why ObamaCare is such a disaster for our healthcare and our economy

Health costs will continue to rise: The independent, non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says health insurance premiums will continue their steady upward climb under the new law, with millions expected to pay about $2,100 a year more because of the new law.

Millions are expected to lose their current coverage: At least 14 million people with employer-provided health insurance are expected to lose their coverage as many small employers terminate their plans, forcing their workers to enroll in taxpayer-subsidized plans. Why? Because many companies will save tens of millions of dollars by paying a $2,000 fine rather than providing expensive, federally-approved health benefits.

Taxes will increase – hitting the middle class: The new law includes more than $500 billion in new taxes, many of which will "generally be passed through to health consumers in the form of higher drug and devices prices and higher premiums," according to the government's own Chief Actuary of Medicare.

Required to purchase health insurance – even if you cannot afford it: Everyone must purchase health insurance approved by the federal government or pay a penalty under the new law. While many will receive subsidies, some will be expected to pay almost 29 percent of their income for health insurance or must pay a fine.

The federal deficit will increase: The minority staff of the Senate Budget Committee estimates that, fully implemented, the new law will cost $2.4 trillion over 10 years, nearly three times the cost projected by the CBO.

Job creation will suffer: The dizzying array of new taxes on businesses and individuals will hurt job creation and the recovery, and the higher health costs will discourage small businesses – the engine of job creation – from hiring.

Medicare cuts will hit seniors: Medicare's Chief Actuary estimates that more than seven million will lose their current Medicare Advantage plans and that the "new provisions will...result in less generous benefit packages." Under the bill, 15 percent of all hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers treating Medicare recipients could be operating at a loss by 2019 and "possibly jeopardize access to care for beneficiaries."

Lawsuit abuse will continue to push health care costs higher: Frivolous lawsuits lead to higher medical malpractice rates, unnecessary tests, and higher health care costs for everyone. Though the CBO estimated that curbing lawsuit abuse would save $54 billion, the health overhaul law fails to address this problem.

Senator Harry Reid Buys a Car

Sen. Reid goes to a local GM dealer in Washington, D.C. with the intention of buying a brand new vehicle. Harry looks around and finds one he likes. After going back and forth with the salesman, Harry settles on a price of $45,000.

Harry and the salesman go back to the office to complete the paperwork. Harry works out a 4-year payment plan, and signs on the bottom line.

The salesman shakes Harry's hand and says, "Thanks Senator Reid, the car will be ready for pickup in 4 years."

Harry says, "What are you talking about? Where are the keys to my new car?"

The salesman replies, "No, you don't understand Senator. You make payments for 4 years... THEN we give you the car. You know, just like your health plan".

Harry, with a choking voice, says to the salesman, "But that's not fair".

DUH!

Congressman: 'I don't worry about the Constitution'

'I believe it says we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'

A Democrat congressman from Illinois says when it comes to the health-care reform plan adopted by Congress and signed into law by President Obama, he just doesn't concern himself with what the Constitution requires. The comment came in a heated exchange recorded recently between Rep. Phil Hare, D-Ill., and constituents. While being pressed on the complications of the "Obamacare" plan, as critics have dubbed it, he was asked, "Where in the Constitution?"

"I don't worry about the Constitution on this to be honest," Hare said. Instead, he said, he worries about peoples' lives: "It's people's lives. It's people's children. It's when you take your child to the hospital and you think it's really bad and your heart is thumping, thumping, thumping while you're waiting for the doctor to tell you what it is and then the doctor comes out and says it's going to be ok, except you don't have insurance and you're stuck with a $10 or $15,000 bill. …"

When the congressman stated he doesn't concern himself with the Constitution, one of the constituents muttered, "Jackpot, brother." "I care more about the people that are dying every day that don't have health insurance," Hare said. "You care more about that than the U.S. Constitution, which you swore to uphold," a constituent challenged. "I believe it says we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," Hare responded.

Another constituent pointed out those words come from the Declaration of Independence. "Doesn't matter to me," Hare stated. "Either one."

The question about the constitutionality of health care was repeated later, specifically challenging where in the document such action is authorized. "I don't know. I don't know," the congressman said. A constituent later called the congressman a liar for claiming he had read the 2,700-page health care plan three times, and the congressman walked out of the meeting, ending it. Commenters on the YouTube page where the video was posted were incensed:

I cannot WAIT to get these Socialists (sic) out of office.

Someone needs to bring a huge bucket o' tar and a couple truckloads of feathers to Capitol Hill, and that right soon.

I am so tired of seeing these hypocrites shedding all these crocodile tears for those "30 million poor uninsured." Give me a break already! They could care less about your health. This is all about control. Once they can force you to buy health insurance, then they can force you to buy anything. The bottom line to this health-control debate can be summed by by asking a very simple question: "If this is such a great and wonderful plan, why did Congress and the president exempt themselves?"

This man is a lawless thug. His oath means nothing that he swore to. He plays on emotion instead of dealing in facts. Typical, he justifies his actions based on emotion instead of rule of law and the Constitution. When you no longer follow the law, there is tyranny, no matter what the justification is. In a commentary at the Dakota Voice, the author suggested, "Isn't it refreshing when liberals actually come out and say what they mean? It's such a rare treat, it deserves to be celebrated when it happens." The author pointed out that while Hare "says he cares more about these mysterious people who are 'dying without health care,'" the facts are that "genuinely poor people have had access to Medicaid and other government health care programs for years, and no one is turned away from emergency room when life-saving treatment is needed … not even illegal aliens." "But again, let's not be too hard on Rep. Hare. This kind of honesty from a socialist Democrat is priceless."

Hoosier fingerprints on the health reform law

SOUTHERN INDIANA — FRANKLIN — When the DNA on the health reforms that President Obama signed into law on Tuesday comes up for historical examination, it will have Hoosier fingerprints all over what is now being hailed as either a critical addition to the social safety net or a national catastrophe.

It began on Tuesday, Jan. 19, when Republican Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts. The Washington Post defined this moment as the low point for President Obama in his quest to remake the American health care system. The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza had reported that U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh considered retiring last year. U.S. Rep. Mike Pence considered a run while producing a poll that showed him leading Bayh by 3 percent. By late January, however, Pence decided to stay in the House. Bayh effectively put up a bulwark that kept Pence out of the race.

On Feb. 2, former Indiana U.S. Sen. Dan Coats announced he would seek to challenge Bayh, a move that many at the time believed would completely change the dynamic of the Senate race.

Later that week, it was Indianapolis-based Wellpoint that became the catalytic factor in reviving the health reforms when it announced a 39-percent rate increase for some California Anthem Blue Cross customers. The fact that Bayh’s wife, Susan, sits on the Wellpoint board pitted the controversial Bayh family finances against the political fate of President Obama, who had spurned him for the ticket last August.

On Monday, Feb. 15 - the day before ballot-qualifying signatures had to be turned in to Indiana’s 92 counties - Bayh abruptly announced his retirement from the Senate. By Friday, Feb. 19, U.S. Rep. Brad Ellsworth set off the chain reaction that Bayh’s retirement thrust into motion, saying he would seek the Senate seat.

The next day during his weekly Saturday radio address, President Obama used the Wellpoint rate hikes as Exhibit A, calling the hikes “jaw dropping.” Simply put, without the ill-timed Wellpoint rate hikes, the health reforms were kaput. Instead, it became the catalytic factor in reviving the legislation.

A month later, with the health reforms coming up for a vote in the U.S. House, U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak announced that there was no way he could support the Senate version of health reforms. On March 4 he told ABC’s Good Morning America that on pages 2,069 through 2,078 “you’ll find language that will directly subsidize abortion.” Stupak said he had 11 other Democrats in his group - presumably including Hoosier U.S. Reps. Ellsworth, Baron Hill and Joe Donnelly.

For Ellsworth, who helped Stupak negotiate House language last November that led to both supporting that version, the stakes were higher. He was now seeking the Senate seat. A no vote on the health reforms would be damaging to the Democratic base he needed to be competitive.

Between March 4 and 16, Ellsworth was mute. The campaign wasn’t returning calls. He finally put out a statement on that day saying, “I am looking carefully at the current language of the bill to ensure it meets my pro-life principles, and I will continue to work to ensure pro-life concerns are addressed.”

The next day - St. Patrick’s Day - I circulated among the various parties in Indianapolis and got an earful from a number of key Democrats who believed that Ellsworth would likely vote against the reforms. Several said they believed Ellsworth lacked the statewide acumen, kitchen cabinet and staff to run a viable campaign. When I wrote about the concerns, Ellsworth’s staff responded by leaving me a voice mail that my analysis was a “low blow.”

It was at this point that movement began. On March 17, U.S. Rep. Baron Hill put out a list of “myths” that included “language that permitted federally funded abortions. The next day he applauded the Congressional Budget Office estimate. With those two press releases, Hill appeared to be a likely yes vote.

Donnelly, however, appeared to be setting the stage to vote no. He told the Rochester Sentinel on March 9 that there was a “fatal flaw” in the Senate version due to the abortion language. It appeared that the abortion concerns in the Senate bill would set up a classic case of brinksmanship over the final weekend.

But by late Friday afternoon, before Stupak cut a deal with the White House, Ellsworth announced his decision. “I am confident in my heart that this bill meets my pro-life principles and upholds the policy of no federal funding for elective abortions,” Ellsworth said. Hill announced his support the next day as other Stupak Democrats peeled away.

It wasn’t until late Sunday afternoon, after Obama agreed to write an executive order, that Stupak and Donnelly became the last six Democrats to support a bill that would pass 219-212. Donnelly explained, “Today the president will sign an executive order that increases the protections in this bill to make sure that the Hyde Amendment, our current law, is upheld throughout the entire health insurance reform bill.”

We’re Entitled

For those of you that support the current health care reform and think of it as being cost effective (even free), encompassing everyone and better… …I give you the following scenario. Please note the similarities to the health care bill.

Right around 30 years ago we moved into our current neighborhood. It’s a great basically middle class neighborhood. One head of the family was disabled so we helped them out. After the American Disability Act was passed and it’s enormous cost we learned quickly not to ever refer to him as disabled. He has pride.

Anyhow in the fall some 20 years ago a new neighbor moved in. That spring as the grass grew I received a knock on the door from him. He asked me if I would mow his lawn. Surprised but genial I said yes. So I mowed it. One time. Lo and behold as the grass grew he repeated his request. He indicated he didn’t have a lawnmower and was a man of limited means and income. So I agreed…for $5 each time. He objected but finally agreed. Besides he was entitled to it I guess.

The following summer I told him he could buy a mower on time for $5/month. It would be cheaper but he said he’d miss his favorite TV programs and time at the American Legion. That bothered me so I tactfully reminded him of the lesson in 2 Thessalonians 2:3:6-15 clearly stating the value of work and not being a burden on someone else. Then I told him of a professional lawn service who would do it and gave him a name. He was furious. He told me the owner was a multi millionaire and they charged $6 each time. Finally he told me he was going to contact his congressman. He wanted it “free.”

That’s when the fun began.

Congressmen jumped at the opportunity to get the vote of poor people and the lazy people. They passed the MoGro bill and made it an entitlement. Basically it was to take care of lawns for those who didn’t want private companies. To fund it they initially just added a tax to fertilizer, feed and lawn care companies along with a tax on those that did lawn services. The poor old man down the road on a limited income with a beautiful lawn could hardly afford to keep his lawn up. Finally he just gave up and let it grow. Additionally the owner of the lawn service told me his fees had to increase. Then they took so much more money that Roosevelt allowed all SS funds to go directly to the government.

The MoGro bill created by people with no business experience created a new agency with multiple layers. They purchased powered push mowers for $3,000, a bag of fertilizer for $400 along with other grossly overpaid items. When I first saw the government service come out you might say I suffered from shock and awe. A big 18 wheeler came out, 6 government workers jumped out 2 unionized gear handlers unloaded the equipment and a supervisor arrived in his government issued Escalade. In a few years my back went out and what with the high prices for lawn care items thanks mainly to MoGro I called the private contractor to mow my lawn. His charge was now $60. Shocked I asked why. He told me what started out simple now required him to not only cut the grass but to trim it, trim bushes, clear gutters, cut north to south, grass should be no higher than 1 ¼ inches, must be cut on a Monday, must be cut between 1 PM and 4 PM and water the lawn on Tuesday and Wednesday. So I signed up for MoGro and called him asking him to take care of my lawn. He indicated he couldn’t because the reimbursement rate of $1.47 would entail him losing money or…raising his prices for those that could pay…and require him to layoff more employees. Private tax paying jobs…not jobs funded totally by our taxes.

I of course objected as I was entitled and he told me to…take it up with the Chaplin.

With entitlements now being the single largest budget item (53%) in the federal budget and must be funded by law…an entitlement whose hidden costs far exceed what a private, efficient company would charge regardless of what the CEO and officers make…one would hope that Obama and the congress would reject Health Reform. We’re entitled to it. We’re entitled to professional service and a reduced cost compared to the government. We’re entitled to not have more doctors and hospitals deny coverage due to low reimbursement rates. We’re entitled not to burden our young to purchase something they can ill afford. We’re entitled to not have Washington raid our social security funds. We’re entitled to not have Washington make our states grapple with the vast increase in costs this bill will incur. We’re entitled in Gods name not to burden the poor (and all of us) with all those hidden costs. If not…we’re entitled to vote you out.

John Krueger is a former Clarksville councilman and can be reached at MeredithSpecial@aol.com.

Latest White House Health Care Proposal: A Summary

On February 22, 2010, the President released a summary of his latest health care proposal in advance of the "bipartisan" health care summit later in the week, where Democrats will attempt to rekindle momentum for their government takeover of healthcare. The President's 11-page proposal melds elements of the House and Senate-passed health care bills along with new provisions. However, the White House has not revealed legislative text and no CBO score is yet available. Highlights of the proposal are as follows:

Cadillac Plans: The White House proposal would tax high-cost private health plans known commonly as "cadillac plans." The proposal would increase the taxable threshold above the Senate level, from $8,500 to $10,200 for an individual and from $23,000 to $27,500 for a family. This excise tax would break two central Obama campaign promises-not to raise taxes on those with incomes under $250,000, and not to tax employer-provided health insurance policies. It would also delay the implementation of the new tax from 2013 under the Senate bill until 2018. According to the President's proposal, the tax would be lowered for individuals in "high risk occupations." The plan does not specifically say how labor unions-which were exempted from the tax under a deal made with the President months ago-would be treated. However, according to Congress Daily, White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer "indicated a deal with unions to exempt collectively bargained plans is still in place."

Job Killing Taxes: The President's proposal nearly triples the employer mandate tax from what passed the Senate, increasing the tax from $750 per employee obtaining subsidized coverage via the Exchange, to $2,000 per employee. The President increases the Medicare payroll tax to include non-wage income like dividends, interest and capital gains, imposing a new 2.9% tax on this income. This tax is levied on business income that are economic drivers and job creation engines, and the results may be to force firms to cut costs, stop hiring, or even lay off employees. Both taxes would reduce wages over time for current employees and make job creation more difficult.

Spending: According to the White House, the proposal would cost approximately $950 billion over the next decade. Compared to the House-passed bill, which spent $1.3 trillion, and the Senate bill which spent $871 billion, the President's newest health care takeover is far from a "bipartisan" compromise. The President ignores policies in the Republican health care alternative that could lower the deficit and bring down the cost of premiums by up to 10 percent. It should also be noted that CBO released a letter stating that they "cannot provide a cost estimate for the [President's] proposal without additional detail."

Affordability Subsidies: The President's plan provides billions in tax credits and cost sharing subsidies in order for the federal government to pay for a portion of the cost of health care insurances, which it mandates the purchase of. The federal subsidies in the President's plan would cover between 73 percent and 94 percent of health insurance costs for individuals and families with incomes between $29,000 and $88,000.

Health Insurance Rate Authority: The proposal would create a new Health Insurance Rate Authority to allow the government to set price controls when it is determined that insurance premium increases are "unreasonable." Private insurance providers would be required to submit any proposed increase in premiums to the government and could then be forced by the government to lower their rates or provide some sort of rebate. The Authority would "monitor insurance market behavior" and determine how prices will be reviewed and controlled by the government. Of course, like any price control, this proposal would lead to a shortage of private health care insurance options, meaning more individuals would have to rely on the government exchange.

Abortion Coverage: The House-passed bill would not allow federal funds to flow to private insurance plans that cover elective abortion, nor fund elective abortion in the proposed new government administered exchanges. However, provisions in the Senate bill would undermine both protections inserted into the House bill-the Senate measure would permit funds to flow to private plans that cover elective abortion, and create new national health plans administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that would cover elective abortions. The President's proposal capitulates to the Senate bill, and does not include the House protection of the unborn.

What part of 'Party of No' don't you understand?

by Ann Coulter

Inasmuch as Obamacare has a snowball's chance in hell of passing (but did you see how much snow they got in hell last week?), everyone is wondering what President Obama is up to by calling Republicans to a televised Reykjavik summit this week to discuss socializing health care.

At least they served beer at the last White House summit this stupid and pointless.

If the president is serious about passing nationalized health care, he ought to be meeting with the Democrats, not the Republicans.

Republicans can't stop the Democrats from socializing health care: They are a tiny minority party in both the House and the Senate. (Note to America: You might want to keep this in mind next time you go to the polls.)

As the Democratic base has been hysterically pointing out, both the House and the Senate have already passed national health care bills. Either body could vote for the other's bill, and – presto! – Obama would have a national health-care bill, replete with death panels, abortion coverage and lots and lots of new government commissions!

Sadly, as the president's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, has noted, the Democratic base is "@#$%^ retarded."

The reason massive Democratic majorities in Congress aren't enough to pass socialist health care is AMERICANS DON'T WANT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!

In fact, you might say that the nation is in a boiling cauldron of rage against it. Consequently, a lot of Democrats are suddenly having second thoughts about vast new government commissions regulating every aspect of Americans' medical care.

Obama isn't stupid – he's not seriously trying to get a health-care bill passed. The whole purpose of this public "summit" with the minority party is to muddy up the Republicans before the November elections. You know, the elections Democrats are going to lose because of this whole health-care thing.

Right now, Americans are hopping mad, swinging a stick and hoping to hit anyone who so much as thinks about nationalizing health care.

If they could, Americans would cut the power to the Capitol, throw everyone out and try to deport them. (Whereas I say: Anyone in Washington, D.C., who can produce an original copy of a valid U.S. birth certificate should be allowed to stay.)

But the Democrats think it's a good strategy to call the Republicans "The Party of No." When it comes to Obamacare, Americans don't want a party of "No," they want a party of "Hell, No!" or, as Rahm Emanuel might say, "*&^%$#@ No!"

It's as if the patient has a minor fever and the Democrats (as doctor in this example) want to cut off his arms and legs. The Republicans want to give the patient two aspirin. "Compromise" means the Republicans agree to amputate only one arm and one leg.

Complaining that Republicans are "obstructionists" is not a damaging charge when most Americans are dying to obstruct the Democrats with a 2-by-4. While you're at it, Democrats, why not call the GOP the "Party of Brave Patriots"?

So Obama's sole objective at the "summit" is to hoodwink Republicans into agreeing with some of his wildly unpopular ideas on national TV. If this were a reality show on NBC, it would be called, "Dateline: To Catch a RINO."

This shouldn't be hard, inasmuch as he will be talking to elected Republicans. About a third of them were enthusiastically engaging in "bipartisanship" on Obamacare last year – Chuck Grassley, you know who you are! (That's better than Lindsey Graham, who still wants to compromise.)

And then the American people spoke up.

In town halls and tea parties across the nation, Obama lost the argument with Americans. So now he wants a debating partner who will be less challenging: elected Republicans.

If Republicans were smart, they'd shock the world by sending in one of their most appealing members of Congress, who can speak clearly on health care – Sen. Jon Kyl, Rep. Steve King or Rep. Ron Paul.

Actually, if the Republicans were really smart, they'd send in 14-year-old Jonathan Krohn, who understands the free market better than most people in Washington. Of course, so does my houseplant.

There are other important points Republicans cannot raise often enough – such as putting scuzzy medical malpractice lawyers like John Edwards out of business. OK, that wasn't fair: Even trial lawyers are almost never as scuzzy as John Edwards. We want to put them all out of business.

But there's really only one idea the Republicans must cling to – like they're clinging to their guns and religion! – in order to resist agreeing to something moronic and losing their advantage as Americans' only allies in Washington.

Please, Republicans, remember the free market – the same free market that gave us cheap cell phones, computers, flat-screen TVs, and stylish, affordable eyeglasses in about an hour.

Congress needs to outlaw state and federal mandates on insurance companies and allow interstate competition in health insurance.

The end.

Love, the American People.

As your constituent, a voter and taxpayer, I want you to know that I strongly oppose government-run health care. A government-run health care system will measurably harm the interests of my family and me.

The recent election of Scott Brown to the Senate demonstrates just how unpopular government-run health care really is.

I reject government-run health care for the same reasons Bay State voters rejected Martha Coakley. I believe government-run health care will:

Decrease the quality of my health care. Under government-run health care, Ill see my doctor for less time, receive less preventative medicine and spend more time waiting for important medical procedures.

Marginalize the health care of seniors. Under government-run health care, the greatest generation will be treated the worst in the health system.

Limit my access to health care. Under government-run health care, lines will be longer, waiting will increase and doctor-time will decrease. Additionally, mandated insurance will force me to purchase coverage I dont want and deprive me of coverage I need.

Increase cost. Under government-run health care, costs will balloon beyond recognition. When the government picks up the tab for health care, neither doctors nor patients have any incentive to reduce cost or limit use. As a result, the United States will be forced to either increase taxes on middle-class Americans or increase debt to creditor nations.

Please know as you prepare to reconcile your bill with the House bill, the above is unacceptable to me and that I will be paying close attention. It will likely determine how I vote in November.

The re-election of the House and one-third of the Senate is less than 300 days away. You should know that Im counting the days when I get to vote and Ill be paying close attention to how you and your congressional colleagues vote on health care in the coming weeks.

Charlie Schladand, Jeffersonville

RINKER: Misconceptions about health care and capitalism

By BETTY RINKER
Local Guest Columnist

A sadly misinformed gentleman recently wrote a letter bashing health insurance companies and capitalism in general.

I have dealt with various insurance companies for many years and they do not decide what doctor you use or what medication you take. Even health maintenance organizations allow you to choose your doctor from a list of those that accept that plan much like Medicare, which some doctors do not accept. Many HMOs allow you to go to any doctor, they just pay a lesser amount for doctors or drugs not on their list.

Most regular insurance plans allow you to choose your own doctor limited only to those available in your area. The key word is choice. This is something the single-payer system does not give you, though some people have been led to believe it is the cure for all problems.

The single-payer system, run by the government, is the beginning of all problems ask anyone who has lived with it. The government decides what bills it will pay and how much, there is no alternative.

The government decides how much your life is worth; in Britain it is $35,000, any operation or procedure over this will not be paid.

There are problems and inequities with the present system, but there are more problems and inequities with many of the ridiculous proposals that we know about from the 2,000-plus page bills that were made public and others that are being discussed behind closed doors. And none of those proposed changes insure everyone.

At least at present, no one is refused treatment at any government-supported hospital or clinic, regardless of ability to pay. This includes local, state or county government as well as federal so the myth that people are dying, because they dont have health care is just that, a myth, and a scare tactic used by people with an agenda.

Almost everyone, at some time or other, has been without health insurance. This could be handled much easier than the mess they are proposing.

Adding thousands more people into an already overwhelmed Medicare system is not the answer. I do not believe the empty promises of bureaucrats, who tell us that not one penny will be cut from Medicare. The president himself has said that Medicare funding will not last more than 10 years with those currently covered. How can you pay out even the limited amount they do at present, and add many thousands more people?

There are only two ways limit coverage or raise taxes on everyone. For those not familiar with Medicare, it is not free. It pays a small percentage of doctor and hospital bills. Everyone on Medicare has to buy a medical supplement, plus a prescription drug supplement.

They now propose doing away with Medicare Advantage Insurance. These plans give the money deducted every month from seniors Social Security checks to an insurance company to cover both medical and drugs. There is little or no extra charge to the insured. Doing away with Medicare Advantage plans will force people into Medicaid, which also is running out of funding.

Of course, insurance companies need to make a profit and there are certain restrictions, such as elective or cosmetic surgery. Believe me, the government will not insure these either.

And yes, the government does want to make decisions for us that should be ours and ours alone not at the whim of some government.

Insurance companies make mistakes so does the government. The government does not have to make a profit, because it is using our money. I dont hear any of the bureaucrats offering to cut their salaries and benefits.

Democracy and capitalism are not the same, but you can only have democracy where capitalism is allowed to flourish. Former communist countries have learned this the hard way. It is not enough for people to have good intentions; we all know where that road leads.

You dont see people breaking down the doors and fleeing to communist countries and dictatorships, because they have too much freedom and opportunity here. Why would we want to change this country into one from which most people are trying to escape?

Those people who think this is such a terrible country ought to try living in what the consider to be the ideal society. For generations, people have come here for that freedom and opportunity the opportunity to take care of themselves not to have government take care of them.

Betty Rinker is a Clarksville resident.

Healthcare option is just that, an option

This time I got more than halfway through a letter from Dave Matthews before almost choking on my coffee. I admired his even-handed discussion of Constitution issues in his letter printed Jan. 20, until he spoiled it with this sentence: "And if you think your medication is rationed now, just wait until government gets to decide what you take."

How ironic that Mr. Matthews accuses others of the tactics of lies and deceit. It's preposterous to claim that fixing our sorely broken healthcare system amounts to government rationing. Even if a public option is what Mr. Matthews is so scared of, and admittedly it has received a lot of bad press, allow me to break down this scary phrase into simple words. Public means that everyone will have access to some form of health coverage, even those who don't have an employer-sponsored plan. "Option" is related to the word "optional," which means not mandatory, not forced. The option would be in addition to existing private insurance plans, under which people will continue to choose the level of coverage that is right for their families. Sure, there is no guarantee that the coverage we may desire will be affordable but if you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait a few years under the current (unreformed) system and see how you like it.

Fixing a broken system is not the same as communism, monarchy, or whatever other distractions Mr. Matthews is tossing out there. Perhaps Mr. Matthews would prefer to have no insurance (home, vehicle, life) at all, but I'm not willing to take that risk.

Sam Johnson, New Albany

An eleventh hour backroom deal in the U.S. Senate is sending shock waves through Americas construction industry, and could cost thousands of jobs.

The Senate health care reform bill passed last month exempts small businesses with fewer than 50 employees from government imposed mandates requiring that employers provide health insurance to workers or face a hefty penalty.

But, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) managed to slip five paragraphs into the legislation that would require construction contractors with at least five full-time employees and more than $250,000 in annual payroll to provide workers with health insurance benefits. If they didn't, and if any of their employees received federally subsidized health insurance coverage, contractors would have to pay a penalty of $750 for each full-time worker.

Merkleys provision was never offered as an amendment to the health care legislation so that senators had an opportunity to debate the measure. He must have known that once senators read the language they would realize that it unfairly targets small business employers in the construction industry and would ultimately result in more job loss.

During these difficult economic times, having a new federal government mandate on construction contractors is not the answer to getting people back to work. With construction in this country nearly at a standstill and the industry unemployment rate at 22.7 percent more than twice the national average contractors are struggling to stay in business. The health care mandate would only add to their misery.

Billy Parson, Associated Builders and Contractors
Kentuckiana Chapter, Louisville

Dear Mr. President:

During my shift in the Emergency Room last night, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient whose smile revealed an expensive shiny gold tooth, whose body was adorned with a wide assortment of elaborate and costly tattoos, who wore a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and who chatted on a new cellular telephone equipped with a popular R&B ringtone.

While glancing over her patient chart, I happened to notice that her payer status was listed as "Medicaid"! During my examination of her, the patient informed me that she smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and somehow still has money to buy pretzels and beer..

And, you and our Congress expect me to pay for this woman's health care? I contend that our nation's "health care crisis" is not the result of a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. Rather, it is the result of a "crisis of culture", a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on luxuries and vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. It is a culture based in the irresponsible credo that "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me".

Once you fix this "culture crisis" that rewards irresponsibility and dependency, you'll be amazed at how quickly our nation's health care difficulties will disappear.

Respectfully,
STARNER JONES, MD

Thank you for contacting me about H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this very important issue.

On November 7, 2009, I voted in favor of H.R. 3962. This bill is the compilation of the three health care reform bills considered in the House Energy and Commerce, Education and Labor, and Ways and Means Committees.

The bill is quite lengthy - 1,990 pages in fact. However, large portions of this bill were adopted directly from the health care reform bill passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, on which I serve. Although very knowledgeable about the Energy and Commerce bill, I reviewed this new version and the manager's amendment, line-by-line. Likewise, I read through the comments and concerns my office received from constituents before reaching a final decision on the bill.

How to responsibly reform our nation's health care system has been debated for more than 60 years. The considerable strain our health care system places on many Hoosier families, and the U.S. economy, has attracted more attention recently as health care premiums have risen four times faster than wages, and more than 60 percent of bankruptcies in this nation are due to insurmountable medical bills. Doing nothing at this point is not an option. Costs will continue to rise, and more and more Americans will go without coverage and necessary care. That said, we must ensure we are addressing this issue in the right way, and I believe this bill works toward that goal.

H.R. 3962 will allow those Hoosiers who work so hard every day but cannot afford health insurance for their families to secure it. Southern Indiana is currently home to 52,000 uninsured residents - a number that will significantly decrease under this bill.

H.R. 3962 will allow those Southern Indiana small business owners who tell me daily they want to provide coverage for their employees and cannot afford to, or who currently provide coverage but cannot sustain the rate at which the premiums are so rapidly increasing, to secure it. In fact, the bill will allow 16,100 small businesses in Southern Indiana to obtain affordable health care coverage for their employees, and will provide tax credits to 14,600 of our small business to help reduce health insurance costs for a similarly significant number.

H.R. 3962 will allow the 10,900 Ninth District residents who have pre-existing medical conditions to not only secure health coverage, but feel reassured by how the bill caps annual out-of-pocket costs at $5,000 for singles and $10,000 for families and eliminates lifetime limits on insurance coverage.

This bill also falls in line with my fiscally-conservative beliefs. Not only has the Congressional Budget Office scored this bill as deficit neutral, but their analysis finds that it will actually reduce the deficit. This nonpartisan organization reports that the bill will reduce the deficit by $109 billion between 2010 and 2019, and will also likely reduce deficits in the decade following 2019 by up to one-quarter of one percent of Gross Domestic Product.

I was happy to see that my lingering concerns about the bill were addressed. An amendment authored in part by my Hoosier colleague prohibits any federal funding for abortion. This amendment has been recognized by many organizations as ensuring that your tax dollars will not go to pay for elective abortions. And, language prohibiting illegal immigrants from receiving government benefits under the bill was strengthened.

I would like to thank the fine people of Southern Indiana for contacting my office with their comments, questions and concerns. As I've mentioned over the past few months, I compiled a lengthy list of legislative suggestions during the August District Work Period, and added to that in the interim weeks before this vote. I would also like to thank them for allowing me to represent them in Congress during this historic vote.

Thank you again for contacting me about health care reform. This legislation is still a work in progress, and as such, I would encourage you to contact my office with any additional concerns or comments. If you would like to receive periodic email updates on my congressional activities, please visit http://baronhill.house.gov.

Baron Hill, Congressman

Dave,

Hope you found this interesting, Baron did not mention anything about our immediate costs, and that part about annual out of pocket caps of $5,000/$10,000, how many people even make $10,000 per year. We are screwed!!!!!!!!

Sherri

Article from the "Investor's Business Daily." It provides some very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71
England 14
Canada 18

Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":
U.S. 12%
England 2%
Canada 6%

I don't know about you, but I don't want "Universal Healthcare" comparable to England or Canada. Moreover, it was Sen. Harry Reid who said: "Elderly Americans must learn to accept the inconveniences of old age."

House Resolution 3962

Common-Sense Health Care Reforms our nation can afford
Click here to read the GOP Health Care Option

When it comes to Evan Bayhs vote on healthcare reform, you have to yell, Where in the hell is the bacon?

Landrieu sold her vote for $300 million for Louisiana. Nelson got free Medicare for Nebraskans in perpetuity. Dodd got $100 million for Connecticut. And Sanders, the socialist, sold his vote for a whopping $10 billion for Vermont. Evan got nothing for Indiana for his vote.

Since corruption is in the halls of Congress where senators and representatives sell their vote to the highest bidder, Evan has shown himself to be the most incompetent senator in the history of Indiana not one dime for Indiana for his vote. Either that or he is a true believer in socialism, voting his conscience regardless of the wishes of his constituents. Incompetent? Socialist?

Either way, he is not worthy of re-election.

And he voted for the bill without ever having read it. Maybe he is an incompetent socialist. Go figure.

Terry L. Smith, Columbia City

CURRAN: Let it be resolved

A resolution is a statement of intent or firm decision an individual or body makes. It implies a promise of resolve the strength, courage and integrity to see the commitment through.

As many of us consider resolutions for the next year, its fair to ponder resolutions for our political leaders, too. No where is resolve more lacking or misdirected at the end of 2009 than among Democrats in Congress and the White House.

The mish-mash of pay-offs and compromises thats emerging as the likely final legislative product of a year of debate and discussion surrounding health care reform is a big fat New Years Baby only its single-focused congressional mothers could love. Conservatives and libertarians have opposed to the type of reform Democrats have been discussing from the start. Greens, socialists and Kucinich style liberals want a single-payer, universal system, and consider a public option a minimum requirement for reform.

Theres a range within the Democratic Party that covers most of these groups, as well as individuals who claim strong loyalty to issues such as careful spending and reproductive rights. The public option is dead, and neither pro-choice nor pro-life factions will possibly get all they want in the final product. One of the last incarnations of the bill was deemed deficit-neutral, yet that neutrality is achieved by raising taxes, and theres no guarantee last-minute tinkering as Senate and House bills are merged wont raise costs.

Yet, it appears when it comes to finding the resolve to pass a bill, any bill, one could hardly find a better example of party unity. Instead of resolving to make meaningful changes to the way government interacts with the health care industry that would truly increase access and lower cost without doing harm, it appears all Democrats at the national level were really looking for was an opportunity to hang their own Mission Accomplished banner.

They couldve actually listened to their constituents at those town hall meetings and represented their interests. They couldve tuned out lobbyists and listened to their colleagues from the other party who did offer ideas, contrary to Democratic criticism. Instead, they cobbled together endless pages of sad compromises, outright bribes and industry Christmas gifts into a behemoth bill no one likes and few understand.

At least the president got a health-care bill through the Senate. But what problem does it solve [Obamas word]? Not that of the uninsured, 23 million of whom will remain in 2019. Not that of rising health-care spending. This will rise faster over the next decade, said conservative commentator George Will in a Washington Post column.

Will goes on to describe the emotional whiplash Democratic Senators such as Nebraskas Ben Nelson and Indianas Evan Bayh should be suffering as they support a bill which includes key financing pieces each opposed. However, Nelsons change of heart is easy to understand, as Nebraska will be the only state receiving special exemptions from new Medicaid mandates, the cost of his resolve on funding and abortion issues.

If I were a senator, I would not vote for the current health-care bill. Any measure that expands private insurers monopoly over health care and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real health-care reform, said Howard Dean, former Vermont governor and Democratic National Committee Chairman. Democrats not filling re-election war chests arent as enamored of the corporate welfare this bill represents as those in Congress who accept lobbyists assistance in writing legislation.

Perhaps anyone who believed real reform was the intent shouldve took White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanual at his word earlier this year as he confirmed, the only thing that is not negotiable is success.

At least they have their priorities straight. Who needs a good bill when you have a tick mark in the win column?

So far, our local Democratic representatives to Washington, D.C., have towed the party line, though Bayh has at least been a moderating presence when it comes to costs. His was a vote that wouldve likely been lost had a deficit-neutral analysis hadnt been won.

Representative Baron Hills performance on the issue has been shameful, though seemingly resolute. Theres no indication Hill seriously considered doing other than party leaders such as Californias Nancy Pelosi would have him do. After reluctantly going through the motions of soliciting his constituents views labeling them political terrorists and being needlessly rude to participants Hill simply did as he was told.

Weve recently learned Hill has resolved to run for re-election, and is considering a run for governor in 2012. Assuming Hill does run for governor, he must not be particularly resolved in representing his constituents at the national level if re-elected to Congress as most of his two-year term would be consumed with the gubernatorial campaign.

Given this information as well as Hills performance during the health care debate, area voters would be prudent to adopt a political resolution: Anyone but Hill in 2010.

We mustnt look to Democratic leaders as examples for the type of resolve needed. If we resolve to oust Hill in the same manner national Democrats resolved to take on the insurance industry, health care lobby and out-of-control health care costs, well end up re-electing him, throwing him a parade and insisting he vote himself a raise while patting ourselves on the back.

Jeffersonville resident Kelley Curran wonders if the big, fat New Years baby will spit up on Democrats when it sees the result of health care reform.

An open letter to Senator Bayh

By Thomas W. Sinex

Sen. Evan Bayh, I have long admired your adherence to sound fiscal policies, often opposing others prominently placed in your party as well as that of the opposition.

I would hope that your habitually responsible and realistic attitude toward fiscal matters will guide your decisions regarding the health reform legislation (the bill) which Sen. Reid has crafted well away from the light of day.

You and I both know that the removal of that portion of the bill that deals with Medicare payments to doctors and other providers that otherwise would be the subject of annual reductions over the next 10 years to a separate bill, removing a total of some $210 billion per the Congressional Budget Office from the cost of the Bill, is an embarrassing sham.

This is a transparent scheme intended to support the claim that this money would not be committed, spent and added to the deficit. Whether the money comes out under one bill or two bills or a devious multitude of bills, the result is the same and the total amount expended will be added to the deficit.

You and I both know that the bills dishonest treatment of this same issue, pretending that the Medicare payments to providers would be cut 25 percent after the first year and thereafter, even though Congress has always revoked such a reduction on a year-by-year basis each time it has arisen, is likewise a sham foisted upon the public. It is a dishonest claim of a reduction in expenses that never would arise. An honest acknowledgment that such reductions would never occur would have altered dramatically the CBO estimate based solely upon the unrealistic provisions submitted to it by Sen. Reid.

You and I both know that advance estimates of the costs of government programs are almost always huge understatements of the actual costs. Except for the prescription drug plan, Part D of Medicare, where private enterprise competition has served to keep costs well below those originally estimated, the actual costs of government-administered entitlement programs have always exceeded the original estimates by astonishing multiples. When Medicaid was enacted in the mid-60s, for example, its first-year cost was estimated to be $238 million. That first year, in fact, cost an entire $1 billion, with a capital B, and Medicaids annual cost is now a staggering $251 billion. In addition to this unsupportable expense, the annual expense of Medicare has increased by an astronomical 1352 percent since 1980.

You and I both know that the bill is designed to begin raising revenue in its first year, in this time of severe economic recession and stagnation, by immediately imposing significant additional taxes upon families, individuals and businesses. It is intentionally designed to not take effect otherwise, however, until its fifth year, in limited fashion, and then to ramp up its operations and its associated expenses gradually over the next three years.

As a result, the CBO has estimated the net expenses of the bills first 10 years, involving a full 10 years of additional tax revenue to the government, but only two years of full operations and the attendant expenses and only three years of limited operations and the attendant expenses. This is a shell game, a chicanery which any legislator should be embarrassed to accept at face value.

You and I both recall that earlier in this process the media invariably identified you as one of those moderate senators who would closely examine the fiscal and economic consequences of any health reform bill and proposed amendments and would likely vote against any bill that appeared to be fiscally untenable.

To my knowledge, your name is no longer mentioned among those moderate Democrats who might withhold their support for the bill now before the Senate. Have you been overlooked? Or do the media possess some inside knowledge unknown to your constituents? Do you really consider this Bill in its present form to be fiscally tenable?

I would appreciate knowing your present opinion, because to me and to many other Hoosiers this bill appears to be tantamount to an act of national fiscal suicide. You and I both hope to leave to our grandchildren and beyond a better country and a higher standard of living than we ourselves have enjoyed. To the extent that we sit back and allow these gargantuan social experiments to be launched under our watch, we are betraying our descendants and failing in our stewardship of the wonderful country and unprecedented standard of living bequeathed to us by those who have gone before.

By composing and sending this and similar letters, I am attempting to do my part to preserve our patrimony for our descendants. By your careful and realistic evaluation of the bill, I am hoping you will do no less.

Thomas W. Sinex is a Sellersburg resident.

Mr. Sinex seems to be very concerned that he may be forced to give up his Cadillac health insurance plan and be left with Medicare. I understand that he may have to pay for his gym or spa membership, but I feel that this is a small sacrifice to make in exchange for the millions who will be able to see a doctor when they are sick.

I am a Medicare recipient, and I am happy with Medicare. What has happened to our nation?

I remember a time when people wanted to help each other. Forty years ago on Thanksgiving Day in Louisville, a 9-year-old boy died of starvation. The majority of the city united to make sure that this didnt happen again. The result was Dare to Care, and Dare to Care is still feeding the hungry in Louisville and the surrounding counties. We no longer have a problem with starvation in this community.

Today, we have 45,000 people dying every year because of a lack of health care. The majority of the people want this to stop, but the loudest voices are those whose only concern is for themselves.

I read nothing from Mr. Sinex about the millions who have no health insurance. Mr. Sinex seemed to be worried about his own and his friends Cadillac health care plans. I pray that 40 years from now, people will hear about a time when people were dying from not having health care, and they will shed tears for a society that cared so little for each other.

What happened to those of us who were alive in 1969?

In 1969, we worked hard to stop starvation in our community. Why are we not working just as hard to eliminate the deaths occurring as the result of not having health care? Why are our children and grandchildren not just as concerned as some of us are? What has happened to our nation?

We need Medicare for all.

Linda Mitchell, Clarksville

National health care is unconstitutional.

why do you think Dare to Care has lasted as long as it has? It certainly wasn't because the government had anything to do with it and that's a for sure fact! There is not one government program begun in the last century that is not now or has at one time in its past been insolvent. Not one. Do you have any clue as to exactly what you're advocating. It's nothing less than a complete and total takeover of our lives this administration is attempting to ram down our throats. I'm now disabled and receiving Medicare benefits, which I'm getting ready to drop because of their incompetence. When I do, I won't have any insurance at all, and I still do NOT want this monstrous absurdity the Obama administration is trying to foist on us. I worked at a job where most years the taxes I paid was more than what some friends of mine grossed for the year. I was disabled at work and now I live on social security disability with my wife; and my payment is all we have a month to live on. I was not raised rich or even 'well off' for that matter, but I was taught personal responsibility and to give a hand up, but not a hand out. I realize there are those among us who absolutely need a hand out, but only to get them started, not to keep them surviving. 'Give a man a fish and you have fed him for a meal, teach a man to fish and you have enabled him to feed himself. Folks usually are glad to get a hand up, but there are some out there as well, who only want to keep their hand out to get all that they can. This health care debacle is designed for the latter.

I do not have insurance and I can tell you now that I do not want what is being offered in this bill. Our government does not have the right to make us have health care. People like you who want this bill to pass,need to go read it,or at least a part of it. This is not health reform it is government take over and yes I have read through the bill. In full disclosure I am not a young person who doesn't care but a middle age woman who realizes that this country can't afford to spend any more money and that it is not the governments place to take care of each other. Did the government start Dare to Care? No, the community did.

Reader dismayed by Sen. Bayhs response to Senate health care bill

I was dismayed to see Sen. Evan Bayhs response to the Senate health care bill.

In the response posted on Bayhs Web site, he gives full credence to a report that adding millions of uninsured to a government-subsidized insurance plan would help lower the deficit. Even if the figures were correct and they are not lawmakers set the new taxes to begin years before the insurance payments are due. Just enough years, in fact, so that lawmakers like Bayh can claim that the bill is a savings.

It is all smoke and mirrors, and Bayh seems to have bought into the deal whole hog.

But as to the bill itself, even moderate commentators like Charles Krauthammer have written off this current health care reform as unsalvageable. This bill violates the most basic values of free competition, the foundation of Americas unique prosperity. Free competition is the goose that lays the golden eggs in America. The myth that a government-run plan would encourage competition must be dispelled.

A government-run plan would not be competing on a level playing field. The government can set the rules that its competitors must play by. It not only need not make a profit, but its losses would be subsidized by the taxpayers no matter how much money it loses.

So, if Bayh helps the government take over health care one-sixth of the domestic economy and runs it with its usual inefficiency, then what does he think will happen to the only part of the American economy that is currently growing?

Thats right the Obama-Bayh Depression.

Hey, that will be a great campaign bumper sticker for his opponent. A great campaign bumper sticker for Baron Hills opponent and the opponent of every Lap Dog Democrat.

Senator Bayh should do what is best for America, best for Indiana and vote No to a health care reform bill that is lethal to Americas economic recovery.

Jeff Roudenbush, New Albany

(Michael Connelly is a Constitutional lawyer and has read the entire health care bill. He has some comments, not just about the bill, but also about the effects to our Constitution it would have. It's a much broader picture than just health care "reform.")

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HEALTH CARE BILL

This blog concentrates on my concerns as an attorney about the imminent and growing threats to our Constitution and our form of government. We have reason to be very afraid of what is happening.


Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: the Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the bill and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The bill does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government-run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.

However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead, it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S.. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal health care information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have health care insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed "acceptable" to the "Health Choices Administrator" appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a "tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there, though. The 9th Amendment provides, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the provisions of this proposed bill, neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation" to support the Constitution. If I were a member of Congress, I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

10 Things You Should Know About Harry Reids Government-Run Health Care Experiment

1. $493 Billion In Tax Increases On Health Insurance, Medical Innovation, Payroll And Small Businesses Would Pay For The Bill. (Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter to Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)

2. Americans Won't See Benefits Of This Health Care Experiment Until 2014, But They Start Paying For It In 2010. (Page 13, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter to Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)

3. Reid's Bill Allegedly Reduces The Deficit By $130 Billion In Ten Years, But The Obama-Reid-Pelosi Spending Agenda Produced Deficit Of $176 Billion Last Month Alone. (Table 3, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter to Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)

4. $465 Billion In Medicare And Medicaid Cuts Would Pay For Two New Unsustainable Entitlements. (Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter to Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)

5. Health Care Costs For The Federal Government - And Your Family - Would Increase, Not Decrease. (Page 16, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter to Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)

6. A New Medicare Commission Of Unelected Bureaucrats Would Ration Care. (Sec. 3403, H.R. 3590, Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute, "Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act," Introduced 11/18/09)

7. The "Doc Fix" Provision That Would Add $250 Billion To The Deficit Is Not Included In The Democrats' List Price For Their Health Care Experiment. (Page 17, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter to Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)

8. Taxpayer Dollars Would Fund Abortions. (Sec. 1303(a), H.R. 3590, Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute, "Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act," Introduced 11/18/09)

9. A New Entitlement Program For Long-Term Care That One Democrat Senator Called "A Ponzi Scheme" Would Be Created. (Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter to Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09; Shailagh Murray & Lori Montgomery, "Centrists Unsure About Reid's Public Option," The Washington Post, 10/28/09)

10. States Burdened With $25 Billion In Unfunded Mandates From Medicaid That Would Force Them To Increase Taxes. (Page 7, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter to Senator Harry Reid, 11/18/09)

Despite Rep. Hills claims, reader believes Medicare will be affected

I read the article in the Sunday newspaper where Baron Hill stated that health care reform wont cut into Medicare. He also stated that groups such as 60 Plus Association have deceived the people with misinformation.

I have newsletters, letters and newspaper articles from groups such as Presidential Coalition, Senior Coalition, the Heritage Foundation, Christian Senior Voters Association, National Center for Policy Analysis, as well as people, even some doctors being interviewed on television, stating that Medicare will be affected!

Rep. Hill stated that money can be saved by cutting down on fraud and waste. For years I have heard about fraud and waste in Medicare, and fraud, waste and corruption in most areas of government, but nothing has been done to correct this. If it so easily corrected, why hasnt it been done before?

Rep. Jim Oberstar, a Minnesota Democrat, is also quoted in the newspaper article. Please explain to me how two people can have such differing views on the same bill? What is Rep. Hills solution to the unfunded liabilities in Medicare of $37 trillion and $35 trillion in Medicaid? Also, explain to me how under health care reform 36 million new people are to be covered and still provide the same services at the same cost?

These numbers simply do not add up!

Congress has been trying for 40 years to pass health care reform. Did it ever occur to Congress that maybe, just maybe, the people dont want health care reform. Also, dont forget over one million people showed up in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 12 trying to tell Congress we dont want government taking over our health care system!

I would like to know how government plans to take over health care and run it efficiently and cost effective. They have not run the U. S. Post Office very cost effectively, as it is deeply in debt, as is Medicaid and Medicare. UPS and Fed Ex make a profit why cant the post office make a profit?

A small program like Cash for Clunkers was not even run efficiently. The IRS hasnt even collected back taxes from the man who was appointed to head this department. Can anyone give me just one instance where the government has run a program efficiently and cost effectively?

Rep. Hill ignored many people of southern Indiana with his vote for Health Care Reform. Even Governor Daniels asked Rep. Hill not to vote for this bill as it would cost the State of Indiana greatly.

Donna Schad, New Albany

Rep. Hill disservicing constituents by making misleading statements

Politicians are known to be a bit fast and loose with the facts now and then.

But Rep. Baron Hill is taking this to a new level in his claim that the so-called Affordable Health Care for America Act that he voted for will not reduce Medicare benefits for senior citizens.

Rep. Hill is surely aware that the non-partisan and independent Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency which runs Medicare, sent a detailed critique to Congress that flatly refutes his claim.

The CMMS report estimates that more than 8 million senior citizens would be removed from the Medicare Advantage health insurance program by the year 2014. This program allows seniors to purchase an additional level of health care coverage through private insurers.

There is an obvious reason that supporters of this bill want to force seniors out of Medicare Advantage. They would then be subject to the same rationing of care that will apply to all other senior citizens covered by Medicare.

The CMMS report also warns that the bills forced cuts in Medicare spending would result in drastically reduced fees paid to hospitals and doctors, and that in turn could result in some Medicare providers refusing to serve Medicare patients.

Rep. Hill is doing a disservice to his constituents by making such misleading statements.

Todd Young, Bloomington

LETTER: Rep. Hill explains health care vote

BY REP. BARON HILL

I have consistently reiterated the need for, and my support of, health care reform throughout my congressional tenure. And, our great nation has been debating how to responsibly reform our health care system for decades.

On Saturday, we took a definitive step forward in advancing this crucial cause by passing the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

I understand the emotion attached to this issue. It is a deeply personal matter, and every one of us has our own stories to tell. I can cite numerous examples of 9th District residents who work so hard every day but are not able to afford health insurance. Likewise, I can relay stories of Southern Indiana small business owners who want to provide coverage for their employees and cannot afford to, or who provide coverage but cannot sustain the rate at which the premiums are so rapidly increasing. And, I could share devastating stories of constituents who diligently maintained their health insurance, only to have it rescinded once they fell ill.

This bill addresses each and every one of the situations outlined above. H.R. 3962 will allow the 52,000 uninsured Southern Indiana residents to secure effective and affordable health care. H.R. 3962 will allow 16,100 small businesses in Southern Indiana to obtain affordable health care coverage for their employees, and will provide tax credits to 14,600 of our small business to help reduce health insurance costs for a similarly significant number. And, H.R. 3962 will allow the 10,900 9th District residents who have pre-existing medical conditions to not only secure health coverage, but feel reassured by how the bill caps annual out-of-pocket costs at $5,000 for singles and $10,000 for families and eliminates lifetime limits on insurance coverage.

This bill also makes difficult fiscal choices, which will ensure that future generations are not footing the bill for health care reform. Not only has the Congressional Budget Office scored this bill as deficit neutral, but the agencys analysis finds that it will actually reduce the deficit. The nonpartisan organization reports that the bill will reduce the deficit by $109 billion between 2010 and 2019, and will also likely reduce deficits in the decade following 2019 by up to one-quarter of one percent of Gross Domestic Product.

I sincerely appreciate all of the comments and questions my office has received over the past few months on this issue. This bill is very much a work in progress, and as such, I would encourage you to stay informed and keep in touch.

An Indianapolis doctor's letter to Sen. Bayh about the Bill (Note: Dr. Stephen E. Frazer, MD practices as an anesthesiologist in Indianapolis , IN )

Here is a letter I sent to Senator Bayh. Feel free to copy it and send it around to all other representatives. -- Stephen Fraser

July 23, 2009

Senator Bayh,

As a practicing physician I have major concerns with the health care bill before Congress. I actually have read the bill and am shocked by the brazenness of the government's proposed involvement in the patient-physician relationship. The very idea that the government will dictate and ration patient care is dangerous and certainly not helpful in designing a health care system that works for all. Every physician I work with agrees that we need to fix our health care system, but the proposed bills currently making their way through congress will be a disaster if passed.

I ask you respectfully and as a patriotic American to look at the following troubling lines that I have read in the bill. You cannot possibly believe that these proposals are in the best interests of the country and our fellow citizens.

Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self-insure!!

Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill: THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!

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

Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise.

Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals' finances & a 'National ID Health card' will be issued!

Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer.

Page 65 Sec 164: Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations: (ACORN).

Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the 'Exchange.'

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans -- The Govt will ration your health care!

Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. (Translation: illegal aliens.)

Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups (i.e. ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. (AARP members - your health care WILL be rationed!)

Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. (No choice.)

Page 12 4 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt monopoly.

Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association - The Govt will tell YOU what salary you can make.

Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. (NOchoice!)

Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees AND their families. (Employees shouldn't get excited about this as employers will be forced to reduce its work force, benefits, and wages/salaries to cover such a huge expense.)

Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option will pay 8% tax on all payroll! (See the last comment in parenthesis.)

Page 150 Lines 9-13: A business with payroll between $251K & $401K who doesn't provide public option will pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.

Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.

Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.)

Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of the GOVT HC Admin.. will have access to ALLAmericans' finances and personal records.

Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." (Yes, it really says that!)

Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors. (Low-income and the poor are affected.)

Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors: It doesn't matter what specialty you have trained yourself in -- you will all be paid the same! (Just TRY to tell me that's not Socialism!)

Page 253 Line 10-18: The Govt sets the value of a doctor's time, profession, judgment, etc. (Literally-- the value of humans.)

Page 265 Sec 1131: The Govt mandates and controls productivity for "private" HC industries.

Page 268 Sec 1141: The federal Govt regulates the rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs.

Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!

Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever the Govt deems preventable (i.e...re-admissions).

Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors: If you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission -- the Govt will penalize you.

Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. (The Govt tells doctors what and how much they can own!)

Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion. (The Govt is mandating that hospitals cannot expand.)

Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have the opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. (Can you say ACORN?)

Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: The Govt mandates establishment of=2 outcome-based measures. (HC the way they want -- rationing.)

Page 341 Lines 3-9: The Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. (Forcing people into the Govt plan)

Page 354 Sec 1177: The Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of 'special needs people!' Unbelievable!

Page 379 Sec 1191: The Govt creates more bureaucracy via a "Tele-Health Advisory Committee." (Can you say HC by phone?)

Page 425 Lines 4-12: The Govt mandates "Advance-Care Planning Consult." (Think senior citizens end-of-life patients.)

Page 425 Lines 17-19: The Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. (And it's mandatory!)

Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: The Govt provides an "approved" list of end-of-life resources; & nbsp;guiding you in death. (Also called 'assisted suicide.')

Page 427 Lines 15-24: The Govt mandates a program for orders on "end-of-life." (The Govt has a say in how your life ends!)

Page 429 Lines 1-9: An "advanced-care planning consultant" will be used frequently as a patient's health deteriorates.

Page 429 Lines 10-12: An "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. (AN ORDER TO DIE FROM THE GOVERNMENT?!?)

Page 429 Lines 13-25: The GOVT will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. (I wouldn't want to stand before God after getting paid for THAT job!)

Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end-of-life! (Again -- no choice!)

Page 469: Community-Based Home Medical Services = Non-Profit Organizations. (Hello? ACORN Medical Services here!?!)

Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover marriage and family therapy. (Which means Govt will insert itself into your marriage even.)

Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, and rationing those services.

Senator, I guarantee that I personally will do everything possible to inform patients and my fellow physicians about the dangers of the proposed bills you and your colleagues are debating.

Furthermore, if you vote for a bill that enforces socialized medicine on the country and destroys the doctor-patient relationship, I will doeverything in my power to make sure you lose your job in the next election.

Respectfully,

Stephen E. Fraser, MD

KRUEGER: Health care reform: An analysis

Im writing to respond to a recent article by Erica Werner of The Associated Press. Ill use the statement of facts in her report as a basis here facts Ive seen reported in many other media venues.

First, not mentioned is how in the world are we going to be able to provide health care of one-sixth of the population 50 million when even now we have a shortage of health care facilities and providers?

Also not covered, was does this mean? Like foreign countries, the services provided would be restricted except for those with private insurance? And does this mean the most inefficient business model (the government) will be in charge of determining services and costs with every Tom, Dick and Harry politician constantly inserting useless costly items (changes) for strictly personal recognition (votes) and special interest gains?

OK, to the report.

Barack Obama has said there would be tremendous savings in the billions on many occasions while at the same time saying he needs $694 billion up front. In his radio address June 6, he said it wont add to the federal debt. (Since the federal debt is so high now, no one can calculate it how would we know? Heh heh.) Anyhow, in the next sentence it says Congress is trying to figure out how to pay for the overhauls estimated at $1.2 to $1.5 trillion. Thats T as in trillion. Can I now start calling him a snake oil salesman, or worse, a liar?

Im sick of PC stuff.

It goes on to say Obama has suggested cuts in Medicaid and Medicare. The first thing that tells us is any new program will be on top of those programs (overseen by the government). It also presents the question, Does this mean limiting further coverage offered by these programs and if so, will they be made up and whats the P/L on the composite coverage?)

The report talks about requiring employers to provide healthcare or pay a penalty. Trust me folks, as a businessman this will result in even more jobs going oversees, higher prices and less employment.

Dummies: But John, it wont cost me more in taxes.

John: Dummies, universal healthcare, as its being proposed right now, will lessen your chances of getting a job, let alone a good job (unless its with the government); raises all sorts of prices due to hidden taxes, etc., to the point you wont have enough gas to go to the grocery store, let alone a healthcare provider unless you decide to take up residence with the healthcare provider and hope there is a soup kitchen outside.

Obama also suggested higher taxes on the rich to help pay for it. Lets see now. The higher taxes on the rich are going to pay for this stimulus. Pay for the bailouts. Pay for the extra 230,000 new government employees for the new programs and building up of others. Anyhow, listen to this carefully, the idea of taxing the rich has been shut down by Congress. I repeat, taxing the rich has been shut down by Congress. The hugely Democratic Congress. Now, the next time you hear a Democratic Congressman, or any Congressmen, say they are going to tax the rich its just a bunch of Pelosi (BS).

Folks, we do indeed need to do something, but I fear Obamas popularity perpetrated by the MSM will cause Congress, for their own self-interest as well, to cobble together a piece of infinitely costly crap with little forethought, just as theyve done over the last year.

Sick. Buyer beware.

John Krueger is a former Clarksville town councilman and can be reached at MeredithSpecial@aol.com

Ben Gipe Asked Congressman Hill About the New Health Care Bill
Read Congressman Hill's response to Ben Gipe:

November 2, 2009

Dear Mr. Gipe,

Thank you for contacting me about H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this very important issue.

On Thursday morning, October 29, 2009, the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives unveiled the full text of H.R. 3962. This bill is the compilation of the three health care reform bills considered in the House Energy and Commerce, Education and Labor, and Ways and Means Committees.

The bill is quite lengthy - 1,990 pages in fact. However, large portions of this bill were adopted directly from the health care reform bill passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, on which I serve. Although very knowledgeable about the Energy and Commerce bill, I certainly plan to review this new version and the manager's amendment, line-by-line, and read through the comments and concerns my office receives from constituents before reaching a final decision as to how I will vote on this bill.

If you would like to read the text of H.R. 3962 in its entirety, it can be viewed at this page of the House Rules Committee's web site, http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf. My office stands ready to address any questions or concerns you may have while reading the bill.

How to responsibly reform our nation's health care system has been debated for more than 60 years. The considerable strain our health care system places on many Hoosier families, and the U.S. economy, has attracted more attention recently as health care premiums have risen four times faster than wages, and 60 percent of bankruptcies in this nation are due to insurmountable medical bills. Doing nothing at this point is not an option. Costs will continue to rise, and more and more Americans will go without coverage and necessary care. That said, we must ensure we are addressing this issue in the right way. As such, I need to give this bill the time and attention an issue of such magnitude merits.

Thank you again for contacting me about health reform. I appreciate knowing your thoughts on this particular bill and the larger issue. Please feel free to contact me with any additional concerns or comments. And, if you would like to receive periodic email updates on my congressional activities, please visit http://baronhill.house.gov to sign up for my electronic newsletter.

Sincerely,

Baron P. Hill
Member of Congress


Now let's read Ben's currently unanswered response to Congressman Hill:

Mr. Hill,

Thank you for your prompt response to the e-mail I sent you.

I went to the web site. Obviously I have not read the entire bill. I have reviewed the table of contents.

Why are you not opposing growing the federal government? What will be cut to pay for the Health Choices Administration and the Health Choices Commissioner? I surely hope it wont be our military, our national intelligence services or Medicare.

Reference section 252 prohibiting discrimination: Wont this bill discriminate against those of us out here trying to lead healthy lifestyles? I consider it to be discrimination when my taxes will increase to pay for health insurance for people choosing to live unhealthy lifestyles.

Section 259: Why is abortion even addressed in a federal health care bill? Isnt that a very private choice and an individual responsibility?

Section330: I will read this in detail when I get the time. Am I to understand that current members of congress will begin utilizing this government health insurance plan and dropping their current congressional health care coverage?

As a retired Marine Corps veteran and Iraq veteran, section 331 (reimbursement of the Secretary of the VA) certainly will be something I will read in detail. Will this government health care bill change the VA benefits? What about disabled veterans? What effect on the VA will this bill have?

Section 347: Undocumented aliens will receive no federal payments. How will we know who is documented? Our government cannot keep track of illegals now. What is congress doing to make sure my tax dollars are not supporting health care for illegals? What are you doing to make sure we get control of our borders?

Section 501: Taxing individuals without acceptable health care insurance. So now the federal government is going to tell American citizens what is acceptable health care? What are you doing to curb the unacceptable conduct of members of both parties in congress? What about the housing crisis? Are you calling for an investigation into Barney Franks role in this mess that has adversely affected so many Americans? What makes congress qualified to determine acceptable health care? Why are you supporting more taxes?

Section 553: Expansion of reporting requirements. Doesnt this equate to more government intrusion into our private lives?

Im counting on you to stand up for me, my family, my friends and all American citizens in your district. This bill is NOT what we want. Lower health care costs by tort reform, a national medical drug research facility and increased competition. Keep the federal government out of our health care. They struggle trying to manage Medicare and Social Security. The federal government cant get the swine flu vaccine correct. Why in the world would we want the federal government to get more involved in our health care?

Thank you for your time and your service. God bless you and your family.

Ben Gipe

p.s. When can I expect a response to the letter I sent you on October 15th?

Liberty Counsel is a nationwide public interest religious civil liberties law firm. They have presented a summary of House Resolution 3200 which was the basis for the bill just passed by the Congress and forwarded to the Senate. You may view this summary in PDF format by clicking here:

          Click here to view Health Care Bill overview

You may also view the original draft of HR 3200 by clicking here:
(Caution: this file is 1.8mb in size. It will probably take some time to load. It is also in PDF format.)

          Click here to view original version of Health Care Bill

Obama drops a reassurance from his speech that never quite squared with the facts
The Associated Press

Calvin Woodward and Erica Werner

September 9, 2009

WASHINGTON The change was subtle, but significant.

In his speech to Congress on Wednesday night, President Barack Obama gave a more accurate and less reassuring account of the impact of his proposed health care overall than he has done in the past.

It went by in a blink.

He told Americans that nothing he is proposing will force businesses or consumers to change their existing insurance coverage. That much is true.

It's also true that nothing in his plan guarantees that policies people have now will continue to be available in the same form. In earlier accounts, he spoke with unmerited certainty in saying people who are happy with their current insurance can simply keep it.

Other parts of his speech repeated some of the oversimplified claims that have marked his salesmanship. A look at some of his assertions Wednesday night:

OBAMA: "Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have."

THE FACTS: That's correct, as far as it goes. But neither can the plan guarantee that people can keep their current coverage. Employers sponsor coverage for most families, and they'd be free to change their health plans in ways that workers may not like, or drop insurance altogether. The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the health care bill written by House Democrats and said that by 2016 some 3 million people who now have employer-based care would lose it because their employers would decide to stop offering it.

In the past Obama repeatedly said, "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period." Now he's stopping short of that unconditional guarantee by saying nothing in the plan "requires" any change.

He's dropped the "period."

___

OBAMA: "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period."

THE FACTS: Despite this "period," the White House and congressional Democrats have already shown they're ready to skirt the no-new-deficits pledge.

House Democrats offered a bill that the Congressional Budget Office said would add $220 billion to the deficit over 10 years. But Democrats and Obama administration officials claimed the bill was actually deficit-neutral. They said they simply didn't have to count $245 billion of it the cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so physicians don't face big annual pay cuts.

Their only-in-Washington reasoning was that they already decided to exempt this so-called "doc fix" from congressional rules that require new programs to be paid for. In other words, it doesn't have to be paid for because they decided it doesn't have to be paid for.

The administration also said that since Obama already included the doctor payment in his 10-year budget proposal, it didn't have to be counted again.

Even aside from that, the long-term prognosis for the costs of the health care legislation has not been good.

Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf had this to say in July about evolving health care legislation: "We do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs."

___

OBAMA: Requiring insurance companies to cover preventive care like mammograms and colonoscopies "makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives."

The facts: Studies have shown that much preventive care particularly tests like the ones Obama mentions actually costs money instead of saving it. That's because detecting acute diseases like breast cancer in their early stages involves testing many people who would never end up developing the disease. The costs of a large number of tests, even if they're relatively cheap, will outweigh the costs of caring for the minority of people who would have ended up getting sick without the testing.

The Congressional Budget Office wrote in August: "The evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall."

That doesn't mean preventive care doesn't make sense or save lives. It just doesn't save money.

___

OBAMA: "If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage."

THE FACTS: It's not just a matter of being able to get coverage. Most people would have to get coverage under the law, if his plan is adopted.

In his speech, Obama endorsed mandatory coverage for individuals, an approach he did not embrace as a candidate.

He proposed during the campaign as he does now that larger businesses be required to offer insurance to workers or else pay into a fund. But he rejected the idea of requiring individuals to obtain insurance. He said people would get insurance without being forced to do so by the law, if coverage were made affordable. And he repeatedly criticized his Democratic primary rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, for proposing to mandate coverage.

"To force people to get health insurance, you've got to have a very harsh penalty," he said in a February 2008 debate.

Now, he says, "individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance just as most states require you to carry auto insurance."

He proposes a hardship waiver, exempting from the requirement those who cannot afford coverage despite increased federal aid.

___

Associated Press writer Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.

MATTHEWS: Lets focus on what we agree upon in health care reform

By DAVE MATTHEWS
Local Guest Columnist

H.R. 3200 has created lots of differences of opinion about what it says. It occurred to me recently that it might be wiser to look at where we agree than where we disagree.

I think we all agree that we would like reasonable health care for every citizen of our country. Despite the impression given by some, conservatives in our nation do honestly want everyone to have health care.

However, it should be recognized that we already have universal health care in America. I have visited the emergency room of our hospital twice in the past five years. Both times I waited an average of three hours to see a physician because lots of people with more serious emergencies, despite their ability to pay, were seen first. But no one with sickness or injury is refused care because they do not have health insurance. I have been assured of this by several health care providers. This cannot be said in most nations of the world.

Next, I believe that we all agree that we want health care to be affordable for all Americans. This is really an issue for insurance reform, not health care reform. The greatest cause of these astronomical health insurance rates is the prevalence of frivolous lawsuits against health care providers. This could be remedied through honest tort reform an issue our legislators refuse to include in the discussion. What we really need to do is make health insurance affordable for everyone not let government take over health insurance too.

I think we can agree whether we want to for the advantage of our political debate or not that America has the best health care system in the world. Foreigners come here for their health care. Foreign medical students choose to study in American universities rather than their own countries. Then, these best-trained doctors choose to stay in America rather than return to their homeland to make their nations health care the best. Yes, as a nation, we are not the healthiest citizens of the world. But that has more to do with our lifestyles than our health care. Nowhere else will you find the absence of so many diseases that plague other places of the world than America.

Im sure we can also agree that a government health care system that regulates services will provide regulated services. When I left England after a tour of duty in the Air Force, I left a very close British friend who needed heart bypass surgery. He had been scheduled to receive that operation in three years, his first available opportunity. Delays, waste and poorer general health care almost always follow government regulation. We can achieve health care for all without sacrificing the excellent qualities of our current system.

We can probably agree on many of the above assumptions. What we cannot agree on, of course, is whether or not the government should be the agency to provide that service. The Constitution says that government should establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty I would debate that governments takeover of health care is not one of those responsibilities. I would also debate that government does a poor job of providing services where they are not called upon to do so.

I have not met an elderly person who doesnt complain about problems with Medicare, Medicaid and social security benefits nor an injured soldier who brags about the top-quality medical services provided by the Veterans Administration. The government is the only agency that can provide equitable justice through the judicial system, competent police service through local and state law enforcement and a common defense through the greatest military services in the world. Yes, government should promote the general welfare by insisting that we have the best affordable health care for every citizen in the country.

And yes, legislation is needed to fix many of the problems that other industries have inflicted on the system to keep it from being affordable and available to everyone. But handing over the entire health care system to the management of the government will not only be ineffective but in the end, will result in far worse service for everyone than what we have now.

Dave Matthews is chairman of the Floyd County Republicans.

By STEVEN M. FLEECE
Local Guest Columnist

I am one of the fortunate Americans who has health insurance. I deliberately chose a policy that was advertised to provide maximum freedom of choice.

Every month, I pay the equivalent of a mortgage payment to maintain what Britons, Canadians, New Zealanders, Japanese, Frenchmen, Germans, Swedes, Swiss and most other citizens of successful countries receive through government-run or nonprofit government-regulated private insurance companies at far less cost.

But in return for my high-priced policy, I did not get the freedom I was promised. I got a restriction on using Norton Hospital, even though I like Norton Hospital way more than I like my insurance company.

I was told to switch from an effective medication, which causes no side effects, to an inferior drug that causes bad side effects.

I was stuck with a huge out-of-pocket bill when I thought I might be having a heart attack and hurried to the closest emergency room instead of driving across the county to a preferred provider.

I was left with a dispute with a provider because the insurance company told both of us that I was approved for procedures they later decided not to cover after all.

The problems with private, for-profit health insurance include: You dont get what you pay for; they dont deliver what they advertise; there is virtually no competition; the terms of coverage are too complex for meaningful comparison; and they unilaterally change the terms whenever it suits them anyway.

There is no true free market in private for-profit health insurance. Consumers are at the mercy of wolves. Little wonder the wolves and their dupes now show their teeth, lest they be deprived of their easy prey.

This country is not the envy of the world when it comes to financing health care we are the laughing stock of the world. We pay more and get less in return than the citizens of any other developed democratic country.

This is no criticism of our health care providers. I love my doctors and believe we have the best medical care professionals in the world. But we also have the fattest and most greedy middlemen in the world, gorging themselves on our inflated health insurance premiums. Insurance company executives make themselves millionaires by finding ways to charge more and more, while delivering less and less health care.

In addition to paying the obscenely high salaries of these executives, our premiums go to pay others whose mission is to deny sick and injured people the services they have paid for.

Insurance company lawyers work to cancel long-standing policies when the cost of care for a sick person becomes too great. Insurance company doctors prostitute their credentials by declaring certain procedures too costly or experimental, even without laying eyes on the patient, even contrary to the protests of the treating physician, even when the life of a child is at stake. These are the true death panels at work every day, right now, in every for-profit insurance company.

It is beautiful that American communities routinely pitch-in to raise money to save the lives of children denied private insurance coverage for expensive procedures. It is outrageous that the life of a child should depend on the success of a charitable benefit.

Collection cans in convenient stores bearing the heartbreaking images of angelic children are no match for the costs of care. Life-saving care for all Gods children should be a matter of right, not charity.

A recent letter writer opposing health care reform inspired me to support it more strongly by the falsehoods the writer spread. First, there was the one about the stupid and tongue-tied President Obama telling a man his 100-year-old mother should be given an aspirin rather than a pacemaker. No date, time or place given. It supposedly happened at a press conference, no matter that the format of the press conference does not fit the tale or that the words attributed to the president are completely out of character for this compassionate, eloquent and patient leader. If it makes the president look like a minstrel show clown, the right wing will believe it.

But the prize for biggest lie goes to the claim that reform will bring forced intrusion into family privacy ... with end-of-life consultations, at which time some government bureaucrat will decide whether or not to continue treatment or tell you its time to die.

A man that will spread such a lie as that does not deserve to be believed about anything.

The truth is that one reform measure would have allowed Medicare to pay for family consultations with their doctor on end-of-life issues. Not forced, voluntary. Not with a government bureaucrat, with your own doctor. Not deciding anything, simply providing information about matters such as advance directives and pain mitigation in the final stages of life.

Even conservative columnist Charles Krauthamer has acknowledged that such right-wing fantasies about government death panels are untrue.

The claim that a government bureaucrat would tell you its time to die is not just an exaggeration, and not even an ordinary lie. It is one of the most evil lies uttered in the service of an evil cause. It stands on a par with the lie, still cherished by many in our land, that African-Americans were perfectly happy to remain slaves because they were treated so well. Once, a long time ago, the Republican Party valiantly fought such despicable lies; now it lives on them.

Democrats demand that the representatives we worked to elect stop their futile and self-defeating efforts to appease our intransigent opponents, support our president, and pass health care reform with a public option, now. Give us a bill worth fighting for and rank-and-file Democrats will end this debate in the old-fashioned way by re-electing those who voted for justice and defeating those who stood in its way.

Steven M. Fleece is a Charlestown resident.

First and foremost, we have the greatest overall healthcare system in the world and there is no crisis. More non-Americans come to the United States over any other country for healthcare for a reason. It is simply the best.

Obama and the liberal media continually tout the 46 million uninsured. What they dont say is that approximately 18 million of these individuals choose not to have insurance or are self insured, ten million are illegal aliens, and 14 million have access to some form of government program such as Medicaid, SSI, Medicare or SCHIP. But because of the horrendous government bureaucracy these patients either cannot or will not get enroll in these programs. Only 8 million individuals are chronically uninsured representing only about 2.6% of Americans.

We should not radically change the best healthcare system in the world when easier, simpler, and less expensive solutions are available.

Obamas statement This isnt about politics is another one of his misrepresentations.

The Obamacare bill has everything to do with politics. It is fundamentally changing our current system to a government controlled, government run, and government intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship and limiting personal choices and liberties.

This healthcare issue is a philosophical battle between the Obama and Liberal worldview compared to a conservative worldview. We believe in less government, not more. We believe in personal choices not government mandates. We believe in individual liberties not socialistic principles. This absolutely is political at its basic principles and the radical left has made it very clear they will stop at nothing to pass this legislation for Government control.

Other solutions have been proposed and here are just a few:

Implement tax code changes to give individuals tax breaks similar to companies eliminating the need to tie insurance to a particular job

Reduce government mandates on insurance companies which now total around 1901. This would allow insurance companies to customize plans so people only bought what they needed or wanted

Remove limitations on across-state-line purchases of health plans which would increase competition; bringing prices down.

Expand HSA, MSA accounts giving individuals control of their healthcare dollar

Implement some tort reform

Allow vouchers for those truly in need of health insurance and allow them to purchase it through the free market just like everyone else.

These are part of meaningful healthcare reform initiatives, but will unlikely be accepted by the Democrats and the liberal left wing because their interest is really government control and not healthcare.

Dan Eichenberger M.D.
800 Highlander Point
Floyds Knobs, IN 47119

The Howey Political Report states that "Hill spent an hour repeatedly assuring those who were listening that the legislation would not cut Medicare benefits, would not ration health services and would not force euthanasia on sick, older patients." However, he did not offer an explanation nor any details about how this miracle was supposed to take place

Hill accuses others of spreading "myths" about the proposed bill, yet he is the one who is telling tall tales. Mr. Hill and the Democrats CANNOT guarantee to anyone that they will be able to stay under their current insurance coverage under this bill. They cannot guarantee it because they cannot keep businesses from closing their doors after this healthcare bill FORCES them to provide insurance or pay hefty penalties. They cannot guarantee it because they are not telling you that your private insurance premiums will likely increase if there is a public option. They cannot guarantee there will be no rationing of healthcare or that they will not cut Medicare benefits.

The truth is that they don't even know what they will or won't do after they pass this legislation. They just want to jam through a bill as soon as possible and worry about the fall-out later. We can agree that we need reform but this bill is NOT it. Most people are happy with their current coverage. We need to reduce costs by increasing competition, but what we don't need is a public "option" that is a Trojan horse for a single-payer European-style Universal Healthcare system.

Hill says, "Believe the things in this bill that are good." I would like to ask him what good things he is referring to? Could it be that the federal Government will have access to your bank account under this bill? Or that a government panel will decide who gets treatment and who doesn't? Or maybe it is that religious hospitals could be forced to perform abortions?

According to the Louisville Courier-Journal, "U.S. Rep. Baron Hill, D-9th District, used a telephone call with more than 5,100 members of AARP on Monday to try to sell the virtues of the controversial House health care bill." Doesn't sound like a town hall to me. I think the key words here are "used" and "try to sell." I hope you will be on alert. Please tell your friends and family.

This invitation-only conference call was not a town hall at all. It was not democratic. It was not open to the public. It was simply a device to promote Hill's agenda and keep him shielded from folks in the District who disagree. It's as if he is looking at us with his fingers in his hears yelling, "If I can't hear you, then I am not responsible!" You can bet that later on when he votes YES to this bill he will claim there was strong support for it in his district.

One last thing about Mr. Hill. A caller from Floyd County informed me today that they contacted Hill's office yesterday to inquire when the Congressman would be in her area. She was told by a staffer that they knew of no plans for him to be in Floyd County. They were sure surprised to read this morning that Hill will be in New Albany at 1:00pm and 2:30pm today for two PRIVATE meetings. At 1:00pm with the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association chapters 381 and 1777 in the New Albany-Floyd County Public Librarys Strassweg Auditorium, 180 W. Spring St. in New Albany and at 2:30 p.m. with local business leaders at the One Southern Indiana offices at 4100 Charlestown Road in New Albany.

Call Baron Hill 1-866-440-1321 or email him via his website www.baronhill.house.gov. Tell him your thoughts on this legislation and what you'd like to see in a bill. Tell him you'd like him to represent you, as a Congressman should, and ask him to hold a series of PUBLIC town hall meetings one in each county.

Thanks for all you are doing!

Sincerely,

Erin Houchin
9th District Chair

I want to commend the two gentlemen, Mr. Tom Virgin, of Newburg, and Mr. Floyd Coates, of Scottsburg, for their outstanding submissions in the Thursday, Aug. 13, Evening News.

Both letters could not be expressed better. Our elected officials, not only in Indiana, but elsewhere, cannot face the public after they are elected and tell the truth. Once they are elected, the promises they make while campaigning are soon forgotten.

They forget who elected them. How quickly they become brainwashed by the very few high-up leftists who want to control our God-fearing and free country. Isnt it amazing how a few shillings (dollars) can corrupt such brilliant minds of our elected officials?

The health bill contains 1,017 pages, as Mr. Coates noted and the secretarys name appears 1,123 times in the bill. Not one elected official have I heard say he or she has completely read the bill. Not one can stand up and answer a question truthfully when asked about its contents.

Are we to believe that the secretary will dictate what health care we receive? Will the secretary be the scapegoat when the individual cant get the care they need?

I urge the public to please take Mr. Coates advice. Read this house bill at govtract.us/contress/billtext.xpd?bill-h111-3200. Its more than our elected officials have done.

Once you have read the bill, theres no doubt you will understand why citizens are protesting at town meetings. You will know why our elected officials are avoiding our questions, and please understand our elected officials do not have to join this proposed health plan.

They are exempt, as they are from the Social Security retirement plan which, without doubt, is failing because it, too, is government controlled.

Claude Simpson, Jeffersonville

By KELLEY CURRAN

I am totally grossed out, nauseated, sick. Sick of health care, health care reform, health care insurance reform, whatever. A few weeks ago I worried there was not enough honest discussion taking place around this issue. Since then, discussion has become the discussion, and honesty is still in short supply as people many partisans just interested in seeing the opposition lose have reduced the debate to, they want to kill grandma, and, theyre misinformers. Inform on them.

I initially set out to take what time was available to try and provide some more useful information or things to think about on the subject. Ive discussed the danger of an individual mandate, the problem with people not understanding the proposals and the market in which health care decisions are being made. Im laying out all I have left here and then washing my hands of it. Hopefully, the hand washing will help slow the spread of something. So here goes:

One of the reasons given to support some of the reforms being proposed is that it is a moral obligation. Some churches have signed on to the effort citing this reason. They believe not supporting the brand of health care reform proposed by the president is a sin.

There are several problems with this. I can totally accept, in fact I agree, that I have a moral obligation to help others. However, government really ought to be more concerned with political obligations rather than moral. It is interesting that it is largely liberal churches that dont advocate government forcing morality on other issues that support this.

Forced morality is no morality at all. If I dont sin because I am completely incapable of it, prohibited from it or refraining only in my own self-interest, theres no virtue in it. That we should do something as individuals, as Americans, as good people or members of a particular religious tradition does not mean it should be written into the law, which is ultimately enforced by violence.

Government-run health care which guarantees care for everyone and requires everyone to participate in the system upends every concept we, as Americans, have of fairness and merit. The unrepentant, obese, non-teeth-brushing, smoker with a lead foot and bad brakes will not be required to pay more into the system than someone who has been the picture of fitness and safety their entire lives.

Insurance, by calculating risk and basing premiums on that risk, take those activities into account, therefore providing a more fair system. Those that engage in riskier behavior pay more, and should.

Of course, it is clear by much of the debate that few people have any understanding of the purpose of insurance anyway. Insurance is not supposed to let you pay a little bit of money for a big benefit. The companies would quickly go bankrupt if that was the case. Its like believing most people somehow come out ahead at the casino. Insurance should only be for big, catastrophic and, very importantly, rare events. With this understanding much of the crisis would disappear.

Its really hard to understand what the crisis is anyway. More than 80 percent of the population is covered by health insurance. More than 80 percent of those polled are happy with their care. There are programs and charities for those who are truly low-income and need health care. Where is the crisis?

One place our president points to is our economy. Supposedly, the amount were spending on health care is unsustainable. Good. Then well stop.

In fact, the market already has been addressing these concerns. Employers have been banding together and pooling their clout to get better terms on insurance. Insurers have a real motive to reduce the cost of care and have been working to do so. Theyre designing plans that bring reason back into the system by allowing the consumers to have more information and make better decisions.

Minor issues can be addressed at a drug store clinic instead of heading to the emergency room and placing more demand on the broader system.

Theres misinformation out there coming from both sides of the issue. The administration and Democrats are being dishonest about the cost of their proposals. Their claims that anyone is lying about what is in the bill are disingenuous as there is no actual bill yet, anything could be added and much of what is there is vague enough to cause real concern. Theyre also lying or in denial about the percentage of the American people who support what they are doing.

There are myriad interest groups that stand to gain or lose money depending on how reform goes. We should be suspect of any plan that has the endorsement of any group whose money is involved. We should also expect that, if reform passes, we will see increased lobbying as groups insist their cherished profession, procedure, treatment, diagnosis, etc., be covered by the government plan.

If anything like the Democrats proposals pass, it will be a fundamental change in our relationship with the federal government. It will be another large bill with many implications.

A lack of effective and honest communications should not result in something a majority of Americans oppose being passed. Dont trust. Just verify. And think, think, think.

Now, where did I leave my Pepto?

Jeffersonville resident Kelley Curran has been using so much Pepto the last few weeks that her hairs turned pink. Write her at kelinawriterhat@aol.com

The recent article on Baron Hill "getting heat on health care" caught my attention. The article quoted Rep. Hill as saying that with regards to health care reform, "The war's on . . ." and later labeling constituents who vocally disagree with said reform in its nascent state as "political terrorists." Much of the article detailed citizens' frustrations in trying to contact Congressman Hill.

All this talk of "battle" and political dissent reminded me of the actual Battle of Barren Hill. Not well remembered, this skirmish took place outside of Philadelphia in May of 1778. Maj. Gen. Marquis de La Fayette (known political terrorist/patriot) acting under the orders of another well known political terrorist/patriot (Gen. George Washington) led an artful retreat after a reconnaissance mission went wrong. With quick thinking and bravery La Fayette saved the majority of his troops to fight another day. I won't spoil the story by telling who won the war but, suffice it to say, that the hill outside of Philly is today known as Lafayette Hill.

My point is, one man's political terrorist is another man's patriot. So let's not silence anyone's opinion in this important debate. If you are for reform let the folks in Washington hear it. If you're against reform, shout it from the roof tops.

Hopefully someone will listen.

Al Knable, New Albany

The adage of dont believe everything you read may never have been more a matter of life and death than it is right now. Thats not hyperbole.

Health care reform rhetoric has taken the nations airwaves and The Tribune Opinions page by storm via letters to the editor and Web site comments.

Floyd County readers consider this a hot issue and are pushing to make their opinions heard.

Several of the letters take Rep. Baron Hill to task for not holding town halls locally to discuss health care reform. He should do this and take his lumps like every other elected official right now.

However, you cant blame the guy for avoiding a debate about inaccurate information. That is the most frustrating aspect of this debate for us at The Tribune.

It pains us to see knowledgeable local people trust without verifying. But the e-mail and letter writing campaigns and town hall blasting debate has been rising in the last few weeks, and were consistently seeing incorrect information and propaganda being spread.

The Internet and poor TV reporting seem to be driving the flat-out wrong claims being made.

Illegal immigrants will not get health insurance in exchange for working on death panels evaluating whether or not senior citizens should commit suicide. Thats not in the health care reform proposals (please note for accuracy that there are multiple proposals in the Legislature, not just one).

Heres a sampling from a couple unbiased, nonpartisan institutes that are trying to clear up the lies.

MYTH: Illegal immigrants will receive free health care. Wrong.

MYTH: A health choices commissioner will decide benefits for you.

MYTH: The federal government will have direct access to all of your bank accounts.

MYTH: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans.

MYTH: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.

MYTH: Doctors will be forced to make a set wage for all of their patients.

Whether or not you agree with the idea that health care needs to be reformed in this country, we believe you owe it to yourself and to every American to educate yourself in order to make the debate worthwhile and productive.

We encourage readers to learn as much as they can about the health care reform proposals. Here are a few nonpartisan Web sites worth your time.

http://www.politifact.com

http://www.factcheck.org

Our Opinion editorials are consensus viewpoints of the editorial board of The (New Albany) Tribune

EDITORIAL BOARD
Steve Kozarovich, publisher & executive editor
Chris Morris, region editor
Mary Tuttle, display advertising manager

We need to have a strong public option in any health care reform legislation that comes out of Congress in the coming months. Also, we need for the government to be able negotiate with the drug companies from a position of strength.

I would like for President Obama and his administration to make sure that those things happen. Im hearing reports that the White House is negotiating away the core principles of meaningful health care reform in order to have some version of a health care reform bill to sign. I hope that this is not true, but I am concerned enough to write the president and say as much.

I would be much happier if we were talking about changing over to a single-payer system, but since we arent even allowed to have that discussion, a robust public option is the next best thing.

The legislation that comes out of Congress needs to cover everybody, and should be available sooner rather than later. I dont want to hear any more nonsense about triggers and co-ops. Weve been trying to get national health care reform since the Truman administration for Gods sake! How many more people have to get sick and die?

President Obama campaigned on the promise of meaningful health care reform for all. I supported him during the campaign, and I support him now, but if he gives away the store to get a crappy bill passed, hell lose my support in a hurry. I suspect that will happen with progressive liberal types all over the country. It was people like us who voted for change in the first place.

The Republicans have been wholly unhelpful to the presidents agenda since day one. I cant for the life of me see why hes continuing to let them frame this whole debate.

I have a good job and I have a bad health care plan, and thats because the insurance companies and the drug companies have all the power in these types of relationships. If me or my wife get sick, it will probably bankrupt us, and were some of the lucky ones! What a truly crazy system weve allowed. Please help us have a much improved system.

Thanks for hearing my viewpoint.

Craig MacInnes, Jeffersonville

Among these are cap and trade, government takeover of the health care system, hidden tax increases, government takeover of private industry and the ever-increasing government debt.

We were told in no uncertain terms that there would be no town hall meetings this August.

Let us all remember this in November 2010.

Kelly Roggenkamp, Georgetown

I was actually surprised that you can read this bill on the internet. Of course, this does absolutely nothing to insure that your congressman will actually read the bill. They have a long track recordespecially under this current administrationof not reading bills before they vote on them. I would encourage every citizen to go to http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf and get a good look at some of the little nuggets that come along with this plan.

Let me summarize just a few of the highlights that Congress has in store for you if they vote this legislation into place.

Sec. 113 of the Health Care bill MANDATES a government audit of the books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self-insure in order to ensure that the law does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure.

Section 123 states that there will be a government committee deciding what treatments and benefits you get. Health Czar, here we go!

In Section 142, it is stated that the Health Choices Commissioner will choose your benefits for you. You have no choice! Oh, and in Section 152, we include health care to ALL NON-US citizens. After all, they will soon have a vote too.

The good doctor will love Section 163. With this program, the Government will have real-time access to every individuals finances and a National ID health care card will be issued! That means that the Government will have direct access to your bank accounts for electronic funds transfer. Someone has to pay for all of this!

Section 203, insists that Government mandates ALL benefit packages for private Health Care plans in the exchange. Specifications of benefit levels for plans means that the government will define your health care plan and has the ability to ration your health care!

The doctor really needs to read this one: Section 225 says that the government will tell YOU, the doctor what you can make. The Secretary shall provide for the annual participation of physicians under the public health insurance option, for which payment may be made for services furnished during the year. I guess if were going to get that appendectomy, wed better do it pretty quickly before the doctor gets paid less than I pay my mechanic for a valve job, huh?

I could go on and on. The list of changes to the way you and I will experience health care makes me think I have already moved to Europe! Let me just close with my favorite section. Section 1233 makes it clear that the Government mandates Advance (Death) Care Planning consultation. Think Senior Citizens and end of life! We are talking about END-OF-LIFE COUNSELING. Some in the administration have already discussed rationing health care for the elderly. This section further states that the Government WILL instruct and consult regarding living wills and durable powers of attorney and will provide you with the approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death. And if that isnt enough, this section states that the Government will mandate the program for orders for life-sustaining treatment (i.e. end of life). The government has a say in how your life ends. Teri Schiavo would never have had to worry about family desires with Obamas plan in place!

Scared yet? Dont take my word for this. Read the bill yourself. Then I would suggest you find Congressman Baron Hill while hes home on Fall Break (thats like Spring Break, only Congress gets two per year instead of just one). Then I suggest you ask him to explain why he supports a bill that does more to eliminate your personal liberties than even the Cap and Trade bill does (he voted for that one too!) I imagine Congressman Hill will be hard to find, however. He realizes that supporting this legislation will probably end his career in politics and doesnt want to answer questions about it. Of course, he probably hasnt read the bill yet either.
     - Dave Matthews, Floyd County Republican Party Chairman