Posted on 09/13/2011 2:35:13 PM PDT by fightin kentuckian
** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. Residents, even if they are here illegally.
** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.
** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations
** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax.
** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.
** Page 272. Section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age.
** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.
** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. \
** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.
What I read made no sense and constantly referred to an office holder who will ultimately determine what the rule will say or referred to another section or regulation.
Can anyone tell me how to find these passages if they do in fact exist.
so... then....? what does that tell you
The bill is available on line as a search able pdf file.
If Obama ain't the Antichrist, then he's definitely the warm-up act for the Antichrist.
Rule of thumb: if it's a chain email, it's beneath crap.
THAT ALONE should scare the bejeezus out of Anyone with a brain!
And, yes, I do believe all those passages do exist... but not the "solutions" cited
I checked out the first four and found....
Page 50 falls under Section 109.
Pages 58-59 don’t mention anything about bank accounts.
Page 65 falls under Section 112.
Page 203 lines 14-15 are about about state licensures.
I didn’t go any farther as it looks like a phony hit piece. The thing is bad enough on its own. There’s no need to try to make look worse with propaganda.
Just FReepmail me your SS# and D.O.B. And I can be of most helpfulness in this endeavor
I think I was looking at the wrong version. After looking again I’m not sure which one is the final version.
I’m Tom Woods, friends call me Barry, and my SSN is 042-68-4425, and unfortunately my ssn is all over the internet if you want to verify. Damn identity theives.I guess I should have listened to Rush got Life Lock. Oh well.
As for my DOB, Aug 4, 1961 but I had some bad luck and that’s all over the internet as well on my Cert. of Live Birth, long form of course.
As mentioned in other comments above, don't use chain emails to make arguments to people you'd like to influence. There are many, many trustworthy conservative pundits and think tanks who off verifiable criticism of Obama's policies.
Emails are fun. But, sometimes, not terribly accurate.
P.S.: Don't forget Snopes.com when you want to verify the truth of an email or story. It's not 100%, of course, but sometimes it's a good starting place. Don't know if this particular email is on there or not, though.
Can you fix that unfortunate mixup at the Nigerian bank for me?
I understand and I’m fully aware that chain mail can be and is extremely inaccurate most of the time. However after reading some of the passages I felt that they could have a basis in fact and written words.
After reading parts of the HCB, because it is so freaking vague, you feel like the optimistic boy who got a pile of horseshit for christmas and started digging in the pile and said, there must be a pony in here somewhere. I’m looking for the email passages thinkng that “pony” is in there somewhere.
Are you saying that because they're loaded to the gills with inaccuracies? So what? As long as they make your point... My friends the Kos Kids and the DUers used that exact strategy against Sarah Palin.
Are you trying to suggest that Conservatives have higher standards than libs? How un-egalitarian of you.
SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.
22 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise explicitly per
23 mitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations con
24 sistent with this Act, all health care and related services
25 (including insurance coverage and public health activities)
1 covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to
2 personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of
3 high quality health care or related services.
4 (b) IMPLEMENTATION.—To implement the require
5 ment set forth in subsection (a), the Secretary of Health
6 and Human Services shall, not later than 18 months after
7 the date of the enactment of this Act, promulgate such
8 regulations as are necessary or appropriate to insure that
9 all health care and related services (including insurance
10 coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act
11 are provided (whether directly or through contractual, li
12 censing, or other arrangements) without regard to per
13 sonal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high
14 quality health care or related services.
Pages 50, lines 21-25, 51 lines 1-14
The above means that citizenship status means NOTHING with regards to getting medical services dictated by the PPACA.
The reason you aren't finding it by keyword searches is because nothing says, "illegal aliens get insurance through this act." Rather, it's said using political language. It's the same as the lightbulb ban. Nothing in that bill says to bad incandescents. That bill says any light source that cannot meet X criteria are banned.
I'll go through the rest of your list, and post what I find. I know I've seen these before in the bill and subsequent HHS regulations but it takes a lot of looking to find it all.
These pages are referring to the ANSI X12N 5010 electronic transactions between providers (doctors, hospitals, etc.) and health insurance companies, and usually the government for Medicare claims. Most large providers already receive electronic claims payment via EFT. This section is saying that small insurers who haven't implemented EFT within the company must do so by two years after the 5010 imp, which will be Jan 1, 2012. So the EFT must be active by Jan 1, 2014 for those insurers.
I have heard that individuals are also subject to EFT if they're in the Exchanges, but I'm not certain on that yet.
Obamacare says:
pg 64 lines 4-10
4 (3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section
5 1179(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d–8(a)) is
6 amended, in the matter before paragraph (1)—
7 (A) by inserting ‘‘on behalf of an indi
8 vidual’’ after ‘‘1978)’’; and
9 (B) by inserting ‘‘on behalf of an indi
10 vidual’’ after ‘‘for a financial institution’’ and
The piece of law indicated is the following from the Social Security Act, with the added text from Obamacare in bold:
PROCESSING PAYMENT TRANSACTIONS BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Sec. 1179. [42 U.S.C. 1320d–8] To the extent that an entity is engaged in activities of a financial institution (as defined in section 1101 of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978) on behalf of an individual, or is engaged in authorizing, processing, clearing, settling, billing, transferring, reconciling, or collecting payments, for a financial institution on behalf of an individual, this part, and any standard adopted under this part, shall not apply to the entity with respect to such activities, including the following:
(1) The use or disclosure of information by the entity for authorizing, processing, clearing, settling, billing, transferring, reconciling or collecting, a payment for, or related to, health plan premiums or health care, where such payment is made by any means, including a credit, debit, or other payment card, an account, check, or electronic funds transfer.
(2) The request for, or the use of disclosure of, information by the entity with respect to a payment described in paragraph (1)—
(A) for transferring receivables;
(B) for auditing;
(C) in connection with—
(i) a customer dispute; or
(ii) an inquiry from, or to, a customer;
(D) in a communication to a customer of the entity regarding the customer’s transactions, payment card, account, check, or electronic funds transfer;
(E) for reporting to consumer reporting agencies; or
(F) for complying with—
(i) a civil or criminal subpoena; or
(ii) a Federal or State law regulating the entity.
So what the heck does this mean? Any lawyers around to help with this?
That email list was compiled from the House draft bill out of Waxman's Energy and Commerce committee--one of the three drafts floating around at the time. I have that one on my hard drive and was going through it without realizing that it was Waxman's bill that didn't leave the House.
In the bill passed via reconciliation in the Senate on Christmas Eve 2009, the following section requires documentation of citizenship to enroll in the Exchanges, sort of . . ..
(b) INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—An applicant for enrollment in a qualified health plan offered through an Exchange in the individual market shall provide— (A) the name, address, and date of birth of each individual who is to be covered by the plan (in this subsection referred to as an ‘‘enrollee’’); and (B) the information required by any of the following paragraphs that is applicable to an enrollee. (2) CITIZENSHIP OR IMMIGRATION STATUS.—The following information shall be provided with respect to every enrollee: (A) In the case of an enrollee whose eligibility is based on an attestation of citizenship of the enrollee, the enrollee’s social security number. (B) In the case of an individual whose eligibility is based on an attestation of the enrollee’s immigration status, the enrollee’s social security number (if applicable)and such identifying information with respect to the enrollee’s immigration status as the Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, determines appropriate.
So DHS and HHS are going to figure out what to do about those without valid SSNs. Not a lot of comfort there but hardly the "thou shalt not discriminate" nonsense in the Waxman bill.
That email was probably predicated on the Waxman bill and it was a legitimate analysis of the Waxman bill. Thankfully the Waxman bill was discarded.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.