A Health Care "Pep Rally"

An ominous, overcast sky cast a gloom over Mundy's Mill High School, site of Rep. David Scott's (D) GA District 13, "Health Fair" as it was billed on the school's website. This was his fifth annual event and the first held here at this newly built school. The school is modern and in immaculate condition. Just the place to hold this type of event.

Upon arriving at the entrance to the school's massive parking lot, the first thing one notices is the rather large and very obvious police presence. There were uniformed officers in plain view at every possible location in and around the school. Dozens of cruisers line the drives and are placed strategically at the front and sides of the school as well. There were several TV remote trucks and a dozen camera crews mingling and setting up for live shots and taped footage to be played later on the local broadcasts. There were even a few radio trucks sent there by local stations to do their own reporting. One Station, KISS FM, was blaring James Brown at levels reminiscent of concerts I'd attended in the past. Papa's got a brand new bag indeed! My initial sense of the event was that of a carnival any school would hold to raise money or awareness on the importance of staying away from drugs or some such cause. I half expected to see face painting displays and a dunking booth.

As I parked, I noticed two women getting out of there car just down the row from me. They were obviously senior citizens and both were carrying small signs showing their opposition to reform. One wore a red, white and blue hat with a placard in the front with Obama's name in a circle with a line through it.

Who ya gonna call? Obama Busters!

I walked across the parking lot and spied to my left a row of seven school buses. Ordinarily this wouldn't raise an eye on a school campus but these buses were from another school district. Besides, Clayton County, where the event is held, parks their buses at a central lot to prevent theft or damage. These had obviously been used to bring in large groups of people. "Which groups did they carry?", immediately sprung to mind. I approached the school from the left side and as I came around the corner, I was met by a young woman wearing a Moveon.org shirt. She immediately asked me to sign a petition supporting the president's reform initiative. I made an excuse that I was here to watch and evaluate and not to choose sides. This was true actually. I had made the choice not to prejudge the event in any way. I wanted only to listen and watch to know what I had seen.

It was a rather large crowd and the parking lot was full after all with cars parked on the grounds surrounding the school as well. I'm not sure what I expected to see as I walked around the corner of the school. I'd seen the raucous videos and heard the loud, angry sound bites on the news for weeks. As I walked across the front of the school, what was obvious first was the diversity in the crowd--blue collar, white collar, white, black, asian etc. At first blush, it looked like a good cross section of the residents of Congressman Scott's district. I live in his district and I'm well aware of the demographics relating to race, income and the like.

I strode past the line waiting to gain entry to the school and was again asked to sign a petition. This time, by a young man in a Moveon.org shirt. I shook my head and walked past two men who were talking, they were within earshot so I shot my ears their way.

"I'm going back to the bus. I ran out of stickers. You need anything?" said the first man, probably in his mid 30's to an older gentleman.

"No, I'm ok right now. I'm gonna need more signs though before he gets started."

"I'll just get another box and you can pass them out."

This entire event was beginning to take on a very slick, very organized feel and I had only been there ten minutes so far. I saw a few signs being carried by the attendees in line. They were overwhelmingly in support and most were the kind of signs I had just heard mentioned. Most of the hand painted or made signs I saw were in opposition. The few that seemed in favor made no mention of health care. One read "Racism is UnAmerican" and another read "Stupidity is a pre-existing condition" I suspect these two individuals arrived with an agenda beyond that of health care reform. I walked casually, taking pictures randomly of the scene and the crowd. I walked further down the line, taking in the conversations as best I could from the distance I had chosen to stay from the crowd.

One gentleman, wearing a t-shirt with the words;

"Masters of
Observing
Bullxxxx"

an obvious reference to the "angry mobs" we've all been hearing about in the news, was having a rather spirited debate with the woman behind him about reform. It was passionate but respectful on both sides. They both felt strongly about their positions and neither seemed moved by the other's argument. My curiosity finally got the better of me and I had to go inquire of the man carrying the sign about racism why he chose that particular sign.

I approached him and asked if he minded answering a few questions. I explained I was writing a blog and just wanted to ask him a few basic questions. I had already picked three basic questions beforehand to maintain a semblance of impartiality. The questions I wanted to ask, I thought, would give me and anyone who might read this, a sense of who was really attending and where they stood on the issue.

His name was Eric Smith and he was from Decatur, as were the three friends he was standing with. It's important to note here that Decatur, where these four men were from, is not in the 13th district. At last, I had stumbled upon the "astro-turf" I had heard so much about. He explained that his sign was in response to the swastika that had been spray painted on Congressman Scott's Smyrna office sign. When asked if he expected that kind of sentiment at this event he replied,

"When don't you see it? It's everywhere now man." He turned to one of his friends just then and said, "Look at Bubba Gump over there with the sign."

I turned to see what he was talking about and saw a young black man carrying a sign that read, "Obama = Socialism". He turned back to me and I asked him if he'd read the bill to which he replied, "I don't need to read the bill, that's what them people in Washington are supposed to do." A woman in front of him, who had been listening to us, spoke up as well, "Who can understand that gobbledy-gook anyway? It's not like they're speaking a language any of us can understand is it?" I joked with her that she was right and that Congress had stopped speaking English a long time ago. Thanking them for their time I sauntered further down the line and caught these words as I passed a man in line talking to someone holding a clipboard,

"Now why would I sign that if I don't even know what it stands for?"

Intrigued, I wandered over and waited for the clipboard carrier to move off. I asked the gentleman his name and if he'd mind a few questions.

"My name is Tim and that kool-aid drinker was wasting my time. He wants me to sign a petition but won't tell me what it's a petition for. Stupid Moveon people think everyone thinks like they do." He explained that he lived in Clayton county and was here to ask questions and maybe learn something new. His tone suggested he doubted that but he had come anyway.

"I just want someone to tell me why we have to do it right now and how the hell we're gonna pay for it. I've got health insurance and I don't need Obama messing with it."

Curious about the petition he was asked to sign, I walked over to the young man carrying the clipboard and asked him for a few moments of his time. He was more than courteous and smiled broadly saying, "Anything for the press!"

I explained that I was just writing a blog and the term "press" might not apply in this instance. He simply smiled and told me to ask away.

Miguel Santiago was a member of Moveon.org and had been bused here today from Decatur along with about 25 fellow members to get petitions signed and to pass out signs and stickers in support of the president's reform initiative. He'd been with Moveon for about two years and explained that his resistance to the Iraq war had drawn him in to better organize his protestations of it. When asked if the Congressman had had any involvement in having his people out here today he said,

"Not directly but we can't let this opportunity pass by. We have to get out and stop the lies that the right is telling about health care reform. There are people out there dying because they have no insurance and it's time to stop it. Time to make it better."

He said that someone from his local chapter had contacted the Congressman's office and asked how they could help.

"And here we are!" he said cheerfully.

It was at this moment that my objectivity began to slip as I realized that the organization, the astro-turfing was all one sided indeed and it was the left that was doing it. I met one supporter of health care reform that actually lived in the district. That's not to say that there weren't more but in the unscientific sampling I took, it shook out this way;

For reform - out of 8 people I talked to, only one lived in the district.

Against reform - out of 7 people I talked to all but one lived in the district. (The one from outside the district had grown up in Clayton county and was here with family members who still did.

The only coordination I saw was from Moveon.org and they brought a myriad of people to sway opinion. I stayed for the panel discussion and the town hall but watched the first 15 questions come from people who had been preselected and placed in the front row. Questions were taken for the first 45 minutes by a lottery system and not asked of the audience. The Congressman answered most of these questions with the same talking points that the President had been using.

"If you like your health care, you keep your health care."
"This is not a government take over of health care."
"No one wants to come between you and your doctor."

The one interesting thing he said that drew boos from the crowd was that he intended to pay for reform but taxing the top 1% of earners who can," Afford to give us a helping hand in this."

I turned and walked away knowing that I wasn't going to hear anything of any substance here today. If the Congressman truly thinks punishing the wealthy by excessive taxation is really "giving a helping hand" then there was no further reason to stay.

No, I'm not a journalist. My ability to spot bullshit from a mile away makes being objective in the face of that kind of stupidity impossible.

What's REALLY in the health care "reform" bill.

A special thanks to Mr. Lewis for interpreting the "legal-eze" that makes keeping an eye on your government so hard. God bless you sir and a long life to you...away from Obamacare!

The Health Care Bill: What HR 3200, ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” Says

John David Lewis

August 6, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

1. 1. WILL THE PLAN RATION MEDICAL CARE?

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

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

and, under “Definitions”:

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

and:

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

and:

‘‘(6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of— . . .

‘‘(C) the measures of readmissions . . .

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. This section amends the Social Security Act

2. The government has the power to determine what constitutes an “applicable [medical] condition.”

3. The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.

4. This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted.

5. This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up.

6. There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts.

7. The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318.

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

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

‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—

(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. . . .”

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.

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

3. what constitutes “acceptable” coverage?

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

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

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

(1) Hospitalization.

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

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

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

(5) Prescription drugs.

(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.

(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.

(8) Preventive services . . .

(9) Maternity care.

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

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

(3) MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE.—

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

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. The bill defines “acceptable coverage” and leaves no room for choice in this regard.

2. By setting a minimum 70% actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services, but carry insurance only for catastrophic events, (such as Health Savings Accounts) illegal.

4. Will the PLAN destroy private health insurance?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. The bill does not prohibit a person from buying private insurance.

2. Small businesses—with say 8-10 employees—will either have to provide insurance to federal standards, or pay an 8% payroll tax. Business costs for health care are higher than this, especially considering administrative costs. Any competitive business that tries to stay with a private plan will face a payroll disadvantage against competitors who go with the government “option.”

3. The pressure for business owners to terminate the private plans will be enormous.

4. With employers ending plans, millions of Americans will lose their private coverage, and fewer companies will offer it.

5. The Commissioner (meaning, always, the bureaucrats) will determine whether a particular network of physicians, hospitals and insurance is acceptable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2. Tax surcharges are levied on those with the highest incomes.

3. The plan manipulates the tax code to redistribute their wealth.

4. Successful business owners will bear the highest cost of this plan.

6. 6. Does THE PLAN ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO set FEES FOR SERVICES?

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

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

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

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. The government’s authority to set payments is basically unlimited.
2. The official will decide what constitutes “excessive,” “deficient,” and “efficient” payments and services.

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

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

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

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

‘‘(ii) the filing status of such taxpayer,

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

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

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

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

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

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

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code

2. The bill opens up income tax return information to federal officials.

3. Any stated “limits” to such information are circumvented by item (v), which allows federal officials to decide what information is needed.

4. Employers are required to report whatever information the government says it needs to enforce the plan.

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

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

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

And, page 145, section 312:

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

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. Do nothing and you are in.

2. Employers are responsible for automatically enrolling people who still work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

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

2. Parts of the plan are set above the review of the courts.

We, The People

To every member of Congress and to The President Of The United States,

This is a warning that we are coming. We are coming from red states and blue states. We are coming from large cities and small towns. We are coming from every corner of this land and you will be made to answer for your crime. The single greatest crime any elected official can commit.

Theft.

You stole from us and we are angry. We are outraged at your lack of honesty and your lack of courage. What you stole is the most precious gift we have ever been given and you took it from us in the dark of night while we slept. Peaceful and comfortable in our beds, you crept in and took it without a sound. How you stole is not as important as what you stole.

You stole our democracy from us.

It was given to us 233 years ago by men who cared more for us then, than you do now. They warned us in their speeches, in their letters and in their debates that you would come when we weren't looking. That you would hypnotize us with promises of safety and of security. They warned us over and over to be vigilant and we were not. We let them down.

No longer.

You will be made to answer every time one of us votes. You will be made to answer in a million phone calls to your office and a million emails as well. You will answer...or you will be removed. When we have removed you, we will see to it that whoever takes your place remembers who is REALLY in charge.

We, The People, are in charge in this country, and you will no longer forget that.

For too long we slept peacefully as the years flew by. We watched America being built, torn down and being built again yet still, we slept. We've slept through wars, through depressions and worse. We slept when man landed on the moon. We slept through watching the office of The President, once held by George Washington, a great and honorable man, turned into a farce by men with no honor at all.

We woke briefly on September 11th, 2001 and raged at the injustice but you lulled us back to sleep with promises of victory over our enemies. We grew tired waiting for that victory and fell asleep again.

Not this time.

This time you have awakened a sleeping giant who will not be lulled back to sleep until you return what you have stolen. That which is most dear to us must be returned or you will be made to answer for your transgression by those who elected you.

We are most certainly coming and when we do, you will not be able to withstand us. We will wash over you in a tide, millions strong, and sweep you from office. You will cower at our might, at our resolve and our firm belief that this country belongs to us...


We, The People.