Dear Congressman Peters,
I have a few questions about the “Health Care” bill.
First, it appears that the president’s statement that Americans can keep their current health care coverage is a subterfuge at best and an abject lie at worst.
Please refer to page 16, section 102 which reads:
GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—IN GENERAL.
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 Y1.
DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect
the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.
LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS.
Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any
of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.
The “Limitation On New Enrollment” appears to be saying that I can keep my current coverage as long as I have it before the health care bill goes into effect and stay in the same program.
However, the “Limitation on Changes In Terms or Conditions” says that any changes to my current coverage are not allowed. I read this as if I change jobs or features or premiums in my current coverage that I will be forced to accept Obamacare. I DON’T WANT YOUR HEALTH CARE. I will pay for what I want.
Tell me where I’m wrong?
Further, how are private insurance companies supposed to stay in business if they are not allowed to enroll any new clients as outlined in the following sentence, “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 Y1”?
Next, refer to page 59, Section 103, lines 21-24, which read as follows:
21 ‘‘(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in
22 order to allow automated reconciliation with the
23 related health care payment and remittance ad
This text seems to giving the federal government access to MY BANK account to extract funds whenever it wants. I don’t want the federal government, or anybody else, to have unfettered access to my bank account.
How is this not a violation of my rights under the IV amendment of the Constitution?
The IV Amendment reads:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
How is federal, unauthorized, access to my bank account not a violation of my right to be secure in my papers and effects?
Next refer to page 167, Subtitle A-Shared Responsibility, Subpart A which references Section 59B of the Internal Revenue Service Code. This section reads:
TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual
who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)with respect to the taxpayer.
This section seems to be taxing subjecting me or any other American that chooses not to buy health insurance, or health insurance coverage not to the government’s liking, to a 2.5% of AGI fine. Why should I be fined for not buying something I don’t want?
Finally, page 838, section 1904, seems to be allowing the state to invade my home and privacy. Section 1904 reads in part:
GRANTS TO STATES FOR QUALITY HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES WITH YOUNG
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EXPECTING CHILDREN.
Part B of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 621–629i) is amended by adding at the end the
‘‘Subpart 3—Support for Quality Home Visitation Programs
‘‘SEC. 440. HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES
WITH YOUNG CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EX12
‘‘(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to im14
prove the well-being, health, and development of children
by enabling the establishment and expansion of high quality
programs providing voluntary home visitation for families
with young children and families expecting children.
‘‘(b) GRANT APPLICATION.—A State that desires to
receive a grant under this section shall submit to the
Secretary for approval, at such time and in such manner as
the Secretary may require, an application for the grant
that includes the following:
‘‘(1) DESCRIPTION OF HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS.
—A description of the high quality programs
of home visitation for families with young children
and families expecting children that will be supported
by a grant made to the State under this section,
the outcomes the programs are intended to
achieve, and the evidence supporting the effectiveness
of the programs.
I read this section as any state that accepts funding is given the right to “Visit” my home, against my wishes, to council me and my family on how to raise and educate my family.
Again, this appears to be another infringement of my rights under the IV amendment, “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”.
The president and congress keep telling us that what we read in the bill is not true. If this is the case, please provide answers to my questions and a better explanation of the sections of the bill outlined above.
God help us!