Author Topic: Emergency Inside the Healthcare Bill Total Government Control in your life!!!!  (Read 29851 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline davidnay

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 477
amazing how complicated they make it.

Read the constitution, made at an eigth grade level, no confusion.

Yeah.. I think lawyers actually write all the bills now.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
If you have health insurance you probably already have a machine readable ID card for your plan so not sure why that would be a problem?  Section "D" on page 58 leaves a lot of things up in the air and should not be misconstrued.  In fact what they mean needs to be spelled out.  Call them out on it.  Personally I'm tired of being ripped off by my health insurance company for partial coverage so the CEO can fly around the world in a private jet eating off gold plates.  Smacks of the Roman Empire.  Go talk to your congressman.

If you think you are paying too much for poor service, just wait until it is free!
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately


  • Guest
When I get my National ID Healthcard, I will perform my patriotic duty by burning my card. IMHO, those people in the 60s and 70s who burned their draft cards did so in protest of the government's forced slavery/servitude. Being forced to participate in government-run healthcare and being forced to carry a National ID Healthcard is tantamount to involuntary servitude.

Offline Southern Patriot

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,126
  • Inter arma enim silent leges
That is why they said not to read it and just vote on it.."We already had two lawyers look at it for you!"

Offline menace

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,843
Here is a petition you can sing to reject Obamacare.

Offline menace

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,843
The proposed Obama government healthcare bill has a government snitch network built into it, allowing social workers to gain access to your home under the pretext of checking on your new baby, or soon-to-be-born baby. It will result in many many more children being taken from families by state Child Protective Services agencies.

This is the fulfillment of a long-held dream by child protection agencies to gain access to homes, without first getting a report of abuse or neglect, as currently required by law. Mandated visits to homes by government agents has been a favorite cause of Hillary Clinton, and of the radical bureaucrats running the U.S. Administration of Children and Families.

This "home invasion" program is found on page 838 of the lengthy bill, in Section 1904, and it is called the "Home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children." The pretext on which the state agents would enter the home would be to "to improve the well-being, health, and development of children by enabling the establishment and expansion of high quality programs providing voluntary home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children." It sounds pretty innocuous, but based on my 15 years of fighting these bureaucrats in court on behalf of innocent families, it can be predicted that the way it will work in real life will be much more sinister.

Visits from the bureaucrats are voluntary in theory. (However, so are income taxes.) Here is how it will work: after your first appointment with your OB/GYN to confirm a pregnancy, the doctor will be required to report it to the leviathan healthcare bureaucracy. If you somehow fall through the cracks during the pregnancy, the birth hospital will do the honors of reporting you to the state. Then, chirpy social workers will show up at your house one day, and pressure you to allow them to come "voluntarily" into your house. These people are so-called "mandated reporters," who must report any abuse or neglect or potentially face fines and jail.

Certain populations will be targeted for this "help," and this should raise even more concern. Here is what the bill says: "The State shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families or a high incidence of child maltreatment." Translated, this means that poor and racial minority communities will be targeted, since they are more vulnerable and they cannot as readily access legal muscle to repel the invaders.

Once into your home, they will look around and find something, anything, to call "abuse" or "neglect." Their jobs depend on it, and you can be sure that the managers will set quotas, which will never be acknowledged. Then, they will open a case with a child protective services agency, and give you "services," whether you like it or not. In cases that they judge to be more serious, they will likely ask their legal department to bring a court case and possibly remove the children.

This is a backdoor means of obtaining agreement to go around the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and similar provisions in most state constitutions that prohibit entry into a home without a search warrant. If you agree, then you have waived your right to require a search warrant, which can only be authorized by a magistrate or judge on probable cause that a crime has or is being committed.

This part of the Obama healthcare bill is terrifying, and the numbers of children taken from families, as well as those who will have to endure weekly or monthly visits from a social worker, will increase manyfold. This conclusion is not speculative, as it is the whole reason for mandating these visits to homes in the first place. If they did not expect to kidnap more children and to open many more administrative cases, the provision would not have been there.

This is the first installment in a series looking at various fine-print provisions of the proposed Obama healthcare bill that deprive citizens of rights, or are of particular concern owing to their likely intrusion on personal privacy or family autonomy.  Check back frequently for further parts in this series, where we will isolate and analyze the scariest parts of the 1017 page Obama healthcare bill.


  • Guest
Welcome to hell, ladies and gentlemen.

Offline homeofhumans

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 18
How are we going to save this country when the majority of politicians (Congress) are corrupt? RP, DeMint, and others are dwarfed when compared to their corrupt adversaries.

It's like sheep pleading for mercy from wolves.

Offline menace

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,843
Washington Post confirms Grandma faces Euthanasia under Obamacare

The Washington Post has just confirmed as false two statements in the new White House video and AARP emails, which had denied claims of Euthanasia in "Obamacare" health bill HR 3200, that hostile, socialist government takeover of your hospital, doctors, children, and grandparents.  An editorial by respected bioethicist and Wash. Post Editorial Board member Charles Lane entitled, "Undue Influence: The House Bill Skews End-of-Life Counsel," blasts the false claims by AARP and The White House that HR 3200 does not push euthanaia on seniors.

Offline Chips

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Dr. Fraser's healthcare bill letter may not be completely accurate. For instance, while in essence everybody and their dawgs indeed seem to be covered by the language on page 51 ("[health care services] shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services."), on page 143 we find "SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS: Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." Now, do I know what "affordability credits" are, therefore whether this section really preclude illegal aliens receiving federally subsidized health care? No. I'm just saying, just because there's an M.D. after "Fraser" doesn't mean he's infallible, despite the fact that his revelations re the bill fit neatly the truther agenda (to determine and reveal the truth).

Not to change the subject, but the reason I've been (unsuccessfully) surfing the forum is because I thought I heard AJ say Friday that it has been reported in the foreign press that people in the U.S. (just?) died as a result of getting a (flu?) vaccination. AJ considered the news an alert, but I've found nothing I would consider a follow-up article on infowars. ANYBODY have any input?

Offline menace

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,843
Ron Paul : Kennedy Death to Push Reform 8/26

Offline menace

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,843
Democrats are responding with divisive hate statements and attack ad's against Republican Senators. Congressman Patrick Kennedy (D) RI, has stepped up the anti-Obamacare-people-are-violent-and-must-be-stopped rhetoric, saying "Some people can see through TV ratings and right-wing talk show hosts that just try to create some theater, but unfortunately, there are some that can't see through it. And that's the danger in it."

Now Patrick is another Kennedy clan member that thinks you are too dumb to make up your own mind. These attacks reveal desperation by Democrats and cover up the plain truth of the Bill.

AmeriPac reveals the truth with by simply publishing the Bill details that are killing ObamaCare.

Obama's continues his fear campaign with "horror stories" that turn out to be misleading. This time about a woman who, he says, lost her health insurance on the verge of breast cancer surgery because she didn't disclose a case of acne to the insurer. That's not what happened. While she did lose her health care it was because she had failed to disclose her previous heart condition and did not list her weight accurately.

As you know, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are dead set on forcing America into accepting their plans for socialized health care.

It didn't seem like such an unreasonable request. Before the Senate Finance Committee passes one of the most important pieces of legislation in our lifetime, we (the American people) wanted to see two things:

* First, the actual language of the latest anti-gun ObamaCare bill.

* Second, a definitive Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reading of the cost of the legislation, based on its specific language.

But, incredibly, this simple request is too much for Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, who intends to force the committee to vote on the bill with nothing but a "quickie guesstimate" of the cost -- a "guesstimate" which CBO will have to reach WITHOUT EVEN HAVING ACCESS TO THE ACTUAL LEGISLATION.

That's right. The committee has virtually finished consideration of the health care bill -- the most important in our lifetime -- AND THERE IS STILL NO LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE.

Shouldn't we at least have a cost estimate that is based on what is actually in the bill? Yes, but a full CBO cost estimate would take two weeks -- and this is inconsistent with efforts by liberal Democrats to cram this bill quickly down the throats of the American people.

Moreover, don't you realize that "legislative language is very complex" and the American people are just too stupid to understand it.

Well, are the members of the committee too stupid as well? And what about the CBO? Is it too stupid?

A Third World country would be embarrassed by the sleaze, corruption, and fraud being used to pass the most expansive government intrusion into health care of our lifetime.

It's time to put an end to these disgusting tricks.


  • Guest

"They are finally coming out with it in mainstream.  What they aren't telling you is that this is a global system so your eDoctor might be (probably will be)  in Mumbai.  "
In Health Care Today, It's Electronic All the Way
By Dennis Thompson
HealthDay Reporter by Dennis Thompson
healthday Reporter – 1 hr 2 mins ago

SATURDAY, Oct. 3 (HealthDay News) -- Imagine that you see a new mole and don't like the looks of it so you take a picture of it using your cell phone and e-mail it to your family doctor for an opinion.

Or perhaps you have heart disease and take your blood pressure using a cuff that automatically uploads the data to your cardiologist's computer for review.

Using electronic communications equipment to transmit medical information for consultation or examination -- known as telemedicine -- has come a long way from its beginnings as a means for rural areas to have access via teleconferencing to top-flight specialists.

In fact, technology has advanced to the point that telemedicine is beginning to blur into the normal daily routine of a doctor, said Dr. Jason Mitchell, assistant director for the Center for Health Information Technology of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

"Someday we won't even consider it telemedicine anymore," Mitchell said. "It'll just be part of the way we practice medicine."

And evidence is mounting that telemedicine can play a positive role in health care. A study in the journal Stroke found that the use of teleconferencing and the transmission of CT brain scans is beneficial to the initial treatment of stroke victims, later assessment of the amount of brain damage they've received and the rehabilitation they will go through during their long-term recuperation.

Some new ways of practicing medicine already taking place that could be considered telemedicine include:

    * Ambulances transmitting EKG data to the hospital they're en route to
    * Automated pill counters that transmit data that lets doctors know whether medications are being taken as prescribed
    * Teleconferences to bring in specialists for consultation in such fields as dermatology, neonatal care, surgery and psychotherapists
    * Electronic scales for heart patients that trigger an alert to a nurse if the patient's weight increases dramatically

"One of the best early indicators for impending hospitalization for patients with congestive heart failure is an increase in body weight," said Dr. Lee H. Schwamm, vice chairman of the neurology department and director of TeleStroke & Acute Stroke Services at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and an associate professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School.
Schwamm describes such examples of telemedicine as "low-hanging fruit," easily done to great advantage for both the patient and the doctors involved.
Telemedicine could be a boon to preventative medicine, Mitchell and Schwamm said, giving doctors access to detailed data that would allow them to diagnose problems early. For example, data from the scales or the blood pressure cuff could give doctors a chance to get someone in for treatment before a heart attack or stroke occurs.
"It would identify for us when a patient should be seen rather than relying on the patient for that judgment," Schwamm said. "In my mind, that's the real promise."
Telemedicine also could provide tremendous cost savings. People might not have to take time off from work and drive to see their doctor to have a question or concern addressed. And people with serious illnesses might not have to travel hundreds or thousands of miles for a consultant's opinion. "It's expensive and inefficient to move people around when many visits require minimal care," Schwamm said.
Some impediments must be overcome, however. Insurance companies have not ironed out how a doctor should be compensated for different types of telemedical service. "That takes time. That takes expertise," Mitchell said. "There should be some level of compensation for making that happen."
And there are administrative barriers, too, Schwamm said. For example, can a doctor licensed and credentialed in one state "see" patients from another state via an Internet video link?
Mitchell believes telemedicine ultimately will strengthen people's relationships with their doctors, allowing them to share health information more easily. However, people first need to have a relationship with a doctor they trust.
"This is an adjunct to a relationship with a physician that's already there," Mitchell said. "I don't think the electronic interactions are going to completely replace the personal interaction, but they can augment them. You don't have to be standing in front of a physician to accomplish certain things, but that hands-on interaction needs to be there in many cases."
Don't write off doctor visits just yet, though.
"It's important to never underestimate the healing power of human touch," Schwamm said."
It will be a "boon" to eugenics.  They want your DNA and all medical info uploaded to the AI enterprise architecture residing on the Global Information Grid for full spectrum tyranny over all aspects of your physiology.

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,939

"They are finally coming out with it in mainstream.  What they aren't telling you is that this is a global system so your eDoctor might be (probably will be)  in Mumbai.  "
It will be a "boon" to eugenics.  They want your DNA and all medical info uploaded to the AI enterprise architecture residing on the Global Information Grid for full spectrum tyranny over all aspects of your physiology.

Yes, and couple this with technology they were writing about in 2006:

May 2006

Implantable Medication
Programmable drug chips have passed a longevity milestone: six months of drug release.
By Erika Jonietz

A wireless signal from outside the body
prompts the device to melt a thin metal membrane,
releasing a drug into the tissue. A solder seal holds
the drug in place. Courtesy of MicroChips.  

Implantable devices being developed by a Bedford, MA, company called MicroChips may one day replace the tedious ritual of regular drug injections. Instead, doctors could program a chip under the skin, allowing drug doses to be released on schedule from any of 100 microscale drug reservoirs.

Implantable Medication Delivers Drugs
Posted on Feb 12, 08 07:54 PM PDT

Getting your pharmaceuticals delivered on time and consistently can be quite a challenge for some people, but the brilliant minds at MIT have developed an implantable medication laced film which makes it a snap to deliver pharmaceuticals accurately. This film will probably see action in the future, delivering drugs for cancer, epilepsy, diabetes and other diseases.

It also holds the distinction of being the first drug-delivery coatings that "can be remotely activated by applying a small electric field". Sounds perfect for forgetful folk like me.

^^ That author has obviously already taken the 'fluoride' chip. ;)

So you think you want to stop taking Prozac? Sorry, you've got 6 months to go.. (and probably longer by now).

And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40

Offline menace

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,843
“America’s Health Future Act of 2009” establishes home visitation programs by adding an amendment to the Social Security Act: “America’s Health Future Act” will “establish a new state grant program for early childhood home visitation.” The states that receive these grants must establish goals for the next 3–5 years to improve:

Maternal and child health;
Prevent childhood injury;
Ensure school readiness;
Prevent juvenile delinquency;
Address family economic issues;
Coordinate programs with community resources.
If a state fails to meet its set goals by the third year in the program, “expert technical assistance” will be brought in.

“America’s Health Future Act of 2009” could lead to politically influenced parenting classes that pressure parents to raise their children how the government dictates. While the home visitation program in the bill is voluntary, all the details of the these home visitation programs are open to being politically influenced by government bureaucrats who may think that they know more about parenting than parents do. They may pressure parents to adopt childrearing methods that are against the family’s religious beliefs. Home visitation officials may even threaten families with abuse and neglect investigations if the families do not choose to follow the official parenting education models.

“America’s Health Future Act of 2009” could result in states creating mandatory home visitation programs. The home visitation program grants will be added to the Maternal and Child Health (MCH) grants already in use under the Social Security Act. States applying for MCH grants will need to “conduct a needs assessment to identify communities that are at risk for poor maternal and child health and have few quality home visitation programs.”

The communities identified will be marked as “at-risk” and will be viewed as a priority for the home visitation program. Nothing in the bill gives individuals the ability to opt out of these home visitation programs. Decisions about what these programs consist of and who will be eligible for them would be left up to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Federal government.

Offline menace

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,843
ObamaCare Could be Used to Ban Guns in Home Self-Defense
« Reply #55 on: October 09, 2009, 04:55:51 pm »

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has something to say to gun owners:  "Own a gun; lose your coverage!"

Baucus' socialized health care bill comes up for a Finance Committee vote on Tuesday.  We have waited and waited and waited for the shifty Baucus to release legislative language.  But he has refused to release anything but a summary -- and we will never have a Congressional Budget Office cost assessment based on actual legislation.  Even the summary was kept secret for a long time. 

But, on the basis of the summary, the Baucus bill (which is still unnumbered) tells us virtually nothing about what kind of policy Americans will be required to purchase under penalty of law -- nor the consequences.  It simply says:

* "all U.S. citizens and legal residents would be required to purchase coverage through (1) the individual market...";

* "individuals would be required to report on their federal income tax return the months for which they maintain the required minimum health coverage...";

* in addition to an extensive list of statutorily mandated coverage, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would be empowered to "define and update the categories of treatments, items, and services..." within an insurance plan which would be covered in a policy constituting "required minimum health coverage."

ObamaCare and gun control

It is nearly certain that coverage prescribed by the administration will, to control costs, exclude coverage for what it regards as excessively dangerous activities.  And, given Sebelius' well-established antipathy to the Second Amendment -- she vetoed concealed carry legislation as governor of Kansas -- we presume she will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and self-defense using a firearm.  It is even possible that the Obama-prescribed policy could preclude reimbursement of any kind in a household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense. 

The ObamaCare bill already contains language that will punish Americans who engage in unhealthy behavior by allowing insurers to charge them higher insurance premiums.  (What constitutes an unhealthy lifestyle is, of course, to be defined by legislators.)  Don't be surprised if an anti-gun nut like Sebelius uses this line of thinking to impose ObamaCare policies which result in a back-door gun ban on any American who owns "dangerous" firearms.

After all, insurers already (and routinely) drop homeowners from their policies for owning certain types of guns or for refusing to use trigger locks (that is, for keeping their guns ready for self-defense!).  While not all insurers practice this anti-gun behavior, Gun Owners of America has documented that some do -- Prudential and State Farm being two of the most well-known. 

The good news is that because homeowner insurance is private (and is still subject to the free market) you can go to another company if one drops you.  But what are you going to do under nationalized ObamaCare when the regulations written by Secretary Sebelius suspend the applicability of your government-mandated policy because of your gun ownership?

Remember, the federal government has already denied more than 150,000 military veterans the right to own guns, without their being convicted of a crime or receiving any due process of law.  They were denied because of medical information (such as PTSD) that the FBI later determined disqualified these veterans to own guns.

Is this what we need on a national level being applied to every gun owner in America?

Incidentally, failure to comply would subject the average family to $1,500 in fines -- and possibly more for a household with older teens.  And, although a Schumer amendment purports to exempt Americans from prison sentences for non-purchase of an ObamaPolicy -- something which was never at issue -- it doesn't prohibit them from being sent to prison for a year and fined an additional $25,000 under the Internal Revenue Code for non-payment of the initial fines.

Offline menace

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,843
President Obama's credibility was dealt another blow yesterday, by a fellow Democrat who broke Obama's phony pledge to Congress that "No federal dollars will be used to fund abortions."  Now both the House and Senate versions fund elective abortions, making Obama's words more untrue than when he first spoke them.

The "new and improved" Senate plan released by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) not only directly funds some abortions, it also dramatically increases the number of babies likely to be killed by ELECTIVE abortion using tax-dollars and federal funds.  Abortions that were not previously funded but will now be funded include, at least, killing children in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. (The life exception is sometimes valid, but never should an innocent child be killed just because its father happens to be a criminal.) Yet the new Baucus funding also covers elective abortions of convenience, as confirmed by U.S. News and World Report quoting National Right To Life:

"The [Baucus] bill contains provisions that would send massive federal subsidies directly to both private insurance plans and government-chartered cooperatives that pay for elective abortion. This would be a drastic break from longstanding federal policy, under which federal funds do not [yet] pay for elective abortions or subsidize health plans that cover elective abortions. For example, current law prohibits any of the over 250 private health plans that participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program from paying for elective abortions, because these plans receive federal subsidies. These private plans cover over 8 million federal employees and dependents, including members of Congress."  [But that restriction is effectively overturned by the Baucus bill.]

According to Focus On The Family Action, under the Baucus bill:
* $6 billion would go for health insurance cooperatives, which would be permitted to cover abortion.
* Abortions permitted under the Hyde Amendment would be mandated under the minimum benefits package [of the Baucus bill]. 
* Tax credits and cost-sharing credits could be re-labeled to pay for abortion under private premiums.

Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said despite the White House's stance that there will be no abortion funding in any health-care bill, both the House and Senate versions mandate such funding.  "We don't care about rhetoric when it comes to protecting innocent, preborn lives," she said.  "We care about results."

Over 50 young people prayed with me in Washington DC during our all-night "27 hours of Prayer" vigil on the West Lawn of the Capitol Sunday night, with national pro-life leaders like Pat Mahoney and Chris Slattery, and we prayed specifically that abortion funding would be struck from the President's health care bill. 

At first, I was encouraged, hoping that God had answered our prayers, when Senator Baucus promised that abortion funding would not be mandated in his "new and improved" version of the Senate bill.  But upon further inspection, I was horrified.

Time Magazine now confirms: "Under the Baucus plan, like the House plan, certain individuals would get government subsidies to help buy private insurance in a publicly-established exchanges. There would be a guaranteed choice in each health insurance exchange between at least one plan that does not offer abortion services beyond rape, incest and the life of the mother, and at least one plan that does, allowing consumers to choose their preference."

In other words, if you couldn't afford an abortion yesterday, it will be free tomorrow, so long as you simply choose the right plan, tax-payers will fund your abortion, even elective abortions of convenience, above and beyond the cases of rape, incest, and life. Ironically President Obama will sign a bill that fulfills Margaret Sanger's racist vision to exterminate poor children, many of whom will be African-American, through abortion.

By creating an "accounting scheme" child-killing providers must pretend "to segregate funds internally, so that only private dues, and not federal subsidies, pay for actual abortion services," but they are not required to increase the co-pay, so the abortion is essentially free to the young woman who receives federal dollars to electively kill her child, or costs the same as any other doctor's office visit.


Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) issued an apology after his outburst, "you lie," toward President Obama during his health care speech to Congress on Wednesday.  "I let my emotions get the best of me," Wilson said in a statement. "I extend sincere apologies to the president."  We commend Wilson for his quick humility.  But questions remain: 

Did Obama tell lies during the speech?  Was Wilson right after all?  And why doesn't Obama apologize just as quickly for calling conservatives liars?  In their fact-checking, the press confirmed FIVE WHOPPERS told by the President himself: 

OBAMA LIE #1: "No federal dollars will be used to fund abortions." 

THE TRUTH:  The Capps Amendment to HR 3200 has a Section 4B that reads: "Abortions for Which Public Funding Is Allowed. -- The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted."  The Washington Times reported:  "You can't get more explicit than that."  And exposed Obama's lie too:  "Despite what Obama said, the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans."  So President Obama lied, plain and simple. 

OBAMA LIE #2: "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period."   

THE TRUTH:  The Democrat controlled Congressional Budget Office said Obamacare would add $220 billion to the deficit over 10 years, but will not succeed at shrinking the overall costs of our nation's health care.  Republicans claim it's more like $600 billion increased deficit spending.  (Confirmed by Associated Press, 9 Sep 09.)  Either way, Obama lied.   

OBAMA LIE #3: "Don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut...That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare."   

THE TRUTH:  The Washington Post reports Obama proposes "to squeeze more than $500 billion out of the growth of Medicare over the next decade....[which has] fueled fears that his effort to expand coverage to millions of younger, uninsured Americans will damage elder care. As a result, barely one-third of seniors support a health-care overhaul, several polls found." (Washington Post, 9 Aug 09)  Even the Post admits, Obama lied. 


OBAMA LIE #4:  "If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage."

THE TRUTH:  Whether working or not, rich or poor, you will be ordered to get mandatory government-run health-care coverage, or pay a fine a $3800 fine per family, under the new Senate plan being railroaded through the finance committee by Max Baucus (D-MT).  (New York Times, 9 Sep 09).  Obama pretends you're "able" to get coverage, when he knows it's mandatory (with a big tax increase or "fine" penalty).  Obama lied.  But the biggest of all... 

OBAMA LIE #5:  "The claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple."   

THE TRUTH:  Mandatory "end of life" counseling in HR 3200 "shall" include counseling every 5 years to the elderly, giving doctors a monetary incentive to persuade you to sign a "do not resuscitate" (DNR) order to pull the plug on Grandma, just like the Obama administration already pressures all Veterans to sign them.  (Confirmed by the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, read extensive details at  And under the British NHS government-run health plan, "Patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under an NHS scheme to help end their lives, leading doctors have warned."  (The Daily Telegraph, 2 Sep 09).  Dr. Ewing Cook just admitted intentionally killing patients who signed DNR authorizations during Hurricane Katrina.  "I gave her medicine so I could get rid of her faster...there's no question I hastened her demise."  Bottom line: Grandma, don't sign Obama's DNR order, even if your doctor gets a bonus check from the President for talking you into that.   

Obama lied at least five times during his speech. 

Send Congress Faxes to Oppose Obamacare

Offline menace

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,843
Robert Reich, Clinton’s Secretary of Labor and avid Obama supporter, wants to deny health care to old folks. They’re too expensive. He also told an audience in 2007 that most people will not live longer than their parents. Again, too expensive. He wants to force medical technology corporations to stop developing new life-saving technology.

Reich, of course, supports the so-called “public option,” the government’s take-over of the health care industry. In order to push the Obamacare scam, Reich proposed a march on Washington by the liberals to demand the public option. He wanted to do this on Grandparents Day, September 13.

Reich wanted people to march in favor of a plan that would mandate old people die on a day set aside for old people. You can’t make this stuff up.

Mr. Reich’s pronouncement is yet another confirmation that the government wants to kill old people who are after all — according to our eugenicist rulers — nothing if not useless eaters.

Democrats and liberals went ballistic when Sarah Palin mentioned the fact that the government wants to use the “level of productivity in society” as the basis for determining access to medical care. This Darwinian and Malthusian concept is supported by Dr. Ezekial Emanuel, brother of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and White House health care policy adviser.

Emanuel does not use the term “death panels” and the term does not appear in the Obamacare bill. That would be political suicide. Instead he argues in favor of “The Complete Lives System,” a system that “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.”

In 1996, Emanuel said health care should be rationed for those who are not “participating citizens,” that is to say the old, the infirm, and those suffering from irreversible medical conditions.

As a good liberal, Emanuel would like to avoid the perception that he proposes killing old people simply because they are old — that would be “ageist” — and instead argues that they have used up their “life-years” and basically need to get out of the way and stop using up precious medical resources.

Robert Reich reduces the academic gobbledygook of Emanuel’s “Complete Lives System” down to language the average person can understand. In the above video, he spells it out — the government will intervene in medical decisions made by you and your family. Grand daddy is a burden on society and has nothing left to contribute because he no longer works and pays half or more of his income to the government in the form of confiscatory taxes.

The sad and frightening thing is, when Reich told the audience they will have to die, they applauded.


  • Guest

Leaders in the House and Senate have a plan to pass President Barack Obama’s sweeping health care plan by Thanksgiving without any significant participation by the American public. CNS News has confirmed the details in our September 22nd titled “Passing a Shell of A Bill: Congress’ Secret Plan to Ram Through Health Care Reform.” Nicholas Ballasy reports “a senior aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told that it is ‘likely’ that Reid will use H.R. 1586—a bill passed by the House in March to impose a 90-percent tax on bonuses paid to employees of certain bailed-out financial institutions—as a ‘shell’ for enacting the final version of the Senate’s health care bill, which Reid is responsible for crafting.”

This story confirms the four part scenario that would railroad the bill through the Senate using a very unusual closed door procedure to craft the bill with no input from the American people.

The four stage plan to pass Obamacare has been publicly confirmed and is ready to be implemented. The following is a comprehensive update:

Step One: “The Senate Finance Committee will finish work on the marking up of Senator Max Baucus’ (D-MT) conceptual framework for legislation by this Friday.” Progress on this had been stalled and the bill was not passed by the end of last week. is reporting that the Congressional Budget Office score of the bill will be released later today and a high score may further stall progress on the Committee’s Vapor Bill.  Senate Finance Committee’s progress on passing something out of committee – INCOMPLETE.

Step Two: Next, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will take the final product of the Senate Finance Committee and merge it with the product of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) Committee. has confirmed that “the actual final text of the legislation will be determined by Reid himself, who will consolidate the legislation approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and the still-unapproved legislation from the Senate Finance Committee. Reid will be able to draft and insert textual language that was not expressly approved by either committee.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will write the final version of Obamacare to be considered in the Senate with no input from the American people. This is an extremely complex procedure that will not be done in public, or in the form of a hearing, or a public conference committee, and only Senator Harry Reid, some other Senators chosen by Reid and Obama Administration officials will be allowed to read the bill before the Senate debate starts. Merger of the bills – IN PROGRESS.

Step Three: Senator Reid will then move to proceed to H.R. 1586, a bill to impose a tax on bonuses received by certain TARP recipients. A senior aid to Senate Majority Leader Ried has confirmed that he will move to proceed to Senate Calendar Number 36, H.R. 1586, or another House passed tax measure, so the Senate can avoid the Constitutional mandate that tax bills originate in the House. Proceed to tax shell of a bill – CONFIRMED.

Step Four: This scenario would most likely be implemented after the Massachusetts state legislature gives Governor Deval Patrick the power to appoint a new Senator and that Senator is seated by the Senate. The Senate swore in new Massachusetts Senator Paul Kirk on September 25th. Change Law of Massachusetts to allow for interim Senator – COMPLETE.

The final step in this plan is for the House to take up Obama care, without amending the legislation, and then sending that bill directly to the President for his signature. Matt Cover at reports “House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) won’t rule out having the House vote on the Senate health-care bill without making any changes in it, which would allow the bill to go directly to President Barack Obama without having to pass through a House-Senate conference committee and another round of votes in the House and Senate–and a longer period of public scrutiny of what the text of the proposed law actually says.” This scenario is in the process of being implemented and, if successful, it will result in Obamacare being on the President’s desk in time for Thansgiving with minimal participation of the American public.

The San Francisco Examiner published an editorial today that exposed the fact that the American people can’t see the bill. “When then-Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama promised not to sign major legislation until it had been posted on the Internet for public reading at least five days, trusting voters took him at his word. Now they know better. Not only is the actual language of what is likely to become the main legislative vehicle for Obama’s signature health care reform not available on the Internet, it hasn’t been given to members of the key Senate committees or the Congressional Budget Office.” The procedure being used, in addition to the exclusion of the American people from the process, should be of grave concern to all who want to participate in democracy and have a say in Congress’ health care reforms that will touch 1/6th of the American economy.

Offline Angry Patriot

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 333
"The most important lesson of History is that nobody ever learns History's lesson"

Aldous Huxley

Offline menace

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,843
A Paid Insider Can’t Be An Objective Outsider Judge

OMB director Peter Orszag and MIT economists Jonathan Gruber are both very smart, successful individuals. While I may not agree with them on every policy, that does not mean I don’t respect their intelligence. Both have knowledge and perspective to add to the health care debate. The problem is that it turns out they have the exact same insider perspective.

We have recently learned that they are both effectively employees of the Obama administration. Both were heavily invested in shaping the health care bill, and that gives both of them a very strong desire to see it become law. Neither is an outside observer, despite the fact that Jonathan Gruber is allowing himself to be depicted that way in multiple media outlets. Gruber has been quoted in numerous newspaper articles, none of which, to my knowledge, disclosed his connection to the White House. In fact, when directly asked by the Washington Post before writing an Op-Ed on the excise tax if he had any conflict of interest he said no. In reality Gruber, like Orszag was a paid part of the Obama health care team, and his statements should have been treated just like Orszag’s.

Gruber was not an objective third party observer, he was an Obama health care team member. This is critically important for judging his public statements. He was financially, professionally, and emotionally invested in actively shaping the health care reform bill. This can’t help but affect judgment of the final product. Just like some film directors might be very good movie critics, that does not mean I would not be very skeptical of their personal reviews of their own movies. Do I think the film director is lying because he thinks his film is the best movie ever? No, I don’t doubt he honestly believes that the movie he helped make is amazing, but I would very much want someone else’s opinion. Gruber falsely allowed himself to be viewed as an independent movie critic when in reality he was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to help make the film.

Think back to Ron Brownstein’s article on cost control. It was heavily based on the statements of Gruber. Do you think Brownstein could have or would have written the same article if he replaced all of Gruber’s opinions with Peter Orszag’s? Do you think an article based on Orszag’s judgment of the bill would have been as well received, widely circulated, or strongly promoted by the White House as proof of the bill’s cost control measures? Clearly, the answer is no, and that is the problem. Those inside the bubble may completely believe what they say, but the problem is that they are inside the bubble. They inherently have blindspots as a result of being part of the team and invested in the outcome. They can’t properly judge what they have been paid to work on.

Gruber’s ethnical failing is that he allowed himself to be falsely depicted as an objective outsider judge, which he was not. Even if Gruber believed 100% everything he ever publicly said about the bill, that is not the point. Being a well-paid consultant working on the bill, in itself, can dramatically change one’s perspective. You can’t be paid well over $400,000 to work on a project, and still objectively judge it as an outsider. Gruber did a serious disservice to the health care debate with his lack of candor. If we wanted an insider’s perspective about the bill, we could just ask Peter Orszag. At least then we would honestly know what we were getting.

NEJM accepts Baucus claim of no financial interests?

The following letter to the editor by Dr. Howard Green of Florida was sent to the New England Journal of Medicine in early November. It had not yet been published as of the Dec. 10 issue.

The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) has had a decades-old policy of financial disclosure by authors of editorials in order to “prevent financial interests from infringing on the editorial content of the Journal.”

This policy was grossly violated when the editors of the NEJM recently chose to publish an opinion piece by Senator Max Baucus titled “Doctors, Patients, and the Need for Health Care Reform” (Vol. 361:1817-1819, Nov. 5, 2009, No. 19) that included a statement by the author that he had no financial interests to disclose.

In the past year alone, Sen. Baucus has received payments from drug and health insurance companies many times in excess of the $10,000 limit which the Journal recognizes as significant to alter an author’s credibility. By failing to disclose those contributions to Journal readers, Sen. Baucus and the editors of the NEJM have violated their own code of ethics and disclosure meant to support the veracity of opinions and data presented in their journal.

Disclosure of the senator’s directly or indirectly received payments from health insurance and pharmaceutical companies would help readers understand why Sen. Baucus continues to support a government-subsidized, high-overhead, low-outcome private insurance industry operating parallel to and within Medicare insurance.

Disclosure of the senator’s receipt of such “contributions” from the health care sector might demonstrate why he supports a private health insurance industry that siphons away, via administrative overhead, hundreds of billions of dollars annually from physician subscribers to the NEJM, patients, clinics, therapists, and pharmacies.

In addition to failing to disclose in the NEJM the monies he has received from pharmaceutical and health insurance companies, Sen. Baucus failed to inform readers of his personal and his Senate Finance Committee’s continued support for (or acquiescence to) the following policies:

* A federal exemption for private health insurance companies from antitrust regulations.

* A prohibition on Medicare insurance establishing a drug formulary through competitive bidding.

* No federal grants to develop a single EMR and billing system for physicians, hospitals and therapists which would reveal clinical, preventative and surgical outcomes. Outcome revelations would crush the health insurance companies, and allow for free-market competition among doctors and hospitals based on quality and efficiency.

* Protection of private health insurance companies from medical malpractice lawsuits via federal ERISA laws.

* Part D taxpayer subsidies to health insurance and drug corporations.

* Medicare Advantage taxpayer subsidies to health insurance companies.

* Reckless and negligent medical rationing by private health insurance companies via their non-physician employees.

* A government ban on collective bargaining by physicians.

* An inability of Medicare to enlarge its limited risk pool beyond that of the oldest, sickest and most physically disabled citizens of our nation.

* Personal bankruptcies due to a medical illness.

* No real change in malpractice reform. Real malpractice reform would allow internists and family practitioners to fulfill their role as primary care physicians efficiently and productively, tackling dynamic illnesses without prematurely referring their sicker patients to expensive specialists without medical benefit.

By allowing Sen. Baucus to express his opinion without a comprehensive disclosure of the large sums he has received from health insurance and pharmaceutical companies or of his continued support of current health care policies, the editors of the NEJM have surrendered their objective status as an advocate of integrity in research and patient care.

Offline menace

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,843
Petition for Transparency in Congress

Reid-Pelosi Backroom Deal For ObamaCare Underway

Offline menace

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,843
Here's where we're at on socialized health care.  The House and Senate have passed ObamaCare bills, but the two versions are very different.  So, the bill can't go to the President until they iron out the differences.

Make no mistake about it.  This legislation moves us down the road towards socialism, and it will result in even more gun owners being disqualified from owning firearms.

We need to regroup and renew our efforts to kill ObamaCare -- an outcome which is still very doable.

Now, repeat this phrase over and over:  A MORAL CESSPOOL.

If we are going to defeat the anti-gun ObamaCare legislation, these words are going to have to be repeated millions of times over the next month. 

The U.S. Senate has become a moral cesspool.

The U.S. Senate has become a moral cesspool.

The U.S. Senate has become a moral cesspool.

Why is this refrain so important?  There are several reasons why, but consider this:  Throughout this fight over ObamaCare, Senators have lied about guns... they've lied about the deficit... they’ve lied about the costs of health insurance premiums and how the bill will affect senior citizens.  They have lied over and over to their constituents about all these issues.

That's why it's time that we tell Democrat Senators how corrupt their vote for ObamaCare really was.  Obviously, they won't agree.  So let each Senator make the argument that, "I am not a crook."

That argument never wins elections.

Already, Democrat Representatives and Senators are either switching parties or announcing their retirements.  They know the American people are disgusted with the moral bankruptcy of the U.S. Congress -- a situation that has become obvious to anyone who watches the nightly news. 

Consider the following despicable practices which were perpetrated in order to push ObamaCare through the Senate last month:

1. Lies

* For months, Senators claimed there were no anti-gun provisions in the ObamaCare legislation.  But everyone knew they were lying.  So last month, a provision was inserted into the Senate bill which claims to allay the concerns of gun owners -- but leaves the most important problem unremedied.  If they weren't lying to begin with, then why try to fix what they claimed wasn't there?

* Senators are now insisting that the current Senate health bill protects the rights of gun owners, even though this version would still allow the BATFE and FBI to troll through the ObamaCare database for gun owners who would be disqualified because of their medical information.  This could result in millions of Americans -- who are suffering from PTSD and other similar conditions -- being put into the NICS system and denied the right to buy firearms.

2. Bribes

* A $100 million bribe to treat Sen. Ben Nelson's state different from all others, in exchange for Ben Nelson's vote.

* A $100-300 million bribe to treat Sen. Mary Landrieu's state different from all others, in exchange for Mary Landrieu's vote.

* $10 billion for community health centers operated by groups similar to ACORN, in exchange for Sen. Bernie Sanders' vote.

* A bribe to Sen. Max Baucus in order to treat Libby, Montana, different from any other town.

* A bribe to Sen. Chris Dodd consisting of a $100 million medical center in Connecticut.

* Bribes to Sens. Kent Conrad, Brian Dorgan, Bill Nelson, etc., etc., etc.

* In fact, there are so many bribes in the Senate version of the ObamaCare bill that the bribe-meister himself, Majority Leader Harry Reid, publicly bragged that if your senator doesn't have a bribe in this bill, it "speaks poorly" of him.

3. Extortion

* Threats to take away Sen. Joe Lieberman's chairmanship because of his opposition to the government run "public option."

4. Fraud

* Senators are claiming that the Senate-passed version reduces the deficit, even though:

a. $247 billion of the bill's costs are being snuck through in separate legislation; 

b. The "savings" rely on $465 billion of Medicare "cuts," which no one believed were achievable; and

c. The "savings" rely on making new taxes take effect 3-5 years before any of those tax monies are spent.

* Senators are claiming that the bill would make Medicare solvent -- but this claim can only be made by fraudulently double-counting the effects of the phony Medicare cuts.

* Senators are claiming that health care costs would be brought under control, when the government's own Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services found that costs would go up $245 billion.

* Senators are claiming that premiums would be brought under control, even though the Congressional Budget Office found that policies under the "exchange" (i.e., those policies which you would have to buy, under penalty of law) would be 10-13% more expensive than if Congress did nothing.

5. Secrecy

* The final version of the 2407-page bill wasn't revealed until less than 48 hours before Congress began voting on it.

Now that the Christmas holidays are behind us, we need to get back to work.  Please take the time to contact your Senator, so that we can protect the rights of gun owners by defeating socialized medicine.

ACTION:  Over the next month, the term "moral cesspool" needs to become part of the political lexicon.  Below, you will find that two sample communications are attached -- one for Democrat Senators, the other for Republicans. 

So please send your letter, and then get your relatives, your friends, your neighbors, your gun clubs, churches, etc., to do the same. 

You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center  to send a pre-written message to your Senators -- the appropriate e-mail will automatically be sent to your Senator, based on whether he or she is a Republican or Democrat.

----- Pre-written letter for Democrat Senators -----

Dear Senator:

The U.S. Senate has become a moral cesspool, and you need to begin doing something about it before this whole country is sacrificed on the altar of the Senate's moral decay.

I am disgusted with the lies, bribes, and fraud which you have advocated by voting for the Senate ObamaCare legislation:

* Millions of American taxpayer dollars were spent in the states of Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Chris Dodd to obtain their votes.  In fact, so many bribes were shelled out that the chief bribe-meister, Harry Reid, publicly bragged that if a senator doesn't have a bribe in this bill, it "speaks poorly" of him.

* The Senate bill was passed on the claim that the Reid bill reduces the deficit, even though:

a. $247 billion of the bill’s costs are being snuck through in separate legislation; 

b. The "savings" rely on $465 billion of Medicare "cuts," which no one believed were achievable; and

c. The "savings" rely on making new taxes take effect 3-5 years before any of those tax monies are spent.

* Senators claimed that health care costs would be brought under control, when the government's own Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services found that costs would go up $245 billion.

* Senators also claimed that premiums would be brought under control, even though the Congressional Budget Office found that policies under the "exchange" (i.e., those policies which you would have to buy, under penalty of law) would be 10-13% more expensive than if Congress did nothing.

There is still time to change course.  I implore you to change your vote on ObamaCare.


----- Pre-written letter for Republican Senators -----

Dear Senator:

Thank you for voting against the ObamaCare fiasco.

For months, Senators claimed there were no anti-gun provisions in the ObamaCare legislation.  But everyone knew they were lying.  So last month, a provision was inserted into the Senate bill which claims to allay the concerns of gun owners -- but leaves the most important problem unremedied.

Some Democrat Senators are now claiming that the current Senate health bill protects the rights of gun owners, even though this version would still allow the BATFE and FBI to troll through the ObamaCare database for gun owners who would be disqualified because of their medical information.  This could result in millions of Americans -- who are suffering from PTSD and other similar conditions -- being put into the NICS system and denied the right to buy firearms.

Bottom line:  Please do everything in your power to kill the ObamaCare legislation.  What can you, as a senator, do about this?

Please take away the incentive that the suicidal Democrats have for selling their votes on ObamaCare for posh nominations in the Obama administration after they are defeated at the polls or retire. 

You can do this by announcing you will place a "hold" on the nominations of Blanche Lincoln, Evan Bayh, Chris Dodd, Brian Dorgan, and Michael Bennet -- nominations which will inevitably be made next year as a payoff for their votes on behalf of ObamaCare. 

It's time that the bribes stopped, and you can make this happen

Offline menace

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,843
1.  Creates a special deal for union members.  Starting in 2018, a single union worker in a multiemployer health plan would be completely exempt from the “Cadillac tax” (a 40% tax on high-cost plans) unless the price of that plan exceeds $27,500.  In contrast, a single, non-union worker living right next door would start paying that Cadillac tax as soon as the value of her health plan exceeds $10,200.   
2.  Makes a bad surtax worse. Twenty-two House Democrats opposed a surtax contained in an earlier version of the Democrats’ health care bill.  That surtax would have started at a rate of 2% and would have applied to Americans earning over $280,000 for singles and $350,000 for couples.  Under the current version of the bill, however, the Medicare surtaxes on both earned income (imposed at a rate of 0.9%) and investment income (imposed at a higher rate of 3.8%) feature far lower thresholds – $200,000 for singles and $250,000 for couples.   
3. Increases taxes on real estate investments.  The 3.8% Medicare surtax would hit average, middle-class investors in real estate.  A middle-class taxpayer who happens to sell real estate for a significant gain in a particular year would be liable for this new tax, regardless of how low her income might be in other, more typical years.  The National Association of Realtors wrote to Speaker Pelosi and Ways and Means Chairman Levin urging that Congress reject this unfair tax increase, especially given the flagging economy.   
4. Vastly expands IRS powers.  According to a new report, the Democrats’ health care bill vastly expands the responsibilities of the Internal Revenue Service and would strengthen the IRS’s heavy hand in dealing with ordinary taxpayers who play by the rules.  If this bill becomes law, the IRS may have to hire up to 16,500 additional auditors, agents, and other employees just to enforce all the new taxes and penalties.  The bill would empower the IRS to: (1) verify that Americans have “acceptable” health care coverage; (2) fine Americans up to $2,085 or 2 percent of income (whichever is greater) for the failure to purchase “minimum essential coverage”; (3) confiscate tax refunds; and (4) increase audits. 
5.  Imposes new marriage penalties.  Because the Democrats’ subsidies for health insurance are solely based on the federal poverty level, if two people make $32,000 per year, they would pay between $6,000 and $10,000 more for health insurance than before they said “I do.”  This is because as singles they were poor enough to receive health care subsidies, but as a married couple, these Americans are too rich for federal assistance.  A discussion of how a prior version of the bill would have imposed these marriage penalties can be accessed here.
6. Breaks the President’s pledge on not taxing the middle class in at least a dozen ways.  The Democrats’ health care bill contains at least a dozen direct and indirect tax increases that would break President Obama’s pledge not to raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 for singles and $250,000 for couples.  These include: (1) a “Cadillac tax” on high-cost plans, (2) an individual mandate tax on Americans who do not purchase government-approved health insurance, (3) an increase in the 7.5% AGI floor for medical expense deductions to 10%, (4) limits on Flexible Spending Accounts in cafeteria plans, (5) increased penalties for nonqualified HSA distributions, (6) other restrictions on Health Savings Accounts, Health Reimbursement Accounts, and Flexible Spending Accounts, (7) a tax on tanning services, ( an employer mandate tax, (9) a sales tax on medical devices, (10) a tax on health insurance premiums, (11) a tax on prescription drugs, and (12) a tax on insured and self-insured health plans.   
7.  Ensnares a growing number of people in the Cadillac tax.  The Cadillac tax in the Democrats’ health care bill would not keep pace with medical inflation after it comes into effect in 2018, meaning a larger and larger tax hit over time.  Beginning in 2020, this tax would be indexed by only the consumer price index. Given that health insurance premiums will likely increase faster than CPI, the Cadillac tax would hit more and more plans each year and take a bigger bite from those already covered
8. Repeats the mistakes of the AMT.  Instead of learning the lesson of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which hits more and more Americans every year because the exemption level is not indexed for inflation, the Democrats’ bill repeats this mistake by failing to index the exemption threshold for the Medicare surtaxes on both earned and unearned income.   
9. Forces those with catastrophic costs to pay even more.  Current law provides important tax relief to Americans who suffer catastrophic out-of-pocket medical expenses, permitting a deduction for costs above 7.5% of income.  The Democrats’ bill would raise that threshold to 10% of income in 2012 (2016 for seniors and the disabled).  This is a particularly hard hit on those with the highest medical costs who can least afford to pay more taxes.  And, according to the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation, more than 95% of the revenue generated from this tax increase would come from taxpayers earning less than $200,000.
10. Punishes investment in our economy.  Under the Democrats’ bill, the Medicare tax would, for the very first time, apply to capital gains, dividends, interest, rents, royalties, and other investment income of singles earning over $200,000 and couples earning over $250,000.  Currently, capital gains and dividends are taxed at a top rate of 15%, but those rates are already scheduled to rise in 2011 to 20% and 39.6%, respectively.  When the expansion of the Medicare tax is coupled with the already scheduled rate increase, capital gains rates on these types of investment income, long-term capital gains rates would rise by almost 60% next year – from 15% to 23.8% – and the top tax rate on dividends would nearly triple – from 15% to 43.4%.   
11.  The Senate-passed Tax Extenders bill (H.R. 4213, as amended) includes one-year extensions of important tax relief policies for both individuals and businesses that expired on December 31, 2009.  These include the deduction for state and local sales taxes, the R&D tax credit, and numerous energy-related incentives.  Just weeks ago, the Senate decided to “pay for” those provisions by making “black liquor” ineligible for the cellulosic biofuel producer credit and by codifying the economic substance doctrine into law.  Yet Democrats have now chosen to steal those very same revenue offsets – totaling $28.1 billion – to help finance their trillion dollar health bill instead.  This begs the question: To the extent Democratic Leaders decide to adhere to PAYGO on Tax Extenders, what new taxes will they raise to replace all that lost revenue?   
12. On Page 1336 of the “Affordable Health Care for America Act says that  Readmissions based on ratios? This Rationing!
1 Subtitle C—Provisions Related to
2 Medicare Parts A and B
The plan uses statistics to judge whether someone may be readmitted to the hospital. A patient will be allowed readmission only if a certain number of people with the same “applicable condition” have been discharged from that hospital. This is rationing, pure and simple
Page 42 of HC Bill: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you
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 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans -- The Govt will ration your health care
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 
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 341 Lines 3-9: The Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, et
Page 354 Sec 1177: The Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of 'special needs people
Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end - of-life!
Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, and rationing those services.
13. Allows the ATF to troll the confidential medical records in order to take guns away from Americans. This is because the "individual mandate" in Sections 1501 and 1502 of the Senate-passed bill would make it impossible for people to keep private, medical information out of the government-controlled medical database that was created by the stimulus bill.
Health Care Takeover by the Numbers
$1.2 trillion:  The total cost of the bill between 2010 and 2020 (though the real costs do not start until 2014), including $940 billion in coverage subsidies, $144.2 billion in additional mandatory spending, $70 billion in discretionary spending in the Senate bill, and $41.6 billion in unrelated education spending.
$208 billion:  The cost of a ten year patch for the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) to prevent reduction in Medicare physician payments.  This cost is hidden because it was included in the earlier Democrat bill, but was dropped to provide a better cost estimate.  It is expected to move separately and would bring the true cost of the takeover to $1.4 trillion.
$569.2 billion:  Tax increases in the legislation, including $48.9 billion in new tax increases in the reconciliation bill alone.
$52 billion:  The amount of new taxes on employers who cannot afford to pay their employees health care, imposed at a time when unemployment is 9.7 percent.
12:  The number of new tax increases in the bill that violate President Obama’s pledge that, “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.”
46%:  The percentage of families making less than $66,150 who will be forced to pay the individual mandate tax.
16,500:  The estimated number of IRS auditors, agents and other employees that may be needed to collect the hundreds of billions in new taxes levied on the American people.
$20 billion:  The estimated amount of money that the IRS and HHS will need for the cost of additional regulations, bureaucracy, and red tape over the next ten years.  This spending is not included in CBO’s cost estimate of H.R. 4872. 
$53 billion:  The amount of revenue this bill raids from Social Security to appear as if it actually reduces the deficit.
$202.3 billion:  The amount of money cut from the Medicare Advantage program for seniors to help offset the costs of a new entitlement.
$436 billion:  The amount of federal subsidies in the bill that will go directly to insurance companies to provide health care in the exchange.
63%:  The percentage of physicians surveyed who feel that health reform is needed, but are opposed to this sweeping overhaul legislation. 
$9 billion:  The amount that the Ways and Means Committee estimated Medicare would spend annually after 25 years when it was passed in 1965.  In reality, Medicare spent $67 billion in 1990, or seven times the initial cost estimate.
$1.55 trillion:  The projected FY 2010 deficit—11 times the ten year “savings” Democrats claim the bill will produce by spending more than $1 trillion for this government takeover of health care.