Ok, so I am gonna cheat a little bit. I was on one of my usual 'fact-finding missions' last night and this article regarding health care popped up. The article absolutely sickened me (the article is included below). So, I constructed an email and sent it to just about everyone I know, whether they be Conservative or Lib. I interjected my comments into the article for a play-by-play running conversation into the EVILS of the proposed plan. So, I give you the email (in all its glory) as well as the article with my comments included.
Enjoy. And prepare to feel nauseous. I think it is GUT-WRENCHING!!!
Here you go....
Folks...Pardon the interruption. But this was just one of those articles that HAD to go out to EVERYONE.
I am not in the business (maybe I should be) of trying to change anyone's mind about anything. However, I DO believe that one must have all the FACTS before making any decision. You are NOT getting all the FACTS if you are relying on the main-stream media, NPR or your local newspaper. FLAT OUT. Unless you are taking ALL sources of information from print, video and internet and weeding out the garbage, you are getting a half-truth. This is precisely what the leftists want. Better yet, they want you IN THE DARK. So, I decided to whip up a little EDITORIAL piece on an article that I found. Hopefully, it will open your eyes a little bit and get you to think about the dangerous path that we are currently on.
Please forward this on to anyone else that you think might need to hear the truth. Toss it out and smile pretty for the proletariat camera if you are already in the tank for Obummer (Obama-tron powers...ACTIVATE).
My editorial begins here....
Excuse me, sorry to be the HISTORY person in the room, but where, OH WHERE, does it say that health care is a RIGHT? Anyone? I know that this is what the 'revisionist', non-historical, left wing lunatic fringe WANTS the American 'sheeple' to believe. A RIGHT? Really? I suggest that you RE-READ the US Constitution (please pay close attention to the BILL OF RIGHTS) and see if you can find ANYTHING in that document that even eludes to government provided ANYTHING being a RIGHT.--By the way, THANKS Mr. Craven for inspiring me to study History. It is one of the greatest gifts anyone has ever given me.-- Now, you can LAY DOWN, swallow the $1.5 TRILLION price tag and continue to throw MORE of your hard earned dollars at Washington. OR, you can proudly stand up, throw off your financial CHAINS of oppression and say, "I'm mad as HELL, and I'm not gonna take it anymore!!"
And for those of you who still believe that taxes for those who make less that $250,000 won't go up to pay for this, well, I have some GREAT land in Florida for sale.
WAKE UP!!!
REVOLUTION CALLING!!!
cy
Here is the article...My comments are in
italics
House rolls out plan to make health care a right
APBy RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR and ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writers Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar And Erica Werner, Associated Press Writers – 3 mins ago
WASHINGTON – House Democrats on Tuesday rolled out a far-reaching $1.5 trillion plan that for the first time would make health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans, with medical providers, employers and the wealthiest picking up most of the tab.
The federal government would be responsible for ensuring that every person, regardless of income or the state of their health, has access to an affordable insurance plan.
(this is called NATIONALIZED HEALTH CARE folks!!!) Individuals and employers would have new obligations to get coverage, or face hefty penalties.
Health care overhaul is President Barack Obama's top domestic priority, and his goal is to slow rising costs and provide coverage to nearly 50 million uninsured Americans.
Democratic leaders said they would push the measure through committee
(meaning they won't be allowing BIPARTISAN alternatives) and toward a vote in the full House by month's end, while the pace of activity quickened on the other side of the Capitol.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he wanted floor debate to begin a week from Monday. Other officials said that timetable was likely to slip. Even so, it underscored a renewed sense of urgency.
The House legislation unveiled by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats would slow the growth of Medicare and Medicaid
(those of you who are retired and receive these benefits have just had your care HIJACKED!!) payments to medical providers. From big hospitals to solo physician practices, providers also would be held to account for quality care, not just ordering up tests and procedures.
Insurance companies would be prohibited from denying coverage to the sick. The industry also would face stiff competition from a new government plan
(so the government gets to be a 'player' and the 'referee'? Will one of you sports enthusiasts please tell me if you have ever seen a participant also be an official?) designed along the lines of Medicare.
The liberal-leaning plan lacked figures on total costs, but a House Democratic aide said the total bill would add up to about $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private calculations. Most of the bill's costs come in the last five years after the 2012 presidential election.
(Gladly pay your Tuesday for a hamburger today!!)The legislation calls for a 5.4 percent tax increase on individuals making more than $1 million a year, with a gradual tax beginning at $280,000 for individuals. Employers who don't provide coverage would be hit with a penalty equal to 8 percent of workers' wages with an exemption for small businesses. Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan.
(Freedom? Choices? Liberty? Forced to pay? Confiscatory penalties? The Soviet Union? Hmmmm)With Obama pressing Congress to act on health care this summer, House leaders want to move their bill quickly through three committees and to a floor vote before the August congressional recess. But a group of moderate and conservative Democrats has withheld support, and no Republican votes are expected.
(some people still have a sense of what's a 'right' and what is WRONG!!!)The House bill seemed unlikely to win broad backing in the Senate, where the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee was expected to finish its version of the legislation Wednesday in what was looking to be a party-line vote. Another panel, the Senate Finance Committee, was striving to unveil a bill by the end of the week.
Standing before a banner that read "Quality Affordable Care for the Middle Class," Pelosi, D-Calif., called the moment "historic and transformative." The bill would provide "stability and peace of mind" by braking costs and guaranteeing coverage, she said.
"We are going to accomplish what many people felt wouldn't happen in our lifetime," said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif.
(what does Energy and Commerce have to do with Health Care? Does this guy think he is going to finally get that free nose job or something?), one of the main sponsors. Obama, who issued a statement hailing the measure, plans to keep up the pressure on Congress by delivering remarks in the Rose Garden on Wednesday.
Speaking in Warren, Mich., where he was promoting new spending
(MORE spending? Does it ever end?) for community colleges, Obama anticipated a congressional confrontation over health care.
"There's going to be a major debate over the next three weeks," he said, deviating from his prepared text. "And don't be fooled by folks trying to scare you saying we can't change the health care system.We have no choice but to change the health care system because right now it's broken for too many Americans."
Separately, Obama spoke by telephone with Sen. Charles Grassley, the Iowa Republican viewed as critical to the fate of bipartisan negotiations in the Senate.
House Democrats said the income tax increase in their bill would apply only to the top 1.2 percent of households, those who earn about one-quarter of all income. The wealthiest 4 percent of small business owners would be among them. The tax would start at 1 percent for couples making $350,000 and individuals earning $280,000, ramp up to 1.5 percent above $500,000 of income, and jump to 5.4 percent for those earning above $1 million.
(Again, if you believe this, well, you need to have your head re-examined. They will continue to lower that threshold more and more when they figure out that they won't be able to make ends meet. They will only be happy until ALL of us are paying for this 'pipe dream'.)The tax would raise an estimated $544 billion over 10 years.
(but I thought the total price of the bill was $1.5 TRILLION? Is that Obummer Math or something?)
Business groups and the insurance industry immediately assailed the legislation. In a letter to lawmakers, major business organizations branded the 1,000-page bill a job-killer. Its coverage mandate would automatically raise the cost of hiring a new worker, they said.
(again, someone is actually THINKING about the long-term affects here)
"Exempting some micro-businesses will not prevent this provision from killing many jobs," the letter said. "Congress should allow market forces and employer autonomy to determine what benefits employers provide, rather than deciding by fiat."
The business groups also warned that the U.S. health care system could be damaged by adding a government-run insurance plan and a federal council that would make some decisions on benefits, as called for in the legislation. Thirty-one organizations signed the letter, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable representing top corporate CEOs and the National Retail Federation.
(so is the Chamber of Commerce some right-wing hate group now who is unconcerned with those who cannot afford health insurance? Watch the name-calling and the marginalization of this group begin........)The House bill would change the way individuals and many employers get health insurance. It would set up a new national purchasing pool, called an exchange. The exchange would offer a menu of plans, with different levels of coverage. A government plan would be among the options, and the exchange would eventually be open to most employers. Insurers say that combination would drive many of them out of business since the public plan would be able to offer lower premiums to virtually all Americans.
(and this is a good thing? The government is on the record as saying that it will bring "competition" back to health insurance. This is competition? Someone FAILED Economics 101)But backers of a public plan — including Obama — say it would provide healthy competition for the insurance industry.
(HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....see above)Under the House bill, the government would provide subsidies
(that means MORE taxes for you and I to pay) to make coverage more affordable for households with incomes up to four times the federal poverty level, or $88,000 for a family of four and $43,000 for an individual. Medicaid — the federal-state health program for the poor — would be expanded to individuals and families up to 133 percent of the poverty line. About 17 million people would remain uninsured — about 6 percent of the population — and half of them would be illegal immigrants.
($1.7 TRILLION to insure about 28 million people? Are you kidding me? Again, the government's use of PUBLIC funds here is INEFFICIENT. What else is new?)The legislation also would improve the Medicare prescription drug benefit by gradually reducing a coverage gap known as the 'doughnut hole.'
The individual and employer coverage requirements would raise about $192 billion over 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office said.
Even before the bill was unveiled, the House Ways and Means Committee announced it would vote on the proposal beginning on Thursday. The panel is one of three that must act before the bill can go to the full House, probably later in the month.
Some House Democrats privately have expressed concern that they will be required to vote on higher taxes, only to learn later that the Senate does not intend to follow through with legislation of its own. That would leave rank-and-file House Democrats up for re-election next year in the uncomfortable position of having to explain their vote on a costly bill that never reached Obama's desk or became law.
(say bye-bye. 2010 will be the end of this mindless insanity and 2012 will put the nail in the Obama-tron's casket. The question is, can we hold out until then?)
"In time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
---George Orwell
Posts
