DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Health Insurance "Haves" to pay for "Have Nots"?

j/c

I'll get on board with national health care as soon as the president and congress sign up for, and get, the same "plan" they seem to want for the rest of the country.

Did you hear uh O's response yesterday to the question "if you or your family were sick, would you seek treatment other than what the national plan would cover?" (now, I don't have the question quoted exactly as it was asked, so forgive me for that.)

His answer was.......well.......interesting, to say the least.

You honestly don't believe that we ration care in this country?

On a scale like they do with a national healthcare system? Not even close.

I think they both 'ration' care...just in different manners. Our system is specifically designed to provide minimum care at maximum profit. That, by definition, is rationing.

I don't think one is any better or worse in that regard...but to pretend like 'rationing' is something we have coming to us is shortsighted...it's already here.

I disagree. You have no clue what's on it's way. No clue at all.

I don't think anyone has a clue what's on the way...

Those in favor of a national system think they're getting a single-payer system...those opposed fear they're getting one.

In reality, the gov't is just going to subsidize the pharm/insurance industries...not much is going to change aside from the fact that the taxpayers are going to pay handsomely for a slightly different version of the same money-sucking bureaucracy.

Quote:

---

I don't think anyone has a clue what's on the way...

---

Quote:

---

In reality, the gov't is just going to subsidize the pharm/insurance industries...not much is going to change aside from the fact that the taxpayers are going to pay handsomely for a slightly different version of the same money-sucking bureaucracy.

---

I guess that makes you smarter than "anyone"...

Going on gov't history, and what Obama's said and done thus far, I'm fairly confident that you will see a gov't subsidy of the pharm and insurance industry that will amount to little more than a new way to run the same shell game...I've yet to see anyone really express this fact...it's a 'private vs. public' debate, when in reality what we're looking at is 'private vs. private w/ gov't subsidy'.

Canada Sees Boom in Private Health Care Business
Facing long waits and substandard care, a growing number of Canadians are willing to pay for health treatment, leading to a booming private business in Canada -- a country often touted as a successful example of a universal health system.
By Molly Line

FOXNews.com

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Private for-profit clinics are a booming business in Canada -- a country often touted as a successful example of a universal health system.

Facing long waits and substandard care, private clinics are proving that Canadians are willing to pay for treatment.

"Any wait time was an enormous frustration for me and also pain. I just couldn't live my life the way I wanted to," says Canadian patient Christine Crossman, who was told she could wait up to a year for an MRI after injuring her hip during an exercise class. Warned she would have to wait for the scan, and then wait even longer for surgery, Crossman opted for a private clinic.

As the Obama administration prepares to launch its legislative effort to create a national health care system, many experts on both sides of the debate site Canada as a successful model.

But the Canadian system is not without its problems. Critics lament the shortage of doctors as patients flood the system, resulting in long waits for some treatment.

"No question, it was worth the money," said Crossman, who paid several hundred dollars and waited just a few days.

Health care delivery in Canada falls largely under provincial jurisdiction, complicating matters.

Private for-profit clinics are permitted in some provinces and not allowed in others. Under the Canada Health Act, privately run facilities cannot charge citizens for services covered by government insurance.

But a 2005 Supreme Court ruling in Quebec opened the door for patients facing unreasonable wait times to pay-out-of-pocket for private treatment.

"I think there is a fundamental shift in different parts of the country that's beginning to happen. I think people are beginning to realize that they should have a choice," says Luc Boulay, a partner at St. Joseph MRI, a private clinic in Quebec that charges around $700 for most scans.

Yet advocates looking to preserve fairness claim that private clinics undermine the very foundation of the country's healthcare system.

"Private clinics don't produce one new doctor, nurse, or specialist. All they do it take the existing ones out of the public system, make wait times longer for everybody else while people who can pay more and more and more money jump the queue for health care services," said Natalie Mehra, member of the Ontario Health Coalition.

Canada spends $3,600 per capita on health care -- almost half of what is spent in the U.S. And while some in Washington look to its northern neighbor for ideas, the Canadian system is still changing.

"One can understand that this is evolving and a mix of private and public seems to be favorable in some context. On the other hand, we need to be really careful that we're not treating health care the way we treat a value meal at McDonalds," Dr. Michael Orsini from the University of Ottawa told FOX News.

Provincial governments now face the difficult job of finding a balance in meeting the country's health care needs -- reducing wait times and maintaining fair access without redefining the universal ideals at the core of Canada's health care system.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/...test=latestnews

Arizona Moves to Oppose Obama’s Expected Health Care Mandates
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer




Voters in Arizona will decide next year whether residents will be subject to mandates in the pending health care reform that President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are promoting.

At least five other states – Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming – have considered proposals to take pre-emptive action against the pending federal mandates, but those proposals have either not made it out of committee, failed to get enough votes from one side of the legislature, or are still being crafted.

Only the Arizona Legislature introduced an initiative (HCR2014), which if passed, would amend the state constitution to codify that no resident would be required to participate in any public health care option. Arizonans will vote on the initiative in November 2010.

“HCR2014 is proactive and will protect patients’ fundamental rights,” Arizona State Rep. Nancy Barto, a Republican, said in a statement. “We are a front-line battle state to stop the momentum of this powerful government takeover of your health care decisions. Health care by lobbyists thwarts your rights and can be stopped here.”

The main issue is the core of the Obama health plan – a government run or “public option” – to compete with private health insurers. Some state lawmakers fear such legislation would force residents to buy into the public plan.

“The eyes of the nation will be on Arizona next year to see what happens,” Christie Herrera, director of the Health and Human Services Taskforce with the American Legislative Exchange Council, told CNSNews.com. “If this succeeds in Arizona, other states will take notice and push harder.”

The Obama administration insists that the public option will provide another choice for Americans who are not insured or are unhappy with their current insurance and will force private companies to be more competitive.

Critics of the plan say private firms could not compete with a public option – with unlimited government resources – and thus would go out of business, leaving what is tantamount to a single-payer system in place.

What happens in Arizona could spur other states to pass similar laws or constitutional amendments, said Wisconsin State Rep. Lea Vukmir, a Republican, who sponsored similar legislation in 2008 that passed the House but failed in the Senate.

If the Obama administration’s “public option” becomes law before Arizonans vote in November 2010, their initiative would still allow the state the challenge the Obama plan.

Vukmir said that the Obama proposal could be unconstitutional, under the Tenth Amendment, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

“I’m a strong believer in the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment,” Vukmir told CNSNews.com. “The Tenth Amendment has been eroded by Congress and the Supreme Court for decades. We have to ask, does the Tenth Amendment have any meaning? We are supposed to have strong state governments and a weak central government. That has eroded away.”

Georgia State Sen. Judson Hill, a Republican, said that the Obama plan would put a big strain on state budgets and told CNSNews.com that he would be interested in introducing similar legislation in the Georgia state house.

Medicaid and S-CHIP payments to states already make cutting costs untenable for states in lieu of a benefit cut or tax hike, Hill said.

He has introduced legislation to use state medical grants to go directly to patients as a sort of medical scholarship. (S-CHIP is the acronym for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, run by the federal Health and Human Services, which provides matching funds to states that provide expanded health insurance programs for families with children in low- to moderate-income brackets.)

“I call them federal crack dollars,” said Hill. “States get addicted to health dollars sent by the U.S. government.”

Arizona’s Health Care Freedom Act, firstly, establishes the right of state residents to spend their own money to seek and receive health care and, secondly, the right to choose not to participate in any health care system of any type.

An advocacy group was started to campaign for the amendment.

“Protecting the rights of individuals to be in control of their health and health care must be a fundamental component of health care reform, so the Arizona legislature is to be congratulated for giving all Americans the opportunity to make certain our voices are heard,” said Dr. Eric Novack, chairman of the group Arizonans for Health Care Reform.


http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50304

Jules, just living proof that the "haves" will always find a way to get what they want when they want it... the "have nots" will always claim that it's not fair.... That's life and the sooner we realize that it's NEVER going to be equal for everybody, the sooner we can get down to the business of figuring out a solution.

And I'm not saying I'm in favor of universal care, I most certainly am not... but maybe that's what the private sector needs to get it's $#^& together, is to have the rug yanked out from under it... then a new, more efficient, more effective private healthcare system will arise out of it...

Quote:

---

After all, the one thing we have all been taught since childhood is that life is always fair.

---

"We" would be anybody under a certain age (probably up to about 30) and depending on where you grew up ... I certainly wasn't taught that life was fair and I'm 43....

Quote:

---

“I call them federal crack dollars,” said Hill. “States get addicted to health dollars sent by the U.S. government.”

---

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31806096/ns/politics-white_house

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama promised to fix health care and trim the federal budget deficit, all without raising taxes on anyone but the wealthiest Americans. It's a promise he's already broken and will likely have to break again.

Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress have already increased tobacco taxes — which disproportionately hit the poor — to pay for extending health coverage to 4 million children in working low-income families.

Now, lawmakers are looking for more revenues to help pay for providing medical insurance to millions more who lack it at a projected cost of $1 trillion over the next decade.

The floated proposals include increasing taxes on alcohol, which could raise $62 billion over the next decade, and a new tax on sugary drinks such as soda, which could raise $52 billion.

Senate Democrats this week pretty much rejected a proposal by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., to tax health benefits, an idea that Obama repeatedly criticized during the presidential election campaign but has refused to take off the table.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said negotiators are still looking for revenue alternatives. Asked during an interview with The Associated Press if they included tax increases on families with incomes less than $250,000 a year, Schumer said, "There are lots of things on the table now."

Stark reality
The health care bill is a long way from Obama's desk, but tax experts say the debate illustrates a stark reality: It is simply implausible for the vast majority of Americans to get a free ride while the nation tackles such an incredibly difficult — and expensive — issue.

"We're all going to have to contribute," said Eugene Steuerle, a former treasury official in the Reagan administration and now vice president of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.

Paying for Obama's agenda might be easier, Steuerle said, if the nation wasn't already facing massive federal budget deficits for the foreseeable future.

"The dilemma is trying to do the new while the old is still unpaid for," Steuerle said.

The federal budget deficit is projected to hit an unprecedented $1.8 trillion this year — on top of a national debt that has already topped $11 trillion. Obama insists that any bill on health care or climate change not add to the debt.

Obama says much of the $1 trillion needed for his health care overhaul will come from cutting costs. So far, drug companies and hospitals have agreed to provide 10-year savings of $235 billion.

‘Yes, for the middle class, too’
Health care experts say cost cutting alone won't produce enough money to insure the nearly 50 million Americans who lack coverage. Moreover, Congress is obligated to follow budget rules that might not recognize many of the promised savings.

"The administration has an extremely difficult educational problem on its hands," said Henry J. Aaron, a health care expert at the Brookings Institution. "They understand that at some point tax increase are going to be necessary across the board.

"Yes, for the middle class, too," he added.

Obama made a firm tax pledge during the presidential campaign, repeating it numerous times in the weeks and months leading up to Election Day: no tax increases for individuals making less than $200,000 a year or couples making less than $250,000.

"Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes," Obama told a crowd in Dover, N.H., last year.

But less than a month after taking office, Obama signed an expansion of child health care financed by 62-cent tax increase on each pack of cigarettes.

Obama also signed an anti-smoking bill in June that grants authority to the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco. To pay for the new program, a fee is being imposed on the industry — and presumably passed on to consumers — estimated to generate more than $5 billion over the next decade.

While not directly increasing taxes, a House-passed version of Obama's plan to reduce greenhouse gases blamed for causing global warming would similarly increase American families' home energy bills by $175 a year on average, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Obama hasn't offered a detailed plan to fix health care, though his aides are working with lawmakers as they craft proposals. Obama included only a down payment for health care reform in the budget proposal he unveiled this spring.

He proposed limiting itemized tax deductions for individuals making more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000. The plan, which faces stiff opposition in Congress, would limit deductions for mortgage insurance, state and local taxes and charitable contributions, raising about $270 billion over the next decade.

Obama also proposed a series of business tax increases and accounting changes that would raise an additional $30 billion.

Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for the OMB, said Obama's cost reductions and tax increases add up to "a plan which gets you really close to what you need."

"Congress has other ideas," Baer said. "We'll work with them."

The appeal of Baucus's proposed tax on health benefits was the amount of money it could raise. Currently, employer-provided health benefits are not taxed, regardless of how generous they are.

One version of it would tax health benefits that exceed the value of the basic insurance plan offered to federal workers, raising about $420 billion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. But limiting it to individuals making more than $100,000 a year and couples making more than $200,000 would raise only $162 billion.

The math illustrates how difficult it is to raise enough money to pay for expensive programs, when tax increases are limited to the wealthy.

"We're living in an era, over a period of 20 years or more, in which the idea that tax rates would actually be boosted is unutterable," said Aaron, the health care expert. "That has to stop."

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

He raised taxes on beer, smokes, and pop. If he stats taxing sex I am going tombstone shopping.

Self pleasuring was going to be exempt, so your still safe GM.

Sorry GM, but that was damn funny.

Thank god

House health plan to boost taxes on rich

David Espo And Erica Werner, Associated Press Writers


WASHINGTON – House Democrats unveiled ambitious legislation Tuesday to remake the nation's health care system and called on medical providers, businesses and the wealthiest Americans to pick up the tab for President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

"This bill is a starting point and a path to success," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told a news conference where she and other Democratic leaders promised to pass a bill before the August congressional recess.

Obama has pushed the House and Senate aggressively to stick to the timetable, in hopes of signing comprehensive legislation in October.

"We are going to accomplish what many people felt wouldn't happen in our lifetime," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of one of three committees responsible for health care. Waxman, Pelosi and others stood before a banner that read: "Quality Affordable Health Care for the Middle Class."

The sweeping measure would imposes penalties on employers who fail to provide health insurance for their workers and on individuals who refuse to buy it.

The bill, to be debated in committee beginning later this week, also would require insurance companies to offer coverage, without exceptions or higher premiums in cases of pre-existing medical conditions. It also would allow the government to sell insurance in competition with private firms, a provision that has sparked objections from Republicans and even some Democrats.

The bill's release came one day after President Barack Obama met with key Democrats in a White House session in which he told a powerful Senate chairman he wants legislation by week's end in his committee.

In all, the draft House bill runs more than 1,000 pages, and is designed to fulfill Obama's call for legislation that will extend coverage to millions who lack it, as well as begin to slow the rate of growth in health care generally.

In a statement, Obama praised the proposal, saying it "will begin the process of fixing what's broken about our health care system, reducing costs for all, building on what works and covering an estimated 97 percent of all Americans. And by emphasizing prevention and wellness, it will also help improve the quality of health care for every American."

Key elements of the legislation include federal subsidies for poorer individuals and families to help them afford coverage.

Financing would come from a federal surtax on the upper income — up to 5.4 percent on the income of taxpayers making more than $1 million a year — as well as hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts in projected Medicare and Medicaid spending.

The new income tax on the wealthy is estimated to raise more than $500 billion over the next decade, and reductions in Medicaid and Medicare would account for nearly as much.

Democrats did not say in advance what the overall legislation would cost.

Numerous issues remain subject to change as the bill makes its way through committee. In particular, moderate to conservative Democrats have been negotiating for several days, asking for changes affecting rural health care as well as other issues.

Employers who do not offer coverage would be required to pay 8 percent of each uninsured worker's salary, with exemptions for smaller firms built into the legislation.

Individuals who refused to buy affordable coverage would be assessed as much as 2.5 percent of their adjusted gross income, up to the cost of an average health insurance plan, according to the legislation.

The legislation would set up a new government-run health insurance program to compete with private coverage. The plan's payments to medical providers such as hospitals and doctors would be keyed to the rates paid by Medicare, which are lower than what private insurers pay.

Eventually, all individuals and employers would be offered the option of joining the public plan. The insurance industry says that would drive many private insurers out of business.

As House leaders unveiled their bill, the business community sent a letter to lawmakers charging that parts of the legislation would damage the country's medical system and economy. They cited the proposed government-run insurance plan, a federal council that would make some decisions on benefits and a requirement that employers provide health coverage or pay a new tax.

"Exempting some micro-businesses will not prevent this provision from killing many jobs," the letter said. "Congress should allow market forces and employer autonomy to determine what benefits employers provide, rather than deciding by fiat."

Thirty-one major business groups signed the letter, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable representing top corporate CEOs and the National Retail Federation.

Across the Capitol, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee slogged toward passage of its version of the bill on what is expected to be a party-line vote.

Because of jurisdictional issues, the Senate Finance Committee, a separate panel, retains control over the drafting of provisions paying for any legislation.

Obama told the committee's chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, on Monday at the White House he wants legislation by week's end, officials reported. The president did not say whether he prefers a bipartisan bill, which Baucus has been trying to piece together with Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, or a bill tailored more to Democratic specifications.

Obama has urged Congress to pass legislation through both houses before lawmakers leave the Capitol on a summer vacation.

While Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., have both expressed support for the timetable, their efforts have been slowed in recent days by internal squabbling.

Additionally, some House Democrats have privately expressed concern that they will be required to vote on higher taxes, only to learn later that the Senate does not intend to follow through with legislation of its own. That would leave rank and file House Democrats in the uncomfortable situation of having to explain their vote on a costly bill that never reached Obama's desk or became law.

In the Finance Committee some controversial issues remain unresolved, including how to pay for the bill and a Democratic demand for the government to sell insurance in competition with private industry, a proposal Republicans oppose strongly. Finance members have been laboring to produce a bipartisan bill, but Grassley, the panel's top Republican, told The Associated Press on Tuesday it's "still up in the air" whether any bill produced this week would be bipartisan.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090714/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul

Quote:

---

We are going to accomplish what many people hoped wouldn't happen in our lifetime," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.,

---

Fixed it.

Quote:

---

It also would allow the government to sell insurance in competition with private firms, a provision that has sparked objections from Republicans and even some Democrats.

---

I'd just love to be a "for profit" business trying to compete with another entity that is entirely subsidized and can operate at a huge loss if they want to... sounds fair.

Quote:

---

The sweeping measure would imposes penalties on employers who fail to provide health insurance for their workers and on individuals who refuse to buy it.

---

So, if I don't want his insurance, I get fined.

Very Mafia-esque.... "you're going to buy our insurance, or you're going to pay for it".

Sounds ironic, since the government will provide free care to those that can't afford it.

If I was Mexican id have free health care!

It's Not An Option
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

From the beginning, opponents of the public option plan have warned that if the government gets into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage, the private insurance market will wither. Drawn by a public option that will be 30% to 40% cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington's coverage.

The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program. That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers. This could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, "fizzle out altogether."

What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.

The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs.

With HSAs out of the way, a key obstacle to the left's expansion of the welfare state will be removed.

The public option won't be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny.

Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn't be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans' lives.

It took just 16 pages of reading to find this naked attempt by the political powers to increase their reach. It's scary to think how many more breaches of liberty we'll come across in the final 1,002.



http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854

We could probably solve our our countries financial problems by finding a way to say in 10 pages what they are taking 1016 pages to say.

Seriously, is it a necessity, or is it just a bloated PoS to make it look important. I know when I write a business letter and it's only 1 paragraph, I think it looks like I left something out, but I usually said what I wanted to say and it just didn't take a bunch of rambling to get to my point.

Quote:

---

It took just 16 pages of reading to find this naked attempt by the political powers to increase their reach. It shouldn't be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans' lives.

---

Why not? That's the kind of "change" he campaigned on... that's the kind "hope" 50+ million Americans voted for... That is exactly what elevated him to rockstar status...

What a joke that is...no matter how inferior the coverage might be, we have to take it.

See all of you at the county hospital waiting in line with the indigents.

Quote:

---

no matter how inferior the coverage might be, we have to take it.

---

Peen, you are missing the point. Obama promised that you could still keep private insurance and you CAN... as long as you don't change jobs EVER and as long as you don't mind paying the skyrocketing rates as the number of people enrolled shrinks... but the option is still there.

While I don't agree with the bill, I didn't read it to mean we all HAVE to take the government coverage, but that you will not be able to buy individual coverage, you will have to buy in as a group, such as a business.

While that may still be the case, they should NOT be permitted, under any circumstances, to outlaw something just to prop up their own offering.

Quote:

---

I didn't read it to mean we all HAVE to take the government coverage, but that you will not be able to buy individual coverage, you will have to buy in as a group, such as a business.

---

So in other words, if you are self-employed or have some other objection to being part of your group coverage, then you HAVE to buy from the government... right?

And you do have to buy it because there is a penalty for being uninsured.

See, this is why Obama put such a tight timeframe on this bill, just like with the stimulus, just like his cap and trade.. because he KNOWS that if people actually have the time to study and figure out the details of what he's proposing it has a snowballs chance in hell of passing..

He's proposing the largest increase in government ever and wants it passed in such a timeframe that the CBO doesn't even have time to run its normal analysis to try to determine how much it will cost now and into the future... again.. because he KNOWS they will give an answer which is three times what he says its going to cost and the answer will be about one quarter of what it actually WILL cost...

J/C

I have a suggestion. We should all be calling our state reps and voicing our opinions on this bill. Let them know we will not vote for them again if they don't read through this damned POS. And let them know what you think of this POS health care that Uh O is trying to push through in record time for record deficits.

I agree, that's why I started out by saying "I don't like this bill"

But we all know some folks won't read the article and only go by the comments afterward, which many would take as being that any insurance not provided by the government is illegal.

Quote:

---

But we all know some folks won't read the article and only go by the comments afterward, which many would take as being that any insurance not provided by the government is illegal.

---

You are correct, it will not be illegal.... it will just get to a point where it is either impossible to attain or incredibly impractical... that's much better.

Don't forget, on those existing plans, there will be additional coverage mandates and the carriers will be barred from rating the policies based on the health risks presented by the insured.

I am a health insurance broker - Anybody looking to hire a guy that is soon to be unemployed, along with 10s of millions of other Americans that will lose their jobs based on the legislation and the cap and trade crap?

The slippery slope we have been going down for years is turning into Niagra Falls.

Apparently getting it right just doesn't matter...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090721/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_overhaul

By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer Erica Werner, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 27 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is defending his relentless campaign for a health care bill before Congress' August recess, saying "the default in Washington is inaction and inertia." Republicans assailed a rush to act on overhauling the nation's $2.4 trillion system of medical care.

The fault lines in the debate emerging as Topic A in the capital remained intact Tuesday as Obama defended the deadline, saying the American people want the overhaul done quickly. Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele demanded: "Take your time!"

At the same time, Obama remained noncommittal on a surtax to pay for the overhaul, which some experts have said could cost over $1 trillion in the next several years to reconstitute and incorporate some 46 million uninsured into the system. He did reiterate his opposition to taxing people's employer-provided health benefits, however.

The president noted in an interview on NBC's "Today" show that "the House has put forward a surtax." And he repeated his feeling that wealthier Americans, "such as myself," should pitch in and help reinvent the system to spread coverage to those now without it.

Obama has said that people making over $250,000 a year should have to pay more, and he defended his insistence on getting a bill from lawmakers before they leave next month on their summer recess. Asked why he felt so strongly about the timeline, he replied, "because if you don't set a deadline in this town, nothing happens."

So...who cares if its good or bad..just do it? Typical sky is falling mind set. The same mind set that got the spendulous passed without congressional reading and the same feigned urgency that was proclaimed while going on vacation as the bill sat there awaiting signing. To this day, only a minuscule portion of the stimulus money has gone out.

"And the deadline isn't being set by me," he said. "It's being set by the American people."

Ah...how about "SOME American people". This American and many more say this is a crock. I wish they would poll me once.

Whatever the pressure points in the argument, Republicans said it's all happening too fast.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell argued that a rapid-fire approach carries pitfalls similar to ones that have affected the $787 billion economic stimulus package.

"Health care reform is too important to rush through and get wrong," the Kentucky lawmaker said in a Senate speech.

Obama acknowledged in the interview that lawmakers right now are "not where they need to be." He has invited Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee to a meeting at the White House later Tuesday and he has a prime-time news conference scheduled for Wednesday night.

Asked about statements some Republicans have made indicating they think health care will damage his standing, Obama replied, "It's typical. ... Somehow people think this is about me. This is all about politics. ... All I can say is, this is absolutely important to me, but this is not as important to me as it is to the people who don't have health care. I've got health care."

"There is a constant sense of hand-wringing in this town when it comes to getting anything done," he said. "We can't stand pat and say we're going to have another 40 years of a system that doesn't work."

Obama's meeting at the White House with House Energy panel Democrats follows a committee drafting session that lasted past midnight Monday as the panel slogged through numerous amendments, with majority Democrats turning back Republican attempts to change the bill.

But Committee Chairman Henry Waxman's bigger difficulties were with his own party, particularly a bloc of fiscally conservative Democrats who oppose the legislation in its current form over costs and other issues.

Waxman and his aides have been deep in talks with these conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats, and as the panel wrapped up its work in the wee hours Waxman announced he was canceling a drafting session planned for Tuesday so negotiations could continue.

"We're having conversations with different members to work out some of the issues so we can make this thing move forward," Waxman, D-Calif., told reporters. He declined to elaborate.

The $1.5 trillion, 10-year House bill would, for the first time, require all individuals to have health insurance and all employers to provide it. The poor would get subsidies to buy insurance and insurers would be barred from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

Prior to his meeting with the lawmakers, Obama planned brief remarks on health care, something that's become a near-daily occurrence as the president has moved swiftly from hands-off to deeply engaged on his top domestic priority.

Obama's increased personal involvement comes with Republican criticism sharpening, outside groups growing more strident and sticker shock reverberating around Capitol Hill in the wake of a bleak prognosis from the Congressional Budget Office last week saying lawmakers' health proposals wouldn't hold down costs.

Sen. John McCain, Obama's opponent in last November's election, said, "I do not underestimate the power of the president" in increasing pressure on Congress to pass a health care overhaul, but said he thought most Americans had become "very skeptical" about the proposal.

"This costs too much, taxes too much and spends too much and the American people are becoming very aware of it." the Arizona Republican said in an interview Tuesday on CNN.

A new poll, meanwhile, showed that large numbers of people are worried about whether they will have future health coverage, with nearly one in four concerned that family medical bills will drive them into bankruptcy. This is true for me. I'm worried that when the Big O gets done with it, I won't have any and will get driven into bankruptcy.

The survey of 508 people was conducted in June by the nonpartisan Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.

MORE INFORMATION ON GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE THAN YOU CARE TO KNOW
By Neal Boortz


Here's a little cheat sheet for you .. a Boortz cheat sheet on the latest facts about this government healthcare scheme that you need to know! Don't think for a second that these Democrats actually care about your health or your access to clinics or your freedom to choose doctors. They don't. They care about one thing, and that is power. I know, we've covered that before. There is, though, only one real way these people stay in power: you vote for them and keep them there. So the only way these people are going to vote against this healthcare boondoggle is if you tell them that you don't support it. So here are just a few reasons to ponder ...

- Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said "The health care overhauls released to date would increase, not reduce, the burgeoning long-term health costs facing the government,"

Don't believe me? Here's the link

-"According to that assessment [from the CBO], enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period."

Don't believe me? Here's the link

-"A new report by the Lewin Group (commissioned by the Heritage Foundation) finds that the House Democrats' health care bill would shift more than 83.4 million Americans from private health care coverage to the government plan. To put that in perspective, that would mean that nearly half (48.4 percent) would lose their private health coverage."

Don't believe me? Here's the link

-"Currently, the top rate is 35 percent. But in his budget President Obama proposed raising the top two income tax rates from 33 and 35 percent to 36 and 39.6 percent. Families in the top 20 percent of income earners already pay 94% percent more income taxes than middle-income families. The new surtaxes would extend progressivity at the top of the income spectrum and raise the disparity in taxes paid between middle- and low-income families and high-earning families."

Don't believe me? Here's the link

-"In the six highest-taxed states, Oregon (11 percent top income tax rate), Hawaii (11 percent), New Jersey (10.75 percent), New York (8.97 percent), California (10.55 percent), and Rhode Island (9.9 percent), the top rates would be higher than all but Denmark among OECD countries if the Obama plan and surtax become law."

Don't believe me? Here's the link

-"Under these higher taxes, families and small businesses making over $350,000 in every state would face higher top rates than 21 OECD countries--including France, Italy, and Spain. Even the nine states with no state income tax at all would have higher rates than these social democracies that are typically regarded as countries with punitively high taxes. Taxpayers in all 41 states that do levy an income tax would pay a top rate that is higher than all but seven of the 30 OECD countries."

Don't believe me? Here's the link

-"The Senate version of President Obama's government health care overhaul contains a mandate that all businesses provide their employees with health insurance or pay a fine, unless the business employs fewer than 25 people. Critics say the 25-employee benchmark could stifle small business growth by prompting companies to limit themselves to 24 employees."

Don't believe me? Here's the link

-"The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee's health care legislation will give the Health and Human Services secretary the authority to develop "standards of measuring gender" -- as opposed tousing the traditional "male" and "female" categories -- ina database of allwho apply or participate in government-run or government-supported health care plans."

Don't believe me? Here's the link

-"More than a million small business owners and about two-thirds of the profits earned byU.S. small businesses would behitbythe income taxincrease onthe "rich"that House Democratic leaders want to enact to pay for the health-care reform plan President Obama wants passed this summer, a taxpayer watchdog says."

Don't believe me? Here's the link

-"A survey by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) found that 20 percent of its respondents would simply shut down if they were faced with this choice of being forced to offer health insurance. They couldn't afford it. One out of four said they would replace full-time workers with part-time workers in order to avoid having to pay anything."

Don't believe me? Here's the link

-"According to the National Tax Foundation, the top total tax rate on Americans -- that is, state, local and federal taxes -- will top 50% in 39 states" if the Democrats pass their healthcare legislation.

Don't believe me? Here's the link

-"So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised -- with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers."

Don't believe me? Here's the link

-"A quick review of the legislation shows that it calls for two new government agencies, three trust funds, three advisory panels, two task forces, a research center, a medical device registry, an ombudsman and many pilot and demonstration programs."

Don't believe me? Here's the link

All this sounds so wonderful, doesn't it? The same political party that brought us Social Security and Medicare is on the march again. Watch the carnage.



http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/index.html

While I don't agree with this current rev. of health care reform... the system is broke. I think most agree on that. With that being said I found this reference to Obama and him passing any health care reform while in office, to be very uncool and really a sign of the times.

"If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.",South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint