« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Dear House Republicans and Conservative Activists: You Have 1,018 Pages To Read: (UPDATED With Must Read Chart)

By: Swamp_Yankee (Diary)  |  July 14th, 2009 at 08:35 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

(Republicans have come ready to rumble and have released a chart of the Democratic Plan. This worked well against Hillarycare. Get it out there. Via Drudge – Here.)

So it begins. With little fanfare, as expected, the House Democrats released the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 Tuesday afternoon. In its present form, the bill consists of 1,018 pages. The Democrats are starting to make their case now. Republicans must do the same.

The bill is there for the whole world to read. You can read the bill in its entirety now. Here. There are no excuses. Practice due diligence and become better informed.

You can also read how Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats plan on selling the bill. They have issued a whitewashed summary, which will be the basis for their talking points. Here. You can also read the recently released CBO analysis. Here.

The House Democrats will meet with Obama on Thursday. Obama and the House Democratic leadership will pull out all the stops to persuade skeptical Democrats. They are determined to pass a socialized health care bill before the August recess. Here.

This is a Thermopylae moment. Can an outmanned minority party muster the strength to stop the Republic from falling into the irretractable web of socialism?

There is no mystery. We know their game plan. We know their timetable. We know the players. We have the bill. Don’t wait until the days before the vote to engage in activism. Engage soft Republicans and conservative Democrats with facts, logic, passion, and patriotism now.

Energy, organization and knowledge will help us control this debate and defeat this bill, not last minute rants and threats.

Tags: , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • discerningconservative

    I will get started reading it right away. I will also recommend in hopes of drawing more attention. Stopping this is going to be a hard fight, but it will be well worth it.

  • JadedByPolitics

    and go through the bill and start posting items that are socialistic in their description or are just outright non-free market. I will download and see what I can find. This is a call to action to the Redstate ARMY :)

    • JadedByPolitics

      I got through about 150 of the pages and the eyes were burning and then I tried specific words like penalties, citizen and really came up with nothing….though I will note that you can sue nursing homes and your legality to be in this country to sue is not needed and the nursing home has to pay for the lawyers…other than that not much came up. If anyone can come up with a better way to cross search this beast I would welcome your hints :-)

  • redneck_hippie

    And if you haven’t viewed PJmedia video on Canadian health care, that’s okay if you can’t spare the 20 minutes, just spread it around far and wide.

    http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2009/07/13/obamacare-preview-crowder-goes-to-canada/#comment-3732

  • Common_Cents

    Sheesh, can you write anything more cryptic? You’d think the government that wants to make various labeling clear like nutrition facts or terms spelled out clearly on mortgages and the like would be required to make their legislation simple to read.

    I know, I know, its on purpose to make people skip over it and it takes 1000 pages to tear down America.

    New rule for legislature. A 14 yr old has to be able to read and comprehend a bill for it to be considered.

    • Swamp_Yankee

      They drop those bombs at the last minute by design. There will be a vote in a week or two. Make sure House Republicans, experts, economists break it down now.

      Make sure the people know a vote is coming and that their representive will make an up or down vote for a socialized America.

    • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

      and any bill that takes more than two hours to read will not be considered.

  • http://politics4all.com/users/davidshockey thersites

    One bite at a time of course.

    But many people eating the elephant one bite at a time could make shorter work.

    Could we possibly divide this up amongst us to make the opinion turn-around shorter?

    • AceInTX
  • AceInTX

    The more folks we have…the more time we will have to stuy our section or we could asign more than one person to eact section since each person would zero on a different part of their section than the other would…

    What do you say?

    I officially place this item on the floor for debate.

    Will anyone second the motion and join the committee?

    • http://www.evanweeks.com EvanWeeks

      Granted I am not a lawyer.

      • AceInTX

        Anyone else?

        • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

          thats about 10 pages

          Im starting now

          • AceInTX

            this eve to pick a section…we need to make a list of who is doing what sections and who will write the diaries on what section…if we have enough people reading we can double or tripple up on sections and collaborate on Diaries.

            Sound okay?

          • AceInTX

            aceintx@yahoo.com

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      he will provide a report w/i 4 days max.

    • http://politics4all.com/users/davidshockey thersites

      TITLE IV?AMENDMENTS TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 Subtitle A?Shared Responsibility

      That is found in pages 167-188

      This thing is a monster.

      • http://politics4all.com/users/davidshockey thersites

        TITLE IV ? AMENDMENTS TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986
        Subtitle A?Shared Responsibility

        Tax on persons without health insurance
        Persons without ?acceptable health care coverage? will be taxed at 2.5% of modified adjusted gross income. But the amount paid may not exceed the average premium for the taxable year, as determined by the Secretary of HHS. If the taxpayer has dependents, average premium for ?family coverage? will be the limit. If the person is not covered for part of the year then their tax will be prorated.

        The following persons are exempt from the tax.
        Persons who could be claimed as a dependent on another persons tax filing.
        Non-resident aliens living in the US.
        Persons living outside the US.
        Persons living in a possession of the US.
        Persons with religious conscience exemption granted by the HHS Secretary

        Persons have ?acceptable coverage? if they are covered by one of the following.
        A ?qualified heath benefits plan?.
        A grandfathered employer-based health insurance plan.
        Medicaid.
        Medicare.
        Members of the armed forces (including Tricare).
        Veterans Administration.
        Other coverage as specified by the HHS Secretary.

        The Secretary of HHS may make regulations regarding exemptions from the tax and a process for applying for a hardship waiver.

        Persons must file reports every year proving that they provided coverage for themselves and dependents. There is an unspecified penalty for failure to file.

        The tax described in this section shall not be treated as a change in tax rate. (Thus not breaking Obama’s pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class. Apparently, if you say it isn’t a tax then it doesn’t count. ).

        Employer Responsibilities
        Employers who claim to cover employees under a private health care plan must ensure that all are covered. They may be fined $100 per day per employee for failure to comply with the universal coverage requirement. Employers must pay the government for past uncovered periods if it is found that they have uninsured employees.

        Employers who do not claim to cover their employees under a private plan must pay an excise tax equal to 8% of of employees’ wages. Small employers get a break depending on the size of their payroll: $350-400K=6%, $300-350K=4%, $250-300K=2%, <$250K=0%.

      • http://politics4all.com/users/davidshockey thersites

        TITLE IV?AMENDMENTS TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986
        Subtitle B?Credit for Small Business Employee Health Coverage Expenses

        Small businesses get a credit of up to 50% of the average cost of employee health care coverage.

        But the section goes on to say that the deduction will be reduced by “a number of percentage points which bears the same ratio to 50 as such excess bears to $20,000″. I’m pretty good at math but poor at tortured english. I interpret this to mean that the deduction goes down from 50% as the average employee compensation goes up from $20,000 until the deduction drops to 0% at $40,000 annual average compensation. The deduction dwindles in the same fashion as the number of employees goes up from 15 to 30. (But in a later section the bill states that the business does not qualify as a small employer if they have more than 25 employees.) The two types of reductions to the deduction are cumulative.

        Health coverage expenses of employees who make more than $80,000 (referred to as “certain highly compensated employees”) do not count toward the credit. Employees are not “qualified employees” unless they make more than $5000 per year.

        In partnerships and sole-proprietorships the owners are considered employees.

        The dollar amounts used to calculate deductions described above are subject to cost of living adjustments rounded down to the nearest $50.

      • http://politics4all.com/users/davidshockey thersites

        TITLE IV?AMENDMENTS TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986
        Subtitle C?Disclosures to Carry
        Out Health Insurance Exchange
        Subsidies

        (sec 431)
        The Secretary of HHS will have access to and may share the information in your yearly tax filing but only for the purpose of determining the ?appropriate amount of any affordability credit?.

        Subtitle D?Other Revenue
        Provisions

        (sec 441) Surcharge on high income individuals
        Individuals with modified adjusted gross income in the following brackets must pay the corresponding additional income taxes.
        More than $350,000 but not more than $500,000 – 1% tax
        More than $500,000 but not more than $1,000,000 ? 1.5% tax
        More than $1,000,000 ? 5.4% tax

        The dollar amounts above are halved for married persons filing separate returns. The dollar amounts above are reduced by 20% for surviving spouses.

        After December 31, 2012 the 1% and 1.5% taxes described above are increased to 2% and 3% unless the excess health reform savings are greater than $150 billion but not more than $175 billion. If the excess health reform savings are $175 billion or greater then none of the taxes above will be collected.

        Excess health reform savings are defined as the health reform savings over $525 billion. Health reform savings are defined as the ?reduction in Federal expenditures which have been achieved as a result of ? the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act? as determined by the Office of Management and Budget. For the purposes of determining the reductions in expenditures, the ?investments? under this act are not counted as expenditures.

        Modified adjusted gross income (the income taxable under this act) is defined as gross income reduced by any deduction allowed for investment interest.

        The dollar amounts above shall be adjusted by yearly cost of living adjustments with the result being rounded down to the nearest $5000.

        The income of non-resident aliens and citizens living abroad that is normally taxed under the existing tax code is also taxable under this act.

        Charitable trusts are not taxed under this provision.

        The change in tax rates defined in this section are not changes in tax rate.

        The tax provisions in this section take effect after December 31, 2010.

        The deadline for international financial entities to declare themselves to be a ?worldwide affiliated group? is extended to December 31, 2019. (What does this have to do with health care?)

        (sec 451) Limitation of treaty benefits for certain deductible payments
        The taxes in this section can not be reduced by treaty unless the payments were made directly to a foreign parent corporation. I think this means that a treaty agreement can not affect domestic companies.

        This section ends with some vague language defining foreign entities.

        (sec 452) Codification of economic substance doctrine (sounds ominous)
        The economic substance doctrine is a set of IRS rules used to deny the validity of certain tax shelters. In short, the transactions involved must have some business purpose other than to avoid taxes. This section expands the language in the tax code. It has nothing to do with health care except that the money involved will now be taxable under this act as well.

        This is the end of Division A of the act.

        • AceInTX

          Those who have done reviews already should do a diary complete with opinion and what you think it will do good and bad

        • AceInTX

          I’ll pull up the bill after that and read a section to summarize.

          • http://politics4all.com/users/davidshockey thersites

            To use any or all of my reviews in whole or in part. I am unable to access my own diary page, don’t know why.

  • ColdWarrior

    I glanced at it late last night when the bill was posted at the House Education and Labor Committee site: http://edlabor.house.gov/

    Nowhere did I see any reference to Congress’s purported Article I, Section 8 authority for this spending and penalties for those who will not abide by this legislation. I won’t have time to search for it now, but will try to later. WE MUST DEMAND THAT THE DEBTOCRATS TELL US WHERE THEY GET THEIR PURPORTED AUTHORITY. WHAT WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION AUTHORIZE THIS?

    Second, the so-called right people will have to join the “public option.” We must demand that our congresscritters tell us in writing whether they will pledge to enroll themselves and their families in the “public option” or not. Obviously, they will not. Why? Because they know the “public option” will end up being like going to a VA hospital — and those of you who have had to do that, you know what I mean.

    Another thought — anyone here who has access to military hospital waiting rooms should go there and shoot some video. If you know someone on active duty, ask them if they can do it. Get ‘em up on YouTube. Because that’s what your “public option” waiting room will look like.

    Thank you.

    • Vegas_Rick

      are probably a lot better than your local ER. Active duty miliitary hospitals are (from my personal experience) run very well.

      VA is another story.

      • AceInTX

        I used the one in Clarksburg WV and Pittsburgh before I moved here and it’s a totally different story. There wasn’t a single time I went to one of those facilities for an 8:30 am appt that I left before 6:00pm and I just refused to use it from there

        • Vegas_Rick

          We use Mike O’Callahan Federal Hospital out at Nellis AFB. It is superb.

          • Richard Mullins

            but that good care on the Military level. If it became more like the typical county hospital, like University/Brady Green, then where doomed. I’ve been around a lot of hospitals(mostly when I was a medical courier), so I sort of know a bit of the system.

          • AceInTX

            It was a pit and almost impossible to get by in the ER there

      • ColdWarrior

        Erick Erickson mentioned this video tonight on Hannity. Everyone here should watch it and then help it go viral. Once you watch the whole thing, I’m sure you’ll agree.

        (I always love seeing clips of Michael “I’ve been to rehab many times, I’m obese, and I give none of my millions of dollars to charity” Moore lecturing the “little people” on how to best ensure a healthy, altruistic life.)

        http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/scrowder/2009/07/13/must-see-undercover-expose-of-socialized-healthcare/

        Thank you.

        Cold Warrior

        I am only one. But I am a conservative Republican Party precinct committeeman and trying everything I can to entice conservatives here at Redstate.com to become PCs.

        • http://www.evanweeks.com EvanWeeks
  • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

    It gives out the usual definitions and then begins to describe what sort of plan will be accepted after the law comes into effect.

    Essentially Employer based plans will be grandfathered in ONLY if there are no changes to the plan or premium increases. And only if the plan meets the minimum standards for the new “basic Plan” to be defined later in the bill.

    Private plans will be disallowed unless they are part of the new national coverage. Here is the section;

    {{(1) IN GENERAL.?Individual health insurance
    2 coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance
    3 coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered
    4 on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-par5
    ticipating health benefits plan.}}.page 19

    It also sets up a “Health Insurance Exchange” to become an authority over health insurance.

    • http://fairfaxgardener.blogspot.com ddstrain

      any business that commences in 2 years, 3 years, 10 years must use the government plan or some overly regulated “private” option if it wants to offer health coverage???

      Sure you can keep what you have now…but change jobs and you’re sucked into Obama-care.

      • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

        nt

  • http://www.skiloveland.com lholsenbeck

    If I can come across anything that might stop giving my older friends a longer, better life

    or

    my younger friends limited choices in their lives, i’ll be passing it on.

    HOW ABOUT YOU ?

    any suggestions of places i can contribute, just let me know.

    • http://fairfaxgardener.blogspot.com ddstrain

      They want to nationalize hospice care. I havn’t read everything yet on this, but I’m wondering if euthanasia is not to be considered an acceptable end of life option.

      Section 102 has a title that indicates we can keep our private coverage … but only for 3 to 8 years and under limited circumstances. Your younger friends, if they want any hope of having quality private insurance, had better call their people in Congress and say “No” to this.

      I call each of my Senators and my Congressman twice a day at least. I have little expectation that they will listen to me, but their staffers get an earful.

  • jonreagan

    The folks at Investor’s Business Daily had the same idea, and their op-ed piece in tomorrow morning’s (7/16) edition, “It’s Not an Option”, says it all:

    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=482329

    According to the editors, it only took them 16 pages before discovering a provision which would make certain circumstances of private medical insurance illegal. As they point out, imagine what the rest of the bill contains!

    Once again, it points to the complete and utter dishonesty of Obama and his cronies, who have repeatedly lied that they had no intention of driving people away from private insurance into a government plan.

    • http://fairfaxgardener.blogspot.com ddstrain

      I spotted that too. I’m a bit less concise than IBD in my response/contribution to Swamp Yankee’s posting just below yours, but I’m glad to see someone more trained in statutory interpretation than I drew the same conclusions.

      I fear for our future…

  • http://fairfaxgardener.blogspot.com ddstrain

    I’ve just read Section 102, which purports to preserve our right to keep our current health coverage. As far as I can tell, any such right is EXTREMELY limited and VAST numbers of people will start to be forced into the government plan on or about January 1, 2013.

    I don’t regularly engage in statutory interpretation, but it is really not that hard to parse this screed. I think I’m giving a fair interpretation and accurate description of what will happen in 2013 and 2018. If someone out there thinks I’m wrong, please give me a more plausible interpretation.

    SHORT VERSION: We will ALL (you, me, the paperboy, the grocery cashier, Rosie O’Donnell, EVERYONE) will be suffering together with Obamacare by Jan. 1 2018, with next to no exceptions. The “you can keep your current coverage” is true in a very short term sense…otherwise IT IS A LIE.

    LONG VERSION: My interpretation is that…

    NOTE: I use “government plan” throughout below. By government plan, I mean the public option that will mimic Canada or the UK or a “private” plan that is effectivly under massive government control and oversight (e.g. bureaucrats in charge).

    Sec. 102(a) “grandfathers” any private insurance plan in effect on or before Jan. 1, 2013. This means that any entity wishing to implement a health plan after Jan. 1, 2013 must use the government health plan. So if you have any aspiration of owning your own business and want to offer private health benefits to your employees … do it before 2013. [[[ Well ... actually ... it doesn't matter. Sec. 102(b)(1)(A) makes it a waste of time to establish a new plan if you plan to still be in business in 2018.]]]

    Sec. 102(a)(1) (a) prohibits an employer with a “grandfathered” private plan from adding new employees to that plan after Jan. 1, 2013. So if a company expands and adds people it will be forced to place them on the government plan. More directly, if you change jobs on or after Jan. 2, 2013, you will be put on the government plan, whether your new employer has a “grandfathered” plan or not.

    Sec. 102(a)(2) prohibits a “grandfathered” private plan from making any changes to the policy coverage on or after Dec. 31, 2012. So an employer is PROHIBITED for amending the plan to meet the needs of the business or the employees effective Dec. 31, 2012. Even INCREASING COVERAGE is banned. Seems to be a perfect paragraph to include if you want to sped the obsolescence of existing private plans.

    Sec. 102(b)(1)(A) was drafted by someone who clearly wants to hide it’s true intent. Basically this paragraph essentially says that on Jan. 1, 2018 all “grandfathered” private plans must be made identical to the government plan. Sure it’s still privately run…but it’s the same as the government plan. Sooooo, why would a company keep it’s private plan come 2018?

    Sec. 102(b)(1)(B) – provides some very specialized and limited exceptions to the 2018 deadline to become just like the government plan. Specifically, COBRA coverage extended under the Porkulus and special purpose insurance coverage like long-term care. However, these excepted plans shall “[i]n no case…be treated as acceptable coverage…]. So there will be a very limited number of truly private special purpose plans that exist after 2018, but the government doesn’t like them because they are not acceptable. Who wants to bet that by 2018, they’ll have eliminated those special purpose private plans?

    Sec.102(b)(2) says that the “grandfathered” private plans existing on Jan 1, 2013 enter a “grace period” until 2018, when they need to become clones of the government plan. During this grace period the private plans are “treated as acceptable”, meaning they are inherently unacceptable and only the good graces of the government allows them to exist between 2013 and 2018. Again, bets on how quickly this grace period will be shortened or how nebulous “acceptable” is interpreted?

    Sec. 102(c) has a title that says it all … “LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE” How much more clear does this need to be for people to wake up?

    Sec. 102(c)(1) says that if a health plan isn’t “grandfathered” it must be a government plan. Recall my above inpretation of Sec. 102(a) that all entities offering new health coverage aftr Jan 1, 2013 must be on the government plan.

    Sec. 102(c)(2) provides another very limited exclusion for specialty coverage.

    Sure we can keep our current superior private coverage … for a little while. Should this get enacted say goodbye to insurance coverage as you want it, how you want it and where you want it.

    Maybe I’ll make this a Diary entry…

    • Swamp_Yankee

      It could be a strong talking point. Good job breaking it down. I bet 90% of the House Republicans have yet to do what you just did.

      • E Pluribus Unum

        Very clever you are!

    • Aaron Gardner
    • http://www.evanweeks.com EvanWeeks

      Please, I’ll reco. This needs to be in the top ten over there where the congressmen who frequent this site can see it.

      • TNJim

        See here.

        • http://www.evanweeks.com EvanWeeks

          Missed it as I was writing/posting my own diary for the day. :)

  • http://politics4all.com/users/davidshockey thersites

    This thread will get kind of cluttered quickly with posts about the healthcare bill. Should we consider moving this somewhere else. This kind of undertaking would fit well in a wiki.

  • skorrent1

    Couldn’t believe it. Read it again this morning and I’m still stunned!

    Starting at the beginning. Why are we attempting to reform “healthcare” now, in the midst of an economic downturn? Because BO tells us that our healthcare costs are out of control, and that we cannot fix our economy unless we “reform” healthcare to get control of those costs, right? So we look at the burden of Medicaid on the states, and we look at the Medicare unfunded liability (28 trillion and counting) and we agree — got to get control of healthcare costs!

    So what does the CBO analysis NOT do. It does NOT give us any feel for the healthcare burden for the next decade, either in dollar or GDP terms. We have no idea whether this burden is going up, down or sideways. (Want to guess?)

    What the CBO analysis DOES tell us is that the Medicaid burden on the states will remain for the next decade, at least. And in a period when the Boomers start pouring into the Medicare program in earnest, and when Medicare is projected to run out of so-called trust funds, the CBO confines its analysis to the “nonelderly”.

    Wouldn’t you think that the first element to be “reformed” would be the largest current government healthcare program? Particularly as it’s in such bad shape? Maybe it’s in the 1000+ pages somewhere. Anybody find it?

  • ColdWarrior

    you may want to join others planning to protest Obamacare at all congresscritter offices across the country. I and several other Republican Party precinct committeemen will be doing so at Debtocrat Rep. Harry Mitchell’s office in Scottsdale, AZ.

    Here’s the link: http://www.teapartypatriots.org/HC.aspx

    Thank you.

    P.S. As far as I know, our vaunted GOP “leadership” had no hand in organizing these protests. I received no e-mails from the GOP urging me to protest Obamacare.

    • Swamp_Yankee

      nt

  • http://politics4all.com/users/davidshockey thersites

    Seems that three different committees of Democrats have added another 3000+ pages of changes to the bill.

    Here is a link: http://wsbradio.com/blogs/jamie_dupree/2009/07/health-bill-changes.html

    • izoneguy

      It would say….

      Sorry this is a bad joke….

      Rip this up and forget about it….

  • lesliejo

    I read about 20 pages last night and it’s full of C-R-A-P. Blue Tuesday 07/21. Wear blue or fly blue from the antenna of your car to protest government controlled health care. Be on the side of freedom! Twitter #bluetuesday

  • Swamp_Yankee

    http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51115

    • randy streu

      They’ll just put it in the water.

      Where’n the hell’s my tinfoil hat? *grumble grumble*

  • http://www.skiloveland.com lholsenbeck

    Section 403, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
    HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

    Quote:
    “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 in2
    come for the taxable year, over
    the amount of gross income specified in
    section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.”

    Meaning:
    If you aren’t paying what some governement committee decides is your share in private insurance, they’ll be taxing you an additional 2.5%

    Oh, and illegals(those who are one heck of a big cost to the US health system, but pay relatively nothing); they’re exempt.

    Don’t tell me this isn’t an attempt to buy immigrant votes(amongst all the other vile things going on in here).

    Ok, off to looking for the next floater.

  • http://www.skiloveland.com lholsenbeck

    Sec. 141 -HEALTH CHOICES ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH
    CHOICES COMMISSIONER.

    Quote:
    “There is hereby established, as an
    independent agency in the executive branch of the Government,
    a Health Choices Administration (in this division
    referred to as the ??Administration??).
    (b) COMMISSIONER.?
    (1) IN GENERAL.?The Administration shall be
    headed by a Health Choices Commissioner (in this
    division referred to as the ??Commissioner??) who
    shall be appointed by the President, by and with the
    advice and consent of the Senate.”

    Meaning:
    Much like Judge Sotamayor who many would consider not their choice for next justice but recognizing there’s not thing 1 you can do about it.

    If this gets into law before 2010 and there aren’t enough GOP and blue dogs to hold Obama off, he will have the #1 guy in the new health program under his thumb,
    and YOU too.

    Are you scared yet ? I am.

    • randy streu

      John Holdren a job. *shudder*

    • $peciallist

      to the people that do, Swamp Yankee, lholsenbeck, and others…..

      a big giant Thanks!

      • http://www.skiloveland.com lholsenbeck

        I just needed a reason to drink tonite.

      • Vegas_Rick
    • 6eorge Jetson
      • $peciallist

        Obama’s run…….it’s all over when you turn 30….lol, perfect

        • 6eorge Jetson

          Embedded permanently above as I’m about to change my sig pic

  • http://www.skiloveland.com lholsenbeck

    ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.?

    Quote:
    “(F) VA.?Coverage under the veteran?s
    health care program under chapter 17 of title
    38, United States Code, but only if the coverage
    for the individual involved is determined
    by the Secretary in coordination with the
    Health Choices Commissioner to be not less
    than the level specified by the Secretary of the
    Treasury, in coordination with the Secretary of
    Veteran?s Affairs and the Health Choices Commissioner,
    based on the individual?s priority for
    services as provided under section 1705(a) of
    such title.”

    Meaning:
    Obama’s appointed health commissioner and Obama’s chosen HHS secretary are determining what VA acceptable coverage is.

    Considering I think Obama’s actions or non-actions for vets so far have been shameful; i’m not optimistic.

    I need a drink, but i probably shouldn’t have one. If my liver goes bad and i’m not paying enough taxes to keep this monster afloat; that may be it for me. Well, as long as I still have “hope”.

  • Uma Richie

    SEC. 1904. GRANTS TO STATES FOR QUALITY HOME VISITA-
    TION PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES WITH YOUNG
    CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EXPECTING CHIL
    DREN.

    This section runs from page 838 to page 855. The description to me looks like plain old caseworker visitation, which is handled at the county level in PA. I don’t understand why the federal government needs to collect taxes and establish a bureaucratic process in order to fund an already existing service.

  • Soulsamurai

    … to know it’s a very, very bad bill.

    It clearly “outlaw(s) 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.”

    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=482329

    Read the whole article and share it !!!

  • Swamp_Yankee

    Collins, Snowe, Nelson, Lieb, Landrieu and Wyden(?). Its going nowhere in teh Senate before August. On the other hand, it the issue fades in the news and in the public’s mind, the House Dems may use the opportunity to Rahm it through

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/17/gang-of-six-centrist-sena_n_237750.html

  • Swamp_Yankee

    The thing I love is how pissy Obama is getting. sooner or later, all that heavy handed dressing down is going to come back and bite him in the rear.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/health/policy/18health.html?_r=2&hp

    • http://www.redstate.com/tnjim TNJim

      His little mini-address today put me in mind of a desperate man.