Thread: Obama outlines health care plan for all

Fact-Checking President Obama's Health Care Talking Points
by John Boehner

"If you misrepresent what's in this plan, we will call you out," President Obama warned in his health care address to Congress earlier this month.

Fair enough. But the President himself has made numerous claims during this debate that don’t meet the straight-face test.

When the President says that health care reform will not require anyone to drop their current coverage, he fails to account for an independent analysis by the Lewin Group showing that as many as 114 million Americans could lose their current coverage and instead end up on a government-run plan under House Democrats' proposal (H.R. 3200.) Even the most conservative estimates say millions could be shifted to a government-run plan.

When the President pledges that reform will not add to the deficit, not even a little, he neglects to mention that House Democrats' plan would increase the deficit by $239 billion over 10 years, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

What's worse, when the President insists that middle-class families won't see a tax increase – as he did repeatedly during his recent appearance on ABC's This Week – it's as if he failed to read the health care bills altogether.

On page 167 of H.R. 3200, the title of section 401 reads:

"TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE."

The Associated Press didn't mince words when it began a fact check piece,

"Memo to President Obama: it's a tax."

If the President read these bills, he'd also find that his pledge to protect seniors' Medicare benefits rings hollow. According to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, House Democrats' plan cuts Medicare Advantage programs by more than $172 billion.

As a result, six million seniors will be denied access to an affordable Medicare Advantage (MA) plan, including three million who will lose the plan they currently have, according to an analysis completed by Republicans on the House Ways & Means Committee. And that's just the beginning. The House Democrats' bill includes a total of more than $500 billion in Medicare cuts, meaning reduced benefits and fewer choices for seniors.


To be fair, there are areas in which the President has sought to make up for the shortcomings of Democrats' costly government takeover of health care. It was encouraging when the President's pledge to Congress that "no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions" was followed by a meeting at the White House with pro-life activists.

It turns out, however, that the Administration would not commit to inserting a provision that explicitly excludes abortion from health care reform.

Thus, the status quo remains: House Democrats' health care legislation would allow the U.S. Secretary of Health & Human Services to include abortion as a benefit in the government-run health care option.

It was also encouraging when the President assured law-abiding taxpayers that illegal immigrants should not and will not be covered under the Democrats' health care plan.

The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has confirmed, however, that there is no mechanism included in the House bill to verify that individuals are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants before they receive government benefits.

House Republicans offered two amendments in the committee process to correct this: the first would have prevented illegal immigrants from being automatically enrolled into Medicaid and the second would have required better screening for applicants for federally-subsidized health care to ensure they are actually citizens or legal immigrants.

Both were rejected by Democrats.

These are just a couple of the many ideas House Republicans have offered to improve Americans' health care. For instance, why not allow small employers to group together through national associations so they can buy health insurance for their employees like big companies and unions can today? Why not allow the American people to buy health care plans across state lines? Why not get serious about ending junk lawsuits and more importantly the costly defensive medicine that doctors are forced to practice?

We outlined these proposals in a letter to the President back in May and asked to sit down with him and discuss them. The response we received essentially said 'Thanks, but no thanks.'

For his part, the President has talked about a "whole series of Republican ideas" being included in health care reform. This is just another myth perpetuated by the President, whose rhetoric simply doesn't match the reality of congressional Democrats' government-run health care proposals.

This isn't about calling out President Obama for the sake of doing so.

The American people deserve to know the unvarnished truth about the potential consequences of this costly government takeover of their health care. The President's failure to meet this common-sense standard is yet another indication it's time to hit the reset button and start over in a bipartisan way to achieve health care reforms hard-working Americans can support and afford.

My husband had an interesting phone conversation when SunSurveys called. They were doing a survey on insured/uninsured Americans. Interviewer asked,do you have health coverage you pay for? Husband replied no,I don't pay I am military...Interviewer is clearly confused,so you are on a state run health care which in your area is MaineCare. Hubby replies,no I am active duty military,have healthcare ,dont pay for it,family has health care through US Family health Plan. Interviewer,so you pay for health care for family? No USFHP is a TriCare prime option,so no we dont pay. Interviewer is befuddled and getting a little irate,says to husband,well there are no options for your answers so I will have to put you under uninsured because if you leave the military you and your family will have no healthcare,husband replies well your survey isnt accurate then,interviewer yes it is,husband how can it be accurate if my family and I have health care and you are saying we dont,interviewer,you are correct,I will put you as having state run health care,husband says,still inaccurate,you are better off not even using this survey in your data because it is flawed. Husband tells the guy to have a great day best of luck LOL and hangs up....

Remember that a republican, (Bush) wanted to give estimated eight million illegal aliens amnesty.

I would say it was one of their ways of buying votes.

: You were not the only one who called it .... which ever party banner they hide under the only two REAL Parties left are Them versus US because however they try to paint it the majority are only looking out for the Almighty Dollar and Themselves.



Senators turn back ID requirement for immigrant healthcare
By Jeffrey Young - 09/30/09 01:03 PM ET

Senate Finance Committee Democrats rejected a proposed a requirement that immigrants prove their identity with photo identification when signing up for federal healthcare programs.

Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said that current law and the healthcare bill under consideration are too lax and leave the door open to illegal immigrants defrauding the government using false or stolen identities to obtain benefits.

Grassley's amendment was beaten back 10-13 on a party-line vote.

The bill, authored by committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), would require applicants to verify their names, places of birth and Social Security numbers. In addition, legal immigrants would have to wait five years, as under current law, after obtaining citizenship or legal residency to access federal healthcare benefits such as Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program or receive tax credits or purchase insurance through the exchange created by the legislation.

But the would not require them to show a photo ID, such as a drivers license. Without that requirement, the bill "remains dearly lacking when it comes to identification," Grassley said. "Frankly, I'm very perplexed as to why anyone would oppose this amendment," he said.

But Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman, who represents the border state of New Mexico, said that the type of fraud Grassley said he wants to prevent is highly uncommon. "The way I see the amendment, it's a solution without a problem," Bingaman said.

---

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...ant-healthcare

Bingaman said "a solution without a problem". Really? Ten to fifteen million illegals here with phony id's and he doesn't see a problem! Could it be that he fully expects them to vote "Democrat" and he wants all illegals to be able to avail themselves of as little verification as possible to secure their vote? That may not be a problem for Democrats, but for America, it's a huge problem. Every valid, verifiable citizen should be outraged as illegals get to cancel out your vote and secure Dems in power forever!

Hasn't Obamacare itself become a solution without a problem?

Joe Wilson was right .....

Originally Posted by kelblend

It's also crazy that he won't include measures to prove you are legal before receiving care or getting medicaid. This is a republican suggestion and it's just blown off. It makes sense to do this. I truly don't see many bipartisan ideas in this package at all.

No one has addressed this (that I've seen)......

If an illegal alien (or someone without an inusrance card)....is in desperate need of treatment (emergency)....will or should treatment be withheld?

Are you willing to step over that illegal alien in the street bleeding out?
Who here is willing to deny treatment to anyone who doesn't have a health card in hand?

The proposed system has flaws.....

Instead of denying that illegal in the street treatment, we will change our 'laws' to include them on the tax payers' collar. Just like it is now, only, now...they'll be legally legit (and qualify for so many other benefits as well - it will snowball).

Originally Posted by pepperpot

No one has addressed this (that I've seen)......

Above in JR's post - It was also encouraging when the President assured law-abiding taxpayers that illegal immigrants should not and will not be covered under the Democrats' health care plan.

The non-partisan Congressional Research Service has confirmed, however, that there is no mechanism included in the House bill to verify that individuals are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants before they receive government benefits.

I had read this in an article a while back as well.
If an illegal alien (or someone without an inusrance card)....is in desperate need of treatment (emergency)....will or should treatment be withheld?

Nope I don't think it should be denied. I do think some form of ID should be given and followed up on. May not make a lot of difference though I guess.

Are you willing to step over that illegal alien in the street bleeding out?
Who here is willing to deny treatment to anyone who doesn't have a health card in hand?

My whole issue is that I believe they need to seek citizenship and pay taxes. If you know you will live here and work here, then follow the rules. I would gladly like to see people receive benefits and wish they would try to participate in the way we all pay taxes. You know you hear of illegal people receiving medicaid. If they can do that for them, why not help them get citizenship??? I'm sure if they can seek out medicaid they can seek out help to get citizenship.
The proposed system has flaws.....

Instead of denying that illegal in the street treatment, we will change our 'laws' to include them on the tax payers' collar. Just like it is now, only, now...they'll be legally legit (and qualify for so many other benefits as well - it will snowball).

It just comes down to if you want to live and work here, then friggin participate and pay taxes like the rest of us. My opinion. I don't know of any other country that allows you go there and reap all the benefits without paying your share.

It just comes down to if you want to live and work here, then friggin participate and pay taxes like the rest of us. My opinion.

And how do we enforce that?

I'm not willing to let or see people die in the streets....

My whole issue is that I believe they need to seek citizenship and pay taxes.

Me too....but how to enforce that? That's another bill/problem and when it is 'solved' will not be a 'health care' isuue.....the 'health care' part is just the symptom, lets address the problem.

Originally Posted by pepperpot

No one has addressed this (that I've seen)......

If an illegal alien (or someone without an inusrance card)....is in desperate need of treatment (emergency)....will or should treatment be withheld?

Are you willing to step over that illegal alien in the street bleeding out?
Who here is willing to deny treatment to anyone who doesn't have a health card in hand?

The proposed system has flaws.....

Instead of denying that illegal in the street treatment, we will change our 'laws' to include them on the tax payers' collar. Just like it is now, only, now...they'll be legally legit (and qualify for so many other benefits as well - it will snowball).

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...1/2065287.aspx

There would be no change in the law that requires emergency rooms to treat people who need emergency care, including undocumented immigrants. There is already a federal grant program that compensates states for emergency room costs associated with treatment of undocumented immigrants, a provision sponsored by a Republican lawmaker.

There would be no change in the law that requires emergency rooms to treat people who need emergency care, including undocumented immigrants. There is already a federal grant program that compensates states for emergency room costs associated with treatment of undocumented immigrants, a provision sponsored by a Republican lawmaker.

But isn't that part of the root of the problem? What does this 'new plan' solve?

But isn't that part of the root of the problem? What does this 'new plan' solve?

Apparently the new plan isn't so new at all. lol.

Most medical professionals that took the oath to heal wouldn't turn away any human being regardless of who they are or where they come from in an emergency.
I personally don't think that non-citizens of the US should be afforded the same things that US citizens receive. I've said it before, if I lived and worked in another country (and I have) I'd have none of the same privileges that their citizens have.