Obamacare Report: Employers to See Double Digit Jump In Medical Costs for 2011

FROM ABC 7 NEWS

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) – Companies that offer employee health insurance expect another steep jump in medical costs next year, and more will ask workers to share a bigger chunk of the expense, according to a new PricewaterhouseCoopers report. For the first time, most of the American workforce is expected to have health insurance deductibles of $400 or more, the consulting firm said in a report released to The Associated Press.

Deductibles are the annual amount a patient pays out of pocket for care before insurance coverage starts. They are generally separate from co-payments and coinsurance.

Two years ago, only 25 percent of companies participating in the annual survey said they asked employees to pay deductibles of $400 or more. That grew to 43 percent iin 2010 and is expected to pass 50 percent next year.

Employees who are asked to pay more through things like higher deductibles help keep cost growth in check because they use less health care.

The health care reform law passed by Congress and then signed by President Obama in March has just started to unfold and will have little impact on costs next year, said Michael Thompson, a principal with PricewaterhouseCoopers.

“In general, it’s a continuation of a fairly high rate of medical inflation,” he said.

PricewaterhouseCoopers found that medical costs are expected to rise 9 percent next year. But this doesn’t mean workers will see their monthly premiums jump by the same amount.

Employers typically try to soften the impact of a cost increase by absorbing some of it, changing insurance plan designs or asking employees to pay higher deductibles or a larger coinsurance percentage.

For instance, a medical cost increase of more than 9 percent was forecast for 2009. But the average annual premium rose only 5 percent for family coverage that year and stayed flat for single coverage, according to a separate study from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The 9 percent medical cost increase projected in 2011 is actually slightly smaller than the 9.5 percent jump PricewaterhouseCoopers is seeing this year. Thompson said several top-selling drugs will lose patent protection next year and become exposed to lower-cost generic competition. That will help temper the increase.

The PricewaterhouseCoopers report also found a steep drop in the percentage of employers that subsidize retiree health coverage. It said only 22 percent of employers with more than 5,000 workers subsidized retiree coverage after age 65 this year. That’s down from 37 percent in 2009.

“It’s a major cost and one that employers have for years now been moving away from,” Thompson said.

PricewaterhouseCoopers compiled its report by analyzing e-mail survey results from 674 companies in 30 different industries across the country. Most of the companies participating had 1,000 employees or more. The firm also interviewed health plan executives and reviewed analyst reports.

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0610/745562.html

Update: Waxman Cancels Obama Care Hearings – How Embarrassing – Waxman hadn’t read Obama Care after all

Obama Care passes and within hours of the law being signed by the President reports begin to surface from American businesses about the unintended costs. Billions in hidden costs that will mean jobs and kill the economy.

ATT reports that Obama Care will cost the company $1 Billion dollars in the 1st 13 weeks. http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/healthcare-law-to-cost-att-1-billion/389937/

The list grows rapidly, the bill will cost Catapillar $100 Million in the 1st quarter,   http://www.manufacturing.net/News-Caterpillar-Health-Care-Overhaul-To-Cost-100M-032510.aspx?menuid=264 , John Deere Company announces $150 Million 1st quarter costs, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/att-sees-1-billion-write-down-tied-to-health-law-2010-03-26, AK Steel, Valero Energy, Verizon and 3500 other Companies follow suit and announce hundreds of billions in  unintended costs associated with Obama Care. http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2010/03/26/is-health-law-already-hurting-business-maybe-maybe-not/ . Medtronic warns of a possible 1000 layoffs. Verizon warns retires it may have to cut retiree health care benefits.

Stop this! This must be stopped! Stop it now, shouts Representative Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee. People can’t be allowed to report about the huge financial burdens this new Health Care plan is creating ….. they must be stopped now …. Stop it! Stop it! Stop it now, shouts the Chairman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Waxman

Chairman Waxman thought and thought and thought and then he knew what he would do …. make these companies appear at a Congressional Hearing and answer his questions …… so he sent out letters …..

What was that reference to the SEC or Security and Exchange Commission? Waxman wrote, “ATT stated in its March 26, 2010 “filing” with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it intends to take a charge of approximately $1 billion in 2010.”

A filing? What does he mean by a filing?

A ”filing” is simply a “report”, in this instance a report mandated by Waxman and Congress itself.

In 2002 the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate overwhelming passed a law called the Sarbanes – Oxley Act, or SOXs as Congress calls it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act

What do I mean by “overwhelming passed”, well the law passed in July 2002 by votes of 423 to 3 in the House of Representatives and passed in the Senate 99 – 0. What do they mean when they say “bi-partisan”? Sarbanes-Oxley was bi-partisan.

What does Sarbanes-Oxley mandate?

The bill was enacted as a reaction to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems and WorldCom. These scandals, which cost investors billions of dollars when the share prices of affected companies collapsed, shook public confidence in the nation’s securities marketshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act

Specifically, “Title III consists of eight sections and mandates that senior executives take individual responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of corporate financial reports. It defines the interaction of external auditors and corporate audit committees, and specifies the responsibility of corporate officers for the accuracy and validity of corporate financial reports. It enumerates specific limits on the behaviors of corporate officers and describes specific forfeitures of benefits and civil penalties for non-compliance. For example, Section 302 requires that the company’s “principal officers” (typically the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer) certify and approve the integrity of their company financial reports quarterly”.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act

Quarterly reports? To be filed with the SEC? When is the end of the 1st quarter of 2010? Today, March 31, 2010? So the reports Waxman writes about were filed all of 6 days early? The reports, as Waxman writes, were filed on March 26, 2010. Shame, shame, shame – the Companies completed filings required by a law passed by Congress. 

Let me see if I get this.

Congressman Waxman votes on and passes Obama Care without reading what he is signing or understanding what the law does. Waxman doesn’t know about the billions in taxes in the “new” health care law? Then why did he vote to pass the law?

Waxman, who has been in Congress since 1975, particpated in passing Sarbanes-Oxley. Wanna bet he didn’t read that law either?

So, Waxman passed the law raising billions in new taxes and he also passed the law that requires American Companies to file reports with the SEC outlining their business expenses and expected profits and to report these things on a quarterly basis under penalty of criminal prosecution.

So a guy who passed the law that requires the reporting and the same guy who passed the law that created the taxes being reported on, calls a hearing …. to what ….. prevent the required reporting.

What a waste of time and money – no wonder we have a 20 trillion dollar national debt! (It isn’t quite $20 trillion yet – but by the time I fininish typing it well could be $20 trillion).

Does anyopne really think this guy is smart enough to solve the Country’s problems or is he one of the group that is creating the problems that is ruining the economy and costing us millions of jobs and home foreclosures.

Sarbanes – Oxley reporting is “apolitical” or without politics. Accountants complete the reports using Government designed and mandated report formats ….. The SEC reads the reports, the IRS reads the reports and investors read the reports – they are not secret reports they are “public reports”.

Can’t Waxman read and understand the reports he created – he helped pass the law and he doesn’t understand the reports it requires.

Congressional Hearings? What a waste of taxpayer money. Waxman will do anything but take responsibility … responsibility for the economy, for the Housing mess, for foreclosures. Having hearings over Sarbanes-Oxley “filings” makes as much sense as having taxpayers report for hearings when they file their taxes and report that they owe money and mail in their checks. The Sarbanes-Oxley reports – report that the Companies will owe more in “health care taxes”, taxes that will really be paid for by the retirees receiving the benefits.

Waxman has been in Congress for 35 years. The bottom fell out of our economy after he and fellow Californian, Nancy Pelosi, took over leadership positions in the Democratic Party

Waxman represents a District in California that includes Hollywood. Prior to coming to serve in Congress he was a State Assemblyman in California.

What Waxman helped do to bankrupt California, he is now trying to do to the whole United States.

Waxman’s theories didn’t work in Califonia, they won’t work in Washington.

The “change” mandated by Obama Care hurts the retirees, not the Companies invloved.

Obama lied – he said you “could keep the coverage you have” and then he taxed the Companies for giving you the coverage you earned.  

We were not suppose to learn about this …. Sarbanes-Oxley had the unintended effect of bringing these changes out into the open

UPDATE: 3500 Businesses report $250Billion in “hidden costs” – How many jobs will that mean?

April 15, 2010: Waxman Cancels Hearing To Grill Companies On Tax Hit From Overhaul

Arcane accounting rules don’t usually make for Congressional fireworks. But we were really looking forward to a scheduled clash next week between Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and a bunch of companies that said the new health law is going to cost them big time.

Alas, the hearing was cancelled. How come? When congressional staffers took a look at the companies’ books, they concluded their financial filings making provision for higher future taxes were legit.

AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar, and Deere & Co. made waves when they informed investors and the Securities and Exchange Commission that they would take big hits because the health law eliminates a tax deduction on federal subsidies that help defray the cost of drug benefits for retirees.

Heavy equipment maker Caterpillar said it would take a $100 miilion charge in the first quarter of this year. AT&T said its charge would amount to $1 billion.

Waxman didn’t buy it, launched an investigation and sent letters to Caterpillar and the other firms demanding an explanation. Now, the accountants say the companies’ charges are by the book.

Waxman is such an embrassment – didn’t read the law before he voted on it and then acted like an ass by scheduling the hearings in the first place.

There are competent Liberals out their that the far left could elect to  public office – why does the far left keep electing clowns like this guy.

Government Waste & Waxman’s Obama Care Hearings

Obama Care passes and within hours of the law being signed by the President reports begin to surface from American businesses about the unintended costs. Billions in hidden costs that will mean jobs and kill the economy.

ATT reports that Obama Care will cost the company $1 Billion dollars in the 1st 13 weeks. http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/healthcare-law-to-cost-att-1-billion/389937/

The list grows rapidly, the bill will cost Catapillar $100 Million in the 1st quarter,   http://www.manufacturing.net/News-Caterpillar-Health-Care-Overhaul-To-Cost-100M-032510.aspx?menuid=264 , John Deere Company announces $150 Million 1st quarter costs, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/att-sees-1-billion-write-down-tied-to-health-law-2010-03-26, AK Steel, Valero Energy, Verizon and 3500 other Companies follow suit and announce hundreds of billions in  unintended costs associated with Obama Care. http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2010/03/26/is-health-law-already-hurting-business-maybe-maybe-not/ . Medtronic warns of a possible 1000 layoffs. Verizon warns retires it may have to cut retiree health care benefits.

Stop this! This must be stopped! Stop it now, shouts Representative Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee. People can’t be allowed to report about the huge financial burdens this new Health Care plan is creating ….. they must be stopped now …. Stop it! Stop it! Stop it now, shouts the Chairman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Waxman

Chairman Waxman thought and thought and thought and then he knew what he would do …. make these companies appear at a Congressional Hearing and answer his questions …… so he sent out letters …..

What was that reference to the SEC or Security and Exchange Commission? Waxman wrote, “ATT stated in its March 26, 2010 “filing” with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it intends to take a charge of approximately $1 billion in 2010.”

A filing? What does he mean by a filing?

A ”filing” is simply a “report”, in this instance a report mandated by Waxman and Congress itself.

In 2002 the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate overwhelming passed a law called the Sarbanes – Oxley Act, or SOXs as Congress calls it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act

What do I mean by “overwhelming passed”, well the law passed in July 2002 by votes of 423 to 3 in the House of Representatives and passed in the Senate 99 – 0. What do they mean when they say “bi-partisan”? Sarbanes-Oxley was bi-partisan.

What does Sarbanes-Oxley mandate?

The bill was enacted as a reaction to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems and WorldCom. These scandals, which cost investors billions of dollars when the share prices of affected companies collapsed, shook public confidence in the nation’s securities marketshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act

Specifically, “Title III consists of eight sections and mandates that senior executives take individual responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of corporate financial reports. It defines the interaction of external auditors and corporate audit committees, and specifies the responsibility of corporate officers for the accuracy and validity of corporate financial reports. It enumerates specific limits on the behaviors of corporate officers and describes specific forfeitures of benefits and civil penalties for non-compliance. For example, Section 302 requires that the company’s “principal officers” (typically the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer) certify and approve the integrity of their company financial reports quarterly”.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act

Quarterly reports? To be filed with the SEC? When is the end of the 1st quarter of 2010? Today, March 31, 2010? So the reports Waxman writes about were filed all of 6 days early? The reports, as Waxman writes, were filed on March 26, 2010. Shame, shame, shame – the Companies completed filings required by a law passed by Congress. 

Let me see if I get this.

Congressman Waxman votes on and passes Obama Care without reading what he is signing or understanding what the law does. Waxman doesn’t know about the billions in taxes in the “new” health care law? Then why did he vote to pass the law?

Waxman, who has been in Congress since 1975, particpated in passing Sarbanes-Oxley. Wanna bet he didn’t read that law either?

So, Waxman passed the law raising billions in new taxes and he also passed the law that requires American Companies to file reports with the SEC outlining their business expenses and expected profits and to report these things on a quarterly basis under penalty of criminal prosecution.

So a guy who passed the law that requires the reporting and the same guy who passed the law that created the taxes being reported on, calls a hearing …. to what ….. prevent the required reporting.

What a waste of time and money – no wonder we have a 20 trillion dollar national debt! (It isn’t quite $20 trillion yet – but by the time I fininish typing it well could be $20 trillion).

Does anyopne really think this guy is smart enough to solve the Country’s problems or is he one of the group that is creating the problems that is ruining the economy and costing us millions of jobs and home foreclosures.

Sarbanes – Oxley reporting is “apolitical” or without politics. Accountants complete the reports using Government designed and mandated report formats ….. The SEC reads the reports, the IRS reads the reports and investors read the reports – they are not secret reports they are “public reports”.

Can’t Waxman read and understand the reports he created – he helped pass the law and he doesn’t understand the reports it requires.

Congressional Hearings? What a waste of taxpayer money. Waxman will do anything but take responsibility … responsibility for the economy, for the Housing mess, for foreclosures. Having hearings over Sarbanes-Oxley “filings” makes as much sense as having taxpayers report for hearings when they file their taxes and report that they owe money and mail in their checks. The Sarbanes-Oxley reports – report that the Companies will owe more in “health care taxes”, taxes that will really be paid for by the retirees receiving the benefits.

Waxman has been in Congress for 35 years. The bottom fell out of our economy after he and fellow Californian, Nancy Pelosi, took over leadership positions in the Democratic Party

Waxman represents a District in California that includes Hollywood. Prior to coming to serve in Congress he was a State Assemblyman in California.

What Waxman helped do to bankrupt California, he is now trying to do to the whole United States.

Waxman’s theories didn’t work in Califonia, they won’t work in Washington.

The “change” mandated by Obama Care hurts the retirees, not the Companies invloved.

Obama lied – he said you “could keep the coverage you have” and then he taxed the Companies for giving you the coverage you earned.  

We were not suppose to learn about this …. Sarbanes-Oxley had the unintended effect of bringing these changes out into the open

UPDATE: 3500 Companies report $250 billion in hidden costs – how many jobs will this cost us!

April 15, 2010: Waxman Cancels Hearing To Grill Companies On Tax Hit From Overhaul

Arcane accounting rules don’t usually make for Congressional fireworks. But we were really looking forward to a scheduled clash next week between Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and a bunch of companies that said the new health law is going to cost them big time.

Alas, the hearing was cancelled. How come? When congressional staffers took a look at the companies’ books, they concluded their financial filings making provision for higher future taxes were legit.

AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar, and Deere & Co. made waves when they informed investors and the Securities and Exchange Commission that they would take big hits because the health law eliminates a tax deduction on federal subsidies that help defray the cost of drug benefits for retirees.

Heavy equipment maker Caterpillar said it would take a $100 miilion charge in the first quarter of this year. AT&T said its charge would amount to $1 billion.

Waxman didn’t buy it, launched an investigation and sent letters to Caterpillar and the other firms demanding an explanation. Now, the accountants say the companies’ charges are by the book.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/04/waxman_cancels_hearing_to_gril.html?ft=1&f=1006

Waxman is such an embrassment – didn’t read the law before he voted on it and then acted like an ass by scheduling the hearings in the first place.

There are competent Liberals out there that the far left could elect to  public office – why does the far left keep electing clowns like this guy.

Obama Care and The Sarbanes-Oxley Act: Expel Representative Waxman For Incompetence

Obama Care passes and within hours of the law being signed by the President reports begin to surface from American businesses about the unintended costs. Billions in hidden costs that will mean jobs and kill the economy.

ATT reports that Obama Care will cost the company $1 Billion dollars in the 1st 13 weeks. http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/healthcare-law-to-cost-att-1-billion/389937/

The list grows rapidly, the bill will cost Catapillar $100 Million in the 1st quarter,   http://www.manufacturing.net/News-Caterpillar-Health-Care-Overhaul-To-Cost-100M-032510.aspx?menuid=264 , John Deere Company announces $150 Million 1st quarter costs, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/att-sees-1-billion-write-down-tied-to-health-law-2010-03-26, AK Steel, Valero Energy, Verizon and 3500 other Companies follow suit and announce hundreds of billions in  unintended costs associated with Obama Care. http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2010/03/26/is-health-law-already-hurting-business-maybe-maybe-not/ . Medtronic warns of a possible 1000 layoffs. Verizon warns retires it may have to cut retiree health care benefits.

Stop this! This must be stopped! Stop it now, shouts Representative Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee. People can’t be allowed to report about the huge financial burdens this new Health Care plan is creating ….. they must be stopped now …. Stop it! Stop it! Stop it now, shouts the Chairman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Waxman

Chairman Waxman thought and thought and thought and then he knew what he would do …. make these companies appear at a Congressional Hearing and answer his questions …… so he sent out letters …..

What was that reference to the SEC or Security and Exchange Commission? Waxman wrote, “ATT stated in its March 26, 2010 “filing” with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it intends to take a charge of approximately $1 billion in 2010.”

A filing? What does he mean by a filing?

A “filing” is simply a “report”, in this instance a report mandated by Waxman and Congress itself.

In 2002 the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate overwhelming passed a law called the Sarbanes – Oxley Act, or SOXs as Congress calls it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act

What do I mean by “overwhelming passed”, well the law passed in July 2002 by votes of 423 to 3 in the House of Representatives and passed in the Senate 99 – 0. What do they mean when they say “bi-partisan”? Sarbanes-Oxley was bi-partisan.

What does Sarbanes-Oxley mandate?

The bill was enacted as a reaction to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems and WorldCom. These scandals, which cost investors billions of dollars when the share prices of affected companies collapsed, shook public confidence in the nation’s securities marketshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act

Specifically, “Title III consists of eight sections and mandates that senior executives take individual responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of corporate financial reports. It defines the interaction of external auditors and corporate audit committees, and specifies the responsibility of corporate officers for the accuracy and validity of corporate financial reports. It enumerates specific limits on the behaviors of corporate officers and describes specific forfeitures of benefits and civil penalties for non-compliance. For example, Section 302 requires that the company’s “principal officers” (typically the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer) certify and approve the integrity of their company financial reports quarterly”.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act

Quarterly reports? To be filed with the SEC? When is the end of the 1st quarter of 2010? Today, March 31, 2010? So the reports Waxman writes about were filed all of 6 days early? The reports, as Waxman writes, were filed on March 26, 2010. Shame, shame, shame – the Companies completed filings required by a law passed by Congress. 

Let me see if I get this.

Congressman Waxman votes on and passes Obama Care without reading what he is signing or understanding what the law does. Waxman doesn’t know about the billions in taxes in the “new” health care law? Then why did he vote to pass the law?

Waxman, who has been in Congress since 1975, particpated in passing Sarbanes-Oxley. Wanna bet he didn’t read that law either?

So, Waxman passed the law raising billions in new taxes and he also passed the law that requires American Companies to file reports with the SEC outlining their business expenses and expected profits and to report these things on a quarterly basis under penalty of criminal prosecution.

So a guy who passed the law that requires the reporting and the same guy who passed the law that created the taxes being reported on, calls a hearing …. to what ….. prevent the required reporting.

What a waste of time and money – no wonder we have a 20 trillion dollar national debt! (It isn’t quite $20 trillion yet – but by the time I fininish typing it well could be $20 trillion).

Does anyopne really think this guy is smart enough to solve the Country’s problems or is he one of the group that is creating the problems that is ruining the economy and costing us millions of jobs and home foreclosures.

Sarbanes – Oxley reporting is “apolitical” or without politics. Accountants complete the reports using Government designed and mandated report formats ….. The SEC reads the reports, the IRS reads the reports and investors read the reports – they are not secret reports they are “public reports”.

Can’t Waxman read and understand the reports he created – he helped pass the law and he doesn’t understand the reports it requires.

Congressional Hearings? What a waste of taxpayer money. Waxman will do anything but take responsibility … responsibility for the economy, for the Housing mess, for foreclosures. Having hearings over Sarbanes-Oxley “filings” makes as much sense as having taxpayers report for hearings when they file their taxes and report that they owe money and mail in their checks. The Sarbanes-Oxley reports – repot that the Companies will owe more in “health care taxes”, taxes that will really be paid for by retirees/p>

Waxman has been in Congress for 35 years. The bottom fell out of our economy after he and fellow Californian, Nancy Pelosi, took over leadership positions in the Democratic Party

Waxman represents a District in California that includes Hollywood. Prior to coming to serve in Congress he was a State Assemblyman in California.

What Waxman helped do to bankrupt California, he is now trying to do to the whole United States.

Waxman’s theories didn’t work in Califonia, they won’t work in Washington.

The “change” mandated by Obama Care hurts the retirees, not the Companies invloved.

Obama lied – he said you “could keep the coverage you have” and then he taxed the Companies for giving you the coverage you earned.  

We were not suppose to learn about this …. Sarbanes-Oxley had the unintended effect of bringing these changes out into the open.

UPDATE: 3500 Companies report $250 billion in hidden costs – how many jobs will this cost us!

April 15, 2010: Waxman Cancels Hearing To Grill Companies On Tax Hit From Overhaul

Arcane accounting rules don’t usually make for Congressional fireworks. But we were really looking forward to a scheduled clash next week between Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and a bunch of companies that said the new health law is going to cost them big time.

Alas, the hearing was cancelled. How come? When congressional staffers took a look at the companies’ books, they concluded their financial filings making provision for higher future taxes were legit.

AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar, and Deere & Co. made waves when they informed investors and the Securities and Exchange Commission that they would take big hits because the health law eliminates a tax deduction on federal subsidies that help defray the cost of drug benefits for retirees.

Heavy equipment maker Caterpillar said it would take a $100 miilion charge in the first quarter of this year. AT&T said its charge would amount to $1 billion.

Waxman didn’t buy it, launched an investigation and sent letters to Caterpillar and the other firms demanding an explanation. Now, the accountants say the companies’ charges are by the book.

Waxman is such an embrassment – didn’t read the law before he voted on it and then acted like an ass by scheduling the hearings in the first place.

There are competent Liberals out their that the far left could elect to  public office – why does the far left keep electing clowns like this guy.

Update: Roe vs. Wade – How Obama Care Will Effect Taxpayer Funding Of Abortions

OBAMA CARE AND TAXPAYER FUNDED ABORTIONS

Confusion has arisen over the question of federal abortion funding in the Senate health care reform bill (H.R. 3590). In particular: As currently written, does the legislation require large scale funding of abortion at federally regulated Community Health Centers (CHCs)?

Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Understanding why requires some knowledge of current federal law and past judicial history on abortion.

Everyone agrees on these basic facts (if you don’t agree –read the sections for yourself – that is why they are listed): Sec. 10503 of the bill authorizes a new “CHC Fund” to expand funding for the CHC program (which was established by Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act). More unusually, the Senate bill also directly appropriates its own new funds for these services, instead of leaving that task to the annual Labor/HHS appropriations bill that traditionally funds programs at the Department of Health and Human Services.

 For fiscal years 2011 to 2015, the bill appropriates $7 billion for services (to be increased to $11 billion).

 Why does this create a massive problem of federal abortion funding?

Fact #1: A long and consistent series of federal court rulings since Roe v. Wade requires that broad statutory mandates for provision of health services must be construed to include mandated provision of abortions, unless the statute specifies otherwise.

Having decided in 1973 to establish a constitutional right to abortion to serve women’s “health,” the courts decided that legislative references to health services or “medically necessary” services (the term of art used in the Medicaid statute) encompass abortion. In the abortion context, the Supreme Court has said that “health” must be defined very broadly to include “all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.” Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 192 (1973). In short, if a physician decides that a woman should be able to have an abortion for her “well being,” a government program requiring provision of health services must provide such abortions.

 In the years before the Hyde amendment was first enacted by Congress in 1976, Medicaid was required to pay for about 300,000 abortions a year. No regulatory or administrative leeway was allowed on this point. The Medicaid statute said that grantees must provide “medically necessary” services provided by physicians, and the federal courts held that this category included elective abortions, even though the statute never says the word “abortion.” As one court has observed: “Because abortion fits within many of the mandatory care categories, including‘family planning,’ ‘outpatient services,’ ‘inpatient services,’ and ‘physicians’ services,’Medicaid covered medically necessary abortions between 1973 and 1976.” PlannedParenthood Affiliates of Michigan v. Engler, 73 F.3d 634, 636 (6th Cir. 1996).

Even after the Hyde amendment to the Labor/HHS appropriations act was enacted in 1976, barring funds appropriated in this act from being used for most abortions, a legal battle ensued for years. Not until 1980 did the U.S. Supreme Court rule that the statutory language of the Hyde amendment trumps the underlying statute’s presumptive mandate for abortion, and is constitutionally valid. Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980).

Some had even argued that the abortion mandate remained in place after the Hyde amendment was enacted – that while the amendment withheld federal funds from certain abortions, the underlying statute still required them to be provided, using state matching funds if necessary. The Supreme Court rejected this argument. 448 U.S. at 309-10. However, the federal courts still insist that the mandate remains in place for any abortion for which funding is not barred by a provision like the Hyde amendment. When the Hyde amendment ceased to prohibit use of federal Medicaid funds for abortions in cases of rape and incest in 1993, federal courts throughout the country ruled that states participating in the program were now required by the underlying Medicaid statute to provide and help pay for rape/incest abortions – even if that meant overriding state constitutions that allow state funding of abortion only in cases of danger to the life of the mother. See Engler, 73 F.3d at 638, and cases cited therein.

Fact #2: In line with this legal precedent, the Community Health Centers program would be required to provide abortions now if not for the Hyde amendment.

The statute establishing the CHC program has the same kind of broad mandate for providing health services that Medicaid does. In some ways it presents an even more clear-cut case.

The statute defines a “health center” in the program as an entity that provides, at a minimum, “required primary health services” to certain low-income populations. 42 USC § 254b (a)(1)(A). “Required primary health services” are defined to include “health services related to family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, obstetrics, or gynecology that are furnished by physicians” (and by other medical professionals where appropriate), as well as “voluntary family planning services.” 42 USC §254b (b)(1)(A). Thus, to be considered as eligible centers at all, centers in the program must provide the same broad categories of services that triggered the abortion mandate in Medicaid, and some that are even more specific (e.g., gynecology services). This statutory mandate will trump any lesser authority, such as the preferences of the centers themselves or of an HHS Secretary or other executive-branch official. These officials must obey the laws passed by Congress as interpreted by the federal courts.

 Fact #3: The new funding appropriated for community health centers by the Senate health care bill is not covered by the Hyde amendment.

This should be clear from the wording of the Hyde amendment itself: “None of the funds appropriated in this Act” may be used for most abortions (referring to the annual Labor/HHS appropriations act).

The Senate bill’s new funds are not appropriated in the Labor/HHS appropriations act, so Hyde does not apply to them.

 A similar situation came to light in 1979, when members of Congress asked why the Indian Health Service (IHS) was continuing to provide abortions despite enactment of the Hyde amendment. The agency replied that it had no choice but to do so: The authorizing legislation for the IHS created a broad mandate for services to conserve the “health” of Indians, and the Interior appropriations bill funding these services contained no abortion limitation like the Hyde amendment to the Labor/HHS bill. Therefore “we would have no basis for refusing to pay for abortions” (Letter from Director of the Indian Health Service to Cong. Henry Hyde, July 30, 1979).

Not until 1988 did Congress finally revise the authorizing legislation for the IHS to require that program to conform to the annual Hyde amendment.

The problem here is exactly parallel. The new billions of dollars appropriated here for services at CHCs simply are not covered by the Hyde amendment or other similar provisions, which only govern the use of funds appropriated by the legislation that they amend.

It follows that these funds are also not restricted by any regulations implementing the Hyde amendment. On this point some have cited thirty-year-old regulations stating that elective abortions are not funded in programs receiving “Federal financial assistance” at the Department of Health and Human Services (42 CFR §§ 50.301 through 50.306). But for their statutory basis the regulations cite only the appropriations bills valid at that time and the previous year, which contained the Hyde amendment (Public Laws 95-205 and 96-86). These laws expired three decades ago; but even a citation to the Hyde amendment in thecurrent Labor/HHS appropriations bill would not help. Hyde governs only funds appropriated in the Act that it amends; and a regulation implementing Hyde can only have that same limited scope. If such a regulation were found to be relevant to the new funds provided by the Senate health care bill, the regulation would almost certainly be challenged as contrary to the statutory mandate to provide abortions in the CHC authorizing legislation (see Fact #1 above). A regulation cannot trump a statute passed by Congress.

Fact #4: The Senate health care bill itself contains no relevant provision to prevent the direct use of federal funds for elective abortions.

The House-passed bill did include language to ensure that “no funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act)” may be used to pay formost abortions. And the Nelson/Hatch/Casey amendment offered in the Senate had exactly this same language. But the Senate chose not to take up the House-passed bill, and it chose to table the Nelson amendment, 54 to 45. (The Nelson Amendment is alos referred to as the Senate version of the “House’s Stupak Amendment” – neither amendment was included in the Law signed by President Obama).

 The abortion funding language in the Senate bill relates solely to the use of tax credits and other federal funds to help pay for abortion coverage in qualified health plans. Section 1303 of the bill does reference the abortions ineligible for funding under the Hyde amendment in any given year, and those which are eligible. But this reference to eligible and ineligible abortions is used only to say the following:

If a qualified health plan provides coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) [i.e., abortions ineligible for federal funds under the Hyde amendment that year], the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to any of the following for purposes of paying for such services…” (Sec. 1303 (b)(2)).

This language is followed by specific references solely to the tax credits and cost-sharing reductions used to subsidize qualified health plans.

The new legislation contains no general ban on using the funds it appropriates for elective abortions and as the funds appropriated under the new law are not subject to the Hyde Amendment the reference to the Hyde Amendment is circuitous and meaningless.

One other section of the Senate bill, establishing a program of school-based clinics for minors, does exclude abortions from the scope of services at those clinics (Sec. 4101 (b)). But all other sections of the bill that appropriate funds, including Section 10503 on CHCs, remain unrestricted in their use of these funds for elective abortions.

Conclusion: In line with longstanding federal jurisprudence, the authorizing legislation for Community Health Centers creates a presumptive mandate for funding abortions without limitation. Currently such funding is prevented only by the fact that funds under the Labor/HHS appropriations act are governed by the Hyde amendment. By appropriating new funds not covered by Hyde, and by failing to include any relevant abortion limitation of its own, the Senate health care bill as presently worded would disburse billions of dollars in federal funding that no one could prevent from being used for elective abortions.

The Constitution empowers a President to take one of two actions when he receives a “Bill” passed by both houses of Congress – sign the “Bill” into law or veto it. The Constitution does not empower the President with a right to “rewrite” or “reinterpret” the statute …… a President’s Executive order cannot overturn prior Supreme Court rulings …. The Court was clear in its decisions, “Hyde” language must be placed within any  statute hoping to limit taxpayer funding of abortions ……… you’d might think a Constitutional Law Professor would know this – well, quite frankly, he knew this all too well. Planned Parenthood and NARAL will both argue this very point to a Federal Court in less than 6 months ……….. and the Federal Courts will set aside the President’s sham Executive Order

Obama Care and Taxpayer Funded Abortions – The Truth Not The Spin – The History Of Roe vs. Wade

America is changing. America is calling on the Politicians to be truthful …. not to lie to the public. Tell us what you think and why we should do what you want us to do ….. don’t lie to us and hide your true intent. If you think your path is the right one – tell us, be truthful and give us your facts and let us, the American people make up our minds. You work for us – you were elected to represent our interests not your own.

Stop lying to us about your true intentions … saying one thing and doing another …… we are much smarter than you give us credit for.

This article is not really about abortion. It is about Polticians who lie to the public. Whether you favor abortion rights and call yourself Pro-Choice or oppose abortion and call yourself Pro-Life – one thing is certain …. and overwhelming … and I mean overwhelming. The number of people who oppose using Federal Funds – taxpayer money – to pay for abortions is unbelievable. What do I mean by overwhelming or unbelievable – 9 out of 10 adults in this Country agree …. Taxpayer Funds should not be used to pay for elective abortions. (87% of those surveyed – a survey sample of 22,000 people – an unprecended sample size).

This is the truth – and the truth is not being presented to argue for or against abortion but as a condemnation of lying Politicians who intentionally mislead the people and lie about their true intentions.

Personally, I may disagree with Henry Waxman, Democrat, California – but I respect him for this – he is Pro Choice and says so … he believes in single payer health care and says so – day in and day out and he believed this bill should provide full Federal or Taxpayer funding for abortion and said so. Waxman won – but not because those who supported Obama Care spoke out honestly as he did. Democracy is about open debate and truth in political discussions ……. I disagree with Waxman and I am Pro-Life, but I respect his right to present his case and I respect his honesty. I don’t believe he would have won this round had the truth been told by all.

I don’t think he will win the next round …… You can lie about what Obama care will deliver before the fact but you won’t be able to lie about what it actually delivers. The proof is always in the pudding.

OBAMA CARE AND TAXPAYER FUNDED ABORTIONS

Confusion has arisen over the question of federal abortion funding in the Senate health care reform bill (H.R. 3590). In particular: As currently written, does the legislation require large scale funding of abortion at federally regulated Community Health Centers (CHCs)?

Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Understanding why requires some knowledge of current federal law and past judicial history on abortion.

Everyone agrees on these basic facts (if you don’t agree –read the sections for yourself – that is why they are listed): Sec. 10503 of the bill authorizes a new “CHC Fund” to expand funding for the CHC program (which was established by Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act). More unusually, the Senate bill also directly appropriates its own new funds for these services, instead of leaving that task to the annual Labor/HHS appropriations bill that traditionally funds programs at the Department of Health and Human Services.

 For fiscal years 2011 to 2015, the bill appropriates $7 billion for services (to be increased to $11 billion).

 Why does this create a massive problem of federal abortion funding?

Fact #1: A long and consistent series of federal court rulings since Roe v. Wade requires that broad statutory mandates for the provision of health services must be construed to include mandated provision for abortions, unless the statute specifies otherwise.

Having decided in 1973 to establish a constitutional right to abortion to serve women’s “health,” the courts decided that legislative references to health services or “medically necessary” services (the term of art used in the Medicaid statute) encompass abortion. In the abortion context, the Supreme Court has said that “health” must be defined very broadly to include “all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.” Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 192 (1973). In short, if a physician decides that a woman should be able to have an abortion for her “well being,” a government program requiring provision of health services must provide such abortions.

 In the years before the Hyde amendment was first enacted by Congress in 1976, Medicaid was required to pay for about 300,000 abortions a year. No regulatory or administrative leeway was allowed on this point. The Medicaid statute said that grantees must provide “medically necessary” services provided by physicians, and the federal courts held that this category included elective abortions, even though the statute never says the word “abortion.” As one court has observed: “Because abortion fits within many of the mandatory care categories, including‘family planning,’ ‘outpatient services,’ ‘inpatient services,’ and ‘physicians’ services,’Medicaid covered medically necessary abortions between 1973 and 1976.” Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Michigan v. Engler, 73 F.3d 634, 636 (6th Cir. 1996).

Even after the Hyde amendment to the Labor/HHS appropriations act was enacted in 1976, barring funds appropriated in this act from being used for most abortions, a legal battle ensued for years. Not until 1980 did the U.S. Supreme Court rule that the statutory language of the Hyde amendment trumps the underlying statute’s presumptive mandate for abortion, and is constitutionally valid. Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980).

Some had even argued that the abortion mandate remained in place after the Hyde amendment was enacted – that while the amendment withheld federal funds from certain abortions, the underlying statute still required them to be provided, using state matching funds if necessary. The Supreme Court rejected this argument. 448 U.S. at 309-10. However, the federal courts still insist that the mandate remains in place for any abortion for which funding is not barred by a provision like the Hyde amendment. When the Hyde amendment ceased to prohibit use of federal Medicaid funds for abortions in cases of rape and incest in 1993, federal courts throughout the country ruled that states participating in the program were now required by the underlying Medicaid statute to provide and help pay for rape/incest abortions – even if that meant overriding state constitutions that allow state funding of abortion only in cases of danger to the life of the mother. See Engler, 73 F.3d at 638, and cases cited therein.

Fact #2: In line with this legal precedent, the Community Health Centers program would be required to provide abortions now if not for the Hyde amendment.

The statute establishing the CHC program has the same kind of broad mandate for providing health services that Medicaid does. In some ways it presents an even more clear-cut case.

The statute defines a “health center” in the program as an entity that provides, at a minimum, “required primary health services” to certain low-income populations. 42 USC § 254b (a)(1)(A). “Required primary health services” are defined to include “health services related to family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, obstetrics, or gynecology that are furnished by physicians” (and by other medical professionals where appropriate), as well as “voluntary family planning services.” 42 USC §254b (b)(1)(A). Thus, to be considered as eligible centers at all, centers in the program must provide the same broad categories of services that triggered the abortion mandate in Medicaid, and some that are even more specific (e.g., gynecology services). This statutory mandate will trump any lesser authority, such as the preferences of the centers themselves or of an HHS Secretary or other executive-branch official. These officials must obey the laws passed by Congress as interpreted by the federal courts.

 Fact #3: The new funding appropriated for community health centers by the Senate health care bill is not covered by the Hyde amendment.

This should be clear from the wording of the Hyde amendment itself: “None of the funds appropriated in this Act” may be used for most abortions (referring to the annual Labor/HHS appropriations act).

The Senate bill’s new funds are not appropriated in the Labor/HHS appropriations act, so Hyde does not apply to them.

 A similar situation came to light in 1979, when members of Congress asked why the Indian Health Service (IHS) was continuing to provide abortions despite enactment of the Hyde amendment. The agency replied that it had no choice but to do so: The authorizing legislation for the IHS created a broad mandate for services to conserve the “health” of Indians, and the Interior appropriations bill funding these services contained no abortion limitation like the Hyde amendment to the Labor/HHS bill. Therefore “we would have no basis for refusing to pay for abortions” (Letter from Director of the Indian Health Service to Cong. Henry Hyde, July 30, 1979).

Not until 1988 did Congress finally revise the authorizing legislation for the IHS to require that program to conform to the annual Hyde amendment.

The problem here is exactly parallel. The new billions of dollars appropriated here for services at CHCs simply are not covered by the Hyde amendment or other similar provisions, which only govern the use of funds appropriated by the legislation that they amend.

It follows that these funds are also not restricted by any regulations implementing the Hyde amendment. On this point some have cited thirty-year-old regulations stating that elective abortions are not funded in programs receiving “Federal financial assistance” at the Department of Health and Human Services (42 CFR §§ 50.301 through 50.306). But for their statutory basis the regulations cite only the appropriations bills valid at that time and the previous year, which contained the Hyde amendment (Public Laws 95-205 and 96-86). These laws expired three decades ago; but even a citation to the Hyde amendment in thecurrent Labor/HHS appropriations bill would not help. Hyde governs only funds appropriated in the Act that it amends; and a regulation implementing Hyde can only have that same limited scope. If such a regulation were found to be relevant to the new funds provided by the Senate health care bill, the regulation would almost certainly be challenged as contrary to the statutory mandate to provide abortions in the CHC authorizing legislation (see Fact #1 above). A regulation cannot trump a statute passed by Congress.

Fact #4: The Senate health care bill itself contains no relevant provision to prevent the direct use of federal funds for elective abortions.

The House-passed bill did include language to ensure that “no funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act)” may be used to pay formost abortions. And the Nelson/Hatch/Casey amendment offered in the Senate had exactly this same language. But the Senate chose not to take up the House-passed bill, and it chose to table the Nelson amendment, 54 to 45. (The Nelson Amendment is also referred to as the Senate version of the “House’s Stupak Amendment” – neither amendment was included in the Law signed by President Obama).

 The abortion funding language in the Senate bill relates solely to the use of tax credits and other federal funds to help pay for abortion coverage in qualified health plans. Section 1303 of the bill does reference the abortions ineligible for funding under the Hyde amendment in any given year, and those which are eligible. But this reference to eligible and ineligible abortions is used only to say the following:

If a qualified health plan provides coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) [i.e., abortions ineligible for federal funds under the Hyde amendment that year], the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to any of the following for purposes of paying for such services…” (Sec. 1303 (b)(2)).

This language is followed by specific references solely to the tax credits and cost-sharing reductions used to subsidize qualified health plans.

The new legislation contains no general ban on using the funds it appropriates for elective abortions and as the funds appropriated under the new law are not subject to the Hyde Amendment the reference to the Hyde Amendment is circuitous and meaningless.

One other section of the Senate bill, establishing a program of school-based clinics for minors, does exclude abortions from the scope of services at those clinics (Sec. 4101 (b)). But all other sections of the bill that appropriate funds, including Section 10503 on CHCs, remain unrestricted in their use of these funds for elective abortions.

Conclusion: In line with longstanding federal jurisprudence, the authorizing legislation for Community Health Centers creates a presumptive mandate for funding abortions without limitation. Currently such funding is prevented only by the fact that funds under the Labor/HHS appropriations act are governed by the Hyde amendment. By appropriating new funds not covered by Hyde, and by failing to include any relevant abortion limitation of its own, the Senate health care bill as presently worded would disburse billions of dollars in federal funding that no one could prevent from being used for elective abortions.

The Constitution empowers a President to take one of two actions when he receives a “Bill” passed by both houses of Congress – sign the “Bill” into law or veto it. The Constitution does not empower the President with a right to “rewrite” or “reinterpret” the statute …… a President’s Executive order cannot overturn prior Supreme Court rulings …. The Court was clear in its decisions, “Hyde” language must be placed within any  statute hoping to limit taxpayer funding of abortions ……… you might think a Constitutional Law Professor would know this – well, quite frankly, he knew this all too well. Planned Parenthood and NARAL will both argue this very point to a Federal Court in less than 6 months ……….. and the Federal Court’s will set aside the President’s sham Executive Order.

If You Are 18 To 35 Years Old, Watch Out For Obama’s Stealth Health Care Tax, A Minimum Of $1,000 Per Person

Ok, this post isn’t intended to debate exactly how many “uninsured U.S. citizens” we have in this Country.

What is widely accepted about the uninsured is this, 45% of the unisured in this Country fall in the 18 to 25 yr-old age bracket. Another 7% are in the 25 to 35-yr-old bracket. The key thing to remember here is that the vast majority of the individuals in this age bracket, who are uninsured, are uninsured because they choose not to purchase health care coverage. They have access to health care insurance, however, they choose not to purchase it. Isn’t that their right?                                                                                                                                             

http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Opinion/Editorials/opnOPN13070209.htm

To my way of thinking, the “right” not to be forced into purchasing health coverage is a basic one. It is a matter of individual choice.

NOT ANY LONGER.

Senate Bill Would Fine People More Than $1,000 for Refusing Health Care Coverage

WASHINGTON — Americans who refuse to buy affordable medical coverage could be hit with fines of more than $1,000 under a health care overhaul bill unveiled Thursday by key Senate Democrats looking to fulfill President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority. (Who defines “affordable” – the politicians?) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/02/senate-democrats-trim-cost-health-care/

The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fines will raise around $36 billion over 10 years. Senate aides said the penalties would be modeled on the approach taken by Massachusetts, which now imposes a fine of about $1,000 a year on individuals who refuse to get coverage. Under the federal legislation, families would pay higher penalties than individuals. (and later, when the Government needs more money – the fines will be what?). http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/02/senate-democrats-trim-cost-health-care/

In a revamped health care system envisioned by lawmakers, people would be required to carry health insurance just like motorists must get auto coverage now. (Not really, you can always choose not to have a car, to use public transportation, as many people in large cities like L.A., N.Y. and Chicago do – or people can share an auto – not so with Obama Care – if you breathe you pay.)

Called “shared responsibility payments,” the fines would be set at least half the cost of basic medical coverage, according to the legislation. The goal is to nudge people to sign up for coverage when they are healthy, not wait until they get sick. (Read on – the numbers don’t add up already – they don’t care if you sign up for coverage or not – as long as they get your money) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/02/senate-democrats-trim-cost-health-care/

“Obama Care” is also setting up a system that will end employer sponsored health care ….. you doubt that …. read on.

The Senate Health Education, Labor and Pensions bill also calls for a government-run insurance option to compete with private plans as well as a $750-per-worker annual fee on larger companies (larger is defined as 25 employees or more – does 25 seem large to you?)  that do not offer coverage to employees …  and

In 2008, employer-provided coverage averaged $12,680 a year for a family plan, and $4,704 for individual coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s annual survey. (Wait just one minute – doesn’t the law say the “fine” will be at least 1/2 of the cost of a private policy, well then, one half of $4,700 is $2,350 – the law hasn’t even passed and the price just went up. The fine for a family would be 1/2 of $12,680 or $6,340 a year – are they kidding?).                                                                        http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/02/senate-democrats-trim-cost-health-care/

Let me see if I understand this – an employer can choose between continuing a $12,680 plan or paying $750 to the Government. Kiss your employer sponsored program good-bye – say hello to an IRS like health care program where the government picks your doctor and hospital for you.

Think you might be able to skate on paying the fine … think again … “The fines would be collected through the income tax system.” http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/02/senate-democrats-trim-cost-health-care/

As we consider the health-care debate, I think we need to look at the numbers. The population of the United States is right at 300 million. According to various sources, there are somewhere around 45 million without health insurance. That tells us that 255 million of us have health insurance. So 85 percent of us have coverage. In 2006 an ABC News poll found that 89 percent of Americans are satisfied with their coverage. So what about the 45 million without health insurance? The Taxpayer Network says about 12 million of them are illegal aliens. (25% of the unisured). http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Opinion/Editorials/opnOPN13070209.htm

So 85% of us are Insured, 15% of us are not. One half of the uninsured (7.5%) are aged 19-35 and many of those are uninsured by choice. One quarter of the uninsured are illegal aliens (3.75% of the total) –                                                                                                                                     http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Opinion/Editorials/opnOPN13070209.htm

In Los Angeles County, CA, over 50% of the unisured patients are illegal aliens.   http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150750,00.html

Will these “illegals” have to pay the $1,000 stealth health tax – or as previously reported in the Fox article, above, will they conitnue to receive “free care” that U.S. citizens must pay for?

Back to the numbers, 15% of the Country is uninsured, 7.5% don’t want to spend money on healthcare insurance, 3.75% are here illegally and want “free medical care” paid for by the U.S Taxpayer, that leaves us with 3.75% of the population who do not have medical insurance. One half of that number (1.875%) are children under the age of 19.

Another larger group is children. In Florida we have the Healthy Kids program that will cover any child in the state up to age 19. This is guaranteed issue coverage and for most families the monthly cost is nothing. Every state has the same type of program. It is estimated there are 11 million children without coverage. So every child should be covered. All the parent has to do is apply.”            http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Opinion/Editorials/opnOPN13070209.htm

For a listing of the various State Funded Progarms for children visit this site:  http://www.govbenefits.gov/govbenefits_en.portal_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=gbcc_page_quicksearch&_nfls=false&mode=results&category=HEA

So some number, under 2% of the population, needs assistance in securing medical insurance. Primarily those with pre-existing conditions. Why destroy freedom of choice and the greatest medical delivery system on the face of the earth when the issue is helping 2% of the population. Can’t we reach the desired outcome without destroying a system that 90% of the population is happy with? 

These politicians are really screwy. Consider this, 1/2 the cost of an individual health policy is $2,350. The cost of a package of ciagrettes a day for a year is – $2, 280. Wanna bet what goes up faster, the premium on the Government’s Health Care Program or the cost of a pack of smokes?

Isn’t it time to stop, clearly define our goals and then explore the best way to reach them. The answer isn’t in attempting to provide full medical coverage to anyone who crosses our borders – as kind hearted as that sounds, America cannot afford it. The answer shouldn’t be in a Government Run Program, complete with hidden taxes, no competition and a loss of the freedom to simply say “no” – I don’t want to participate, if that is how an individual feels.  

Remember this – The “PLAN” – if it succeeds – will only provide coverage to 90% of the country – 85% of the country is already insured. A $4 trillion dollar cost to taxpayers to only add 1 out of every 3 of the uninsured and at what cost in terms of quality of care and the freedom to pick your own doctor and hospital.

Ask Your Congressperson and Senator if they plan to give up their “private coverage”, paid for by the Taxpayers, to particiapte in this “Plan”. Of course, you already know the answer to that question. This plan is “good enough” for you and I, but they will never give up their “private coverage”.  How about all of the State and Federal Government Employees, will they join the rest of the Citizens in Obama Care – or will they keep their taxpayer funded benefit packages?  

%d bloggers like this: