretary deems necessary to permit postmarket assessment of device safety and effectiveness; and

 

'(ii) link data obtained under clause (i) with information in the registry.

 

'( B ) In this paragraph, the term 'data' refers to information respecting a device described in paragraph (1), including claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary.

 

'(4) Not later than 36 months after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations for establishment and operation of the registry under paragraph (1). Such regulations--

 

'( A )(i) in the case of devices that are described in paragraph (1) and sold on or after the date of the enactment of this subsection, shall require manufacturers of such devices to submit information to the registry, including, for each such device, the type, model, and serial number or, if required under subsection (f), other unique device identifier; and

 

'(ii) in the case of devices that are described in paragraph (1) and sold before such date, may require manufacturers of such devices to submit such information to the registry, if deemed necessary by the Secretary to protect the public health;

 

'( B ) shall establish procedures--

 

'(i) to permit linkage of information submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) with patient safety and outcomes data obtained under paragraph (3); and

 

'(ii) to permit analyses of linked data;

 

'( C ) may require device manufacturers to submit such other information as is necessary to facilitate postmarket assessments of device safety and effectiveness and notification of device risks;

 

'( D ) shall establish requirements for regular and timely reports to the Secretary, which shall be included in the registry, concerning adverse event trends, adverse event patterns, incidence and prevalence of adverse events, and other information the Secretary determines appropriate, which may include data on comparative safety and outcomes trends; and

 

'( E ) shall establish procedures to permit public access to the information in the registry in a manner and form that protects patient privacy and proprietary information and is comprehensive, useful, and not misleading to patients, physicians, and scientists.

 

'( 5 ) To carry out this subsection, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2010 and 2011.'.

 

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE- The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish and begin implementation of the registry under section 519(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as added by paragraph (1), by not later than the date that is 36 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, without regard to whether or not final regulations to establish and operate the registry have been promulgated by such date.

 

(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 303( f )(1)( B )(ii) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 333( f )(1)( B )(ii)) is amended by striking '519( g )' and inserting '519( h )'.

 

( b ) Electronic Exchange and Use in Certified Electronic Health Records of Unique Device Identifiers-

 

(1) RECOMMENDATIONS- The HIT Policy Committee established under section 3002 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300jj-12) shall recommend to the head of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria for the electronic exchange and use in certified electronic health records of a unique device identifier for each device described in section 519(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as added by subsection (a).

 

(2) STANDARDS, IMPLEMENTATION CRITERIA, AND CERTIFICATION CRITERIA- The Secretary of the Health Human Services, acting through the head of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, shall adopt standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria for the electronic exchange and use in certified electronic health records of a unique device identifier for each device described in paragraph (1), if such an identifier is required by section 519(f) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360i(f)) for the device.

[Guest Delegate Mark Cole]

One bill which garnered some media attention was HB 53 which would simply ban employment and insurance discrimination against individuals who decline to get an RFID or microchip implant in their bodies. The legislation was introduced at the request of several constituents and is similar to legislation already passed in several other states including Wisconsin , California , and North Dakota . Concerns about these implants usually center in three areas: privacy, health, and religion. “The technology is here and is being used,” Cole said. “While it may be in its infancy and not yet widespread, the question is does Virginia want to be proactive and head-off potential problems by setting clear and reasonable policy regarding the use of these devices, or do we want to wait until problems arise or lawsuits are filed and then react after the fact? All sensationalism aside, I think HB 53 is good policy and will avoid future litigation.” Most Delegates apparently agreed as the legislation passed the House with strong bi-partisan support, on an 88 to 9 vote.

 

http://www.marklcole.com/