Do you support Obama Care ?

[pepperpot]

“Businesses get the benefit in the back end,” Newsom says.

: True words......except he forgot to include the middle class in that statement......

[Advertisement]

[tngirl]

I/we have private insurance. Should my husbands company decide to keep it and we can afford it... will we still have to pay a fine for not using the govt insurance?

No, the fine is for those that don't have any health insurance coverage at all. Right now, I don't have insurance. I just can't afford it and can't even afford the co payments for doctor's visits, drugs or testing that is not covered. And since I will probably NOT be one of the 32 million that will qualify for the "government insurance" and still not able to afford my own with my increased taxes, yep, figure I will end up being one of those getting fined on my taxes.

The reason that I do not approve of national health care in any form or fashion is because it is NOT the responsibility of the government to provide it for ANYONE. And if it is such a great deal, why aren't the politicians required to take it in order to save the tax payer some more money instead of them being able to continue with the present coverage for them? Coverage for a lifetime I might add that we, the tax payer is paying.

[jasmine]

why wouldn't u be able to qualify for the government insurance? What are the qualifications? I thought no one would be denied.

[Jolie Rouge]

I/we have private insurance. Should my husbands company decide to keep it and we can afford it... will we still have to pay a fine for not using the govt insurance?

If you don't meet the standards that the goverment sets ... then yes, you'd have to pay a fine. If you don't pay the fine, they can take it from your tax return. If you don't qualify for a tax return then they can go to punitive actions such as revoking liciences or permits or even jail time.

[Jolie Rouge]

45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul
By TERRY JONES, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 09/15/2009 07:09 PM ET

Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.

The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors' own lobby — the powerful American Medical Association — both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul.

It also calls into question whether an overhaul is even doable; 72% of the doctors polled disagree with the administration's claim that the government can cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost.

The IBD/TIPP Poll was conducted by mail the past two weeks, with 1,376 practicing physicians chosen randomly throughout the country taking part. Responses are still coming in, and doctors' positions on related topics — including the impact of an overhaul on senior care, medical school applications and drug development — will be covered later in this series.

Major findings included:

• Two-thirds, or 65%, of doctors say they oppose the proposed government expansion plan. This contradicts the administration's claims that doctors are part of an "unprecedented coalition" supporting a medical overhaul.

It also differs with findings of a poll released Monday by National Public Radio that suggests a "majority of physicians want public and private insurance options," and clashes with media reports such as Tuesday's front-page story in the Los Angeles Times with the headline "Doctors Go For Obama's Reform."

Nowhere in the Times story does it say doctors as a whole back the overhaul. It says only that the AMA — the "association representing the nation's physicians" and what "many still regard as the country's premier lobbying force" — is "lobbying and advertising to win public support for President Obama's sweeping plan."

The AMA, in fact, represents approximately 18% of physicians and has been hit with a number of defections by members opposed to the AMA's support of Democrats' proposed health care overhaul.

• Four of nine doctors, or 45%, said they "would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement" if Congress passes the plan the Democratic majority and White House have in mind.

More than 800,000 doctors were practicing in 2006, the government says. Projecting the poll's finding onto that population, 360,000 doctors would consider quitting.



• More than seven in 10 doctors, or 71% — the most lopsided response in the poll — answered "no" when asked if they believed "the government can cover 47 million more people and that it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better."

This response is consistent with critics who complain that the administration and congressional Democrats have yet to explain how, even with the current number of physicians and nurses, they can cover more people and lower the cost at the same time.

The only way, the critics contend, is by rationing care — giving it to some and denying it to others. That cuts against another claim by plan supporters — that care would be better.

IBD/TIPP's finding that many doctors could leave the business suggests that such rationing could be more severe than even critics believe. Rationing is one of the drawbacks associated with government plans in countries such as Canada and the U.K. Stories about growing waiting lists for badly needed care, horror stories of care gone wrong, babies born on sidewalks, and even people dying as a result of care delayed or denied are rife.

In this country, the number of doctors is already lagging population growth.

From 2003 to 2006, the number of active physicians in the U.S. grew by just 0.8% a year, adding a total of 25,700 doctors.

Recent population growth has been 1% a year. Patients, in short, are already being added faster than physicians, creating a medical bottleneck.

The great concern is that, with increased mandates, lower pay and less freedom to practice, doctors could abandon medicine in droves, as the IBD/TIPP Poll suggests. Under the proposed medical overhaul, an additional 47 million people would have to be cared for — an 18% increase in patient loads, without an equivalent increase in doctors. The actual effect could be somewhat less because a significant share of the uninsured already get care.

Even so, the government vows to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from health care spending to pay for reform, which would encourage a flight from the profession.

The U.S. today has just 2.4 physicians per 1,000 population — below the median of 3.1 for members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the official club of wealthy nations.

Adding millions of patients to physicians' caseloads would threaten to overwhelm the system. Medical gatekeepers would have to deny care to large numbers of people. That means care would have to be rationed.

"It's like giving everyone free bus passes, but there are only two buses," Dr. Ted Epperly, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, told the Associated Press.

Hope for a surge in new doctors may be misplaced. A recent study from the Association of American Medical Colleges found steadily declining enrollment in medical schools since 1980.

The study found that, just with current patient demand, the U.S. will have 159,000 fewer doctors than it needs by 2025. Unless corrected, that would make some sort of medical rationing or long waiting lists almost mandatory.

Experiments at the state level show that an overhaul isn't likely to change much.

On Monday came word from the Massachusetts Medical Society — a group representing physicians in a state that has implemented an overhaul similar to that under consideration in Washington — that doctor shortages remain a growing problem.

Its 2009 Physician Workforce Study found that:

• The primary care specialties of family medicine and internal medicine are in short supply for a fourth straight year.

• The percentage of primary care practices closed to new patients is the highest ever recorded.

• Seven of 18 specialties — dermatology, neurology, urology, vascular surgery and (for the first time) obstetrics-gynecology, in addition to family and internal medicine — are in short supply.

• Recruitment and retention of physicians remains difficult, especially at community hospitals and with primary care.

A key reason for the doctor shortages, according to the study, is a "lingering poor practice environment in the state."

In 2006, Massachusetts passed its medical overhaul — minus a public option — similar to what's being proposed on a national scale now. It hasn't worked as expected. Costs are higher, with insurance premiums rising 22% faster than in the U.S. as a whole.

"Health spending in Massachusetts is higher than the United States on average and is growing at a faster rate," according to a recent report from the Urban Institute.

Other states with government-run or mandated health insurance systems, including Maine, Tennessee and Hawaii, have been forced to cut back services and coverage.

This experience has been repeated in other countries where a form of nationalized care is common. In particular, many nationalized health systems seem to have trouble finding enough doctors to meet demand.

In Britain, a lack of practicing physicians means the country has had to import thousands of foreign doctors to care for patients in the National Health Service.

"A third of (British) primary care trusts are flying in (general practitioners) from as far away as Lithuania, Poland, Germany, Hungary, Italy and Switzerland" because of a doctor shortage, a recent story in the British Daily Mail noted.

British doctors, demoralized by long hours and burdensome rules, simply refuse to see patients at nights and weekends.

Likewise, Canadian physicians who have to deal with the stringent rules and income limits imposed by that country's national health plan have emigrated in droves to other countries, including the U.S.



Tomorrow: Why most doctors oppose the government's plan — in their own words.

[Jolie Rouge]

Condition Critical [i] : What Doctors Think About Health Reform Doctors Verbatim On Health Care Reform[/b]

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=506106

09/24/2009 08:22 PM ET - In this final installment of our eight-part series on how doctors feel about health care reform, we pass on the reasons given for supporting or opposing the government's plans. All told, 1,376 practicing physicians responded to our questionnaire mailed Aug. 28. Nearly 65% opposed government control


Doctors' Best Medical Cost-Cutting Ideas: Tort Reform, Tort Reform And Tort Reform

09/23/2009 07:29 PM ET - Nearly half of doctors say tort reform is key to getting U.S. health care costs under control, according to the IBD/TIPP Poll on which this series is based. Of the 1,376 doctors who responded to our survey, 48% mentioned tort reform as the best way to slow the rise in medical costs.


Doctors See Fewer Entering Profession, Further Clouding Supply-Demand Picture

09/22/2009 07:23 PM ET - Readers alarmed to learn in the first part of this series that nearly half of doctors would consider quitting if the government's health care overhaul goes through won't find much solace in another finding — that most of them also expect fewer people to go into their profession.

Will Reform Thwart Drug Development? Three Of Five Physicians Think It Might

09/21/2009 07:35 PM ET - Doctors believe that health care reforms proposed so far will hamper drug innovation and new medical technology, eroding America's lead in providing high-quality, life-extending medicine. This is another picture that emerges from a recent IBD/TIPP Poll of 1,376 physicians from around the country.


Senior Care To Suffer Under Gov't Plan,Two-Thirds Of Practicing Physicians Say

09/18/2009 07:39 PM ET - Will the quality of care for seniors improve under health care reform currently being considered by Congress? A recent IBD/TIPP Poll shows that a majority of physicians think the answer is no. Of the 1,376 physicians who answered our survey, 65% said that government reform would lead to rationing of treatments


About This Poll & Series
Lost in all the debate about health care reform is a key question: What do doctors think? To find out, IBD/TIPP — America's most accurate pollster — conducted a nationwide survey of physicians. As this exclusive series shows, doctors have serious reservations about the reforms being proposed.

Pro-Reform Doctors Detest Status Quo And Especially Role Played By Insurers

09/17/2009 07:09 PM ET - An IBD/TIPP Poll released earlier this week showed overwhelming opposition among physicians to proposed health care reforms. But that doesn't mean no doctors support them. By a 2-to-1 margin, the 1,376 physicians who answered our survey, 65% of the total, said "no" to proposed reforms.

Grim Prognosis From Doctors Opposed To Health Care Plan

09/16/2009 07:07 PM ET - Doctor opposition to health care overhaul proposals is broad and deep, revealing concerns not just about soaring costs, declining care, possible rationing and a lack of limits on malpractice suits, but also about government competence and motives, detailed responses to a new IBD/TIPP Poll show.


45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul

09/15/2009 07:09 PM ET - Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.

[Jolie Rouge]

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms
By David Hogberg
Posted 03/23/2010 08:28 PM ET
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=528137

If some reports are to be believed, the Democrats will pass the Senate health care bill with some reconciliation changes later today. Thus, it is worthwhile to take a comprehensive look at the freedoms we will lose.

Of course, the bill is supposed to provide us with security.

But it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care. We may be about to live Benjamin Franklin's adage, "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee. http://rules.house.gov/

1. You are young and don't want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the "privilege." (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You'll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That's because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person's health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you'd like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn't cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that's what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn't allow your employees' slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
You're a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You're a woman who can't have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You're a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a "Bronze plan," which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d)(1)(A))

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you'd like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 50 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).
10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can't do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don't want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It's not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients' care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a "Medicare provider agreement" by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn't have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A)).

13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can't (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed "unreasonable" by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).


16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).
The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).

17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)

18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).

19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).

That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

[Bahet]

Obama Will Kill Tens Of Thousands Of Americans...By Design
http://hindenblog1.blogspot.com/2010...thousands.html

In what must be the most cynical, politically motivated aspect of ObamaCare, many tens of thousands of Americans will be killed. By design.

How can I say such a thing? Well, I apply Obamic numbers to Obamic policy. Simple.

According to widely published scare "statistics", used constantly by Obami collectivists, 45,000 Americans die each year for lack of health care. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58G6W520090917


But, by cynical calculated design, ObamaCare does not begin to really kick in until 2014. They had to do that to cook the numbers, so that revenue was generated prior to benefits being due. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...he_senate.html

That leaves us this calculation: 45,000 x 4 years = 180,000 dead Americans.

Of course, that doesn't count the millions of Americans left uncovered by ObamaCare's non-universal universal coverage.

Obama lied...Americans died.

If it was so desperate a situation, so crucial it be passed RIGHT NOW !! ... why does it take FOUR YEARS to have benefits kick in ??

If it is such a WONDERFUL program .... why is Congress and this Administration exempt from their own legislation ??

They had to do that to try to appease the teabagging SOBs who would rather continue seeing those people die. Hey, the bastages went and got themselves born so f* them. They should just die and stop being a drain on society. Unless of course they are terminally ill and want to die, then they want to keep them alive and force them to have health care.

hmmmm... hey, there's a thought. Should we end up without health insurance again I'll just tell the email forwarding, faux news watching, teabaggers that I want to die. They'll come out in droves to make damn sure I have great medical care.

Seriously, how can people like that call themselves pro life? They are pro fetus and anti euthanasia but don't give a **** about anyone not in those groups.

[justme23]

No, the fine is for those that don't have any health insurance coverage at all. Right now, I don't have insurance. I just can't afford it and can't even afford the co payments for doctor's visits, drugs or testing that is not covered. And since I will probably NOT be one of the 32 million that will qualify for the "government insurance" and still not able to afford my own with my increased taxes, yep, figure I will end up being one of those getting fined on my taxes.

The reason that I do not approve of national health care in any form or fashion is because it is NOT the responsibility of the government to provide it for ANYONE. And if it is such a great deal, why aren't the politicians required to take it in order to save the tax payer some more money instead of them being able to continue with the present coverage for them? Coverage for a lifetime I might add that we, the tax payer is paying.

Thx! And good to see you around!

[janelle]

My hubby was at the barber shop today and OMG it's bad out there.

I don't know how the bill can be supported when no one knows what is in the bill. It seems even the Dems do not know what is in the bill. Has anyone read it, I don't think so.

It is all crazy.

[janelle]

Subject: FW: Amendment for Congress to be covered by all laws
This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on.

An idea whose time has come: For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens have no idea that members of Congress can retire with the same pay after only one term, that they don’t pay into Social Security, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that they have passed for us. Somehow, that doesn't seem fair. We do not have an elite group that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop. This is an idea whose time has come.

Contact 20 people on your address list and, in turn, ask each of them to do likewise. In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one proposal that really should be passed!
Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."