Back to Obamacare

[russ1945]

Have you seen this - came in my email:




YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS.

At age 76 when you most need it, you are not eligible for cancer
treatment
see page 272

What Nancy Pelosi didn't want us to know until after the healthcare
bill was passed. Remember she said, "pass it and then read
it!!." Here it is!
______________________________
Obama Care Highlighted by Page Number
THE CARE BILL HB 3200


JUDGE KITHIL IS THE 2ND OFFICIAL WHO HAS OUTLINED THESE PARTS OF THE CARE BILL.
Judge Kithil of Marble Falls, TX - highlighted the
most egregious pages
of HB3200
Please read this........ especially
the reference to pages 58 & 59


JUDGE KITHIL wrote:

**
Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to
all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.

**
Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an
individual's bank account and will have the authority to make
electronic fund transfers from those accounts.

**
Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the
government) for all union members, union retirees and for
community organizations (such as the Association
of Community Organizations for Reform Now -
ACORN).

**
Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section
will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their
right mind come up with that?)

**
Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same
regardless of specialty, and the government will set all
doctors' fees.

**
Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care
according to the patient's age.

**
Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on
hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an
exception.

**
Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care
planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be
required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five
years. (Death counseling..)
i
**
Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify
which doctors can write an end-of-life order.
HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on to identify:

"Finally,f it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to
members of Congress. Members of Congress are already
exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded
private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on
our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick
'fix' to make the plan financially sound for their future."

 

[russ1945]

Close To: Your Email: Your Name: Subject:
February 28, 2012 4:00 AM
Obamacare’s Bipartisan Critics
The president’s health-care legislation is now being opposed from both sides of the aisle. By Deroy Murdock

• About Author
• Archive
• Latest
• RSS
• Send

Representatives Barney Frank and Loretta Sanchez in 2010






Print
Text


Comments
0

Deroy Murdock ​

The ongoing controversy over President Obama’s universal female-contraception entitlement decree reportedly found Vice President Joseph Biden, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, former chief of staff Richard Daley, and five Democratic senators opposing Obama’s fusillade against religious liberty and economic freedom. (It is tyrannical to force faith-based organizations to commit what they consider sins and dictate to insurance companies that they deliver a service for free — namely, birth-control coverage — for which they normally charge money.) This is the latest example of Democrats, in whole, or in part, giving the cold shoulder to Obamacare.

Congressman Barney Frank, the crusading Massachusetts liberal, recently co-sponsored H.R. 452, joining California’s Joe Baca and Loretta Sanchez, New York’s Timothy Bishop, Pennsylvania’s Chaka Fattah, and ten other Democrats. This measure, introduced by Representative Phil Roe (R., Tenn.), would terminate the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Dubbed “the real death panel” by its critics, IPAB would begin work in 2014. Its 15 appointed members would control Medicare costs by deciding which treatments are cost-effective and which aren’t, essentially rationing care. Its recommendations would become federal law unless Congress found other ways to match or exceed its spending cuts. Alternatively, 60 senators overrule IPAB’s advice — no small task.

Advertisement



​

Representative Frank’s spokesman, Diego Sanchez, says that his boss’s opposition to IPAB has been “consistent and firm.” As far back as January 15, 2010, Frank — along with California’s Pete Stark, Texas’s Sheila Jackson-Lee, Georgia’s John Lewis, and dozens of other stalwart Democrats — signed a letter to then-speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) spurning “legislation that would place authority for Medicare payment policy in an unelected, executive branch commission or board.”

Elsewhere on Capitol Hill, Senator Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) asked the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office to find replacements for Obamacare’s individual mandate, the new law’s most constitutionally dodgy provision. “I never thought the mandate was a particularly good way to do it,” he told Politico. Senator Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.) also frets about the mandate. “There’s [sic] other ways we can get people into the pool — I hope — other than a mandate, and we need to look at that,” she told MSNBC.
Obamacare’s chief mandate has enraged Democrats across America.
“Examples around the country show that people on both the left and the right oppose the unconstitutional individual mandate,” says Christie Herrera, director of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Health and Human Services Task Force. “Support for an individual’s right to decide whether or not to purchase health insurance free from government force is a question of the proper role of government, not what side of the aisle you sit on.”
Last spring, for instance, Missouri attorney general Chris Koster (D., Missouri) filed an amicus curiae brief backing anti-Obamacare litigation filed by Florida and 25 other states.
“If Congress can force activity under the Commerce Clause, then it could force individuals to receive vaccinations or annual check-ups, undergo mammogram or prostate exams, or maintain a specific body mass,” argues Koster’s brief in the case, which the Supreme Court will hear in March.
Koster’s filing poses this magnificent rhetorical question:
“When Henry Thoreau set about to idly chronicle the summer of 1845 alongside Walden Pond, could Congress assert that Thoreau’s season of reflection was, in fact, an active decision not to fish Walden’s waters, regulate his negative decision under the Commerce Clause, and thereafter penalize his failure to fish under the theory that everyone has to eat?”

Missourians voted 71 to 29 percent on August 3, 2010, to prohibit any law that compels “any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system.” This anti-mandate initiative won nearly 100,000 votes from citizens who did not cast Republican ballots in that day’s primary election. “When one in six Democratic primary voters decides they want the state of Missouri to defend them from the signature issue of the Democratic Party, you’ve got a recipe for electoral disaster,” RedState concluded.
St. Louis County, a Democratic stronghold, voted 59 to 40 percent for Obama over Senator John McCain (R., Ariz.) in November 2008. However, Obamacare proved far less popular than its namesake. Missouri’s largest city voted 62 to 38 percent for Proposition C.

 

[rolltide]

Have you seen this - came in my email:

you need to update your spam filter

 

[russ1945]

you need to update your spam filter

Cqan anyone validate any of that. I am sure Congress is exempt lol.

 

[russ1945]

[h=1]Obamacare Turns 4, Just 1.4% of Uninsured Americans Covered[/h]

335

7

503

5

---

Email Article

Print article Send a Tip


by Wynton Hall 23 Mar 2014 1127post a comment

[h=2]Four years of Obamacare have produced health insurance for just 1.4% of uninsured Americans.[/h]According to CNBC, of the 5 million people the Obama administration claims have enrolled in Obamacare, just 715,000 are previously uninsured Americans who have chosen and paid for new insurance. As the Washington Post notes, there are 48.6 million uninsured Americans. That means that after four years of being the law of the land, Obamacare--whose purported purpose was to cover the uninsured--has provided coverage for just 1.4% of uninsured Americans.
Indeed, the vast majority of those who have signed up for Obamacare are merely Americans who already had health insurance but whose plans were canceled by Obamacare,
Moreover, a year ago the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that between 26 million and 27 million uninsured Americans will never receive health care coverage under Obamacare.
Statistics like that have Democrats panicking heading into the November midterm elections. According to the RealClearPolitics average of polls, just 39% of Americans now support Obamacare. One Democratic member of Congress told the New York Times that President Barack Obama has now become "poisonous" to Democrats running for office.
The latest Gallup poll finds that just 40% of Americans now support Obama.
Obamacare will cost U.S. taxpayers $2.6 trillion over the next 10 years.

 

[NFLTrends]

So... we decided to hurt a vast majority of those with insurance with higher costs, more paperwork, loss of insurance and such... just to help around 1.7% of those that didn't have insurance?

Yeah... that's a great plan... hurt the masses to somehow help a very very very small 1.7% minority? All to the tune of TRILLIONS of dollars?

This was a well thought out and carefully laid plan... for the INSURANCE COMPANIES and GOVERNMENT (which tend to make huge profits, and those who exempted themselves from it)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Yeah.... Lets HOPE FOR CHANGE!

 

[The Guesser]

Cqan anyone validate any of that. I am sure Congress is exempt lol.

You're just a blind sheep. They are not, and simply fact checking would show it. https://theweek.com/article/index/254747/for-the-last-time-congress-is-not-exempt-from-obamacare
But you'll only connect the dots on one side. http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/kithil.asp

Of Course, the last paragraph is entirely false: "Finally,f it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to
members of Congress. Members of Congress are already
exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded
private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on
our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick
'fix' to make the plan financially sound for their future."

 

[Dave007inVegas]

So... we decided to hurt a vast majority of those with insurance with higher costs, more paperwork, loss of insurance and such... just to help around 1.7% of those that didn't have insurance?

Yeah... that's a great plan... hurt the masses to somehow help a very very very small 1.7% minority? All to the tune of TRILLIONS of dollars?

This was a well thought out and carefully laid plan... for the INSURANCE COMPANIES and GOVERNMENT (which tend to make huge profits, and those who exempted themselves from it)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Yeah.... Lets HOPE FOR CHANGE!

It's more like BEG FOR CHANGE!

 

[russ1945]

You're just a blind sheep. They are not, and simply fact checking would show it. https://theweek.com/article/index/254747/for-the-last-time-congress-is-not-exempt-from-obamacare
But you'll only connect the dots on one side. http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/kithil.asp

Of Course, the last paragraph is entirely false: "Finally,f it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to
members of Congress. Members of Congress are already
exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded
private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on
our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick
'fix' to make the plan financially sound for their future."[/QUOTE

I did not connect any dots dumbass. I simply posted it. I just threw it out there. Can you discredit all of it.

 

[The Guesser]

You're just a blind sheep. They are not, and simply fact checking would show it. https://theweek.com/article/index/254747/for-the-last-time-congress-is-not-exempt-from-obamacare
But you'll only connect the dots on one side. http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/kithil.asp

Of Course, the last paragraph is entirely false: "Finally,f it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to
members of Congress. Members of Congress are already
exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded
private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on
our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick
'fix' to make the plan financially sound for their future."[/QUOTE

I did not connect any dots dumbass. I simply posted it. I just threw it out there. Can you discredit all of it.

Already did, blind sheep asshole. Read the snopes article. Of course you didn't fact check it. You never do. You only connect dots on one side. Vit was entirely right about you. I thought you could be reasonned with, but you can't be. My bad.
The last paragraph I can discredit all of it. New Members of Congress have been paying into Social Security since 1984. The very, very few, if any, that were there since before 1984 are exempt.