Universal Health Care for America

[Guest American for Progress]

HEALTH CARE -- HEALTH INSURERS WILL FOLLOW NEW REGULATIONS MEANT TO CLOSE LOOPHOLE ON INSURING CHILDREN: Despite trying to take advantage of loopholes in the new health care law that may allow insurers to deny coverage to uninsured children with pre-existing medical conditions, health insurers said Monday that they would accept new regulations that dispel any uncertainty that "children with medical problems can get coverage starting this year." Insurers had previously said that the new law "does not require them to write insurance for the child and it does not guarantee the 'availability of coverage' for all until 2014," when the majority of law's provisions come into effect. In a harshly-worded letter, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius criticized insurers for seeking loopholes "that preserve a broken system" and do not "follow the spirit of the law." To clarify the intent of the law, Sebelius will issue regulations "making it clear that the term 'pre-existing exclusion' applies to both a child's access to a plan and to his or her benefits once he or she is in the plan." The health insurance industry's announcement appears to lessen the risk that new regulations will be challenged under the so-called Chevron test, which was named for a Supreme Court decision that found that federal agencies hold broad authority in interpreting statues as long as that interpretation is found to be reasonable. But at the same time, the decision was expected because as the Wonk Room's Igor Volsky noted, the insurers will "simply increase premiums as a result."

[Guest LAW]

http://www.hhs.gov/secretary/speeches/sp20100329.html

 

The legislation President Obama signed last Tuesday brings down health care costs for American families and small businesses, ends the worst practices of insurance companies, and expands coverage to millions of Americans.

 

I know Ann Kohler and Cindy Mann have already given you a very comprehensive overview of how health insurance reform is going to affect Medicaid programs in the states, so I won’t go into the details again. But I do want to clear up any misconceptions floating around about just what health reform is going to require states to do.

 

The bottom line is, the federal government is underwriting the expansion of Medicaid to an enormous extent.

 

One very important change is the provision that extends Medicaid coverage to childless adults.

 

Newly eligible adults will be fully funded by the federal government for the first three years. States will receive a 100 percent match rate for newly eligible adults and will qualify for an enhanced federal match indefinitely, with the federal share never falling below 90 percent of Medicaid costs.

 

We are bumping up the matching rate for CHIP.

 

We will pay all of your costs in 2013 and 2014, for bringing Medicaid payment for primary care doctors up to Medicare levels. We need more doctors who can make a living providing low income people with primary care.

 

The health reform law also does other things to increase access to care for low-income people. For example it increases funding for community health centers so that the number of patients who can be served will nearly double over the next five years.

 

It provides funds to increase the number of primary care doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners and physician assistants in underserved areas. Funding for both of these initiatives will be available in the next fiscal year.

 

Now, as difficult as it was to enact health care reform – the real work starts now.

 

We’re going to need your help in making the promise of health insurance reform real for people across the country.

 

Everyone should have access to health care coverage, and like everything we’re doing, it won’t succeed if the federal government is not a partner with the states. We need to work together to make sure our kids have healthy futures. We have to collaborate to promote prevention in communities across the country so we can save lives and resources. We clearly need your ideas and experience to develop the best practices of tomorrow.

 

And I’m looking forward to rolling up our sleeves and working alongside you to make sure that health insurance coverage is there for the American people too.

[Guest LAW]

What does the hiring of 16,500 IRS agents in the health care bill have to do with the doctor - patient relationship?It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once - David Hume

 

MYTH: "The IRS may need to hire as many as 16,500 additional employees to investigate and collect billions in new taxes."

 

FACT: This number is a fabrication — and the fact is that any new IRS employees would help deliver the more than $500 billion in tax relief provided under this bill: ensuring that individuals and businesses are aware of the tax incentives and how to claim them; answering taxpayer calls; building online self-help tools; and performing other outreach services.

 

http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/factcheck?id=0152

[Guest Samantha]

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.

 

I do worry governments or corporations could one day require people to implant these chips as a condition of employment.

[Guest Olds442]

MYTH: "The IRS may need to hire as many as 16,500 additional employees to investigate and collect billions in new taxes."

 

FACT: This number is a fabrication — and the fact is that any new IRS employees would help deliver the more than $500 billion in tax relief provided under this bill: ensuring that individuals and businesses are aware of the tax incentives and how to claim them; answering taxpayer calls; building online self-help tools; and performing other outreach services.

 

http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/factcheck?id=0152

 

16,500 new IRS agents because of health care reform? BS!!!

[Guest Ann Coulter]

One Republican idea allegedly incorporated into the Democrats' health care monstrosity is "medical malpractice reform." Needless to say, the Democrats' idea of malpractice reform is less than nothing. Until trial lawyers are screaming bloody murder, there has been no medical malpractice reform.

 

The Democrats' "malpractice" section merely encourages the states to set up commissions to "study" tort reform, in the sense that frustrated mothers "encourage" their kids not to slouch. By "study," the Democrats mean "ignore."

 

So we get more taxpayer-funded government workers under the Democrats' "medical malpractice reform," but not one tittle of actual reform.

[Guest Levi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQnZaXhwwz4

 

You know the number on the Jewish in WW2, It was a number that was identifiable by an IBM computer system. Thomas J. Watson the CEO of IBM was a member of the Bohemian Grove society along with Hitler.

 

A punch-card system built by the Jewish that was then used to help kill them. IBM today funds Verichip and Applied Digital Solutions the makers of the RFID chip known as 666

 

With the creation of the registry, every new RFID will be documented and entered into a system which was created solely to keep tabs on it.

 

Revelation 13:16-17

16 He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, 17 so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.

[Guest John]

Plastic Surgeon's Health Care Reform Lecture Becomes Part of WSJ Op-Ed Article

Jennifer Walden, MD, Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic Medicine, 01:45PM Mar 25, 2010

 

This is an excerpt of a speech by reknowned plastic surgeon Mark Constantian to the Northeastern Society of Plastic Surgeons which has gone viral on the internet after being published in the Wall Street Journal on January 8th. It is very insightful and timely in my opinion and deserves to be posted.

 

By MARK B. CONSTANTIAN

 

Last August the cover of Time pictured President Obama in white coat and stethoscope. The story opened: "The U.S. spends more to get less [health care] than just about every other industrialized country." This trope has dominated media coverage of health-care reform. Yet a majority of Americans opposes Congress's health-care bills. Why?

 

The comparative ranking system that most critics cite comes from the U.N.'s World Health Organization (WHO). The ranking most often quoted is Overall Performance, where the U.S. is rated No. 37. The Overall Performance Index, however, is adjusted to reflect how well WHO officials believe that a country could have done in relation to its resources.

 

The scale is heavily subjective: The WHO believes that we could have done better because we do not have universal coverage. What apparently does not matter is that our population has universal access because most physicians treat indigent patients without charge and accept Medicare and Medicaid payments, which do not even cover overhead expenses. The WHO does rank the U.S. No. 1 of 191 countries for "responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient." Isn't responsiveness what health care is all about?

 

Data assembled by Dr. Ronald Wenger and published recently in the Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons indicates that cardiac deaths in the U.S. have fallen by two-thirds over the past 50 years. Polio has been virtually eradicated. Childhood leukemia has a high cure rate. Eight of the top 10 medical advances in the past 20 years were developed or had roots in the U.S.

 

The Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology have been awarded to more Americans than to researchers in all other countries combined. Eight of the 10 top-selling drugs in the world were developed by U.S. companies. The U.S. has some of the highest breast, colon and prostate cancer survival rates in the world. And our country ranks first or second in the world in kidney transplants, liver transplants, heart transplants, total knee replacements, coronary artery bypass, and percutaneous coronary interventions.

 

We have the shortest waiting time for nonemergency surgery in the world; England has one of the longest. In Canada, a country of 35 million citizens, 1 million patients now wait for surgery and another million wait to see specialists.

 

When my friend, cardiac surgeon Peter Alivizatos, returned to Greece after 10 years heading the heart transplantation program at Baylor University in Dallas, the one-year heart transplant survival rate there was 50%—five-year survival was only 35%. He soon increased those numbers to 94% one-year and 90% five-year survival, which is what we achieve in the U.S. So the next time you hear that the U.S. is No. 37, remember that Greece is No. 14. Cuba, by the way, is No. 39.

 

But the issue is only partly about quality. As we have all heard, the U.S. spends a higher percentage of its gross domestic product for health care than any other country.

 

Actually, health-care spending now increases more moderately than it has in previous decades. Food, energy, housing and health care consume the same share of American spending today (55%) that they did in 1960 (53%).

 

So what does this money buy? Certainly some goes to inefficiencies, corporate profits, and costs that should be lowered by professional liability reform and national, free-market insurance access by allowing for competition across state lines. But the majority goes to a long list of advantages that American citizens now expect: the easiest access, the shortest waiting times the widest choice of physicians and hospitals, and constant availability of health care to elderly Americans. What we need now is insurance and liability reform—not health-care reform.

 

Who determines how much a nation should pay for its health? Is 17% too much, or too little? What better way could there be to dedicate our national resources than toward the health and productivity of our citizens?

 

Perhaps it's not that America spends too much on health care, but that other nations don't spend enough.

 

--Dr. Constantian is a plastic and reconstructive surgeon in New Hampshire.

[Guest DC's Finest]

The problem with Dr. Constantian's arguments are almost every single one is approached from the view that you already have health insurance which make all his points irrelevant to the 32 million uninsured Americans!

 

"if you MUST drive a car, or if your driver is sick, drive a Porsche."

[Guest NCSL]

In response to federal health reform legislation, members of at least 38 state legislatures have proposed legislation to limit, alter or oppose selected state or federal actions, including single-payer provisions and mandates that would require purchase of insurance. In general the measures, covering both 2009 and 2010, seek to make or keep health insurance optional, and allow people to purchase any type of coverage they may choose. The language varies from state to state.

 

State constitutional amendments: In 29 of the states, the measures include a proposed constitutional amendment by ballot question. In a majority of these states, their constitution includes an additional "hurdle" for passage - requiring either a "super-majority" of 60% or 67% for passage, or requiring two affirmative votes in two separate years, such as 2010 and 2011.

 

Federal constitutional amendment: Idaho calls for adding a U.S. Twenty-eighth Amendment to provide that Congress shall make no law requiring citizens of the United States to enroll in, participate in or secure health care insurance or to penalize any citizen who declines to purchase or participate in any health care insurance. This was adopted by both Senate and House on March 29, 2010.

 

Changing state law: In at least 15 states proposed bills would amend state law, not the state constitution. These require a simple majority vote and action by the governor; they also can be re-amended or repealed by a future state law. So far in 2010, Virginia became the first in the nation to enact a new statute section titled, " Health insurance coverage not required." It passed March 4 and became law on March 10, 2010. Idaho and Utah are now the second and third states to enact a similar statute.

 

Based on actions initially in Arizona, several states propose or may propose state constitutional amendments, using language such as:

 

"To preserve the freedom of all residents of the state to provide for their own health care… A law or rule shall not compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer or health care provider to participate in any health care system … A person or employer may pay directly for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for paying directly for lawful health care services..."

 

Arizona voters are scheduled to cast ballots on this constitutional amendment in November 2010. If adopted by voters, it could block future state health reforms and at least raise questions about some features within future federal health reforms.

 

According to The New York Times, "Conservatives and libertarians, mostly, have been advancing the theory lately that the individual mandate, in which the government would compel everyone to buy insurance or pay a penalty, is unconstitutional." (NY Times, 9/26/09) A current Massachusetts law, passed in 2006, includes an individual mandate, although it was written to be consistent with both state and federal constitutions. To the extent that congressional proposals provide for state opt-out or opt-in features, these proposals to restrict "reform" could well become more widely discussed.

 

As of late March, formal resolutions or bills had been filed in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Up to three additional states were reported in media or association articles to have discussed future action or intentions; examples are listed below.

 

New Laws: Three states have enacted or signed statutes, based on final action in March 2010:

 

* A Virginia law passed both Senate and House, was amended by the Governor and both branches of the legislature and became law as Chapter 106 on March 10, becoming the first such statute in the nation.*

* Idaho enacted a similar statute, signed as Chapter 46 on March 17.

* A Utah statute, signed March 22, prohibits any state agency from implementing health reform without the legislature "specifically authorizing the state's compliance or participation in, federal health care reform."

 

Passed bills: None of the other proposals listed have been finally approved; Arizona's resolution of June 2009 was the first measure to have passed the legislative process; A Tennessee and a Georgia bill each have passed one chamber; constitutional amendment resolutions have advanced through initial steps in Florida, Georgia, Michigan and Missouri (3/16/10).

 

"Did not pass" measures: So far in 2010, bills have been rejected or failed to pass in nine states: Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, South Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming. A 2009 North Dakota constitutional proposal did not pass by the end of their session. One constitutional resolution failed to pass in Georgia on 3/18/10 and Michigan on 3/16/10. Note: If special sessions, reintroductions or reconsideration motions are filed, they will be added to this report.

 

A Non-binding measures: An "interim study proposal"resolution was not acted on in Arkansas; in Indiana a resolution passed the Senate but did not pass the House. A Michigan Senate resolution urging removal of financial obligations passed in January '2010.

 

States with discussions but no known legislation are listed separately; information in the examples list below is based on media statements by individual legislators or legislative associations.

 

Attorneys General in several individual states have also made statements related to health reform, listed below.

 

The issue has garnered state-level interest in part due to the American Legislative Exchange Council's (ALEC) model "Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act," which the organization described as "How Your State Can Block Single-Payer and Protect Patients' Rights." The ALEC-endorsed language mirrors Arizona Proposition 101, which was narrowly defeated in 2008.

[Guest American Citizen]

With the creation of the registry, every new RFID will be documented and entered into a system which was created solely to keep tabs on it.

 

Revelation 13:16-17

16 He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, 17 so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.

 

Something to add to this discussion is the REAL ID Act, recently passed by the U.S. legislature. This bill mandates the development of federal U.S. standards for drivers’ licenses, and could stimulate wide deployment of RFID tags.

[Guest I Watch Fox]

The location of the RFID implant is in the fatty tissue of the upper arm. They are 11 mm in length and are projected to last twenty years.

[Guest freeMontana]

Dr. Katherine Albrecht-author of Spychips and talk radio host on GCN talks about RFID chips.

[Guest American for Progress]

WELLPOINT CEO RECEIVES A 51 PERCENT INCREASE IN COMPENSATION: After moving to raise health care premiums by double digits in at least 11 states, health insurance giant WellPoint upped its top executive's compensation 51 percent in 2009. CEO Angela F. Braly received $13.1 million in total compensation, up from $8.7 million, while at least three other WellPoint executives enjoyed compensation increases up to 75 percent. Responding to inquires about the sudden increase in executive compensation, a WellPoint spokesman said the company "wants to attract and retain top talent." This surge in executive pay comes as WellPoint increased insurance premium rates 39 percent for 80,000 customers at California subsidiary Anthem Blue Cross, which set to go into effect in May. Internal e-mails indicated the rate increase was an attempt to raise revenues to "target profits of 7 percent." Brave New Films Political Director Leighton Woodhouse wrote that the compensation hike underscored the "two economic realities in America today -- one that Angela Braly occupies along with Wall Street CEOs, corporate lobbyists and corrupt politicians, and the other that the rest of us experience." "f the executives at your insurance carrier decide they didn't make enough money last fiscal quarter, you better cough up thousands of dollars more this year or lose your coverage." At the same time, WellPoint spends more of its profits to "retain a CEO who had the wisdom to force hundreds of thousands of Californians off the company's rolls or into bankruptcy-threatening situations in order to buoy WellPoint stock prices."

[Guest Truthseeker]

The location of the RFID implant is in the fatty tissue of the upper arm. They are 11 mm in length and are projected to last twenty years.

 

Watch this video. It ease your mind.

 

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

 

http://www.health-rfid.com/index_en.html

[Guest Becky Todd]

Over time we will become so enmeshed in our technology that we lose our humanity.

[Guest HUMAN]

Do you mean IF we can survive this financially?

I have asked nurses, and Doctors about this Health Care Bill, and the nurses don't know how it will impact care over all.

 

The Doctors are telling me that the American People are in for a REAL WAKE UP.

 

Where we as a country are headed? Really scares me.

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

Over time we will become so enmeshed in our technology that we lose our humanity.

[Guest Colleen]

I think this bill is unfair to everyone. It is not Universal, so there are still many left out. This bill punishes those that have jobs to pay for the health-care for those that do not. Our large corporations are going to pay more for insurance and give less in other areas to employees and increase charges for customers.

[Guest Human]

It gets worse then that. The Democrats ARE spending like Drunken Sailors. On this issue; The Democrats call up CRS and ask for a Position Paper for Health Care.

 

The Position Paper does NOT take into account the Effect of how the Democrats Health Care Bill WILL impact the over all economy.

 

Furthermore the Democrats Exclusion of the Unions from the Health Care Bill has another economic impact which the Position Paper does NOT take into account on the over all affect on the economy.

 

Not done yet here; The Democrats False Stimulus package IS having a GIGANTO Affect on this economy.

 

FEEL GOOD POLICY WILL NOT GET US OUT OF THIS.

 

 

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

I think this bill is unfair to everyone. It is not Universal, so there are still many left out. This bill punishes those that have jobs to pay for the health-care for those that do not. Our large corporations are going to pay more for insurance and give less in other areas to employees and increase charges for customers.

[Guest HUMAN]

One last Point;

The VAT tax is on top of ALL the other Taxes that Almost all of us "Minus Unions" WILL get hit with for this new law.

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

I think this bill is unfair to everyone. It is not Universal, so there are still many left out. This bill punishes those that have jobs to pay for the health-care for those that do not. Our large corporations are going to pay more for insurance and give less in other areas to employees and increase charges for customers.

[Guest Tea Party Patriot]

Individuals that make $200,000 plus for individuals or $250,000 for couples will be charged a 3.8 percent tax on all interest, rental, ordinary and dividend income.

[Guest LAW]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpj8JqFnmkM

What does the new health care law mean to women?

[Guest HUMAN]

Most women that I know don't have the time to do youtube. Nor do they care what youtube is either.

 

What Age group is the Democrat Party Targeting? Since you seem to be the Voice for the Democrats "Or at least Post Democrat articles with out posting in your own words".

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpj8JqFnmkM

 

What does the new health care law mean to women?

[Guest HUMAN]

Law; another question for you; If it's such a great Law, Then why are the Staffers Excluded from the BILL????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

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

Most women that I know don't have the time to do youtube. Nor do they care what youtube is either.

 

What Age group is the Democrat Party Targeting? Since you seem to be the Voice for the Democrats "Or at least Post Democrat articles with out posting in your own words".

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

[Guest ALWAYSRED]

Law; another question for you; If it's such a great Law, Then why are the Staffers Excluded from the BILL????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

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

 

Wow. How are the Democrats going to explain this?

 

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/ron-bonjean/2010/03/29/healthcare-reforms-negatives-give-democrats-a-tough-sell.html

 

Democratic Leadership and Staff Are Exempt From Obamacare: The Democratic leadership and committee staff will be exempt from the healthcare bill they just wrote and passed. Politico reports, "The healthcare reform bill signed into law by President Barack Obama Tuesday requires Members of Congress and their office staffs to buy insurance through the state-run exchanges it creates--but it may exempt staffers who work for congressional committees or for party leaders in the House and Senate." Republicans have already introduced legislation to repeal this exemption.