Health Care Reform:
Is That What You Want?
All the idiocy I am finding in this bill is beyond ridiculous. I cannot believe that
anyone is in favor of this stuff. Anyone who has read this certainly should not be
in favor of it. Anyone who has not read it should at least look on the internet and
find the truth that way. If they're only interested in supporting the obamination and
his desires to make America into a Fascist/Socialist/Communist country, then they should
wake up, smell the coffee -- strong and bitter -- and stop drinking the coffee until
they find out that it's no longer going to kill them! Duh! I am appalled at how many
idiots out there are still supporting this crap. And crap it is. Below you will find
a link to the whole thing, all 1,018 pages of the House's Bill, HR 3200. Read it
and tell me you support them having access to your bank accounts and knowing every
single itty-bitty detail of your medical history -- and being able to share it with
whomever they so desire. Is that what you want? If so, YOU'RE A MORON!
Read the bill for yourself if you desire.
Just educate yourself on this thing. Then do what is right.
Pages 101 to 125
Are you currently on Medicaid? Do you like the program? Is it something that you think
is handling your medical care well and reliably, to your satisfaction? If not, then you
may not wish to support this plan. Because on page 102:
"(3) AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT OF MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS INTO
MEDICAID.—The Commissioner shall provide for a process under which an
individual who is described in section 202(d)(3) and has not elected to
enroll in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is automatically
enrolled under Medicaid."
You have no choice. You are going to be put into the program whether you like it or not.
Isn't that special? Uncle obamination decides for you that you must go onto this
program instead of finding what works best for you. Is that what you want?
Oh, and did you know that you will be paying for everyone everywhere in the USA's insurance?
Yep. On pages 106 & 107 we see:
"(b) COORDINATION OF RISK POOLING.—The Commissioner shall establish
a mechanism whereby there is an adjustment made of the premium amounts
payable among QHBP offering entities offering Exchange-participating
health benefits plans of premiums collected for such plans that takes
into account (in a manner specified by the Commissioner) the differences
in the risk characteristics of individuals and employers enrolled under
the different Exchange-participating health benefits plans offered by such
entities so as to minimize the impact of adverse selection of enrollees
among the plans offered by such entities."
So, if say for instance, Group A has 1,000 people who are healthy and happy and all
should be paying approximately $50 per month for their health insurance. But, in
Group M we have 1,000 people and of that 1,000 people, there are 250 who have some
drastic health problems. According to the paragraph above, because it's a government
plan and it's going to spread the wealth and happiness around, the people in Group
A will be paying for the health risks of the 250 people who are not even in their group,
the unhealthy people in Group M. As will the people in Groups B-L be paying for
the health insurance of the 250 people in Group M. Is that what you want?
Do you want more government interference in your health care and health
insurance? The program HR 3200 would put into effect would do that --
in spades! Not just a Commissar -- sorry -- Commissioner, but it would also
have a Special Inspector General appointed by the obamination of course.
The SIG's duties:
"(A) conduct, supervise, and coordinate audits,
evaluations and investigations of the Health Insurance Exchange
to protect the integrity of the Health Insurance Exchange, as
well as the health and welfare of participants in the Exchange;
(B) report both to the Commissioner and to the Congress
regarding program and management problems and recommendations
to correct them;
(C) have other duties (described in paragraphs (2) and (3) of
section 121 of division A of Public Law 110–343) in relation to
the duties described in the previous subparagraphs; and
(D) have the authorities provided in section 6 of the Inspector
General Act of 1978 in carrying out duties under this paragraph."
I have found The Inspector General Act of 1978.
Read Sec. 6 (look for the section dividers of dashed lines) and you will see that your
privacy shall be not just gone, but deleted and you shall have nothing even resembling
medical privacy left. Not that there was any left to start with in this bill, but whatever
modicum of medical privacy you may have had left (your neighbor couldn't view your
medical records), well, let's just say there's even less left. The Inspector General for this
idiocy can look at anything he wants. He can subpeona you. He can drag you wherever he wishes
to drag you and question you for whatever he wishes to question you: especially if you work
in the medical profession or in the insurance sector. Is that what you want?
Oh, yeah. Let's not forget the fact that all of this Inspector General stuff shall have
to be funded, shall have to be staffed and shall have to have offices. That means higher
taxes and that means less money in your pocket. I've been trying to find an average salary
for an US Inspector General to give you some idea as to the costs you'll be looking at for just
the IG. Too bad it's almost impossible to find online. I did find out that a Criminal Investigator
or a polygraph examiner both get up $113,007 right now. The IG himself will be more than that.
Consider how big a health care Inspector General's office would be and how many IG investigators
there will be and all of that cost. We're talking a lot of taxes! Is that what you want?
Something that really bothers me about all of this bureaucracy is that they "report to Congress"
but not that Congress can do anything about it. They do not answer to Congress, they just inform
Congress as to what they have been doing. Therefore this whole bureaucracy answer only to the
obamination in chief. Without Congress having any sort of oversight, that means that you have
no control over what the bureaucracy does, where they change things, nor what the bureaucracy
decides to make you do. Congress cannot represent you to the bureaucracy: you have no representation
short of the obamination. Is that what you want?
On pages 110-111, there is this stupidity:
"(2) APPROPRIATIONS TO COVER GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTIONS.—There
are hereby appropriated, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, to the Trust Fund, an amount equivalent to the amount of
payments made from the Trust Fund under subsection (b) plus such amounts
as are necessary reduced by the amounts deposited under paragraph (1)."
Where in the world are we going to get "any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated"?
After the bank bailout, the auto industry bailout, the homeowners bailout, etc., where in the
world are we going to come up with any money not appropriated? Where shall they find
such a thing? I don't think it exists! So, that means.... More taxes! Shock! Surprise!
Is that what you want?
I don't know about you, but I seem to remember that little thing that we used to have
called The United States Constitution. In that law, we had something called, Amendment X (Ten),
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the
states respectively, or to the people."
This is the part where the whole health care debacle bites the dust, IMHO. Where
does the US Constitution say that the federal government has the right to
take our choice in health care insurance and practice away from us? Hmmm? Where?
Nowhere? Well then, the whole thing is unconstitutional then, isn't it?
On pages 111-115, we see:
"(1) AUTHORITY RETAINED.—Enforcement authorities of the
Commissioner shall be retained by the Commissioner.
Where does that type of thing align with the rules of the pre-existing
US Constitution? Isn't that the law already, the US Constitution? So why
is this in HR 3200? This section is talking about the States deciding to
do a State-based Health Insurance Exchange, where one or more states decide
to do a QHBP and the Commissioner decides whether or not they can do so, or
whether or not they have the right to continue to do so. Where in the US Constitution
does it say that one appointed person -- even one appointed by the president
of the moment -- has the right to take away the rights of the States and the
people? Where? How can this be even considered when the US Constitution
already says that this is not allowed? Where are the constitutional scholars
yelling at the top of their lungs against this?
Even more important: Why is the obamination saying
that this is what he wants when the obamination is an attorney sworn
to uphold the US Constitution not just as president, but as an attorney!
How can anyone who was sworn to uphold the US Constitution as an attorney,
then swear again -- in front of the nation -- to uphold the US Constitution
as our President, say that he wants this bill to pass?! How dare he?! At the
very least the obamination should be disbarred because of his support for
On page 118, we see the Social Security Laws
"similar to the duties of the Medicare Beneficiary
Ombudsman under section 1808(c)(2) of the Social Security Act."
And thus we find another set of people who "report to Congress" but do not answer
to Congress. This bill, as well as the Social Security bill -- including
amendments through Jan. 1, 2009 -- has free wheeling bureaucrats doing as they
please and telling Congress, "This is what I did." Where does it say that
Congress makes them change things, or makes some rules they have to live
by, or has the ability to punish them? Where? Oh. You don't see it? Nor
do I. Is that what you want?
And on page 118, we see how they shall be using the census:
"(e) DATA COLLECTION.—The Secretary shall collect
such data as may be required to establish premiums and payment
rates for the public health insurance option and for other
purposes under this subtitle, including to improve quality
and to reduce racial, ethnic, and other disparities in health
and health care."
First of all, isn't it nice that they assume such inequalities? Notice
it does not say, "If such inequalities exist"? It is a statement of fact,
not of possibility. Sweet. What an assumption, huh? Second, they are going
to be using the US Census -- which under the US Constitution is established
in order to determine representation within the House of Representatives and
for no other purpose -- to collect data that will help you pay more -- or less --
dependent upon your race, ethnicity and other factors. Those of you who pay
a lot now, be prepared to pay more because you can afford more. Those of you who
are paying nothing, shall continue to do so and maybe get rebate checks back. Is
that what those of us who pay want? I'm sure those who do not pay are saying, "Yes!"
On page 120 it covers what the start-up costs shall be:
"(A) IN GENERAL.—In order to provide for the establishment
of the public health insurance option there is hereby appropriated to
the Secretary, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise
That's Two-Billion Dollars, folks. Yep. And that's coming out of your
pocket and mine (well, yours if you are working and paying taxes; just mine
and the other workers if you're a freeloader) and that doesn't count a few
other things the Federal government has done lately. Do you know where they're
going to get all this money? Is that what you want?
Page 125 has a doozy in it:
"(f) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no
administrative or judicial review of a payment rate or methodology
established under this section or under section 2 224."
No review? No "administrative or judicial review"? That goes against
everything in the US Constitution! There is a right to judicial review if
we sue them. That's "judicial review". They are telling us that we cannot sue
the health care system -- obamination care -- under this bull -- sorry, bill.
Where are our rights? What about our right to Amendment Seven?
"Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Does this bill, HR 3200, take away every right we have under the US Constitution
in order to protect the obamination administration and his appointees and his idea
of socialized health care? Is that what this is all about? Is this bill more
about taking away our rights in one fell swoop more than it is about health care?
Because that's what it is starting to look like to me. Is that what you want?
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no
fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the
United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
That's all I can stomach for today. I didn't get but twenty-five pages
into it this time before my head ached from irritation and disbelief. No
president, Congress or Senate, has ever tried to take away our constitutional
rights as thoroughly and as quietly, as sneakilly and in such a cover up as
this president and this Democratic controlled House and Senate. The thing that
bothers me most is that there are Senators and Congressmen out there who have
not even read the bill and who are still saying we should support it. Well,
excuse me, MISrepresentatives, but why would I want to support the taking
away of my God-given and US Constitution protected rights as a US Citizen?
Should I hand them over, meek and mild, because the obamination and you want
me to? I don't think so. I know I shall not. I shall not surrender one jot nor
tittle of my constitutional rights to them. Nor shall I encourage you to do so.
Fight this. Fight this with words, meetings, talk radio calls, letters to the
editor, going to your MISrepresentatives' offices and telling them to their
faces that you won't hand over your constitutional rights to them, to this
administration, or to anyone else who tries to take them away. Not without a
fight! And then tell them that they shall be throw out of office before you
lose on iota of your rights. And tell them that there are many out there who agree
Recall the MISrepresentatives! Recall them and make them pay for letting
this unconstitutional bill get as far as it has! Recall them all! And then,
Impeach Obama and disbar him! It's a mandate from our Forefathers. It's
a mandate for your children and your children's children's children. Before it's
Also read: "Reformers' Claims Just Don't Add Up",
"Inside the Bureaucracy Obama Envisions" by Michelle
Malkin and "Runaway Train To Less Freedom, Higher Taxes and Rationed Care".
All of these pieces appear in "Investor's Business Daily". Check the internet and I'm sure you'll find more info that will
scare you to death about this "reform" that we do not need.
Remember: Anyone who does not give you a wake-up call when they see you being stupid, self-destructive, or both, just plain
doesn't care about you. It's those of us who do wake you up who care.