Health Care bill HR3200 Analysis, Researched by Christine Gates
Share
Today at 12:26pm
HEALTH CARE BILL truthShare> It isn't enjoyable reading, but it is worthwhile.
It's worthless fear-mongering.
> Health Care bill HR3200 Analysis, Researched by Christine Gates
Who is Christine Gates? Who pays her salary for the "4 long days she
spent researching this?
What organization or interests does she represent?
> HEALTH CARE BILL truthShare
> Sun at 12:35pm
> I put 4 long days into this analysis and hope that it will benefit you.
> I compiled the 15-pages of information in response to a 7-page email
> being sent around that made, what even I thought, were some outrageous
> assertions about the health care bill, HR3200. I was shocked to find
> that nearly every assertions was completely true. I used the text of the
I was not shocked to find that every assertion I checked was
completely false.
> bill as my reference. Please don't take my word for everything. Check
> for yourselves. Arm yourselves with the truth. Talk to people.
Yes. If she had really read the bill, she would not have written the
falsehoods
that she presents.
> United State Government Printing office published the bill HR3200 at
> this safe link:http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bi...
> <http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bi...>
Very interesting reading, if you don't mind being careful and flipping
back & forth.
> THE WORST PARTS OF THE BILL (summary):
> Smiles,
> Christine Gates :)
Is that really how one signs off on a professional letter presenting a
professional
analysis?
> "Evil flourishes while good men do nothing." -Burke
Indeed. Check your mirror, Ms. Gates.
> # # # # # # ## # # # # Analysis of HR3200 # # # # # # # # # #
> Researched by Christine Gates directly from Health Care bill HR3200.
Poorly.
> Email: abcga...@gmail.com
>
> HR 3200 currently under consideration in the House of Representatives:
>
> Pg 22 of the Health Care Bill MANDATES the Government will "study"/audit
> the books of ALL employers that self insure. TRUE This bill will allow
> the gov't delve into the financial records of private businesses who
> choose to opt-out of the public insurance program and want to keep their
> private insurance. See the comments of pages 22-23 for more.
1) the "study" is just that, not a continuous audit of privately-held
companies.
There are surely enough publicly-held companies who self-insure. If
they were going to breach the privacy barrier of privately-held
companies, they'd have to do so explicitly. I don't see any such
assumption of authority to do so.
> Pg 22-23 lines 23-25, line 1-3 Goal is to move everyone to public plan.
> TRUE To audit "not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers
> to self-insure" and will include "any recommendations the Commissioner
> deems appropriate...". This is merely one example.
2) Goal is to move everyone to public plan: false - the source she
quotes is in the middle of a piece about mental-health plans, not some
generalized thing about single-payer.
> Pg 29 lines 4-16 - Health care is rationed. TRUE "ANNUAL LIMITATION" is
> the heading to the section. Limitations are not unlimited spending, and
> therefore limitations are set. The text reads, "The cost-sharing
> incurred under essential benefits package with respect to an individual
> (or family) for a year does not exceed the applicable level specified in
> subparagraph (B)."
3) Rationed health-care: FALSE. The section she cites about limiting
"cost-sharing" is just that - costs to the consumer, not payments to
providers. "Cost-sharing" is defined in the bill at page 8 line 11 et
seq. as costs to the consumer, consisting of deductibles, co-payments,
etc., above and beyond premiums. Subparagraph (B) limits those costs
to no more than $5,000 for an individual or $10,000 for a family. The
health-care isn't rationed, the family's annual cost is limited:
EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.
I'd rather not waste any more time demonstrating that these
conservative "talking points" and "analyses" are just plain LIES.
Is Ms. Gates illiterate? Or a conservative propagandist? Is there
a functional difference? In either case, this article was full of
lies
and fear-mongering.
Yes, get the facts, read the health bill. But stay in the world of
reality,
please?
I may not normally post here (I haven't been doing much NetNews
lately),
but ChSW sent me this note by mail, and this was my response.
I do not recall your e-address from among those in my address
book. It is possible that you received an e-mail from me under
one of your other e-addresses. However, I would like to answer
some of the assertions you make.
First, the provenance of the document is clearly mentioned. Mark
Hastings is a well known midwestern conservative radio pundit.
His radio audience is larger than Rachel Maddow's audience on
MinuSculy Noticed Blather Channel. Gates is a member of
Hastings' research staff.
Second, your first point about the proposed government system is
about "'study'/audit" - is that it means that the government will
"continuously" audit the books of an enterprise opting out of the
government plan. That was not claimed. The language means that
enterprise is subject to examination at the discretion of the
government entities in the bill - the IRS and also DHHS. This
governmental enforcement stick is mentioned several times
throughout the document.
Third, the point about moving everyone onto the public option is
not simply done in one spot in the bill. In fact, the most
compelling language for this is not what you've cited above but
the directive later in the bill that everyone who is eligible for
enrollment in the government plan but not already enrolled in a
private plan must be placed into the government plan and cannot
opt out. Who is eligible in this manner - new hires are, because
they are not in an enterprise's previously existing plan. This
is one reason why President Obama says that the process will not
be sudden but instead will take years.
Fourth, your point about rationing appears to be a good one at
first, until one remembers that there is no such thing as a free
lunch. If there is a contribution limitation on the families,
then the costs they would have otherwise borne will be paid for
by other actors in the system or by the government, i.e.,
taxpayers. Hence, if the costs are distributed among everyone,
then there is no incentive for cost-saving. However, as has been
experienced in national health service schemes elsewhere in the
world, the major-medical services tend to get shorted. This is
because unlike private insurance, government schemes operate as a
pay-as-you-go arrangement rather than as an actuarially funded
plan. If and when the revenues fall short of expectations, the
rationing bite will become pronounced.
There are other aspects of this bill which deserve comment:
It does not reform malpractice law and therefore malpractice
insurance rates will continue to have an impact on where
physicians choose to locate.
It does not allow for true interstate competition among insurers.
It does not direct the same grievance procedures against
decisions made by the government bureaucrats as the bill requires
of private insurers.
As this program receives Federal funding, it may be subject to
the Davis-Bacon Act; no exemption from Davis-Bacon is in the
bill. Davis-Bacon requires that all contractors providing goods
and services to the Federal government or to citizens on behalf
of the Federal government must pay the highest prevailing wages
for every job classification within their geographic area
(usually defined as a Metropolitan Statistical Area or MSA).
The bill is silent on health care workers and strikes.
While the bill allows outside contractors to provide some
administrative services, such contractors are limited to
non-profit organizations.
Also, I have the Eastern European experience within my extended
family. If you were deemed politically troublesome or an
undesirable minority, you received substandard care or simply did
not get care at all. The USA is not at that point yet, but it
more than rankles me to hear one of the President's chief medical
care advisors (Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel) speak of physicians not
advocating the best treatment for their patients but thinking
instead of treatment consistent with "socially desirable outcomes."
There are probably some positive aspects of the plan. I just
have not seen them. Feel free to point them out.
chsw
Any judge of a proper debate would score accordingly.
Tick
> chsw- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
put the budweiser down tickhead, you're in no position
to be judging ANYTHING.