Posted by tx on August 31, 2009 under Healthcare, Home Page | 
DOORS OPEN at 5:00 PM.
The MoveOn.org left-wingers will be there EARLY.
Begins : Monday, August 31 at 5:00 pm (doors open)
Ends : Monday, August 31 at 9:00 pm
Location: Charles W. Eisemann Center
Address:
2351 Performance Drive, Richardson, TX 75082 Map it
August 31st at 7 p.m. (program begins) at the Eisemann Center in Richardson
http://www.samjohnson.house.gov/news/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=142392
On Monday, August 31st at 7:00 p.m., U.S. Congressmen Joe Barton (6th Dist.-Texas), Jeb Hensarling (5th Dist.-Texas), Sam Johnson (3rd Dist.-Texas), and Pete Sessions (32nd Dist.-Texas) will host a congressional field hearing on healthcare solutions at the Eisemann Center in Richardson. The free event will be open to the public and the media. There will be parking but people are encouraged to take DART.
Congressional hearing panelists include:
1. Eddie McBride, President, Lubbock Chamber of Commerce; the Lubbock Chamber of Commerce works to make health care coverage more affordable for employers and their employees through both advocacy and the award-winning Lubbock Chamber Employer Health Plan;
2. Christopher Crow, MD, Village Health Partners, Plano, TX; Village Health Partners is a nationally recognized family medical practice located in Plano, serving patients throughout Dallas and Collin County;
3. Joel Allison, President and CEO, Baylor Health Care System; For the 17th consecutive year, U.S News has listed Baylor University Medical Center at Dallas (Baylor Dallas) in its America’s Best Hospitals issue. Baylor Dallas is the only North Texas hospital to achieve this distinction; and
4. Tarrant County Judge Glen Whitley, First Vice President of the National Association of Counties, to discuss local prescription drug card plans.
John Goodman, President and CEO of the National Center for Policy Analysis, of Dallas, will serve as the moderator of the event. Barbara Herteg of Richardson will perform the National Anthem. Richardson’s Boy Scout Troop 1001 with Trinity Baptist Church will present the colors.
The Eisemann Center’s location, just south of the intersection of Central Expressway (US 75) and the President George Bush Turnpike (Hwy. 190), is easily accessible by car. Just a few hundred feet from the Eisemann Center’s front doors is the DART Rail’s Galatyn Park Station on the Red Line.
For the safety of all attendees, the Center prohibits large signs, posters or banners and any placard affixed to sticks or other sharp objects from being brought into the Center. In the event the Hill Performance Hall reaches capacity, attendees will be directed and seated in over-flow rooms where they may watch the event via a live video feed.
Posted by tx on under Home Page, Tea Party Protests, Texas candidates, Texas patriots |
Officially the first 9/12 Candidate in the great state of Texas!
When asked why he became the first 9/12 candidate in Texas, Tyler said,
“The 9 principles and 12 values outlined by all of the 9/12 groups have always been at the heart of my core beliefs. I am proud to be the first candidate in Texas who signed the contract. The United States needs leaders who will make decisions based on these principles that reflect the ideals of the American people. The values for which 9/12 organizations stand need a strong voice on Capitol Hill. I plan to help restore our Republic by being a principled leader guided by these values.”
Tyler Russell represents the new leadership of the Republican Party. A Reagan conservative, Tyler is a strong advocate for liberty and freedom based on Constitutional limited government. He is determined to work within Congress to ensure a reduction of the national debt and low taxes through the pursuit of sound fiscal policy. Tyler firmly supports the achievement of economic growth through a strong and a vibrant private sector.
On the Issues
Tyler’s position on public policy issues facing our nation reflects his deep belief in limited government and the restoration of States’ rights after decades of power-grabbing by Washington. His views are grounded in solid conservative values ranging from his strong support of pro-life policies and Second Amendment rights, to the support for low taxes and market-driven economic growth.
As your Congressman, Tyler will… 
= Fight for the reduction of the national debt and promotion of fiscal responsibility – no bailouts, no stimulus.
= Pursue a strong, uncompromising national security and the achievement of energy independence.
= Ensure our borders are finally secured and illegal immigration is eliminated.
= Ensure the best care and services is always delivered to our veterans.
(Portions of this post extracted from “Tyler Russell for Congress”.)
Posted by tx on August 28, 2009 under Home Page, New American Revolution, Tea Party Protests |
The Congressional Democrats have tried a few tactics to get out their ObamaCare marketing without those pesky patriots asking pertinent ponderings, and Lloyd Doggett has been trying them all.
One tactic is phoning in the townhall – easy to put the protesters on ‘mute’ while you babble on … Two friends of mine participated inlast night. Reports on Lloyd Doggett’s tele-townhall held earlier this week are here and here.
The other tactic is to stack the meetings with your own supporters and tell only your side to show up. Doggett is trying that with a Healthcare rally on Saturday. Here is the event:
Congressman Doggett is hosting a health care rally on Saturday, August 29. We encourage citizens to go with thoughtful questions and discussion points.
What: Health Care Rally with Rep. Lloyd Doggett
When: Saturday, August 29, 2009 2:45 PM
Where: First United Methodist Church, 12th and Lavaca, Austin, TX 78701
Word has gotten out via the grapevine on both sides. If you want to be a part of the “Summer of Patriots”, this may be a last chance to let Rep Doggett know what you think of ObamaCare.
Posted by tx on August 27, 2009 under Hidden truths |
“From “INTELLECTUAL CONSERVATIVE“, a blog focusing on Conservative and Libertarian Politics. – a history lesson”
The ugliest chapter in the progessive/fascist alliance centered on Eugenics, the pseudo-science of racial purification.
Like a demanding and ill-mannered child, liberals are used to getting their way. Whenever they lapse into the losing side of an argument, they reflexively resort to name-calling and mud-slinging. Epithets like “neo-Nazi,” “crypto-fascist,” and “imperialist stooge” buzz like mosquitoes hovering over a Potomac swamp.
But how many conservatives who are targets of such slurs know these liberals are indulging in one of the greatest intellectual ruses in history? How many realize it’s a matter of the red-faced pot calling the kettle black?
Esteemed reader, you are about to learn the truth of the long-standing love affair between American progressivism and European fascism.
As Jonah Goldberg reveals in his bestseller Liberal Fascism, that romance can be traced back to the presidency of Woodrow Wilson. The Democrat was both a progressive and racist who famously wrote, “The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation . . . until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country.”
Shortly after America entered World War I in 1917, Wilson signed an Executive Order establishing the Committee on Public Information, a propaganda apparatus designed to whip Americans into a patriotic fervor. The following year Wilson pushed for the Sedition Act which banned the use of any “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the government. That sweeping language served to squelch all forms of political dissent.
The notorious Sedition Act occasioned the arrest of an estimated 175,000 Americans accused of essentially failing to be sufficiently patriotic – leading Goldberg to dub the Wilson presidency a “fascist police state.”
For those who wonder whether the phrase “liberal fascist” is a little over the top, in fact it was coined by science fiction novelist H.G. Wells. In 1932 the progressivist Wells delivered a speech that called for a revitalization of the fading liberal movement: “the Fascists of Liberalism must . . . begin as a disciplined sect, but they must end as the sustaining organization of a reconstituted mankind.”
Wells was also a friend and confidante of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Struggling to rescue America from the dregs of the Great Depression, FDR was fully aware of what was transpiring in Europe and sought to emulate its accomplishments. Roosevelt once bragged, “what we are doing in this country were some of the things that were being done in Russia and even some of the things that were being done under Hitler in Germany.”
European fascists returned the presidential compliment. In 1934 the Nazi Party’s official newspaper sang the praises of FDR, describing him as a “warm-hearted leader of the people with a profound understanding of social needs.” And the Fuhrer himself sent Roosevelt a private letter applauding his “heroic efforts in the interests of the American people.”
Mussolini was even more enthralled with the American commander. Upon reading Roosevelt’s Looking Forward, Mussolini fawned, “The appeal to the decisiveness and masculine sobriety of the nation’s youth, with which Roosevelt here calls his readers to battle, is reminiscent of the ways and means by which Fascism awakened the Italian people.”
Il Duce was of course referring to the sweeping New Deal policies that established massive job programs, centralized power in vast government bureaucracies, and imposed rigid price controls on the economy.
But the ugliest chapter in the progressive-fascist alliance centered on eugenics, the pseudo-science of racial purification. Three prominent persons, all of the liberal persuasion, were prominent flag-wavers in this execrable episode of American history.
Woodrow Wilson was one of the first American politicians to promote eugenic policies. As governor of New Jersey, Wilson approved a law in 1912 that created the Board of Examiners of Feebleminded, Epileptics, and Other Defectives.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was another progressive icon of the era. Holmes wrote the flawed Supreme Court decision Buck v. Bell that put the legal stamp of approval on compulsory sterilization. “Three generations of imbeciles are enough,” Holmes infamously wrote.
A few years later in 1934 the American Eugenics Society published the Case for Sterilization, a book that piqued the interest of the Fuhrer himself. One leading member of the American Eugenics Society was Margaret Sanger. The birth-control crusader was the moving force behind the Negro Project, which enlisted ministers such as Adam Clayton Powell, Sr. in the crusade to restrict reproduction among “inferior” stocks of Blacks.
So fellow conservatives, arise! The next time you are slandered as a proto-Nazi or angry White male (which in the liberal mind are one and the same), drag out the fascist skeletons rattling in the progressive closet. Mention Woodrow Wilson’s infatuation with racial cleansing, the FDR-Hitler mutual admiration society, Justice Holmes’ authorship of Buck v. Bell, and Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project.
If that doesn’t stop the guilty-minded liberal in his tracks, mention how progressive-inspired eugenics policies were the prime moving force behind the forced sterilization of 400,000 undesirables in Nazi Germany.
That inconvenient truth is certain to focus the discussion.
Posted by tx on August 25, 2009 under Uncategorized |
Excerpted from Texas Insider, an online newsletter
By Congressman John Carter
There was an old country judge that had the highest criminal conviction rate in the state. When a reporter from the state capital came down investigate this judicial phenomenon, the judge explained that he simply instructed the jury to listen very carefully to what the prosecutor had to say, then make their decision. The reporter cried indignantly, “don’t you also tell them to listen to the defense?” The judge replied, “well, I used to, but it just confused ‘em.”
20 years as a Texas judge taught me a few things about listening to both sides of an argument. In most cases, both sides truly think they’re right. Then they start presenting arguments and evidence to try to prove their case. Naturally, neither side will present anything remotely supportive of their opponent, even if they know it’s true. So as a judge, you sit there and weigh the evidence presented by all with a grain of salt, knowing that either side is capable of stretching the limits of veracity and withholding relevant information if not in their favor.
That’s precisely the kind of case that all Americans are having to judge right now concerning the healthcare reform proposals being pushed by Democrats in Washington.
We hear it everyday in the press – the President says anybody who likes their current health insurance will get to keep it, while opponents say all private health insurance will be gone by 2013. Democrats in the House say their plans will control rising healthcare costs, while opponents say it will drive costs even higher. Opponents say the new system will eventually start denying care to elderly, and encourage euthanasia, while supporters say it won’t.
Who’s right? With our very lives at stake, along with 19% of our gross domestic product, being wrong could be deadly for us personally as well as our free market economy.
Let’s examine the evidence together. In looking at the both sides of this case, let’s leave out the emotion and political rhetoric, and try to look at just the facts on each major point.
To begin, we can only examine the bill passed by Democrats in the House Energy and Commerce Committee in late August, HR 3200. That will not be the final bill, if there is a final bill. The current House version would first be voted on by the entire House, where changes would be made, then reconciled with whatever the Senate passes, changed again, then brought to a final vote in both Chambers. But this Committee version is all we have in writing, so that’s what we must judge.
1. Can You Keep Your Current Health Plan?
The bill contains no provision that would specifically abolish any health plan. But it would require all individuals and employers to purchase health plans approved by a new federal agency starting in 4 years, or pay a heavy tax penalty. It is not enough to require a health plan be purchased – it must be a federally approved plan to avoid paying an 8% payroll penalty by employers or a 2% income tax penalty by individuals. The bill allows the new federal agency to set any requirements they like on what constitutes an “approved” plan. Whether a current individual plan could survive and be approved by this new bureaucracy is suspect, as is whether an employer will continue to offer any current plan under these circumstances.
Verdict: PROBABLY Not
2. Will This Help Control Health Care Costs?
This issue is one of the most clear. After extensive research, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is currently overseen by the Democrat majority, officially reported to Congress that not only would it not hold down health costs, it would push them even higher than doing nothing. The number one problem with American health care is high cost, and this bill would make it worse.
Verdict: No
3. Does The Bill Encourage Denial of Care and Euthanasia for the Elderly?
There is no language specifically calling for denial of care or euthanasia. But language was added requiring Medicare to pay for “end of life counseling” that will include educating senior citizens on the option of pre-authorizing the cessation of life-sustaining care, and in states which allow physician-assisted suicide, education on that option as well. President Obama has made repeated references to avoiding costly treatments for elderly patients, and other nations that have adopted this same style health system do in fact limit medical treatments and encourage euthanasia for elderly patients. These facts, coupled with the creation of a new federal agency that will unilaterally determine what benefits are included in “approved” health plans AFTER the bill passes, is heavy evidence that the bill may encourage denial of care and euthanasia. But in this issue there is even more – a proverbial “smoking gun.” The very advocacy groups like the now-defunct Hemlock Society that have historically lobbied for legalized suicide were instrumental in adding the “end-of-life” counseling section to the legislation.
Verdict: Yes
4. Does the Bill Use Federal Funds to Pay for Abortions?
There is nothing specific in the bill to fund abortions. However, the yet unspecified new rules for all “approved” health plans – rules that will be written by Obama Administration appointees AFTER the bill passes – could include abortion coverage. Over concerns on this issue, an amendment prohibiting abortion funding was submitted in the House, and subsequently voted down by Democrat members of the Committee. This provides substantial evidence that the new federal health plan rules could require abortion coverage by all health plans in the country, while the final decision remains unknown.
Verdict: Likely
5. Is This the Beginning of Single-Payer Healthcare?
Like most issues concerning this bill, there is no specific provision that would mandate single-payer socialized medicine and the shutdown of private sector healthcare. But as early as 2003 then-Senator Barack Obama was advocating single-payer healthcare publicly, and has recently stated along with key House Democrats that this bill would lead eventually to single-payer healthcare, over a period of 10-20 years. All of these comments are on tape and available to the public.
Verdict: Likely Over Time
6. Will the Bill Increase the Federal Deficit and Federal Taxes?
No argument here from either side. The bill will cost $1.28 trillion in the first 10 years according to CBO, and raise taxes $818 billion on those who cannot afford to buy insurance, not counting surcharges on small business income.
Verdict: Yes
7. Will the Bill Cost American Jobs?
No argument here either. The Obama Administration’s own White House Council of Economic Advisors has estimated 4.7 million Americans will lose their jobs if the bill passes, as employers who cannot afford health insurance or the 8% payroll tax penalty will have to fire their employees, move overseas, or go out of business.
Verdict: Yes
There are many more issues to this bill than seven, but in my opinion the answers to just these are enough to reach a final judgment on HR 3200: NO.
HR 3200 is fatally flawed, does not provide the health reforms we truly do need in this country, and should be buried. It is one of the worst pieces of legislation I have examined since being elected to the House. It would destroy the finest quality health care system in the world, undermine the free market, throw Americans out of work, and violate the moral principles of the majority of this country in the process.
Examining all the evidence is not just important in determining action on legislation, but in writing that legislation to begin with. Like the story of the old judge who only listened to one side of a case, this bill was written without any consideration of opinions from anyone other than the liberal Democrat faithful, with a resulting faulty outcome.
We can do better. We don’t need the federal government to take over the healthcare industry, we just need some commonsense bipartisan reforms.
First, we are already in bipartisan agreement to make affordable health insurance available to folks with pre-existing health conditions who are presently barred from buying a health plan.
We can let small businesses and organizations join together to purchase group insurance at the same affordable rates as big business, allowing more small employers to offer coverage.
We can remove restrictions on buying health insurance across state lines, letting families in prohibitively high-cost states purchase affordable plans in other states.
To pass these reforms will require a simple concession from the Democrat majority. That is to agree to work with Republicans in a bipartisan effort, and listen to both sides of the case before reaching a verdict.
Posted by tx on August 24, 2009 under Home Page, Texas candidates |
Extracted from Texas Insider, an online newsletter
Humble ISD Board President offers wealth of experience
KINGWOOD – On Monday, State Representative Joe Crabb, after 18 years of distinguished service, announced his plans not to seek reelection to the Texas House of Representatives.
Upon learning of the news, Dan Huberty – Humble ISD’s Board President, announced he would seek the position being vacated by Rep. Crabb. Huberty, a lifelong Republican, will be a candidate in the March 2010 Republican Primary.
“Representative Crabb has been a faithful representative for the people of District 127,” Mr. Huberty remarked. “I want to thank Joe and Nancy for giving so many years of their lives in service to the people of Texas and especially northeast Harris County. I believe my candidacy offers a great opportunity to elect a conservative businessman, with public school finance experience, to the Texas House.
“I am keenly aware the next legislative session will deal with legislative redistricting and another attempt to secure the voting process by requiring photo identification to vote,” Mr. Huberty reflected. “These and other issues require that a strong conservative be elected to follow Rep. Crabb’s history of conservative leadership.
“Since learning of Rep. Crabb’s decision, I have spent time visiting with community and party leaders gauging their level of enthusiasm,” Mr. Huberty reported. “I am humbled and honored to have the encouragement and support of so many of our friends and neighbors. So it is with their backing that I announce that I will seek the Republican nomination for State Representative District 127 in the March 2010 primary.”
Dan Huberty is currently the President of the Humble Independent School District.
As one of seven trustees, he oversees a $250,000,000 annual budget, which educates over 33,000 students in Humble, Texas. Having been first elected in May 2006, Dan was unopposed for reelection in May of 2009. Dan served in various capacities over the last four years on the school board, most recently as Chairman of the Finance Committee, where he has worked diligently with the current board, the community, and our local and state officials to find a resolution to school finance issues.
Dan is Vice President of Clean Energy, North America’s largest provider of natural gas for transportation. In this role, Dan is working with national fleet operators, airports, and taxi and parking operators to convert their vehicles to clean burning compressed and liquefied natural gas. Clean Energy has a broad customer base in refuse, transit, ports, shuttle, taxi, regional trucking, airport and the municipal fleet markets.
Dan is a Board member of the National Parking Association, and the “Be an Angel Fund.” He is also a member of the Knights of Columbus, Humble Rotary, Humble Area Chamber of Commerce, Humble Area Retired Teachers Association, Friends of the Atascocita Library, Kingwood Chamber of Commerce, Kingwood Executive Group, Kingwood Area Republican Women, and Lake Houston Shores Republican Women.
Dan and his wife, Janet, have three children, Brianna (9), Ryan (7) and Dylan (5). The Huberty family is very active at Saint Martha’s Catholic Church where Dan serves on the Building & Planning Committee.
Posted by tx on under Healthcare, Home Page, New American Revolution, Tea Party Protests |
From Andrew Breitbart at Big Hollywood:
John Mackey – the founder, CEO and marketing genius behind Whole Foods – finds himself in an organic, unsustainable mess with his carefully cultivated affluent, liberal customer base after penning an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal titled, “The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare.”
For starters, Mr. Mackey opens with a line from known-liberal-allergen Margaret Thatcher that features the dreaded “S” word: “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Then he goes on to provide eight sensible free-market solutions gleaned from his company’s well-regarded employee health care program.
Mr. Mackey, a free-market libertarian, is now at the mercy of an unforgiving grass-roots mob intent on destroying his company. More than 25,000 people have signed on to a Whole Foods boycott on Facebook.
“Whole Foods has built its brand with the dollars of deceived progressives,” the online petition reads. “Let them know your money will no longer go to support Whole Foods’ anti-union, anti-health insurance reform, right-wing activities.”….
____________________________
So where is the hypocrisy you may wonder. I attended a counter protest at Whole Foods on Sunday, August 16, 2009 at the Whole Foods in Austin, Texas. Our 9/12 groups were notified of a protest to “Boycott Whole Foods” for that morning. The photo to the left shows only some of our members.
Those of us who supported not only John Mackey’s right to publicly state his opinion but the content of his statement decided to counter protest. Our counter protest outnumbered that of the “boycotters“. For three very hot hours, both groups stood on the street corner in front of Whole Foods. Occasionally, we even spoke to one another, arguing about the real issue — government run healthcare. Finally, when the 100+ degree heat was too much for all of us, the protesters put away their signs. Most of us, including the “boycotters“, went inside Whole Foods for lunch. No doubt the “boycotters” purchased a very healthy, tasty, organic portion of hypocrisy.
Posted by tx on August 23, 2009 under Governor's Race, Home Page |
(Extracted from Texas Insider, an online newsletter)
AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry today emphasized the importance of state developed health care reform rather than the costly, expansive, one-size-fits-all mandates being considered by the federal government.
The governor spoke at a press conference announcing the results of a study about federal health care proposals conducted by the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF).
“It’s clear Washington has no interest in allowing states to develop their own tailored solutions to problems that affect their citizens,” Gov. Perry said. “Instead we have a federal government bearing down on the states, preparing to take greater control through mandates and trampling innovation through runaway costs. The health care reform legislation currently being considered not only poses a serious threat to patients and providers, but will also cost Texas taxpayers tens of billions of dollars over the next 10 years without significantly improving care for Texans.”
The governor noted that aspects of our healthcare system need to be repaired and reformed, but issuing top-down mandates on a break-neck timetable is a surefire way to make things worse. He cited the Medicaid waiver request that Texas submitted in 2008 as an example of how the state is seeking solutions to health care reform that meet the needs of Texans.
In a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius last month, the governor reiterated his request for a federal Medicaid waiver that would help transform health care in Texas from a heavy reliance on hospital-based care to increased access to primary and preventive care. The plan is centered on state-specific solutions to eliminate costly federal mandates and use those resources to provide more low-income Texans with insurance, reduce expensive emergency room visits for basic care, and make it easier for the working poor to buy into employer-sponsored insurance. This reform waiver was originally sent to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in April 2008.
“Current proposals based on President Obama’s policies would worsen the system, increase costs, further escalate medical price inflation and add more than $285 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years,” said TPPF Senior Fellow Donna Arduin, a partner in the economic research firm Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics. “Clearly, these reforms are not a cost-effective way to expand health insurance and the news could be worse for Texans. If the federal government chooses to pass the financial responsibility for covering the expansion of lower income individual’s health insurance coverage to the states, the cost to Texans could be higher than the national average.”
Additionally, according to Arduin, legislation that would provide an additional $1 trillion in federal health care spending would not only slow both the Texas and the national economy, but also leave 30 million Americans uninsured.
Current federal proposals include significant Medicaid expansions at the state level, individual and employer mandates to purchase and offer qualifying insurance plans, and federal takeover of some current state insurance functions such as rates and coverage exclusions.
Extending Medicaid benefits to uninsured citizens at or below 100 percent of the federal poverty level will cost Texas an additional $2 billion in general revenue per year, in addition to the $19 billion in general revenue the state expects to spend on Medicaid in the 2010-11 biennium. This type of federal government spending mandate would erode the state’s economic viability without containing health care costs or improving health care quality and access.
Posted by tx on August 22, 2009 under Home Page, Texas candidates |
From Texas Insider, an online newsletter:
AUSTIN, TEXAS —State Representative Charlie Howard (R-Sugar Land) again urged the Texas Congressional delegation to oppose the pending federal health care legislation, and shared important information about the bill with his constituents.
“As you can see from just a one page summary of the bill, it is a massive government takeover of our health care system,” stated Howard. “I’ve said this many times that people are demanding health care reform; not a government takeover of health care. There is a major difference between the two.”
Howard continued, “I strongly oppose more government spending and even more government intrusion in the name of health care. Anyone who believes that the federal government should run our health care system need only to look at the failure of Fannie Mae to see all the warning signs. ”
Representative Howard went on to express his appreciation to Congressman John Culberson for sharing the important information regarding the bill.
Reading Guide—Democrat Health “Reform”
The House Republican Conference has compiled a list of important page numbers and provisions in the 1,018-page “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act:”
Page 19—Section 102(c) prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government.
Page 30—Section 123 establishes a new board of federal bureaucrats (the “Health Benefits Advisory Committee”) to dictate the health plans that all individuals must purchase—and would likely require all Americans to subsidize and purchase plans that cover any abortion.
Page 74—Sections 202(c) and (d) protects Members of Congress with existing federal employee coverage (as defined in Section 100(c)(6) on page 9) from joining the government-run health plan offered through the Exchange.
Page 116—Section 221 establishes a new government-run health plan that, according to non-partisan actuaries at the Lewin Group, would cause as many as 114 million Americans to lose their existing coverage.
Page 139—Section 245 includes language requiring verification of income for individuals wishing to receive federal health care subsidies under the bill—however, the bill includes no requirement for individuals to verify their citizenship or identity before receiving taxpayer-subsidized health benefits.
Page 167—Section 401 imposes a 2.5 percent tax on all individuals who do not purchase “bureaucrat-approved” health insurance—the tax would apply on individuals with incomes under $250,000, thus breaking a central promise of then-Senator Obama’s presidential campaign.
Page 183—Section 412 imposes an 8 percent “tax on jobs” for firms that cannot afford to purchase “bureaucrat-approved” health coverage; according to an analysis by Harvard Professor Kate Baicker, such a tax would place millions “at substantial risk of unemployment”—with minority workers losing their jobs at twice the rate of their white counterparts.
Page 197—Section 441 imposes additional job-killing taxes, in the form of a half-trillion dollar “surcharge,” more than half of which will hit small businesses; according to a model developed by President Obama’s senior economic advisor, such taxes could cost up to 5.5 million jobs.
Page 331—Section 1161 cuts more than $150 billion from Medicare Advantage plans, potentially jeopardizing millions of seniors’ existing coverage.
Page 425—Section 1233 makes end-of-life care consultations eligible for Medicare reimbursement.
Page 501—Section 1401 establishes a new Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research; the bill includes no provisions preventing the government-run health plan from using such research to deny access to life-saving treatments on cost grounds, similar to Britain’s National Health Service, which denies patient treatments costing more than £35,000 .
Page 835—Section 1802(b) includes provisions entitled “TAXES ON CERTAIN INSURANCE POLICIES” to fund comparative effectiveness research, breaking Speaker Pelosi’s promise that “We will not be taxing [health] benefits in any bill that passes the House,” and the President’s promise not to raise taxes on families with incomes under $250,000.
Posted by tx on August 21, 2009 under Healthcare, Home Page |
Michael Ramirez is my favorite political cartoonist. I will let him do the talking for me today.
