I will get started reading it right away. I will also recommend in hopes of drawing more attention. Stopping this is going to be a hard fight, but it will be well worth it.

and go through the bill and start posting items that are socialistic in their description or are just outright non-free market. I will download and see what I can find. This is a call to action to the Redstate ARMY

And if you haven’t viewed PJmedia video on Canadian health care, that’s okay if you can’t spare the 20 minutes, just spread it around far and wide.

http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2009/07/13/obamacare-preview-crowder-goes-to-canada/#comment-3732

---

Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots

Sheesh, can you write anything more cryptic? You’d think the government that wants to make various labeling clear like nutrition facts or terms spelled out clearly on mortgages and the like would be required to make their legislation simple to read.

I know, I know, its on purpose to make people skip over it and it takes 1000 pages to tear down America.

New rule for legislature. A 14 yr old has to be able to read and comprehend a bill for it to be considered.

One bite at a time of course.

But many people eating the elephant one bite at a time could make shorter work.

Could we possibly divide this up amongst us to make the opinion turn-around shorter?

The more folks we have…the more time we will have to stuy our section or we could asign more than one person to eact section since each person would zero on a different part of their section than the other would…

What do you say?

I officially place this item on the floor for debate.

Will anyone second the motion and join the committee?

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

I glanced at it late last night when the bill was posted at the House Education and Labor Committee site: http://edlabor.house.gov/

Nowhere did I see any reference to Congress’s purported Article I, Section 8 authority for this spending and penalties for those who will not abide by this legislation. I won’t have time to search for it now, but will try to later. WE MUST DEMAND THAT THE DEBTOCRATS TELL US WHERE THEY GET THEIR PURPORTED AUTHORITY. WHAT WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION AUTHORIZE THIS?

Second, the so-called right people will have to join the “public option.” We must demand that our congresscritters tell us in writing whether they will pledge to enroll themselves and their families in the “public option” or not. Obviously, they will not. Why? Because they know the “public option” will end up being like going to a VA hospital — and those of you who have had to do that, you know what I mean.

Another thought — anyone here who has access to military hospital waiting rooms should go there and shoot some video. If you know someone on active duty, ask them if they can do it. Get ‘em up on YouTube. Because that’s what your “public option” waiting room will look like.

Thank you.

It gives out the usual definitions and then begins to describe what sort of plan will be accepted after the law comes into effect.

Essentially Employer based plans will be grandfathered in ONLY if there are no changes to the plan or premium increases. And only if the plan meets the minimum standards for the new “basic Plan” to be defined later in the bill.

Private plans will be disallowed unless they are part of the new national coverage. Here is the section;

{{(1) IN GENERAL.—Individual health insurance
2 coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance
3 coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered
4 on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-par5
ticipating health benefits plan.}}.page 19

It also sets up a “Health Insurance Exchange” to become an authority over health insurance.

If I can come across anything that might stop giving my older friends a longer, better life

or

my younger friends limited choices in their lives, i’ll be passing it on.

HOW ABOUT YOU ?

any suggestions of places i can contribute, just let me know.

The folks at Investor’s Business Daily had the same idea, and their op-ed piece in tomorrow morning’s (7/16) edition, “It’s Not an Option”, says it all:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=482329

According to the editors, it only took them 16 pages before discovering a provision which would make certain circumstances of private medical insurance illegal. As they point out, imagine what the rest of the bill contains!

Once again, it points to the complete and utter dishonesty of Obama and his cronies, who have repeatedly lied that they had no intention of driving people away from private insurance into a government plan.

I’ve just read Section 102, which purports to preserve our right to keep our current health coverage. As far as I can tell, any such right is EXTREMELY limited and VAST numbers of people will start to be forced into the government plan on or about January 1, 2013.

I don’t regularly engage in statutory interpretation, but it is really not that hard to parse this screed. I think I’m giving a fair interpretation and accurate description of what will happen in 2013 and 2018. If someone out there thinks I’m wrong, please give me a more plausible interpretation.

SHORT VERSION: We will ALL (you, me, the paperboy, the grocery cashier, Rosie O’Donnell, EVERYONE) will be suffering together with Obamacare by Jan. 1 2018, with next to no exceptions. The “you can keep your current coverage” is true in a very short term sense…otherwise IT IS A LIE.

LONG VERSION: My interpretation is that…

NOTE: I use “government plan” throughout below. By government plan, I mean the public option that will mimic Canada or the UK or a “private” plan that is effectivly under massive government control and oversight (e.g. bureaucrats in charge).

Sec. 102(a) “grandfathers” any private insurance plan in effect on or before Jan. 1, 2013. This means that any entity wishing to implement a health plan after Jan. 1, 2013 must use the government health plan. So if you have any aspiration of owning your own business and want to offer private health benefits to your employees … do it before 2013. [[[ Well ... actually ... it doesn't matter. Sec. 102(b)(1)(A) makes it a waste of time to establish a new plan if you plan to still be in business in 2018.]]]

Sec. 102(a)(1) (a) prohibits an employer with a “grandfathered” private plan from adding new employees to that plan after Jan. 1, 2013. So if a company expands and adds people it will be forced to place them on the government plan. More directly, if you change jobs on or after Jan. 2, 2013, you will be put on the government plan, whether your new employer has a “grandfathered” plan or not.

Sec. 102(a)(2) prohibits a “grandfathered” private plan from making any changes to the policy coverage on or after Dec. 31, 2012. So an employer is PROHIBITED for amending the plan to meet the needs of the business or the employees effective Dec. 31, 2012. Even INCREASING COVERAGE is banned. Seems to be a perfect paragraph to include if you want to sped the obsolescence of existing private plans.

Sec. 102(b)(1)(A) was drafted by someone who clearly wants to hide it’s true intent. Basically this paragraph essentially says that on Jan. 1, 2018 all “grandfathered” private plans must be made identical to the government plan. Sure it’s still privately run…but it’s the same as the government plan. Sooooo, why would a company keep it’s private plan come 2018?

Sec. 102(b)(1)(B) – provides some very specialized and limited exceptions to the 2018 deadline to become just like the government plan. Specifically, COBRA coverage extended under the Porkulus and special purpose insurance coverage like long-term care. However, these excepted plans shall “[i]n no case…be treated as acceptable coverage…]. So there will be a very limited number of truly private special purpose plans that exist after 2018, but the government doesn’t like them because they are not acceptable. Who wants to bet that by 2018, they’ll have eliminated those special purpose private plans?

Sec.102(b)(2) says that the “grandfathered” private plans existing on Jan 1, 2013 enter a “grace period” until 2018, when they need to become clones of the government plan. During this grace period the private plans are “treated as acceptable”, meaning they are inherently unacceptable and only the good graces of the government allows them to exist between 2013 and 2018. Again, bets on how quickly this grace period will be shortened or how nebulous “acceptable” is interpreted?

Sec. 102(c) has a title that says it all … “LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE” How much more clear does this need to be for people to wake up?

Sec. 102(c)(1) says that if a health plan isn’t “grandfathered” it must be a government plan. Recall my above inpretation of Sec. 102(a) that all entities offering new health coverage aftr Jan 1, 2013 must be on the government plan.

Sec. 102(c)(2) provides another very limited exclusion for specialty coverage.

Sure we can keep our current superior private coverage … for a little while. Should this get enacted say goodbye to insurance coverage as you want it, how you want it and where you want it.

Maybe I’ll make this a Diary entry…

This thread will get kind of cluttered quickly with posts about the healthcare bill. Should we consider moving this somewhere else. This kind of undertaking would fit well in a wiki.

Couldn’t believe it. Read it again this morning and I’m still stunned!

Starting at the beginning. Why are we attempting to reform “healthcare” now, in the midst of an economic downturn? Because BO tells us that our healthcare costs are out of control, and that we cannot fix our economy unless we “reform” healthcare to get control of those costs, right? So we look at the burden of Medicaid on the states, and we look at the Medicare unfunded liability (28 trillion and counting) and we agree — got to get control of healthcare costs!

So what does the CBO analysis NOT do. It does NOT give us any feel for the healthcare burden for the next decade, either in dollar or GDP terms. We have no idea whether this burden is going up, down or sideways. (Want to guess?)

What the CBO analysis DOES tell us is that the Medicaid burden on the states will remain for the next decade, at least. And in a period when the Boomers start pouring into the Medicare program in earnest, and when Medicare is projected to run out of so-called trust funds, the CBO confines its analysis to the “nonelderly”.

Wouldn’t you think that the first element to be “reformed” would be the largest current government healthcare program? Particularly as it’s in such bad shape? Maybe it’s in the 1000+ pages somewhere. Anybody find it?

you may want to join others planning to protest Obamacare at all congresscritter offices across the country. I and several other Republican Party precinct committeemen will be doing so at Debtocrat Rep. Harry Mitchell’s office in Scottsdale, AZ.

Here’s the link: http://www.teapartypatriots.org/HC.aspx

Thank you.

P.S. As far as I know, our vaunted GOP “leadership” had no hand in organizing these protests. I received no e-mails from the GOP urging me to protest Obamacare.

Seems that three different committees of Democrats have added another 3000+ pages of changes to the bill.

Here is a link: http://wsbradio.com/blogs/jamie_dupree/2009/07/health-bill-changes.html

I read about 20 pages last night and it’s full of C-R-A-P. Blue Tuesday 07/21. Wear blue or fly blue from the antenna of your car to protest government controlled health care. Be on the side of freedom! Twitter #bluetuesday

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51115

Section 403, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

Quote:
“TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual
who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross in2
come for the taxable year, over
the amount of gross income specified in
section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.”

Meaning:
If you aren’t paying what some governement committee decides is your share in private insurance, they’ll be taxing you an additional 2.5%

Oh, and illegals(those who are one heck of a big cost to the US health system, but pay relatively nothing); they’re exempt.

Don’t tell me this isn’t an attempt to buy immigrant votes(amongst all the other vile things going on in here).

Ok, off to looking for the next floater.

Sec. 141 -HEALTH CHOICES ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH
CHOICES COMMISSIONER.

Quote:
“There is hereby established, as an
independent agency in the executive branch of the Government,
a Health Choices Administration (in this division
referred to as the ‘‘Administration’’).
(b) COMMISSIONER.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administration shall be
headed by a Health Choices Commissioner (in this
division referred to as the ‘‘Commissioner’’) who
shall be appointed by the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate.”

Meaning:
Much like Judge Sotamayor who many would consider not their choice for next justice but recognizing there’s not thing 1 you can do about it.

If this gets into law before 2010 and there aren’t enough GOP and blue dogs to hold Obama off, he will have the #1 guy in the new health program under his thumb,
and YOU too.

Are you scared yet ? I am.

ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.—

Quote:
“(F) VA.—Coverage under the veteran’s
health care program under chapter 17 of title
38, United States Code, but only if the coverage
for the individual involved is determined
by the Secretary in coordination with the
Health Choices Commissioner to be not less
than the level specified by the Secretary of the
Treasury, in coordination with the Secretary of
Veteran’s Affairs and the Health Choices Commissioner,
based on the individual’s priority for
services as provided under section 1705(a) of
such title.”

Meaning:
Obama’s appointed health commissioner and Obama’s chosen HHS secretary are determining what VA acceptable coverage is.

Considering I think Obama’s actions or non-actions for vets so far have been shameful; i’m not optimistic.

I need a drink, but i probably shouldn’t have one. If my liver goes bad and i’m not paying enough taxes to keep this monster afloat; that may be it for me. Well, as long as I still have “hope”.

SEC. 1904. GRANTS TO STATES FOR QUALITY HOME VISITA-
TION PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES WITH YOUNG
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EXPECTING CHIL
DREN.

This section runs from page 838 to page 855. The description to me looks like plain old caseworker visitation, which is handled at the county level in PA. I don’t understand why the federal government needs to collect taxes and establish a bureaucratic process in order to fund an already existing service.

… to know it’s a very, very bad bill.

It clearly “outlaw(s) individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,” the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section of the bill clearly states:

“Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won’t be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.”

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=482329

Read the whole article and share it !!!

Collins, Snowe, Nelson, Lieb, Landrieu and Wyden(?). Its going nowhere in teh Senate before August. On the other hand, it the issue fades in the news and in the public’s mind, the House Dems may use the opportunity to Rahm it through

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/17/gang-of-six-centrist-sena_n_237750.html

The thing I love is how pissy Obama is getting. sooner or later, all that heavy handed dressing down is going to come back and bite him in the rear.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/health/policy/18health.html?_r=2&hp