Click here to view the embedded video.

Star Spangled Banner
Francis Scott Key (1814)

Oh, say can you see by the dawn’s early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
‘Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps’ pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Original Title:
Cloward-Piven crisis strategy – Obama’s playbook revealed by WND editor Joseph Farah

Click here to view the embedded video.

You can learn more details in James Simpson’s great article on this subject.

Joe,

I don’t want to hurt your feelings, but you, sir, are a lazy reporter. In the story “Is The Tea Party Over”, you have exposed yourself as a closet liberal which I have suspected you to be for a very long time. You have also pointed out some things that I’d like to respond to, if not for your benefit than for all those who might actually believe that you represent any form of true conservatism. You do not. You have displayed no inside knowledge of the work being done by hundreds of Tea Party groups on a daily basis and yet you speak as if you “really do know what is going on”. You do not. Nor, I suspect does anyone at either MSNBC or Newsweek. I might also suggest that while the Democrats are clearly off-balance and have been caught off-guard, so to are the Republicans because I’m still hearing comments from their side that make me laugh. Your comments just made me sick.

You drank the kool-aid, Joe, and it shows.

After spending the first half of your piece comparing the Tea Party Movement to the eclectic collection of Ross Perot supporters and God-forbid Second Ammendment supporters and repeating what I consider to be the most offensive name given to Tea Party Patriots under the guise of a quote, you spent the second half of the article trying to explain why the Tea Party Movement is “tearing itself apart”. You are wrong, sir. You along with everyone else who thinks they have this movement figured out are wrong.

As examples of what you deem to be the problem, you mention the issues surrounding the Tea Party Nation, the National Tea Party Convention planned for February and some comments made by the “tea party’s spiritual leader and carnival barker, Glenn Beck”.

First of all, the problems being experienced by the Tea Party Nation are of their own making and not representative of the Tea Party Movement. In an effort to “make a living” off the Tea Party Movement, it’s founder, Judson Phillips, Esq. set up the Tea Party Nation as a “for profit enterprise” with the stated intention to use the funds raised to work full time on the project and to fund Tea Party activities around the country. There have been some disagreements within the Tea Party Nation about the direction and handling of the group as expressed in this article by a former insider and webdesigner. I cannot judge who is right and who is wrong in the Tea Party Nation infighting, I wasn’t there. It’s clear though that neither were you since your reference apparently came from what you had read in published news reports. I have no beef with the Tea Party Nation, nor with their desire to have a convention, but I have to admit that setting the group up as a “for-profit” enterprise seems a bit strange. Are the problems within the Tea Party Nation indications of problems within the Tea Party Movement? Not no, but hell no and how you could make the case that it does is beyond me.

It’s this kind of lazy reporting that just infuriates Tea Party members everywhere. It is part and parcel of why the main stream media is losing it’s role as the defenders of freedom and information. Go ahead, Joe, you and your journalistic companions keep this up and we won’t have to listen to you much longer. You’ll be gone just like Air America. Air America did more to reduce air pollution by turning off the microphones than any legislation coming out of Washington in the last 30 years.

Secondly, I take exception to your assertion that your competitor on another network is the “tea party’s spiritual leader and carnival barker”. Glenn Beck happens to be on the one news network that is outperforming every other network and especially MSNBC. It is apparent that this irritates you greatly. Frankly, if I had the ratings MSNBC has I’d be irritated too. But the Tea Party’s spiritual leaders are Washington, Jefferson, Paine, Madison, and all the other great men who helped form and shape the Constitution of these United States not Glenn Beck. Does Glenn Beck say a lot of stuff that Tea Party members agree with? Absolutely. Has Glenn Beck helped organized a segment of the population through his 9-12 organizations? Absolutely. Has Glenn Beck done some real journalism and reported stuff that no other outlet will carry? Absolutely. Does the Tea Party Movement look to Glenn Beck for direction, guidance or instructions? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

To imply so, proves that you are being lazy intellectually at best or jealous of Beck’s success at worst.

I don’t necessarily agree with the exact Beck quote you used: “I want his every move watched in Washington. I don’t trust this guy. This one could end with a dead intern.” I do not anticipate a dead intern with Scott Brown, but I will agree with the spirit of quote which is this: We cannot afford to give Scott Brown our support for the election and then just assume that he will do as he promised. We’ve been doing that for the last 40 years and look what it got us. Politicians are experts at promising what their voters want during election time and then going to Washington and doing as they damn well please without feeling required to live up to any of the promises they made. Did you do that too when you were a Congressman?

My point is that the Tea Party Movement is not motivated nor orchestrated by any single individual. It is only partially motivated by the liberal policies being rammed down our throats by Barack Obama, Pelosi and Reid. The Tea Party Movement is motivated far more by the attitude of these elected officials expressed by their arrogance and their obvious intention to ignore the Constitution and the voice of the people for whom they work. That has not changed and it is the unifying cry of Tea Party Groups all over this country.  Good legislation can and should be bi-partisan. Health care reform and Cap & Trade are anything BUT bi-partisan. Doesn’t that bother you at all?

The final nail in the coffin was the last paragraph:

The more important question for the populist movement may be whether this loosely organized political phenomenon can remain intact long enough to challenge a two-party system that has dominated American politics since George Washington rode off to Mount Vernon to live out his final years. If history is any guide, the prospects of long-term success are as unlikely as a Republican winning a Senate seat in Massachusetts.

You call the Tea Party Movement a phenomenon and ask whether it “can remain intact long enough to challenge a two-party system”. Which only serves to prove to me at least that you haven’t done your homework. The Tea Party Movement has been around since before “George Washington rode off to Mount Vernon”.  We were on the Mayflower searching for Freedom. We bought and read Thomas Payne’s “Common Sense”. We were in Boston Harbor and in Valley Forge and at the signing of the Declaration of Independence. We sat next to Benjamin Franklin as the Constitution was written and signed. We were there when Washinton first took the oath. We were at Gettysburg when Lincoln spoke of a “government of the people, by the people, for the people”. We were there at Pearl Harbor and we were there at VE Day and VJ Day. We were there when Kennedy told us to “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”  We were there when Reagan spoke of a “shining city on a hill” and we were there with George Bush when he told us through a bullhorn “I can hear you! I can hear you!”

No, Joe, the Tea Party isn’t over, it’s just coming back to life and gaining it’s strength. And, we will be there at every election from hereon, not to be a third party as you presume, but to remove the corruption within the current system and return the United States to the principles of the Constitution, to remind elected officials of their fiscal responsibility to the country and to accept our own personal responsibilities.

I do not understand why you and the rest of the media and all of the other politicians can’t figure the Tea Party Movement out. It seems so simple to me.

Sincerely,
TheGuru

Click here to view the embedded video.

“The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.”

As expected when first published, Palin was roundly critized and once again vilified for have the audacity of thinking she had something substantive to say about anything. However, it stirred the pot of debate and prompted her on August 12th, 2009 to publish another comment on her Facebook page entitled “Concerning The ‘Death Panels’” in which quotes directly from HR 3200:

“Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual … or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility… or a hospice program.” [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services.”

Liberals screamed that “Death Panels” simply were not in the bill to start with and that the bill never included the actual words “Death Panel” and therefore any reference to those words was misleading or hyperbolic. However, whether you believe that HR 3200 supported the idea of “death panels” or not, The LA Times published an article on August 14th, 2009 that announced the following:

“Though the claims are widely discredited, the Senate Finance Committee is withdrawing from its bill the inclusion of advance care planning consultations, calling them too confusing.”

Which begs the question, why drop the clause if it didn’t say what Palin and others claimed it said? Why worry about it? Why be concerned that the confusing language in the bill would be misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly if it clearly didn’t include suggestions to provide information to patients about end-of-life decisions?

After the Senate announced it was dropping the clause, the Huffington Post had to report that Palin was “gratified” to see that the Senate dropped the clause from the bill they were working on. Then, the HuffPo article when on to link to an opinion piece that makes the case that health care was already being rationed in America and we shouldn’t be afraid of the concept.

While it is true that market forces have some rationing effect on health care, it does not prevent anyone from getting health care in emergencies regardless of whether they can pay or not. Are there cases where Medicare denies a patient access to certain non-life threatening procedures and forces the patient to decide on whether they will pay for the procedure themselves or not? Absolutely, and I would argue that is not necessarily a bad thing. I would also argue that doctors already have an end-of-life care option for patients and it is called Hospice Care.

The men and women who work in this field are angels but there are some things you should know about hospice: 1) Hospice is only recommended for patients who are terminal and whom the doctor believes has only six months to live. 2) Hospice focuses on maintaining the quality of life of terminal patients, and most importantly, 3) Even hospice workers will tell you that there are often patients who live far beyond the six month period the doctors expect them to live. The difference between Hospice and End-Of-Life Consulting is that Hospice Care does not actively seek to end a patient’s life, while ending a life is the primary goal of End-Of-Life Consulting. Just because HR 3200 does not include the words “Death Panels” doesn’t mean that this type of discussion wouldn’t take place with many patients and the discussion won’t be between a patient and a doctor, it will be between a patient and a bureaucrat. In fact, the President’s constant focus on health care cost containment almost guarantees that this would occur.

Want proof? Last year the following news story ran on KATU Channel 2 in Portland, Oregon. Oregon has a law that allows doctor assisted suicide and apparently now it is offered routinely by the Orgeon Health Plan. In 2008, after weeks of bad news, things turned worse for Barbara Wagner. Her lung cancer, in remission for about two years, was back. But after her oncologist prescribed a cancer drug that could slow the cancer growth and extend her life, Wagner was notified that the Oregon Health Plan wouldn’t cover it because the drug cost as much as $4,000 per month. However, the Oregon Health Plan WOULD cover the $100 cost of medicine and any comfort and care that she needed if she chose doctor-assisted suicide.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I attempted to find out if Barbara Wagner is still alive and though I did find a comment on one source that indicated that she lived another four months after the story ran, I was unable to confirm that bit of information. But that doesn’t change the fact that if Wagner had accepted the offer of doctor assisted suicide, she would not have had even those four months. Would she have lived the four months without the expensive medicine? Who knows?

I don’t know of a single doctor who discounts the value of approaching an illness with a positive attitude and even if the medicine only provided Barbara Wagner with the “belief” that the medicine was helping can we discount the value of that effect on her attitude? We can never compare the outcomes of various treatments on patients because each patient is different and because once the patient is dead, we can’t go back and try another method to see if it works better. What we can compare are the results of treatment versus suicide and when we do treatment always wins.

The Inconvenient Truth I mentioned in the title of the story is this: the clause identified by Sarah Palin and dropped by the Senate Committee is irrelevant. Palin isn’t wrong about death panels, the bill definitely contains death panels but the Senate dropping the clause she identified will not stop death panels from forming. Maybe they won’t exist exactly the way we can imagine them with a patient standing before a long table of blank faces of government officials deciding who gets what treatment, when they get it and for how long. But the focus on cost containment and the rationing which will naturally occur when the free market is completely removed from the health care equation, will inevitably lead to classifying patients by their “return on investment.”

In the story of Barbara Wagner, the drug company decided to give Wagner the drugs because they believed the drug worked and they felt compassion. Compassion is one of the first things that will be lost should HR 3200 be signed into law. Want to know why? Because the decisions won’t be left to the doctors and drug manufacturers. All of those decisions will be made by the Government under this plan, and in spite of all their high-minded expectations, liberals never seem to understand that Government by definition is the opposite of compassionate. It cannot be compassionate because everyone has to be treated exactly the same regardless of individual situations. Rules are rules and no government employee ever was fired for following the rules. It was in the best interest of the drug company to assist this woman for many reasons, not the least of which was the publicity they have received from this story. While Barbara was not able to pay for the medicine out of her pocket, she paid for it with her story which has now gone around the globe. That concept of value even when money is not involved is lost on Government. It is one of the unintended consequences of Government and cannot be ignored.

My great-grandmother had both her hips replaced when she was in her eighties and she regained her mobility and lived until she was almost 96 years old. My question to the President and anyone else supporting his health care/insurance reform or whatever they are calling it today is this: If my great-grandmother had gone to her doctor with this plan in effect at the age of 85, living in a wheelchair most of the time as she had been, could she have gotten her hips replaced under this plan? The reason I ask is I’m convinced that had she not regained her mobility, she would have died long before the age of 96. 

Then I would not have gotten to know her as well as I did, learned as much from her as I did nor enjoyed her company for nearly as long as I did. To me and her other great-grandchildren, the value of those extra years can’t even be counted.

Join the forum discussion on this post - (2) Posts

Editor’s Note: Mr. Lewis, should you notify me that I have overstepped my bounds, I will be happy to reduce the size of this to fair use word counts and provide links to your site for further reading by our readers.  

What does the bill, HR 3200, short-titled ”America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” actually say about major health care issues? I here pose a few questions in no particular order, citing relevant passages and offering a brief evaluation after each set of passages.

This bill is 1017 pages long. It is knee-deep in legalese and references to other federal regulations and laws. I have only touched pieces of the bill here. For instance, I have not considered the establishment of (1) “Health Choices Commissio0ner” (Section 141); (2) a “Health Insurance Exchange,” (Section 201), basically a government run insurance scheme to coordinate all insurance activity; (3) a Public Health Insurance Option (Section 221); and similar provisions.  

This is the evaluation of someone who is neither a physician nor a legal professional. I am citizen, concerned about this bill’s effects on my freedom as an American. I would rather have used my time in other ways-but this is too important to ignore. 

We may answer one question up front: How will the government will pay for all this? Higher taxes, more borrowing, printing money, cutting payments, or rationing services-there are no other options.  We will all pay for this, enrolled in the government “option” or not.

(All bold type within the text of the bill is added for emphasis.)

1.  WILL THE PLAN RATION MEDICAL CARE?  

This is what the bill says, pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS: 

 ‘(ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN READMISSIONS.-For purposes of clause (i), with respect to a hospital, excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital.

and, under “Definitions”:

 ”(A) APPLICABLE CONDITION.-The term ‘applicable condition’ means, subject to subparagraph (B), a condition or procedure selected by the Secretary . . .

and:

 ”(E) READMISSION.-The term ‘readmission’ means, in the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time period specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge.

and: 

”(6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.-There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of- . . .
”(C) the measures of readmissions . . .

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. This section amends the Social Security Act
2. The government has the power to determine what constitutes an “applicable [medical] condition.”
3. The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.
4. This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may readmitted.
5. This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up.
6. There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts.
7. The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318.

2.  Will the plan punish Americans who try to opt out?

What the bill says, pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE:

  ”(a) 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-

(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. . . .”

 EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.
2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.

3. The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.

3.   What constitutes “acceptable” coverage?

Here is what the bill says, pages 26-30, SEC. 122, ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED:

 (a) IN GENERAL.-In this division, the term ”essential benefits package” means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 124 to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security . . .

(b) MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED.-The items and services described in this subsection are the following:

(1) Hospitalization.

(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services . . .

(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.

(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician’s or a health professional’s delivery of care . . .

(5) Prescription drugs.

(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.

(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.

(8) Preventive services . . .

(9) Maternity care.

(10) Well baby and well child care . . .

(c) REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO COST-SHARING AND MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE . . .

(3) MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE.-

(A) IN GENERAL.-The cost-sharing under the essential benefits package shall be designed to provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 70 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package described in subparagraph (B).

 EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. The bill defines “acceptable coverage” and leaves no room for choice in this regard.
2. By setting a minimum 70%  actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services, but carry insurance only for catastrophic events, (such as Health Savings Accounts) illegal.

4.  Will the PLAN destroy private health insurance?

Here is what it requires, for businesses with payrolls greater than $400,000 per year. (The bill uses “contribution” to refer to mandatory payments to the government plan.)  Pages 149-150, SEC. 313, EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE

 (a) IN GENERAL.-A contribution is made in accordance with this section with respect to an employee if such contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of  the average wages paid by the employer during the period of enrollment (determined by taking into account all employees of the employer and in such manner as the Commissioner provides, including rules providing for the appropriate aggregation of related employers). Any such contribution-

(1) shall be paid to the Health Choices Commissioner for deposit into the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, and

(2) shall not be applied against the premium of the employee under the Exchange-participating health benefits plan in which the employee is enrolled. 

(The bill then includes a sliding scale of payments for business with less than $400,000 in annual payroll.)

The Bill also reserves, for the government, the power to determine an acceptable benefits plan: page 24, SEC. 115. ENSURING ADEQUACY OF PROVIDER NETWORKS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.-A qualified health benefits plan that uses a provider network for items and services shall meet such standards respecting provider networks as the Commissioner may establish to assure the adequacy of such networks in ensuring enrollee access to such items and services and transparency in the cost-sharing differentials between in-network coverage and out-of-network coverage.

 EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. The bill does not prohibit a person from buying private insurance.
2. Small businesses-with say 8-10 employees-will either have to provide insurance to federal standards, or pay an 8% payroll tax. Business costs for health care are higher than this, especially considering administrative costs. Any competitive business that tries to stay with a private plan will face a payroll disadvantage against competitors who go with the government “option.” 
3. The pressure for business owners to terminate the private plans will be enormous.
4. With employers ending plans, millions of Americans will lose their private coverage, and fewer companies will offer it.
5. The Commissioner (meaning, always, the bureaucrats) will determine whether a particular network of physicians, hospitals and insurance is acceptable.

6. With private insurance starved, many people enrolled in the government “option” will have no place else to go.

5.   Does the plan TAX successful Americans more THAN OTHERS?

Here is what the bill says, pages 197-198, SEC. 441. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS

 ”SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.

”(a) GENERAL RULE.-In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to-

”(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,

”(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and

”(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.

 EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1.  This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code.
2. Tax surcharges  are levied on those with the highest incomes.
3. The plan manipulates the tax code to redistribute their wealth.
4. Successful business owners will bear the highest cost of this plan.

6. 6. Does The Plan Allow The Government to set FEES FOR SERVICES?

What it says, page 124, Sec. 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:

(d) CONSTRUCTION.-Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority to correct for payments that are excessive or deficient, taking into account the provisions of section 221(a) and the amounts paid for similar health care providers and services under other Exchange-participating health benefits plans.

(e) CONSTRUCTION.-Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as affecting the authority of the Secretary to establish payment rates, including payments to provide for the more efficient delivery of services, such as the initiatives provided for under section 224.

 EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1.  The government’s authority to set payments is basically unlimited.

2. The official will decide what constitutes “excessive,” “deficient,” and “efficient” payments and services.

7.   Will THE PLAN increase the power of government officials to SCRUTINIZE our private affairs?

What it says, pages 195-196, SEC. 431. DISCLOSURES TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUBSIDIES.

  ”(A) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary, upon written request from the Health Choices Commissioner or the head of a State-based health insurance exchange approved for operation under section 208 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, shall disclose to officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, return information of any taxpayer whose income is relevant in determining any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Such return information shall be limited to-

”(i) taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer,

”(ii) the filing status of such taxpayer,

”(iii) the modified adjusted gross income of such taxpayer (as defined in section 59B(e)(5)),

”(iv) the number of dependents of the taxpayer,

”(v) such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof), and

”(vi) the taxable year with respect to which the preceding information relates or, if applicable, the fact that such information is not available.

 And, page 145, section 312, EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT COVERAGE:

 (3) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.-The employer provides the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable, with such information as the Commissioner may require to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this section.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code
2. The bill opens up income tax return information to federal officials.
3. Any stated “limits” to such information are circumvented by item (v), which allows federal officials to decide what information is needed.
4. Employers are required to report whatever information the government says it needs to enforce the plan. 

8 8. Does the plan automatically enroll Americans in the GOVERNMENT plan?

What it says, page 102, Section 205, Outreach and enrollment of Exchange-eligible individuals and employers in Exchange-participating health benefits plan:

 (3) AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT OF MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS INTO MEDICAID.-The Commissioner shall provide for a process under which an individual who is described in section 202(d)(3) and has not elected to enroll in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is automatically enrolled under Medicaid.

 And, page 145, section 312:

(4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES.-The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection (c).

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. Do nothing and you are in.
2. Employers are responsible for automatically enrolling people who still work.

9. Does THE PLAN exempt federal OFFICIALS from COURT REVIEW?

What it says, page 124, Section 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:

(f) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.-There shall be no administrative or judicial review of a payment rate or methodology established under this section or under section 224.

 And, page 256, SEC. 1123. PAYMENTS FOR EFFICIENT AREAS.

 ”(C) LIMITATION ON REVIEW.-There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, 1878, or otherwise, respecting-

”(i) the identification of a county or other area under subparagraph (A); or

”(ii) the assignment of a postal ZIP Code to a county or other area under subparagraph (B).

 EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1.  Sec. 1123 amends the Social Security Act, to allow the Secretary to identify areas of the country that underutilize the government’s plan “based on per capita spending.”
2. Parts of the plan are set above the review of the courts.

Please forward this page and link to everyone you know. Bill Whittle of Pajamas TV is a great pundit and everything I’ve seen from him is right on target. This video is no exception.

The Media, The Left and GOP Elitists vs. Sarah Palin: A Lesson on How to Destroy a Leader

Join the forum discussion on this post - (2) Posts