HR 3200 – A Line by Line Analysis

Here is a line-by-line analysis of HR 3200 currently under consideration in the House of Representatives.  This analysis was prepared by the Liberty Council and, like all parties to this discussion, they have their point of view.

I give anyone who reads this resolution credit.  I just hope our representatives are in that number BEFORE making their vote!

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Government will audit the books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC Bill – YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC Bill – THERE WILL BE A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get

Pg 42 of HC Bill – The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your benefits for you. You have no choice!

Pg 50 Section 152 in HC Bill – HC will be provided to ALL non-U.S. citizens, illegal or otherwise

Pg 58 HC Bill – Government will have real-time access to individual’s finances and a National ID Health Care Card will be issued!

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Government will have direct access to your banks accounts for electronic funds transfer.

(NOTE FROM RJ-This really does mean they can take your money at any time. Who will have this authority?—a government bureaucrat.)

Pg 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions and community organizations (ACORN).

Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Government is creating a Health Care Exchange to bring private health care plans under government control.

Pg 84 Sec 203 HC Bill – Government mandates ALL benefit packages for private health care plans in the Exchange

Pg 85 Line 7 HC Bill – Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The government will ration your health care!

Pg 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill – Government mandates linguistic appropriate services.

Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The government will use groups i.e., ACORN & AmeriCorps to sign up individuals for government Health Care Plan

Pg 85 Line 7 HC Bill – Specs of Ben Levels 4 Plans. #AARP members – Your health care WILL be rationed

Pg 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill – Medicaid Eligible Individual will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.

Pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue the government on price fixing. No “judicial review” against government monopoly.

Pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill – Doctors/ #AMA – The government will tell YOU what you can make.

Pg 145 Line 15-17 An employer MUST auto enroll employees into public opt plan. NO CHOICE

Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for health care for part-time employees AND their families.

Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Employer w/ payroll 400k and above who does not prov. pub opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll

Pg 150 Lines 9-13 Businesses with payroll between 251k and 400k who do not provide public opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll

Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesn’t have acceptable health care according to government will be taxed 2.5% of income.

Pg 170 Lines 1-3 Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay).

Pg 195 Officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access to ALL Americans’ financial and personal records.

Pg 203 Line 14-15 HC – “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.” Yes, it says that.

Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Government will reduce physician services for Medicaid.  Seniors, low income, poor affected.

Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill – Doctors, it does not matter what specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same.

Pg 253 Line 10-18 Government sets value of doctors’ time, prof judg, etc. Literally value of humans.

Pg 265 Sec 1131Government mandates and controls productivity for private health care industries.

Pg 268 Sec 1141 Federal Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.

Pg 272 SEC. 1145. Treatment of certain cancer hospitals – Cancer patients – welcome to rationing!

(RJ-NOTE: Much cancer treatment will not work unless implemented early, but the waiting time just to see a specialist will likely be months when this plan is implemented. As you can see in this bill, the option of the health care bureaucrat is to deny treatment to those they deem not likely to be helped by it. Watch the cancer death rate skyrocket.)

Page 280 Sec 1151 The government will penalize hospitals for what government deems preventable readmissions. (Incentives for hospital to not treat and release.)

Pg 298 Lines 9-11 Doctors that treat a patient during initial admission that results in a readmission-Government will penalize you.

Pg 317 L 13-20 PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Government tells Doctors what/how much they can own.

Pg 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Government is mandating hospitals cannot expand.

pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception, BUT community input required. Can you say ACORN?!!

Pg335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339 – Government mandates establishment of outcome based measures. Health Care the way they want. Rationing.

Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans (Part B), HMOs, etc. Forcing people into Government plan.

Pg 354 Sec 1177 – Government will RESTRICT enrollment of special needs people!

Pg 379 Sec 1191 Government creates more bureaucracy – Tele-health Advisory Committee. Health care by phone/Internet?

Pg 425 Lines 4-12 Government mandates Advance [Death] Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life.

Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!

Pg 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Government provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death.

Pg 427 Lines 15-24 Government mandates program for orders for end of life. The government has a say in how your life ends.

Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An “adv. care planning consult” will be used frequently as patient’s health deteriorates.

Pg 429 Lines 10-12 “adv. care consultation” may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from Government.

Pg 429 Lines 13-25 – The government will specify which doctors can write an end of life order.

PG 430 Lines 11-15 The government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life.

(NOTE FROM RJ: The above really does give the government the authority to determine who lives and dies, and when. A government bureaucrat really will be making this decision for you and your loved ones.)

Pg 469 – Community Based Home Medical Services=Non-profit orgs. Hello, ACORN Medical Services here!!?

Pg 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG. 1 monthly payment to a community-based org. Like ACORN?

Pg 489 Sec 1308 The government will cover Marriage and Family therapy. They will insert government into your marriage.

Pg 494-498 Government will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, rationing those services.

PG 502 Sec 1181 Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research Established. – Hello Big Brother – Literally.

Pg 503 Lines 13-19 Government will build registries and data networks from YOUR electronic medical records.

Pg 503 lines 21-25 Government may secure data directly from any department or agency of the U.S., including your data.

Pg 504 Lines 6-10 The “Center” will collect data both published and unpublished (that means public and your private info).

PG 506 Lines 19-21 The Center will recommend policies that would allow for public access of data.

PG 518 Lines 21-25 The Commission will have input from Health Care consumer reps – Can you say unions and ACORN?

PG 524 18-22 Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund set up. More taxes for ALL.

PG 621 Lines 20-25 Government will define what quality means in health care. Since when does government know about quality?

Pg 622 Lines 2-9 To pay for the Quality Standards, government will transfer money from other government Trust Funds. More Taxes.

PG 624 “Quality” measures shall be designed to assess outcomes and functional status of patients.

PG 624 “Quality” measures shall be designed to profile you including race, age, gender, place of residence, etc.

Pg 628 Sec 1443 Government will give “Multi-Stake Holders” Pre-Rule Making input into Selection of “Quality” Measures.

Pg 630 9-24/631 1-9 Those multi-stake holder groups include unions and groups like ACORN deciding health care quality.

Pg 632 Lines 14-25 The Government may implement any “Quality measure” of health care services as they see fit.

PG 633 14-25/ 634 1-9 The Secretary may issue non-endorsed “Quality Measures” for Physician Services and Dialysis Services.

Pg 635 to 653 Physicians Payments Sunshine Provision – Government wants to shine sunlight on doctor but not government.

Pg 654-659 Public Reporting on Health Care-Associated Infections – Looks okay.

PG 660-671 Doctors in Residency – Government will tell you where your residency will be, thus where you’ll live.

Pg 676-686 Government will regulate hospitals in EVERY aspect of residency programs, including teaching hospitals.

Pg 686-700 Increased Funding to Fight Waste, Fraud, and Abuse. You mean like the government with an $18 million website?

(NOTE FROM RJ—Can you actually imagine empowering the government to fight waste, fraud, and abuse????)

PGs 701-704 Sec 1619 If your part of health care plan isn’t in Government Health Care Exchange but you qualify for Federal aid, no payment.

PG 705-709 SEC. 1128 If Secretary gets complaints (ACORN) on health care provider or supplier, government can do background check.

PG 711 Lines 8-14 The Secretary has broad powers to deny health care providers/ suppliers admittance into Health Care Exchange. Your doctor could be thrown out of business.

Pg 719-720 Sec 1637 ANY Doctor who orders durable medical equipment or home medical services MUST be enrolled in Medicare.

PG 722 Sec 1639 Government MANDATES doctors must have face-to-face with patient to certify patient for Home Health Services.

PG 724 23-25 PG 725 1-5 The same government certifications will apply to Medicaid and CHIP (your kids).

PG 724 Lines 16-22 Government reserves right to apply face-to-face certification for patient to ANY other health care service.

Pg 735 lines 16-25 For law enforcement, proposes the Secretary-HHS will give Attorney General access to ALL data.

PG 740-757 Government sets guidelines for subsidizing the uninsured (That’s your tax dollars people).

Pg 757-762 Federal Government will shift burden of payments to Disproportionate Share Hospitals (DSH) to States. (Taxes)

Pg 763 1-8 No DS/EA hospitals will be paid unless they provide services without regard to national origin.

Pg 765 Sec 1711 Government will require Preventative Services including vaccines. (Choice?)

Pg 768 Sec 1713 Government – Nurse Home Visitation Services (Hello union paybacks).

Pg 769 11-14 Nurse Home Visit Services include economic self-sufficiency, employ adv, school-readiness.

Pg 769 3-5 Nurse Home Visit Services – “increasing birth intervals between pregnancies.” Government ABORTIONS anyone?

Pg 770 SEC 1714 Federal Government mandates eligibility for State Family Planning Services. Abortion and State Sovereign.

(NOTE FROM RJ—Can you believe that in America you will be told how many children you can have, and when? Does this mean we can expect the government to impose mandatory abortions? How else can this be interpreted?)

Pg 789-797 Government will set, mandate drug prices, controlling which drugs brought to market. Bye innovation.

Pgs 797-800 SEC. 1744 PAYMENTS for graduate medical education. The government will now control doctors’ educations.

PG 801 Sec 1751 The government will decide which health care conditions will be paid. Say RATION!

Pg 810 SEC. 1759. Billing Agents, clearinghouses, etc. req. to register. Government takes over private payment system.

Pg 820-824 Sec 1801 Government will identify individuals ineligible for subsidies. Will access all personal financial information.

Pg 824-829 SEC. 1802. Government sets up Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund. Another tax black hole.

PG 829-833 Government will impose a fee on ALL private health insurance plans including self-insured to pay for Trust Fund!

PG 835 11-13 fees imposed by government for Trust Fund shall be treated as if they were taxes.

Pg 838-840 Government will design and implement Home Visitation Program for families with young kids and families expecting kids.

PG 844-845 This Home Visitation Program includes government coming into your house and telling you how to parent!!!

(NOTE FROM RJ—If you think this sounds like “Big Brother” actually coming into our homes, we really need to think about what comes after Big Brother. The scenario being set up by the government to control people through this, with the technology now available, is beyond what the science fiction horror works about this could conceive of.)

Pg 859 Government will establish a Public Health Fund at a cost of $88,800,000,000. Yes that’s billion.

Pg 865 The government will MANDATE the establishment of a National Health Service Corps.

PG 865 to 876 The NHS Corps is a program where doctors perform mandatory health care for two years for part loan repayment.

PG 876-892 The government takes over the education of our medical students and doctors.

PG 898 The government will establish a Public Health Workforce Corps to ensure supply of public health prof.

PG 898 The Public Health Workforce Corps shall consist of civilian employees of the U.S. as Secretary deems.

PG 898 The Public Health Workforce Corps shall consist of officers of Regular and Reserve Corps of Service.

PG 900 The Public Health Workforce Corps includes veterinarians.

PG 901 The Public Health Workforce Corps WILL include commissioned Regular and Reserve Officers. HC Draft?

PG 910 The government will develop, build, and run Public Health Training Centers.

PG 913-914 Government starts a health care affirmative action program thru guise of diversity scholarships.

PG 915 SEC. 2251. Government MANDDATES Cultural and linguistic competency training for health care professionals.

Pg 932 The Government will establish Preventative and Wellness Trust fund- initial cost of $30,800,000,000 billion.

PG 935 21-22 Government will identify specific goals & objectives for prevention & wellness activities. Control YOU!!

PG 936 Government will develop “Healthy People and National Public Health Performance Standards” Tell me what to eat?

(NOTE FROM RJ—This is no joke—the government will be able to actually mandate what you can eat or not eat. This could be helpful for some, but do we want the government doing it? What is the most fat and out of shape entity on the planet? The Federal Government. What kind of shape do you think the bureaucrats will be in who mandate such for everyone else?)

PG 942 Lines 22-25 More government? Offices of Surgeon General -Public Health Svc, Minority Health, Women’s Health

PG 950- 980 BIG GOVERNMENT core pub health infrastructure including workforce capacity, lab systems, health info sys, etc.

PG 993 Government will establish school based health clinics. Your kids won’t have a chance.

PG 994 School Based Health Clinic will be integrated into the school environment. Say government brainwash!

PG 1001 The government will establish a National Medical Device Registry. Will you be tracked?

Advertisements

67 comments

  1. Sam Montana · July 31, 2009

    I dont understand why the government has to make this so complicated. Just go back about 30 years to the way health care was. Cut out all the different mandated coverages in each state. Let the doctors do their job and the insurance companies get out of the doctors way.

    • Linda · August 11, 2009

      The line about the government auditing “all employers who self-insure” is absolute b.s.
      I have 3 accountants in the family who do audit work.Its time consuming, expensive work.Who will pay for this? It would bankrupt the government.

      • wizard2u · August 20, 2009

        The contents of the blog “line-by-line analysis of HR 3200 ” are patently false. If the
        writer of this had actually read the bill, they would
        know better.

        Here are the facts. Anyone can verify them by reading the bill at
        http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

        Actual itemized contents of the Health Care Reform Bill:

        “Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!”

        TRUTH: This is not an “audit,” it’s a study. Moreover, the bill states (pp.
        22-23) that the report will “include any recommendations the Commissioner
        deems appropriate to ensure that the law does not provide incentives for
        small and mid-size employers to self-insure or create adverse selection in
        the risk pools of large group insurers and self-insured employers.” This is
        almost directly the opposite of the email’s claim.

        “Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!”

        TRUTH: Page 29 continues to define the “essential benefits package” and
        discusses limits on what Americans will have to spend on health care under
        this minimum standard. In no way does this section stipulate the rationing
        of care.

        “Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits
        you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)”

        TRUTH: Page 30 begins to describe the Health Benefits Advisory Committee
        which establishes certain minimum standards for health insurance plans. In
        no way does this committee deny treatments and benefits to Americans with
        health insurance.

        “Page 42: The ‘Health Choices Commissioner’ will decide health benefits for
        you. You will have no choice. None.”

        TRUTH: Page 42 begins to describe the Health Choices Commissioner’s duties.
        The idea that this person will decide what benefits Americans receive is
        patently false, given that most Americans will keep their current plans
        under reform, and Americans within the exchange will have the choice of
        purchasing many different kinds of health plans. Rather, the Commissioner
        will establish minimum standards to protect Americans.

        “Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free
        healthcare services.”

        TRUTH: Pages 50-51 contain a provision stating that discrimination will not
        be allowed in the provision of health care services. Nowhere does the bill
        state that non-US citizens will be provided free health care services. The
        bill prohibits federal dollars from being used for undocumented immigrants.

        “Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.”

        TRUTH: Page 58, in the context of a discussion of administrative standards,
        mentions that “determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at
        the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service,
        including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a
        specific physician at a specific facility…may include utilization of a
        machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card.” In no way
        does the bill state that such a card would be national, or that it would be
        issued to every person, or that it would, in fact, be used at all.

        “Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all
        individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.”

        TRUTH: Page 59 continues the discussion of administrative standards, and
        authorizes electronic transfers of money within the government. In no way
        does this provision grant the government access to individual bank accounts.

        “Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer
        health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)”

        TRUTH: Here’s what page 65 says: “Not later than 90 days after the date of
        the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
        establish a temporary reinsurance program to provide reimbursement to assist
        participating employment-based plans with the cost of providing health
        benefits to retirees and to eligible spouses, surviving spouses and
        dependents of such retirees.” No mention is made of unions or community
        organizations.

        “Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to
        participate in a Healthcare Exchange.”

        TRUTH: That’s true! Plans have to have a minimum standard of benefits, but
        can offer other plans as well. But that’s fair, isn’t it? Private insurers
        can continue to operate outside the exchange if they wish – should the
        government establish no standards for the exchange? In that case, how could
        reform end insurance industry abuses and help to control costs?

        “Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare
        Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)”

        TRUTH: This section says is that if private health care plans want to
        operate in the Exchange, they must provide a basic benefit package.

        “Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services;
        translation: illegal aliens”

        TRUTH: Some American citizens are more comfortable speaking a language other
        than English, especially in a sensitive situation like a consultation with
        their doctor. This provision in no way opens the door for coverage of
        undocumented workers.

        “Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up
        individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.”

        TRUTH: Page 95 makes no mention of ACORN and Americorps; all it says is that
        the Commissioner can conduct outreach to vulnerable populations, making them
        aware of their options.

        “Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you
        have no choice in the matter.”

        TRUTH: People who are eligible for Medicaid will not have to face the
        burdens of paperwork and other bureaucratic struggles. Far from depriving
        people of choice, this measure will ensure coverage.

        “Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No ‘judicial
        review’ is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private
        insurers will be crushed.”

        TRUTH: This section describes rate-setting under the public health insurance
        plan option, which will compete with private insurers, who can set their own
        rates. Because of inherent advantages like their established administrative
        and provider frameworks, private insurance companies will not be “crushed”
        by government competition.

        “Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.”

        TRUTH: The government will negotiate rates with providers under the public
        health insurance plan option. However, private insurers will continue to pay
        their own rates.

        “Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run
        public plan. No alternatives.”

        TRUTH: This is simply not true. Employers with more than 20 employees aren’t
        even eligible to participate in the exchange, let alone the public plan,
        until several years after the exchange launches in 2013. Moreover, no
        employer will be forced to participate in the public plan.

        “Page 146: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND
        their families.”

        TRUTH: Employers are required to pay some benefits for part-time employees
        on a basis proportional to what they pay for full-time employees. No
        language on this page or the next stipulates coverage for the families of
        part-time employees.

        “Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer
        the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll”

        TRUTH: The payroll penalty applies to employers with payroll over $500,000
        who do not provide insurance to their employees. The percentage for
        employers with payroll from $500,000 – $750,000 is 6%. Employers do not have
        to offer the public option to avoid this penalty, they can offer private
        insurance if they wish.

        “Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not
        offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll”

        TRUTH: This is false, see above.

        “Page 167: Any individual who doesn’t’ have acceptable healthcare (according
        to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.”

        TRUTH: Pages 167-173 detail what “acceptable health care” means (basically,
        insurance coverage) and also allow for many different kinds of exceptions to
        this rule.

        “Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans
        will pay for them).”

        TRUTH: Non-resident aliens do not have to pay the penalty for not having
        health insurance, nor will they receive federal assistance, because they are
        not required to purchase health insurance. They are not exempted from
        individual taxes generally.

        “Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will
        have access to ALL American financial and personal records.”

        TRUTH: This is a gross overstatement. For the purposes of determining
        affordability credits for Americans who need financial assistance in
        purchasing health insurance, employees of the Health Choices Administration
        will have access to tax information that the federal government already
        keeps. As is clearly stated on page 196, “Return information… may be used
        by officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such
        State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, only for the
        purposes of, and to the extent necessary in, establishing and verifying the
        appropriate amount of any affordability credit described in subtitle C of
        title II of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 and
        providing for the repayment of any such credit which was in excess of such
        appropriate amount.”

        “Page 203: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.”
        Yes, it really says that.”

        TRUTH: This quote is taken out of context, and is in fact referring to a
        calculation used in the bill. Full context of quote: “‘(4) NOT TREATED AS
        TAX IMPOSED BY THIS CHAPTER FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.-The tax imposed under this
        section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of
        determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of
        section 55.”

        “Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the
        poor most affected.”

        TRUTH: This section has nothing whatsoever to do with reducing services. It
        makes much needed changes to the way in which physician reimbursement is
        recalculated every year. The bill will, in fact, create much more
        opportunity for seniors and the poor to receive necessary care.

        “Page 241: Doctors: no matter what specialty you have, you’ll all be paid
        the same (thanks, AMA!)”

        TRUTH: Page 241 does not say this. Nowhere does it say this. It does say
        that physicians will be grouped into certain categories regardless of
        specialty. These categories merely determine if the physician is engaged in
        primarily therapeutic or preventative care.

        “Page 253: Government sets value of doctors’ time, their professional
        judgment, etc.”

        TRUTH: There is no good response to this assertion as it appears to have
        been made up completely. The section deals with ‘misvalued codes’ meaning
        that the government is potentially not paying an acceptable rate for a
        specific service. This will allow the government to, for example, pay more
        for services that require more payment, such as high-overhead procedures.
        The author of these criticisms separately attacks the bill for paying the
        same rate to all doctors, then attacks again for paying different rates.

        “Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private
        healthcare industries.”

        TRUTH: This section amends the Social Security Act to include productivity
        measures. There is no mandate or control of anything. This merely updates
        the way in which doctors and hospitals are paid through Medicare.

        “Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven
        wheelchairs.”

        TRUTH: This is simply not true. This slightly amends existing guidelines
        for payments for medical equipment, in this case power-driven wheelchairs.
        This section introduces no ‘regulations’ that are not in the Social Security
        Act.

        “Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!”

        TRUTH: Overusage of the hot-button word “rationing” is a way to deflect
        attention away from the actual language of the bill and incite unjustified
        fear. This section only compares costs incurred by cancer hospitals to
        costs incurred by similar hospitals, and adjusts payments to reduce the
        possibility of fraud and abuse.

        “Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems
        preventable re-admissions.”

        TRUTH: This is almost correct. The section is one of the first efforts at
        targeting excessive readmissions. Excessive readmissions are physically and
        emotionally damaging to patients, while simultaneously putting them, and the
        health care system, in far more financial risk than is necessary. The
        American Hospital Association recommended reduced payments for avoidable
        readmission in testimony to Congress.

        “Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that
        results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.”

        TRUTH: This is patently false. The section is about possible methods that
        the Secretary of Health and Human services might consider in order to
        address the growing problem of patient readmission. This section does not,
        in any way, create a penalty, nor does it even mandate policy. It merely
        provides examples of recourses that might be considered.

        “Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited from owning and investing in
        healthcare companies!”

        TRUTH: This provision only limits Doctor’s investments in health care
        facilities that they refer patients to The effort to limit self-referral
        has been ongoing for many years as an effort to reduce fraud and abuse.
        This is, essentially, the medical community equivalent of insider trading.
        Limiting this incentive works to put the patient’s health above all other
        considerations. Doctors remain free to engage in investment opportunities
        in areas that don’t create a significant conflict of interest.

        “Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand
        without government approval.”

        TRUTH: This section regulates physicians’ investment in hospitals to make
        sure that physicians are not unfairly benefiting from their power to refer
        patients to hospitals they have a stake in. The section does not prohibit
        hospital expansion.

        “Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on ‘community’ input: in other words,
        yet another payoff for ACORN.”

        TRUTH: In the ongoing effort to demonize community-based groups such as
        ACORN, every instance of the word “community” has become associated with
        that group’s efforts. In reality, this provision allows for anyone to
        provide input. This includes homeowners, religious leaders, neighborhood
        groups, and others. There are no payoffs. There is no money exchanged in
        any way.

        “Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures:
        i.e., rationing.”

        TRUTH: This provision is included in order to allow the government to base
        payments on practices that work. Nowhere does it say health care will be
        rationed. The attempt to isolate what works and what does not work in
        Medicare Advantage plans only benefits the health care system in general.

        “Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans,
        HMOs, etc.”

        TRUTH: The government can disqualify some Medicare Advantage Plans from
        receiving some additional payments, but only if those plans are not meeting
        necessary requirements.

        “Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS
        individuals.”

        TRUTH: This section only deals with how to handle special needs individuals
        who need to enroll outside of the open enrollment period. Almost every type
        of plan operates with open enrollment periods. This section does not create
        more restrictions.

        “Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by
        phone).”

        TRUTH: This section merely expands existing Telehealth programs, which
        supplement but do not replace other health coverage, and provide a vital
        resource to Americans in rural and remote areas.

        “Page 425-430: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior
        Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?; Government will instruct and
        consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory.
        Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time; Government provides approved
        list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death; Government mandates
        program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life
        ends; Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as
        patient’s health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life
        plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT; Government will decide what level of
        treatments you may have at end-of-life.”

        TRUTH: All of these hysterical claims have been debunked elsewhere. HR3200
        provides for the reimbursement of a voluntary session of end-of-life
        counseling with your physician once every five years. This in no way means
        the government will make decisions for patients or encourage doctor-assisted
        suicide. Counseling simply makes patients and their families aware of their
        options.

        “Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.”

        TRUTH: ACORN is not a Community-Based Medical Home.

        “Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for
        ACORN.”

        TRUTH: This is clearly still referring to community health groups, not
        ACORN.

        “Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government
        intervenes in your marriage.”

        TRUTH: Covering marriage and family therapy, as many private insurance plans
        do, does not mean that the government “intervenes in your marriage.” The
        types of individuals who are recognized as therapists are clearly defined on
        page 491; in brief, professionals only, not bureaucrats.

        “Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating
        and rationing those services.”

        TRUTH: This section expands government coverage for mental health services
        under various government programs, and ensures that all mental health
        services will be offered by qualified professionals.

  2. Jon Long Beach · August 10, 2009

    This analysis falsely represents the bill and is embellishing in order to scare you. Read the real bill, not an analysis from what I’m assuming is a privately funded “grassroots” group working for the health care industry. Shameful. Why do you people hate other Americans so much that you are working day and night to make sure that 47 million of us don’t have health care? WWJD?

    • Mel · August 16, 2009

      Srsly?? WWJD?

      Jesus would pay for his own health care. I am a health care worker and I don’t need the government telling me what I am allowed to earn. Where I am allowed to practice. How I am allowed to treat my patients. The absolute LAST thing we need is MORE government involvement.

      • Josh · August 21, 2009

        First of all nobody is telling you what you can earn unless you work for a hospital that pays you a salary or sets your rates for a consultation. It says a lot about you that your first concern is money instead of concern for your patients. I have nothing against people making money but when your in the health care industry patients should come first not money7. I’m glad my Doctor’s name is not Mel or any version of that name because if it were I would be looking for a new one just in case it was you. Second as far as where you are allowed to practice is up to you unless your medical license has been revoked or suspended in a particular state. Third the government isn’t going to provide an overseer to tell you how you are allowed to treat your patients. If by “(h)ow I am allowed to treat my patients.” you mean what tests or procedures/surgeries you order for your patients, insurance companies already do this. I personally have an annular tear in one of my discs which was only detected by a discogram which my insurance company would not cover. Ironically they did cover 3 MRI’s and many x-rays that did not detect the problem. My Dr. suggested the discogram after the first MRI and flexion/extension x-rays. By the way 2 months after the discogram which I had to pay for myself (even though I had insurance) discovered the tear my disc my insurance company increased my premiums 75 percent. Since they had already said that they would cover an IDET to help seal the tear I paid the increased payments only to have them notify me 3 days before I was scheduled to have the IDET that they reveiwed the request and decided to deny covering the procedure. I am not a religious man but have read the Bible and based on the stories of Jesus it seems to me that if he was in charge he would want everyone to be able to get quality affordable health care.

    • Chris · August 18, 2009

      Have YOU read the real bill yourself? At least this analysis has references so we can check on it’s validity.

    • Capitalist Pig · August 24, 2009

      That “47 million” uninsured is an arbitrary number thrown together by emotivist mooching liberals. Assuming they are right, let’s look at it this way: About 14-16% of the country is without health care. When said that way it doesn’t seem to be such an emergency. This is because most people in the US don’t realize how big our country really is. There are 305 million Americans.

      But let’s take a look at who makes up their overly used misleading number:

      10-12 million are in the USA illegally.
      18 million make more than $50000 a year and self-insure.(Why do we have to assume that everyone has to purchase health insurance through a third party? We have to change our way of thinking?)

      8 million are 18 years and younger. If their parents don’t enroll them into already established public programs

      8 million are the invincibles who choose not to buy insurance because they don’t think they will ever get sick.

      The remainder are eligible for Medicare.

      So do we really have a problem. This nothing but a power grab by statist Democrats and their very naive supporters.

      Let’s tell Congress to end their wild ride down the road to Serfdom.

  3. Sarah DUMBAZZ Palinn · August 10, 2009

    FRIGGIN LIAR

  4. Lars Sorensen · August 10, 2009

    I’m going to assume that this entire post is some sort of brilliant, sarcastic joke, because no stable, sentient human being would actually believe any of this crap.

    And yes, I have taken the time to carefully read the bill, in its lengthy entirety.

    So, instead, I’m going to assume that you’re actually a master satirist, on a level with Jonathan Swift. Nice work, you clever Lefty, you.

    • michael58 · August 12, 2009

      Although the line-by-line analogy might a bit misleading, that’s because the bureaucrats are using Washington…double speak. These it’s confusing to the general public on the HR3200 Bill. If they can spend 18Mil on (White house)website, you would think they could at least print a simple readable format for everyone to understand. And one more thing to the nut cases posting here, be careful what you wish for. Apparently this was not crafted with public support, but social liberals without input from focus groups. Since when has The “GOVERNMENT” been efficient on running social programs. If this “WAS” so great then, then it should of passed the house easily. Unless OF course some “ITEMS” are changed. Now think about this, yes there flaws on private choice insurance coverage/affordability. But do you really need revamping the “WHOLE” industry just reform somethings that we lack/needed. I am not for the health lobby either. Remember one thing, most OF “YOU” are going to “REGRET” this bill, (unless it is changed) down the line. AND YES,I DID READ HR3200 1018 BILL ENTIRELY???????????????????????

  5. Jeff From PA · August 10, 2009

    Medicare for all! I am sick of the CEO that made 73 million dollars last year, yet denied my mom the 30,000 dollar surgery she needed to save her life! The upper management that makes millions each year to find new and creative ways to deny coverage like “pre-existing conditions” and “recision”! I am sick of the 10’s of billions that they spend on advertising and lobbying that could save 10’s of thousands of lives each year! I am sick of paying 10 times as much per person than any other country for health care and only ranking 37th!

    Screw all these corporations! They had their chance and they chose to kill people for the bottom line. At least is the government screws it up, we can vote the bums out! When my mom needed her surgery, the corporation promised to battle us with a team of lawyers, so we had no recourse at all..

    It is time for the madness to end. Medicare for all – no middle men that are just in it for the bottom line!

  6. BC · August 10, 2009

    Convenient that “Liberty” Counsel references page numbers rather than Sections/Divisions/Titles/Subtitles. They have made it rather difficult to call them out on their B.S. analysis.

    It’s the scare mongering fraudsters headed up by the insurance industry, big pharma, and their puppets in Congress that is going to doom us to a continued backwards and backwoods health care system.

    Single-payer is the only rational way to deal with health care funding. Health insurance companies will never provide an adequate product. They aren’t incentivised to. They don’t make money when they provide service, the make money when they deny it.

  7. mark · August 10, 2009

    This whole posting is a list of lies.

    Don’t buy into this garbage, people. Read the bill yourselves.

  8. Hugh Heisler · August 10, 2009

    Wow! I’m speechless. I’m trying to decide if you are really as incapable of reading and understanding the English language as your so-called “line-by-line analysis” suggests, or if you’re just plain dishonest. In either case, you’re obviously counting on people not reading the text themselves, because it reveals you to be the con man that you are.

  9. anniemae · August 10, 2009

    I have read each line referenced and I don’t see a conflict, only typical government double speak, it can be viewed (if you are truly stupid) as a nifty plan to take care of everyone in a comforting and supportive way from birth till death and the govt gets to decide both of those times plus everything that happens inbetween.

    For the person whose mom died, I am truly sorry for you. I have no idea how old your mom was but if she was over 65 she was too old anyway according to this bill. It is the old folks who use all the money and have to go. But it will be painless, mostly.

    • Mac · August 12, 2009

      You obviously work for the insurance companies and as such your opinion is subjective and rightwing garbage

    • Josh · August 21, 2009

      anniemae you must be refering to the so-called “death panels” in which your doctor will get reimbursed for a consultation regarding a living will. What you and others don’t say is that the terms of your living will are set by YOU (the patient). True in a living will one could make the choice that they do not want to be kept alive by machines or they could choose to be kept alive by machines. I’m only 30 years old and I have a living will (You never know what might happen in life) which basically says that if the only things keeping me alive are machines pull the plug. I could have said keep me on the machines indefinately. My advice to you is tell the whole story not just half.

  10. deb · August 10, 2009

    i’m sending this page to the whitehouse

  11. Cinnamon · August 10, 2009

    So, which health insurance company do you work for Anniemae? Goodness, but that’s such a “homey” sounding moniker you’ve chosen, it’s practically out of the PR101 textbook… I sure hope you’re enjoying your slice of the $1.4 million dollars per day the insurance companies are spending to keep us all as their slaves… maybe it will buy you a nice air conditioner when you get to the afterlife. You’re gonna need one.

  12. Shocked N Awed · August 10, 2009

    Let’s consider the ‘death panels’ or whatever is imagined on page 430 For fun, read it first, if you dare, starting from page 425. If you read with comprehension, you may end up wondering just how much more backwards can these interpretations get!

    Page 430 is part of section starting at 425 which describes an effort to promote consultations with patients in which Durable Power of Attorney is discussed, to help patients approaching or likely to approach terminal conditions to have a chance to chose a trusted representative to help in making medical decisions (versus having any government agent do it). This includes conferring with the patient or trusted representative regarding conditions under which a patient might prefer a Do Not Resuscitate order, or the use of heavy duty pain killers. This entire section is about making sure patients have their own choices represented, via this Durable Power of Attorney arrangement, and that this is to be uniformly offered to all persons who might have need of it in the near term, so they can choose their trusted representative and make informed decisions about end of life care, when conditions are medically deemed terminal.

    Promoting the use of Durable Power of Attorney is all this section is about and making sure patients having conditions which are, or may become, terminal, are given the opportunity to choose a trusted representative (friend or relative) and get their wishes in writing regarding end of life care. And guess what, a majority of hospitals, nursing homes, hospices and ERs are already promoting this via chaplains, social workers and doctors. This section simply codifies what is already deemed good practice by the medical community. This is an example of just how ridiculous all these ‘interpretations’ are. If you believe this stuff, you betray your own gullible ignorance, and especially your own failure to read for yourself and to use critical thinking skills. Shame on the prevaricating Liberty Council and all whom they have duped!

  13. nwjake · August 10, 2009

    @Anniemae

    I’m sorry, but both you and the author of this post are full of it. Some claims here are wholly fabricated; most others are gross mischaracterizations. One example from dozens:

    The claim: “Pg 145 Line 15-17 An employer MUST auto enroll employees into public opt plan. NO CHOICE”. The relevant subsection (312 a 4) reads, “(4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES.—The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection (c).”

    The reality: Section 312(c) stipulates that employers must automatically enroll employees in some kind of health coverage (unless employees opt out). As per sections 311 and 102, the coverage offered can be the government plan, or it can be an existing private insurance plan. So the breathless claim that “employers MUST auto enroll employees into public opt plan” is either the result of an incomplete reading or an outright lie, take your pick.

    Now, I could of course be wrong, but I don’t think I am. If I am, please give some concrete examples, I’ll be glad to hear them.

  14. Duncan Idaho · August 10, 2009

    Well-played, sir! Allow me to second and extend Lars’ comments above: this is one of the most exhaustively documented works of satire that I’ve ever seen! Page after page after page of false information. I’m awestruck!

    I’d love to produce this kind of satire myself, but I’m just not a good enough writer. I have to work a regular job, and as a result I only have time to read bits and pieces of bills like HR3200–just enough to fully appreciate this website as the outstanding piece of disinformation that it is.

    Once again, my compliments. I’m saving a copy of this site–I honestly am impressed.

  15. Henry · August 10, 2009

    I hope the Bill includes free mental care for all. The author of this blog certainly needs it.

    • Christa · August 31, 2009

      you took the words right out of my mouth. i just did a comparison between the actual bill and this site. i don’t know whether to laugh or cry…
      i think i’m doing both.
      i will say this: the language is very… bureaucratic. if they were a bit more plain in the writing of this bill, perhaps people with a below average i.q. could understand it. the white house website should make a “health reform for dummies” link.

  16. John · August 10, 2009

    Congratulations to most of the posters here, I guess the nuts have been scared off. I too find this work to be intentional bullshit. Folks, they are losing, when they have to stoop this low they are goners. Ha ha.

  17. Vimal Goel · August 11, 2009

    I have tried to check the lines cited by you. They do not exist in the bill. Do you fee no shame in publishing such nonsense? Are you evil or just dumb?

  18. aufklaerer · August 11, 2009

    Woo-hoo!

    Only one commenter seems to agree with the original poster, and that commenter doesn’t seem entirely dis-interested, to put it nicely.

    I count this as a victory for reason, civil discourse, and empathy in the US of A.

    Have a good one, everyone,

    AE

    • Mac · August 12, 2009

      What goes around comes around, just remember that AE. Good health care reform will come in time, you right wing crackpots can try to destroy our American way of life but many people and countries have tried before you, none have succeded yet. You might even think about it this way, you are helping Osama Bin Ladin to weaken our great country. You are a terrorist as well. You wish Americans to live sick, hurt, poor and to help keep them in this state while the insurance companies get rich as well as the politicians who do their bidding.

      • Josh · August 21, 2009

        Mac

        I think you misread EA’s post. because the 2 of you agree.

  19. Debra Titus · August 11, 2009

    This is the most disgusting thing I have seen on the internet for quite some time. For someone to blatantly distort the truth of what is actually stated in HR 3200 to deceive anybody who should happen to read it and believe it is astounding! Why would you (the author) do such a thing? This is the rantings of a true idiot!!

  20. Keith · August 12, 2009

    > I give anyone who reads this resolution credit.

    I understand your awe; obviously YOU didn’t read it!

    > I just hope our representatives are in that number BEFORE making their vote!

    What’s this “our” crap? See above, GOP goon.

  21. TheUptightConservative · August 13, 2009

    I too have read this bill (and many others before it) and this analysis is clearly a worst case scenario. With that said, the language used in the bill is so vague in most places that it may be interpreted to mean anything lawmakers want it to. This vagueness opens Pandora’s proverbial box and it WILL come back to haunt us if it is passed. The government’s Standard Operating Procedure for implementing this kind of thing is marketing (propaganda) and creeping gradualism.

    BTW: My employer offers a health care plan that covers me but is prohibitively expensive for covering my family. We have gone the route of obtaining a private health plan, which is less expensive yet provides significantly better coverage. However, the insurance company jacked the plan’s price so we had to make a tough decision. We reduced our coverage, saved over $300.00/month which we are putting in savings to cover the increased deductible. If you don’t need the money, it is still an asset that you own as opposed to throwing your money away on something you statistically not likely to use. Ask yourself – “What is the purpose of insurance?”. It is a safety net against financial ruin in catastrophic health situations. It’s original intent was NOT to pay for a trip to the doctor or hospital every time you sneeze. Grow up people!

    Take some personal responsibility for your own lives and stop expecting our “benevolent” government to take care of your every waking breath. It comes with far too many strings attached.

  22. Jeff in Pasadena · August 13, 2009

    For the PDF of the bill to enable an easy comparison with the citations given here, see the GPO Access site, at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf.

    Needless to say, a quick comparison shows that this analysis is full of outright lies.

  23. Pingback: ObamaCare : Ft. Hard Knox
  24. Gail · August 14, 2009

    Medicare is already controlling end-of-life for elderly. All it takes is two doctors in a hospital to decide the patient is elderly, and these are your options:

    l) Put a feeding tube in and send to a nursing home, where the family can pay for continuing care.

    2) Send the patient home under hospice, and let the family pay for medical care at home. Hospice people only visit a couple hours a day, and there is a do not resusitate order, so if a medical emergency arises–good luck.

    3) Send the patient to a hospice to die where they are given meds to make them comfortable. Medicare pays for most of the charges except for around $220 a day.

    My dad was rushed to the hospital with a stroke on July 12th, along with severe congested heart failure. He was admitted to a hospital room–NOT intensive care–a hospital room. There was a powerplay between two doctors. Hospital doctor basically wrote him off–his neurologist wanted them to maintain medical care for a few days to see how he responded, and wrote orders. Hospital doc on the second day ignored the orders and put my dad on hospice without full informed consent. I felt coerced and pressured to sign hospice papers. He was whisked out on the 3rd day very quickly where he died in a hospice 7 days later.

    I believe they made up their minds in the ER room, and Medicare was dictating the care. Elderly people do not die naturally in a hospital anymore–asap they are given one of the above options, for fear Medicare won’t pay for hospitalization.

    I think it’s buyer beware with anything dictated by Medicare as far as advanced directives. It doesn’t take much for doctors to gang together to decide end of life issues, and there’s $$$ behind Hospitals decisions as far as how much care they will deliver–especially if you’re old.

    • Josh · August 21, 2009

      I’m sorry for what happened to your father. It doesn’t sound like he was well cared for. I wonder if he ever had a consultation about end-of-life care so he could create a living will. I went through a similar ordeal with my grandfather when he had a mild stroke before his death. Fortunately he and my grandmother had living wills so we as a family knew that he wanted to return home and have hospice come out to his home. As for there being a do not resusitate order this was not the case with my grandfather because he had stopped breathing while the hospice nurse was there and she performed CPR saving his life long enough for me to make the three hour trip to see him as he took his final breath. As much as I wish that he was still around today I know that he left this world on his own terms with no regrets.

      The description you’ve given sounds as though your father didn’t have a living will. If he had then his treatment would have been dictated by that. If you felt pressured to sign hospice papers you shouldn’t have signed them until YOU were sure it was the right thing to do.

      When you say “I believe they made up their minds in the ER room, and Medicare was dictating the care.” do you have some basis for this statement or does this come from the fact that you are still mourning the loss of your father?

      Josh

  25. Pingback: My 39 Seconds – The Olbermann Effect « Benefits @ Work
  26. John in Austin · August 14, 2009

    The unspoken political fight for the public option is ultimately for the control it provides over the voting population by way of the President’s control over covered health benefits. I’m not throwing stones at Obama and the Democrats either because secretly I’m sure Republicans would like that control as well.

    The scope of this potential control becomes evident when you read the provisions in the bill (like 123 and 124) which define the method by which benefit standards are established. A Health Benefit Advisory Committee (appointed by the President) makes recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (also appointed by the President). The Secretary can take or not take the recommended standards (ie, the President has sole control (and broad discretion) over what the benefit standards will be and how they will be divided among the “population” which the Secretary has express authority to subdivide based on race, ethnicity, gender, geography or “any other subdivision the Secretary deems appropriate.”

    There is also no mechanism for Congress or the courts to influence those standards short of amending the law over a Presidential veto. That level of executive control may be good or bad for any particular person depending on whether the President considers it important to protect you as a voting constituent.

    Although the notion of a public option certainly feels good on some philosophical or emotional level, do not fool yourself into believing that the public option is an altruistic exercise by a concerned and empathetic government. The public option is purely and simply a very powerful way for politicians to gerrymander health benefits to ensure their party gets elected, and the tried and true tactics they will employ is that they will promise certain voters extraordinary benefits and compassion while trying to scare them that competiting politicians will take away or reduce benefits.

    Many people feel differently than I, but I don’t believe the should have a public option. Not because the current system is great and doesn’t need reforming with certain consumer protections and greater competition. And not because we don’t need to do a better job of rationing end-of-life care to keep Medicare costs under control.

    The reason we don’t need a public option is because we don’t need to give the Emmanuel’s and Rove’s of the world another mechanism by which they can control our decision-making and political outcomes. Enough is enough.

    • tomdaly · August 14, 2009

      Well written!

      • TheUptightConservative · August 14, 2009

        I second that! Well said!

    • Pris · August 15, 2009

      I agree with John in Austin. His comments were articulate and written without any vile commentary. It was refreshing to read.

      • Looking4Truth · August 15, 2009

        Do yourselves a favor and read the bill yourself. Whoever wrote this “analysis” of the bill is simply pulling things out of context and trying to scare you. I have one question for people like that : if your side is so correct about this issue, WHY DO YOU HAVE TO MAKE UP LIES!

    • JHKavanaugh · August 16, 2009

      Greetings:

      Very well said. You’ve made quite an intelligent arguement which I am in agreement.
      I am currently researching this as to attempt to verify the findings in this article. Some of the points mentioned do seem to conflict with Sherman_Anti_Trust_Act as well as 4th and 5th Amendments to the US Constitution. If so, this would be quite troubling to me that those we elected to represent us would show such a disreguard for the document which pledge to uphold and protect. Therefore, the reason for my research as to confirm their validity.

    • Mel · August 16, 2009

      Exactly! Well said!

    • Josh · August 21, 2009

      In a perfect free market system a public option would not be needed. However the health care industry is not a perfect free market system. Health insurance companies do not want a public option because this will force them to provide competetive benefits and premiums. The only way to do this without a public option would be to regulate benefits and place a cap on premiums. As far as “

      • Josh · August 21, 2009

        As I was saying, as far as “(t)he public option is purely and simply a very powerful way for politicians to gerrymander health benefits to ensure their party gets elected, and the tried and true tactics they will employ is that they will promise certain voters extraordinary benefits and compassion while trying to scare them that competiting politicians will take away or reduce benefits.” If a politician doesn’t deny that they would “take away or reduce benefits” then why would someone that doesn’t want their benefits messed with vote for that person.

      • Publius · September 16, 2009

        “Health insurance companies do not want a public option because this will force them to provide competitive benefits and premiums.”

        Better think about this one again. Apparently, you are inferring that there is a mass conspiracy by Healthcare Insurers to gouge the public? Are not individual insurers competitors with one another? Does not competition have a tendency to decrease profit margins and ultimately costs to the consumer, to encourage innovation and invention to ultimately improve care? See, the problem with the government-nanny solution (or The Three-Month Plan as I prefer to call it) is that the government doesn’t have to compete with anyone. The government is the regulator, the government controls the currency, and once a dependency is created on the such an entitlement program the government can draw subsidies from the general fund as it has done with other entitlement programs in the past (don’t delude yourself, even the CBO says this program will require subsidies). Do you earnestly insist that private industry can compete economically with a government entitlement program such as this? What’s more, the inescapable reality of such a system is that the patient would no longer have authority over one’s own care vv. choosing their provider and coverage, the “Secretary” will be making a great deal of those decisions. Think about this from a perspective of principle: a government bureaucrat now has, for all intensive purposes, direct control of some if not all of your decisions concerning your well-being; what is the word for this type of arraignment? I’ll give you a hint; it starts with an “S”.

    • Publius · September 16, 2009

      Well put sir.

    • Rodney in Austin · September 22, 2009

      The whole point of your post rest on the idea that the benefits and how they will be divided among the “population” which the Secretary has express authority to subdivide based on race, ethnicity, gender, geography or “any other subdivision the Secretary deems appropriate.” I did a search for “subdivision the Secretary deems appropriate” and could not find it anywhere in the bill. I also read section 123 and 124 and nowhere does it allow the Secretary or anyone else to subdivide the health care one group can get over another group. The Health Benefit Advisory Committee sets the care that the public option will provide to everyone who chooses it. If these benefits are not as good as private health care gives you then who would choose the public option? This is not single payer so they can’t set the benefits provided by private insurance carriers.

  27. Christine Gates · August 14, 2009

    Hi! I did one of these also. It is the same questions, only it quotes from the bill. Please feel free to use it and pass it along, give reference to my work though, please. I’ve been posting on facebook regarding this bill for a while.

    My analysis:
    http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AUTwqvkLy5XkZGZ4Ymt0ZnNfMTdoajZrZHJkaw&hl=en

    If you can’t read it, let me know. I’ll send it to you in an email. abcgates@gmail.com

  28. Chris Jones · August 15, 2009

    This whole crackpot analysis is BS. The author, supposedly from Liberty University (Jerry Falwell) School of Law, didn’t even list sections. Page numbers are useless for comparison to the text of the bill. It’s sad how the conservative movement has degenerated since the leadership of Barry Goldwater.

  29. Truthaboveall · August 16, 2009

    This is well written bullshit. It is nothing but self-serving evil propaganda, a foul and purposeful distortion of the real HR3200 which has no resemblance to the real thing.. An assembly of monstrous lies responsible for fuelling so much fear about an honest and good reform agenda, designed to help Americans and critically needed to save the US. economy.

    The Liberty Counsel must have been paid a lot of money to produce and distribute this pile of crap. “Summary” is a euphemism for a totally distorted and rewritten version, which includes entiere phrases, sections and words that do not exist in the original.

    May God have mercy on the deviant souls who wrote this crap.

    • John in Austin · August 17, 2009

      Which God? I’m a polytheist. I like the diversification.

  30. NonHomogenized · August 18, 2009

    Well, more than half of this “analysis” is simply wrong, and the rest is just scare mongering on your part. I mean, really, “Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Government will have direct access to your banks accounts for electronic funds transfer.” Oh no, They will be required to allow you to pay by EBT, how horrible!

    “Pg 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill – Government mandates linguistic appropriate services.” Oh no, if my english is insufficient, they’ll have to get someone who can communicate with me… something many hospitals do already.

    “Pg 632 Lines 14-25 The Government may implement any “Quality measure” of health care services as they see fit.”

    Oh no, they set minimum standards! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

    “Pg 635 to 653 Physicians Payments Sunshine Provision – Government wants to shine sunlight on doctor but not government.”

    This tells us nothing. It’s not even an argument that something is actually bad. It’s just using the name of a section and then smearing the government.

    These are just the first few, running sequentially down the list. And every point in between was factually incorrect (in fact, basically every point was a scare tactic combined with factual inaccuracies, but these are the ones that are basically vacuous scare tactics).

    Are you really this stupid, or are you just dishonest?

    • Josh · August 21, 2009

      Well said, I think the funniest argument is the first one you mention “Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Government will have direct access to your banks accounts for electronic funds transfer.” Most private health insurance companies do this too. Oh and if you have your tax returns Direct Deposited the Government has you account information. Guess what else your bank is a member of FDIC which stands for Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (don’t tell anyone but the FDIC is a U.S. GOVERNMENT CORPORATION) and I bet they could access your account if they wanted to.

  31. Chris · August 18, 2009

    I was just checking up on the validity of some random comments and read:

    “Pg 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill – Medicaid Eligible Individual will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.”

    No choice? Here’s what the bill says:

    “…and has not elected to enroll in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan..”

    An exchange-participating program might limit our choices, but there is still a choice here. I think the wording in this case was poorly chosen. It makes me doubt other parts of this analysis.

  32. Mara · August 20, 2009

    I have compared your analysis with my PDR copy of HR 3200 (go here for your free automatic download, straight from the House Energy and Commerce Committee: energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf ). Most of your analysis is inconsistent with what the bill actually contains; the rest is at best misleading. Sorry, buddy, but if you can’t build an argument based on facts, get off the podium.

  33. Josh · August 21, 2009

    I have an idea if you are against having a government run not-for-profit public option then we could have there could be forms that you could fill out to stay out of the program for your entire lifetime then if you get hurt or ill and your insurance decides to drop your coverage you can just pay out-of-pocket for the rest of your life. I would like to know how many of you that are so against a public option would sign away your rights to join a public option.

  34. Josh · August 21, 2009

    What a surprise that someone who owns a company that sells health insurance plans is against a public option. So which Health Insurance Companies do you sell for when you create plans for businesses

  35. Pingback: News for 08/22/2009- A little weekend video fun? Goldman Sachs and Government, Unions and the Democrats, and more enlightening topics « Soldier For Liberty
  36. Pingback: A Nonpartisan Guide to Healthcare Reform | 93 Studios
  37. Pingback: Private Practice - jd11756’s Diary - RedState
  38. Publius · September 15, 2009

    From a lawyer’s perspective, this bill is the equivalent to the Apocolipse in regard to one’s individual liberty to make healthcare decisions. And therefore, because the object is the individual’s authority to choose regarding one’s own well-being, this bill represents an afront to every princible this nation is founded on. It is an abomination. The only aspect of this whole “debate” which is more comical than the unwillingness of common folk to take a few minutes out of their drone-like, nonsense-paroting existance to read the bill or put any sort of rational thaught to it’s provisions and the concequences of those provisions; is the notion put forward by the President and the other snake-oil salesman in congress. The notion that this bill will save money; that it will work. Even after squeezing the numbers for weeks and using vodoo-math the CBO explained to Chairman Rangel (Ways and Means Committee and co-sponsor of the bill) in it’s analysis report dated July 17 that the plan hasn’t a snow-balls chance of being deficit neutral. In the name of our ancestors and all our most cherished princibles, use your brains people! I know for a fact that each of you posseses a brain, dispite the near universal naïve and farsacle rhetoric present in the public arena today. My opinion is all those who love freedom and liberty should be bitterly contentious towards a Congress and a President who would foist such legislation on them and their posterity.

  39. TheUptightConservative · September 17, 2009

    From a conceptual standpoint, I am in full agreement with Publius’ post dated 9/15/2009. I also have done my own analysis and think both sides have produced a load of crap.

    Spurious assertions have been made to either falsely instill fear and unreasonably lull those intellectually lazy enough to not do their own research.

    Here’s a brief snippet of dialog I had with one of the people who provided an analysis.

    I’m not sure if people have caught this, but in the General Definitions beginning on page 8, line 4 allows the Commissioner the latitude to define the meaning of a dependent. On the surface this may sound pretty benign, but start to think about the legal scope of your agreement with an insurance provider. Each provider has had the freedom to define dependent and family all along, but the impact is specific to the relationship between two parties. Defining this at a national level makes the definition the de facto standard. Giving The Commissioner this authority essentially lets him be sole arbiter of how a family is defined at a national level. This is outlined on Page 10, lines 7 – 8.

    This is a neat way for an unaccountable official to circumvent troublesome public opposition.

    Now, on to the questions, which you may or may not be able to answer.
    Do you know why no one seems to have included the infamous page 16 (Sec. 102) in their analysis?
    Lines 11 – 16 disallows private insurers to newly enroll anyone into an existing plan after day 1 in year 1.
    Lines 21 – 26 prohibits changes to an existing policy after first day of Y1.
    Page 17, Lines 1 – 7 I’m not completely sure I understand what they’re getting at here, but I’ll take a stab at it anyway. Although it is not defined anywhere, I assume risk group would lump smokers together into a single population to whom an appropriate premium will be charged. It also sounds like these risk groups will still be recognized under the new socialized plan. What I get out of this is that the Commissioner dictates premiums of both grandfathered and obamacare health plans.

    This section leaves a lot to be implied. Although not explicitly stated, we could assume that only changes that don’t meet the new “standards” would be a problem, but I don’t think the context warrants that interpretation. The only conclusion I can come to based on lines 11 – 26 is that if the insurance provider changes ANYTHING it will no longer be considered a grandfathered plan. If for some reason a change becomes unavoidable (I am not sure of a scenario because I am not intimate with the intricacies of the inner workings of the health insurance industry), the contract between the insured and the insurer will be made null and void by our Government leaving all the insured without “approved” coverage. As the bill indicates, these people would be forced into a “standards compliant”, socialized plan. There would be no choice in the matter.

    Next, while I agree with your summary of page 22’s implications (supported by Lines 9-11), I am having trouble reconciling the line numbers with the analysis you supplied for Pg 22-23. I guess I don’t see how Pg 22, Lines 23 – 25 through Pg 23, Lines 1 – 3 support the assertion that the goal is to move everyone to the public plan. This assertion is a logical consequence of section 102, but not by the lines referenced. Help me understand what you were thinking.

    Pg 29 – Health Care is rationed. I’m not sure I agree with your interpretation of this section. I think rationing is a logical consequence of other sections in the bill but I’m not seeing it here. I’ll walk you through what I’m thinking so we can talk about it. The Annual Limitation section uses the term “Cost Sharing.”

    Page 8, Lines 11 – 12 through Page 9, Lines 1 – 3 defines cost sharing as including deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, and similar charges (nebulous, undefined term), but does not include premiums or any network payment differential for covered services. My simplistic interpretation would be that it includes out of pocket expenses that we already generally pay when using private insurance. This definition is poorly written because one has to infer much in order to make sense of it and there is no guarantee the inferences are correct. For example, it seems there is some concept of “In Network” and “Out of Network” providers and that for “Out of Network” providers the plan has a set amount it will pay and the individual is responsible for the differential (based on the current private insurance model as I understand it). My conclusion is that the Annual Limitation section doesn’t seem to cap or limit anything except out of pocket expenses. I must admit, however, I got lost in the Minimum Actuarial Value section (Pg 29, Lines 22 – 25 through Pg 30, Lines 1 – 10).

    This back and forth goes on and on but I think you get the idea. Although the analysis posted in the main article of this web page is patently misleading, the opposition’s responses (in this thread and otherwise available on the net) are equally so.

    Discounting all the “expert analyses” and reading the bill for yourself leaves only one rational conclusion to walk away with. This aberration makes available many mechanisms, both explicit and implicit, to not only limit, but actively remove our constitutional freedoms. There is nothing else that matters!

    The constitution must NOT be compromised. If you liberals don’t like it, TOUGH! Go live in a socialized country that’s more to your liking.I hear there are many accepting new immigrants they can fleece. Why not be first in line.

  40. Keith · September 24, 2009

    You’ve been caught in lie after lie after lie, Tom – and then there are the ideologues who’ll say anything (links to REDSTATE???). This pack of lies you’ve put together is an embarrassment (to you), but then I’m sure that doesn’t bother you one bit.

    If this bill dies, I honestly hope you end up in the same situation as me – life destroyed by “We’re #37!” YOU break YOUR neck OTJ, have YOUR life destroyed by it, and then YOU’LL be whining about the Neanderthal EXCUSE for health care in this country, also! You’ll a heartless shill for the insurance companies.

    You have an unconscionable excuse for “morals”. What a jerk.

  41. John Fitzgerald · September 30, 2009

    It took me two seconds of looking at this article to not care in the least about it’s “analysis”. Any objective report or analysis makes a reasonable effort to 1) present the original fact, in this case quoting the original text, that has been analyzed and 2) present the analyst reasoning in reaching the conclusion 3) present the facts that back up the analysts reasoning in reaching the conclusion.

    A quick scan of the words highlighted by CAPITALIZATION or PUNCTUATION!! quickly points to HIS BIAS. Rather than prove his points by presenting intelligent evidence, he YELLS it. He is like some manic personality WARNING you that GOD and HIS WORD will bring FIRE AND BRIMSTONE down upon the SINNERS as HIS WRATH is REVEALED. He highlights SCARY WORDS AND PHRASES. HE SCREAMS:

    -MANDATES ALL EMPLOYERS
    -RATIONED!!!
    -A GOVERNMENT
    -ALL non-U.S. citizens
    -mandates ALL benefit
    -WILL be rationed
    -tell YOU
    -NO CHOICE
    -MUST pay
    -ANY
    -NONRESIDENT
    -ALL Americans’ … records
    -PROHIBITION
    -RESTRICT
    -Mandatory!
    -AN ORDER
    -PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG
    -Hello Big Brother – Literally
    -YOUR electronic medical records.
    -More taxes for ALL.
    -“Quality”
    -MUST be enrolled in Medicare
    -Say RATION!
    -telling you how to parent!!!

    For all the ARTICLES VERBIAGE, he might just as well have written

    A GOVERNMENT -MANDATES -ALL EMPLOYERS[.] A GOVERNMENT -mandates ALL benefit[s] -WILL be rationed[.] A GOVERNMENT -tell[s] YOU -NO CHOICE -MUST pay -ANY –NONRESIDENT[.] A GOVERNMENT [access to] -ALL Americans’ … records A GOVERNMENT -PROHIBITION –RESTRICT[ion] -Mandatory! [stuff.] -AN ORDER [for] -PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG[.] -Hello Big Brother – Literally [accesses] -YOUR electronic medical records. A GOVERNMENT [demands] -More taxes for ALL. A GOVERNMENT [defines] -“Quality” [for you and you] -MUST be enrolled in Medicare A GOVERNMENT -Say[s] RATION!
    A GOVERNMENT -telling you how to parent!!!

    If the article were to present it’s conclusions with serious honesty, it would present alternative and opposing interpretations then substantiate why it’s conclusion is more reasonable.

    The article presents itself as legitimate by prefacing each OPINION with a page and line number from the bill. He must have had instructors that NEVER BOTHERED TO CHECK his references. What he has learned, what he believes, is that presenting a reference is what makes an article legitimate, not that the reference itself must substantiate his opinion.

    It is the responsibility of any critical reader to distrust the author and the conclusions. It is the responsibility of the author to prove, within the context of the article and it’s presentation, that he is presenting objective information. It is his responsibility to do so with the most ardent of critics in mind.

    An objective reader would reject the article. Readers with BIAS in opposition to the articles conclusion would reject it. Only readers looking for affirmation of their PREDISPOSITION would accept it. As such, it is obvious that the author’s intent is ONLY TO APPEAL to those who already share his bias, whatever that may be.

    The fact that the author MAKES NO EFFORT TO PROVE objectivity tells me immediately that either he is simply ALLOWING BIAS out of LAZINESS or doing so WITH INTENT. And I don’t even need to read the article to be sure of this, I can guarantee it. I don’t need to know why HE IS BIASED or in what direction. It may very well be that he has no particular political bias, just simply a bias towards ANY LEGISLATION.

    This article make no effort except to present the authors UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINION. It is, at best, SLOPPY. In any professional setting where the goal is to reveal the objective truth, regardless of how annoying it might be, this article would get an “F”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s