RUSH: A Duke Professor Explains WHAT THE HEALTH CARE BILL ACTUALLY SAYS

www.rushlimbaugh.com ^ | Wednesday, August 12, 2009 | Rush Limbaugh

[Yosemitest]

RUSH: This is a must-read written by an ordinary citizen.

A Duke Professor Explains What the Health Care Bill Actually Says
August 12, 2009

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, what I have here is very long.
I cannot read the entire thing. But there are summaries that I can read.
This is a piece entitled,
"What the Health Care Bill Actually Says,"
and it was put together by John David Lewis.
It is from the website Classical Ideals.
John David Lewis is a professor of classics at Duke University,
and here is how he introduces his analysis:
"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 Commissioner' (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 ... 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."
So, when we talk about how we're going to pay for it,
"How will the government ... pay for all this?"
it's all of the following:
"Higher taxes, more borrowing, printing money, cutting payments, or rationing services
-- there are no other options" to pay for it.
"We will all pay for this, enrolled in the government 'option' or not."
The first question that he wanted to discover here is:
"Will the plan ration medical care?"
Then he cites the relevant passages from the bill
and then evaluates the passages in real language,
not the legalese that he found.
This section, rationing medical care:


"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."
In other words, there's nothing personal about this.
That's why Obama's answer to the woman with the 100-year-old mother,
"Are you gonna take into account the spunk and spirit, the will to live?"
was,
"I don't think we can do that."
It's going to be statistic based.
"5. This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up."


There is no other way to analyze this section of the bill.
"6. There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts."
All this language is in this piece.
The language from the bill is from the piece.
I'm not just going to read that to you.
I'm reading his evaluation, stripping away the legalese, what it all means.
"7. The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission:
page 317-318."
The next question that the classics professor at Duke researched is:
"Will the plan punish Americans who try to opt out?"
and then he gives the relevant portions from the bill as it's written
followed by his evaluation.
Number one... Remember the question here is:
"Will the plan punish Americans who try to opt out?
... 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."

Now, this we know.
We've seen this ourselves.
"3. The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan,"
as written in this bill.
The IRS will be a major enforcer.
The next section that he analyzed:
"What constitutes 'acceptable' coverage?"
Because, in the previous passage the bill said:
"Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax"
So, what is "'acceptable' coverage"?
Here are the relevant passages, sentences from the bill.
"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."


Let me read that again:
"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"
out of their own pockets,
"but carry insurance only for catastrophic events ... illegal."
That is one of the solutions to the problem we have now.
Pay for what you want
-- a standard checkup, a standard visit to the doctor
-- and catastrophic insurance for when that could break your bank.
Doing that will be illegal in the House bill.
In other words, paying for your own routine day-to-day services
but only having insurance for catastrophic events will be illegal.
The next section that our classics professor, an average citizen, was curious about:
"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,"
and then the relevant passages from the bill.
Here is the evaluation of those passages.
Again, what we're talking about here is:
"Will the PLAN destroy private health insurance?"
"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.'"
Now, let me explain this.
Small businesses, say eight-to-ten employees, will either have to provide insurance up "to federal standards."
If they don't, they will pay an ADDITIONAL 8% payroll tax.

"Business costs for health care are higher than [what will be charged], 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.'"
If they go to the government option, they're fine.
If you don't and you stay private, you're going to pay a penalty.
The penalty will make it ridiculous and stupid business-wise to stay with your private plan.
Therefore, you will -- your small business will -- be forced out of private insurance onto the government option.
"3. The pressure for business owners to terminate the private plans will be enormous,"
the financial pressure, the business pressure.
"4. With employers ending plans,
millions of Americans will lose their private coverage,
and fewer companies will offer it."


Now, none of this is anything new.
Everybody showing up at these town halls knows this.
This is nothing that has already been learned when discussing it.
That's why when Obama is saying,
"If you like your plan you can keep it",
it's not true,
because the meat and potatoes of the bill is going to make it impossible.
If your private plan is from an employer,
your employer is going to find it very difficult
to hold onto private insurance and remain competitive with businesses
that opt out and go in the government option.
When Barney Frank or Obama himself says,
"We can't do this immediately.
It's going to take 10 to 15 years,"
this is what they're talking about:
Eventually forcing small businesses and others out of private insurance
because they won't be able to remain competitive with competitors who go the public option.


"5. The Commissioner (meaning, always, the bureaucrats) will determine
whether a particular network of physicians, hospitals and insurance is acceptable"
even if you do stay private.
many people enrolled in the government 'option'
will have no place else to go" if they don't like it.
So all this talk from Obama about adding to competition
is the exact opposite,
which is what everybody who's read this understands
and which is why they know he's lying to them
when he says,
"If you like your plan you can keep it."
Another way to look at that,
"If you like your plan, you can keep it,"
is:
What if everybody decided to do that,
but he says the health care plan, the system we have now is unsustainable.
It's horrible.

Yet if you like your plan you can keep it?
How do those two go together?
The next question that our classics professor at Duke wanted to figure out by reading the bill:
"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,"
and then it has the legalese.
Here's the evaluation of what it says:
"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."
Successful small business owners, will bear the HIGHEST cost of this plan.


"Does THE PLAN ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO set FEES FOR SERVICES?
What it says, page 124,
Sec. 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES,"
and then the legalese of the bill.
The analysis or the evaluation:
"1. The government's authority to set payments is basically unlimited.
2. The official" commissioner, bureaucrats "will decide
what constitutes 'excessive,' 'deficient,' and 'efficient' payments and services.
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,"
then the legalese in the bill.

The evaluation:
"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,"
meaning your medical records, your employment records,
how you're living your life,
what kind of risk that's posing to the health care system.
Next:
"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,"
then the legalese.
Here's the evaluation:
"1. Do nothing and you are in" the government plan.
"2. Employers are responsible for automatically enrolling people who still work.
Does THE PLAN exempt federal OFFICIALS from COURT REVIEW?

"What it says, page 124,
Section 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES,"
then the legalese and the evaluation.
"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."
So the question,
"Does THE PLAN exempt federal officials from court review?"
and parts of the plan do.
This is Mr. Lewis again.
His name is John David Lewis, professor of classics at Duke University.
He's a common, average citizen.
He's not a lawyer, not a doctor.
What this goes to show is,
just about anybody can figure out what's in this bill
if they just take the time to read it.
And a lot of people have,
and the people showing up at these town hall meetings saying "NO,"
already know what this bill says and the elements to it, or of it,
that I just shared with you.

END TRANSCRIPT

Read the Background Material...


Classical Ideals: The Health Care Bill: What HR 3200, 'America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009'- John David Lewis

Sweetness & Light: What The Health Care Bill Actually Says


*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.

[Beloved Levinite]

BTTT

[MeekOneGOP]

ha!

The Paul Shanklin “Recession” is pretty good. :)

“Recession” - by Barack Obama (a Paul Shanklin parody)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F65EYyHhanY

[CedarDave]

Obama’s goons will be knocking on his door and threatening his family, and Duke professors will petition to strip his tenure. Count on it!

[freekitty]

Right.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[patriot08]

.

NEWSFLASH! GOVERNOR RICK PERRY IS SCHEDULED TO BE ON PLAINS RADIO MONDAY, AUGUST 17 FROM 7-8 PM CST TO DISCUSS
OBAMA DEATHCARE AND INVOKING THE 10TH AMENDMENT OVER IT.
PLAINS RADIO:
http://www.plainsradio.com/radio.html

.

ATTENTION FELLOW TEXANS:

Governor Rick Perry may invoke the 10th Amendment over Obama’s health care bill (Vanity)
7/23/09 | Cowtowney
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2299225/posts?q=1&;page=51

Get after Perry, Texans. Burn up his switch board and fax!
Let him know we don’t want Obama DeathCare.

Say no to Obama’s DeathCare.
Send a message; DON’T MESS WITH TEXAS healthcare!
No! NO you don’t, you muzzie pos. You’re not denying our seniors deserved health care while insuring millions of illegal aliens and while Demorats are REJECTING Obamacare for themselves and their families!

Join organizations who fight ObamaCare.

This is a good organization:
The Alliance of Texans Against Government Controlled Healthcare:
http://www.notintexas.org/

office (972) 466-2915
fax (972) 466-2965
toll-free (866) 377-1300

From the website:
We are currently contacting Governor Rick Perry by fax and mail!

We have made it easy for you to help. Click here to display the letter and contact information.
http://www.notintexas.org/Letter_rick_perry.htm

Petition to STOP government controlled healthcare in Texas
Read and sign the petition
http://www.notintexas.org/Letter_to_Reps.htm

Print and sign the letter
(feel free to make changes if you wish)

Fax the letter to the fax numbers

Mail a hard copy to the addresses

Call their offices

Dear Governor Perry,

On March 30, 2009 the Texas House of Representatives passed HCR 50 affirming that the State of Texas claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment.

You have publicly supported this bill, and stated that attorney generals from all over the union could be getting ready to sue the US Government.

We are asking you to take the lead.

We are asking you to order the Texas Attorney General to publicly begin working on a law suit under Article IV, Ninth, and Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.

We are asking you to protect the citizens of Texas that we will not stand for government controlled healthcare in our state.

Under your leadership we can effectively kill the proposal of this administration and allow Texas to be a state free from socialism and collectivism.

Be the voice of reason in the national debate and allow Texans the ability to solve the problems of our state.

Thank you,

(Signature Date)

Lookup your state representatives

FREE FAX SERVICSES:
http://www.gotfreefax.com/
http://faxzero.com/
or google ‘free fax’

Contacting Rick Perry

Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711
Phone: (512) 463-2000
Fax: (512) 463-1849

Washington Office:
122 C St., NW, Ste. 200
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 638-3927
Fax: (202) 628-1943

Contact Budget Planning and Policy

Address:1100 San Jacinto
Austin, Texas 78701
Phone: (512) 463-1778
Fax: (512) 463-1975
Gregory S. Davidson
Constituent Communication Division Director and
Executive Clerk to the Governor
Phone: (512) 463-1873

Office of the General Counsel
Department Mailing Address
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, TX 78711
Phone: 512.463.2000
Fax: 512.463.1932

Press Secretary
Allison Castle, Press Secretary
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711
Phone: (512) 463-1826
Fax: (512) 463-1847

Contact Texas Health Care Policy Council
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711
Phone: (512) 463-1778
Fax: (512) 463-1975

Sign up. Become a member.
Sign petition against Obamacare!
See member interview with Cavuto!

____________________

From Texans Against Government Controlled Health Care

http://www.notintexas.org/

Facts about the 10th Amendment:

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution’s principle of Federalism by providing that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or the people.

The truth about government controlled healthcare:
Government healthcare is failing miserably in Massachusetts
If you think a government run healthcare system can work and be more affordable, read this... http://www.notintexas.org/Front_5.htm

Article from the Washington Examiner 1/11/09:
“Obama’s health policy advisers should take a good look at the smoldering wreckage in the Bay State before trying to impose any such “universal coverage” on the rest of the nation.” Link http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Universal_coverage_First_look_at_the_disaster_in_Massachusetts_011109.html

More interesting reading - Free Market Cure
http://www.freemarketcure.com/

HCR 50 HAS PASSED THE HOUSE 99-36!
Affirming that the State of Texas claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates, and providing that certain federal legislation be prohibited or repealed.

Take Action! Before it is too late!

[AuntB]

BTT

[mel]

bump.

[ForGod'sSake]

Based on the lack of response to your post it doesn't look like even here on FR there are many who want to take a look behind the curtain. In you I have come across one of only a few Freepers who "get it"! The feral government has put programs in place that not only can but WILL bankrupt the country. Fact is, our country is in technical bankruptcy already. The answer as you say when you're doing something that is causing more outgo than income and the prospects for increasing income are slim to none, what is the only choice left - reduce or eliminate the outgo.

As much as I would hate to give the commie in the WH any credit for anything, I would give it to him for taking on the Medicare problem(which is what it boils down to) IF I thought for a minute any of this was his idea. More likely his handlers are behind this and he is a willing accomplice. His/their solution of course is NOT the answer since it adds more UNCONSTITUTIONAL feral government intrusion onto an ALREADY unconstitutional program.

Once again I'm going to abuse my 10th Amendment ping list to get a larger constitutionally minded group involved with their opinions. Sorry for any inconvenience ;^)

[WKUHilltopper]

Haven’t you all figured out this health care crap yet? Look, it’s not about “taking care” of people (not the way you think about it). It’s about control. They don’t give a rats @#@ about “the people”. Otherwise, why would they have a provision in this bill about taxing the living @#$$ out of employers who provide coverage outside the federal health plan. Why would the feds care if you were lucky enough to work for a company that provides superior health care beyond what the Feds offered? Wouldn’t they embrace this? Isn’t this about providing care, taking care of people? Hell no, it’s not!

Don’t you get it yet? It’s about control and dictating how you will live—if you’re permitted.

[Osage Orange]

How about I already read this elsewhere???

And didn't need to REREAD it...here.

[ForGod'sSake]

How about I already read this elsewhere???

So, you've had some time to study the problem of Medicare and less so Social Security and their disastrous effects on our economy? I'd be interested in any thoughts if it's not too much trouble.

[DustyMoment]

NEWSFLASH! GOVERNOR RICK PERRY IS SCHEDULED TO BE ON PLAINS RADIO MONDAY, AUGUST 17 FROM 7-8 PM CST TO DISCUSS OBAMA DEATHCARE AND INVOKING THE 10TH AMENDMENT OVER IT.

Woo HOO!! Go Gov. Goodhair!!

(Unfortunately, I will be out of state on Business, Monday :-( )

[EBH]

I actually sent the transcript viral email to the Patriots on my list.

[TalonDJ]

Based on the lack of response to your post it doesn't look like even here on FR there are many who want to take a look behind the curtain.

I would consider the lack of response as being due to the fact that we all agree and have nothing more to add. The post pretty well covered it.

one of only a few Freepers who "get it"!

I don't know what you are talking about. Darn near all the FReepers I have seen 'get it'. Along with everyone at the teaparties.

As much as I would hate to give the commie in the WH any credit for anything, I would give it to him for taking on the Medicare problem

Look again and save your 'credit'. His goal is not and never has been to 'take on the Medicare problem'. He is deliberately trying to bankrupt it! His whole goal IS to bankrupt the system so it can be replaced but a MORE socialist system. He is going to get more and more people on the various doles until they fall apart. Then in infinite wisdom and compassion the Dems will sweep in to 'fix' things again when the break more. Once again they will blame the problem on the private elements remaining in the system and 'fix' it by removing even more of those. Don't give him credit for anything. They made the problem, and they are making it worse so they can 'get credit' for 'fixing it' again and again.

What they are doing is NOT an accident and it is NOT compassion and it is CERTAINLY NOT taking on tough problems to try and fix them. They thing the private sector IS the problem and removing that is what they are trying to fix. All of these tactics were laid out by socialists half a century ago. Don't fall for them now by giving him ANY credit for ANYTHING.

[ForGod'sSake]

I actually sent the transcript viral email to the Patriots on my list.

Cool! Any thoughts on the underlying problem of the impending train wreck called Medicare in particular?

[abigailsmybaby]

Yes! Yes! Yes!

What I dream of is a congress that would cut our taxes to allow US to purchase (or not) the insurance WE CHOOSE. I don’t even want employers to have to supply employees with insurance.

Not only in the area of healthcare and insurance, but any place else government has stuck its nose where it does not belong.

[ForGod'sSake]

I don't know what you are talking about. Darn near all the FReepers I have seen 'get it'. Along with everyone at the teaparties..

You'll pardon me for disagreeing. If what you say is true, Freepers in particular, being a conservative bunch generally, would be all over the need to scrap Medicare or at least phase it out. I've seen very few willing to even address the problem at all. My sense is there are too many people along for the ride who can't get off before the Medicare train wreck.

And I have no illusions about giving anybody credit, least of all the commie in the WH. You also pretty much made my point that their goal is to take the problem they created back in the 60's with Medicare in particular, and create an even bigger problem with even more feral government intrusion.

[Osage Orange]

You know, most of your post was of a "denigrating my fellow FReeper tone"....

And it continues.....

I've bigger foes to fight against...than you. And you do also.....

I just found it interesting that you reduced yourself to bagging on your fellow FReepers.....when not realizing that just perhaps many,,,( including me...) were already informed about this, and/or listen to Rush......

fwiw-and good luck!

[PhilCollins]

The federal government shouldn’t be involved in healthcare, since that would violate the 10th Amendment. Each state legislature should pass a law that would limit the amount that a person may sue, in malpractice lawsuits. If that happens, health insurance premiums, for patients, would decrease, and malpractice insurance premiums, for doctors, would decrease.