Mandating health Insurance - Obamacare

[American Patriot]

News is reporting that the bills they are trying to push through is MANDATING the purchase of health insurance on every American.

They can kiss my ass.

I don't even believe in forced CAR insurance... but driving a car can be dangerous to others.

Not jogging weekly or having a checkup once a year IS NOT GOING TO AFFECT OTHER PEOPLE. It affects ME and ME ALONE

[American Patriot]

CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN TODAY!

Tell them WE WILL NOT STAND FOR MORE GOVERNMENT MANDATES

[Malsua]

Did you see that they are probably going to figure out a way to regulate risky activities? You get one guess what activity they'd like to target most. No, it's not risky anal sex with multiple partners. That will be a protected activity.

[Beetle]

Did you see that they are probably going to figure out a way to regulate risky activities? You get one guess what activity they'd like to target most. No, it's not risky anal sex with multiple partners. That will be a protected activity.

Pickle Sniffers

[Malsua]

No, they'll start with their real agenda. Gun owners who own "dangerous firearms" will be denied coverage. Once they get the camel's nose under the tent, they're define down "dangerous firearms" to anything that can hold more than one round of ammunition and anything larger than .15 caliber.

[samizdat]

"Health Care Reform" = free abortion on demand, free abortion/bc pills + all med personnel must comply or BYE BYE- no conscience clause amendment- voted down- head drilling procedures mandatory for all-partial birth (what's that?) - a leninist clause- not santy claws.

freedom of choice act/health reform ? Which sounds better? or

Marxist Leninist strategy to promote new elite bourgouise by obligatory Satanic Child Sacrifice

[vector7]

The WellPoint Revelation
Private insurance premiums could triple under ObamaCare.

Washington is captivated by the Senate melodrama over the so-called public option, salivating at the ring of Harry Reid's political bell (see below). But the most important health-care questions continue to be about the policy substance—particularly those that Democrats don't want asked.

Foremost among them is: How will ObamaCare affect insurance premiums in the private health-care markets? Despite indignant Democratic denials, the near-certainty is that their plan will cause costs to rise across the board. The latest data on this score come from a series of state-level studies from the insurance company WellPoint Inc.

At the request of Congressional delegations worried about their constituents—call it a public service—WellPoint mined its own actuarial data to model ObamaCare in the 14 states where it runs Blue Cross plans. The study therefore takes into account market and demographic differences that other industry studies have not, such as the one from the trade group America's Health Insurance Plans, which looked at aggregate national trends.

In all of the 14 states WellPoint scrutinized, ObamaCare would drive up premiums for the small businesses and individuals who are most of WellPoint's customers. (Other big insurers, like Aetna, focus on the market among large businesses.) Young and healthy consumers will see the largest increases—their premiums would more than triple in some states—though average middle-class buyers will pay more too.

Not even two hours after Wellpoint had presented its materials on the Hill, Democrats were already trashing it—which, considering that it runs to some 238 pages and took weeks to prepare, must have required remarkable powers of digestion and analysis.



Associated Press Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid


"This is yet another insurance-industry report that twists the facts to produce a skewed result," averred Linda Douglass, the White House communications director on health care. Said a spokesman for the Senate Finance Committee, "This is akin to the tobacco companies commissioning another study claiming nicotine isn't addictive and cigarettes don't cause cancer." So in its Saul Alinsky fashion, the White House again attacks the messenger so it can avoid rebutting the message.

In fact, what distinguishes the Wellpoint study is its detailed rigor. Take Ohio, where a young, healthy 25-year-old living in Columbus can purchase insurance from WellPoint today for about $52 per month in the individual market. WellPoint's actuaries calculate the bill will rise to $79 because Democrats are going to require it to issue policies to anyone who applies, even if they've waited until they're sick to buy insurance. Then they'll also require the company to charge everyone nearly the same rate, bringing the premium to $134. Add in an extra $17, since Democrats will require higher benefit levels, and a share of the new health industry taxes ($6), and monthly premiums have risen to $157, a 199% boost.

Meanwhile, a 40-year-old husband and wife with two kids would see their premiums jump by 122%—to $737 from $332—while a small business with eight employees in Franklin County would see premiums climb by 86%. It's true that the family or the individual might qualify for subsidies if their incomes are low enough, but the business wouldn't qualify under the Senate Finance bill WellPoint examined. And even if there are subsidies, the new costs the bill creates don't vaporize. They're merely transferred to taxpayers nationwide—or financed with deficits, which will be financed eventually with higher taxes.

The story is largely the same from state to state, though the increases are smaller in the few states that have already adopted the same mandates and regulations that Democrats want to impose on all states. For the average small employer in high-cost New York, for instance, premiums would only rise by 6%. But they'd shoot up by 94% for the same employer in Indianapolis, 91% in St. Louis and 53% in Milwaukee.

A family of four with average health in those same cities would all face cost increases of 122% buying insurance on the individual market. And it's important to understand that these are merely the new costs created by ObamaCare—not including the natural increases in medical costs over time from new therapies and the like.

Democrats have been selling health care as one huge free lunch in which everyone gets better insurance while paying less. But the policy facts simply don't add up, and Democrats are attacking WellPoint because they don't want anyone to understand what their health-care schemes will mean in practice. Democrats know that if the public is given the facts and the time to consider them, Americans might demand that Democrats stop pushing the country off this cliff and start all over.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...177212064.html

[vector7]

Just in time for free health care

Obama lifts ban on US entry for those with HIV


President Barack Obama signs the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009, Friday, Oct. 30, 2009, in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House in Washington. Behind him are various lawmakers and Jeanne White-Ginder, mother of Ryan White, second right. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif. is at right. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

Fri Oct 30, 12:32 PM ET

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama said Friday the U.S. will overturn a 22-year-old travel and immigration ban against people with HIV early next year.

The order will be finalized on Monday, Obama said, completing a process begun during the Bush administration.

The U.S. has been among a dozen countries that bar entry to travelers with visas or anyone seeking a green card based on their HIV status.

Continued...

[vector7]

PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail

JCT Confirms Failure to Comply with Democrats’ Mandate Can Lead to 5 Years in Jail

Friday, November 06, 2009

Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”

Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:

“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]

- - - - - - - - - -

“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]

- - - - - - - - - -


“Criminal penalties

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]

When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.

“The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,” said Camp.

According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.

[samizdat]

Health care my ....

November 5, 2009
Abortion as "health care reform" is nothing new for Secretary Sebelius
Why Speaker Pelosi and Planned Parenthood love Kathleen Sebelius
By Phill Kline

As Governor of Kansas, now Secretary Sebelius received her greatest political support from Planned Parenthood and George Tiller. The support was well-earned as Governor Sebelius appointed a Kansas Supreme Court that worked to thwart legitimate investigations of the two abortion providers and also recruited and helped fund an Attorney General candidate who would refuse to pursue legitimate charges against Sebelius's benefactors.

It is not surprising that the left would now look to Sebelius to usher in mandated federal funding of elective abortion. Planned Parenthood already receives over $300 million of federal tax dollars, however, the push is to expand the market for abortion on demand. This is why Speaker Pelosi's 2,032 page health care "reform" bill contains public funding for abortion (§222, p. 110, line 17) and allows Secretary Sebelius to determine what abortions are covered. The bill also mandates a minimum $1 a month premium per enrollee for abortions. (§213, pg. 96). A House vote on this abortion measure is currently scheduled at 7:00 pm Eastern Time this Saturday.

Well, let's take a quick look at what Governor Sebelius supported in Kansas. Late-term abortions on viable children were performed, for instance, because a prospective mother did not want to hire a babysitter when she attended the concert of her favorite rock band. Another example: a desire to compete in the current rodeo season was sufficient to justify the termination of the life of a perfectly viable unborn child just a few weeks before natural birth.[1]

Well, the dipshits from the house bought it. The Senate failed in several attempts to attach a conscience amendment, so that health care workers are not forced to enforce forcible ...........bloody murder.

[vector7]

Historic healthcare overhaul passes House

The 220-215 vote marks the first such victory in decades of efforts to expand insurance coverage. The bill wins a lone GOP vote and loses many Democrats, pointing to challenges awaiting in the Senate.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, with Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, left, and Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez) after the vote, rallied her party for months. (Alex Brandon / Associated Press / November 7, 2009)

By Noam N. Levey and Janet Hook November 8, 2009

Reporting from Washington - The House of Representatives on Saturday approved the most sweeping healthcare legislation since the creation of Medicare 44 years ago, giving a boost to President Obama's campaign to guarantee health coverage to almost all Americans.

The gargantuan Democratic measure passed 220 to 215, with a single Republican vote, capping a contentious daylong debate that underscored the ideological divide separating the two parties over healthcare.

The narrow Democratic victory underscored the difficult road ahead as the issue moves on to the Senate. But it also meant that the party had reached a historic landmark: It has been trying since the Depression to win a vote to extend the government's social safety net to include healthcare.

The House plan would cover an additional 36 million people by 2019, leaving 4% of the nation without coverage, compared with the estimated 17% who do not have insurance now, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

"For generations, the American people have called for affordable, quality healthcare for their families. Today, the call will be answered," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), who rallied her members behind the legislation after weeks of cajoling and deal-making.

The Democratic side of the House cheered loudly when the vote count reached 218, a majority. Like a crowd waiting for the final gun at a football game, they counted down the final seconds of the voting period in unison, and roared their approval when Pelosi went to the speaker's chair, grabbed the gavel and declared, "The bill is passed."

President Obama hailed the vote in a statement from Camp David, saying: "Thanks to the hard work of the House, we are just two steps away from achieving health insurance reform in America. Now the United States Senate must follow suit and pass its version of the legislation. I am absolutely confident it will, and I look forward to signing comprehensive health insurance reform into law by the end of the year."

Republicans, who have fought Obama's healthcare campaign for most of the year, charged Democrats with pushing the nation toward government-run healthcare and threatening to bankrupt the treasury at a time when the deficit is skyrocketing.

"People have a grave concern about what Washington is doing to them, not for them," Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the No. 2 House Republican, said Saturday, citing last week's GOP electoral victories in Virginia and New Jersey.

Louisiana Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao was the only Republican to cross the aisle and vote for the bill. Thirty-nine Democrats voted against it.

The legislation -- which includes more than $1 trillion in new healthcare spending over the next decade while also reducing the deficit by an estimated $106 billion -- will ultimately have to be reconciled with the Senate bill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is working to unite his members in time to hold a vote on the Senate bill before Christmas.

With the unemployment rate continuing to rise and the public increasingly jittery about Obama's healthcare campaign, Democrats are racing to push through an overhaul before what many see as a historic opportunity slips away.

Pelosi had hoped to get a bill through the House sooner than November. But she and her lieutenants had to spend months hammering out a series of difficult compromises to satisfy the liberal and conservative wings of the party.

New requirements on businesses and insurance companies have alienated major industry groups, many of which actively fought the House bill, charging that it would actually make healthcare less affordable.

"The healthcare reform bill just passed by the House of Representatives fails the crucial test of reducing the soaring cost of health coverage for businesses or individuals," U.S. Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice President Bruce Josten said after the vote.

But even as opposition to the bill stiffened, Democratic leaders managed to defuse major disagreements over the shape of a new government insurance plan and the scope of new income taxes on wealthy Americans.

They picked up major endorsements from AARP and the American Medical Assn., which joined a collection of leading consumer and patient groups and labor unions that have backed the healthcare campaign all year.

And facing the possible collapse of the legislation late Friday night, Democratic leaders brokered a deal to settle a debate within party ranks over abortion.

Under pressure from a group of socially conservative Democrats and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Pelosi and other lawmakers who favor abortion rights were forced to accept a last-minute compromise that placed tight restrictions on federal funding for abortion services.

The amendment was added to the bill Saturday by a coalition of 240 Republicans and conservative Democrats; 194 Democrats voted against the amendment.

The move outraged many liberals. But in the end, just enough rallied behind the bill after a furious several days of lobbying by party leaders, including the president.

"There comes a time [when] men must act according to the dictates of their conscience and not according to political expediency," Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) said on the House floor. "We have a moral obligation to lead this nation into a new era where healthcare is a right and not a privilege."

Obama, too, called on lawmakers to seize the moment, reminding them during a midday visit to Capitol Hill of the party's successful fights to create Social Security and Medicare.

"If we do not get it done this year, we will not get it done any time soon," the president said at a closed-door meeting, according to a senior Democratic aide who was in the room.

The more than 2,000-page legislation is designed to largely preserve the employer-based healthcare system in which most Americans get insurance through work. But the bill would also dramatically expand federal regulation of healthcare and provide more than $1 trillion in new aid to poor and middle-class citizens.

Federal law would for the first time require insurance companies to cover all Americans, regardless of their health status, and would prohibit insurers from denying coverage to people who become sick.

Individuals would be required to buy insurance. And large employers would have to provide employees with health benefits or face a penalty.

The bill would open the nation's 44-year-old Medicaid insurance program for the poor to all Americans making less than 150% of the federal poverty line -- $16,245 for an individual or $33,075 for a family of four.

The government would also create new insurance marketplaces for millions of Americans who do not get coverage through work.

Commercial insurers, as well as the government, would offer plans in these marketplaces, or exchanges, and be required to provide a minimum set of benefits, including mental health services, maternity care and preventive care.

The most expensive feature is a commitment by the federal government to provide nearly $600 billion in subsidies over the next decade to help millions of low- and moderate-income Americans buy insurance in an exchange.

The bill is also designed to give relief to small businesses, providing about $25 billion in tax subsidies to help them offset the cost of offering their employees health benefits.

And the legislation would make prescriptions more affordable by closing the Medicare drug coverage gap, known as the "doughnut hole."

The major expansion in federal assistance to tens of millions of Americans is not without a cost.

To pay for their legislation, Democrats approved a 5.4% surtax on individuals who make more than $500,000 a year and couples that make more than $1 million.

The bill would also cut more than $400 billion from Medicare payments to hospitals, nursing homes and insurance companies that provide Medicare Advantage plans, a provision that proponents hope will ultimately help make the system more efficient.

Republicans contend that many seniors will lose benefits, and they more broadly attacked the bill as a costly government invasion of the medical system.

noam.levey@latimes.com

janet.hook@latimes.com

Staff writer Kim Geiger contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

[vector7]

November 07, 2009
Dems ask Pelosi for autographs

There's no way to predict what the final vote on the health care bill will be, but the body language of Democrats in the chamber today suggests they are, for whatever reasons, breathing a little easier.

During a series of procedural votes earlier today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), wearing a tomato-red dress and a relaxed smile, was drifting from member to member -- even sharing a laugh with Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who forced a vote on abortion over Pelosi's objections.

At some point, people began unwrapping copies of bill and handing it to the speaker for her autograph.

The first member I saw ask was Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY). Pelosi seemed stunned but obliged, resting one of the two four-inch thick volumes on the back of a bench and inscribing it with a Sharpie. Several other members approached her with copies as she made the rounds, like high school seniors on Yearbook Day.

Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-Rhode Island) approached House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who sat down next to him and wrote a long inscription.

Posted by Glenn Thrush 02:50 PM

[vector7]

Obama's Landmark Health Reforms Approved

12:26pm UK, Sunday November 08, 2009
Damien Pearse, Sky News Online

The biggest US health reforms in recent history have been approved in a landmark victory for President Barack Obama.

The sweeping reforms will see healthcare coverage extended to 36 million more Americans.

The bill was passed by the US House of Representatives and Barack Obama immediately hailed it "an historic vote".

And the changes - passed on a narrow 220-215 vote - are the most significant for four decades.

As well as extending affordable healthcare to nearly all Americans, the bill bars insurance practices such as refusing to cover people with pre-existing medical conditions.


House speaker Nancy Pelosi

Mr Obama's top domestic priority now moves to the US Senate, where work on its own version has stalled for weeks.

Any differences between the Senate and the House bills will have to be reconciled, and a final bill passed again by both before going to Mr Obama for his signature.

The President said: "Tonight, in an historic vote, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would finally make real the promise of quality, affordable health care for the American people.

"Thanks to the hard work of the House, we are just two steps away from achieving health insurance reform in America.

"Now the United States Senate must follow suit and pass its version of the legislation.

"I am absolutely confident it will, and I look forward to signing comprehensive health insurance reform into law by the end of the year."

House speaker Nancy Pelosi was cheered by Democrats as she announced the vote.

[vector7]

Grandiose rhetoric pushes details aside

In final House debate, lawmakers frame health reform in stark terms

(Mark Wilson/getty Images)

Grandiose rhetoric was somewhat at odds with the substance of the bill, which is more incremental in many regards than the day's language would suggest. It would leave in place the framework of the health insurance system, based around employer-provided coverage and private insurers, despite the Republicans' warnings of a full government takeover. And it also would likely leave millions of Americans still lacking coverage.

Aware that they likely lacked the votes to block the bill, Republicans gave free rein to oppositional hyperbole. Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Tex.) declared that the bill "forces every person to purchase government-approved health care or to jail." (In fact, the penalty for not getting coverage is a fine of about $750 for the typical middle-class family.)

Rep. Jeb Hensaerling (R-Tex.) warned, even more darkly, that Americans would die as a result of a "freedom-crushing" bill that would lead the country in the direction of Britain's government-run health care system. He spoke of his father, with whom he'd gone on fishing trips since he was 5, and who recently underwent triple bypass surgery. "Guess what? At age 81, we're still fishing," he said. "If we'd been in Britain, there might not be another fishing trip and my grandchildren would have never met him.

Government-rationed health care means our loved ones will suffer."

Democrats reeled out their own personal tales of medical plight to buttress their case. But their arguments in general lacked the impassioned flair of their counterparts' as they highlighted various policy planks in the bill.

Notably, they focused on elements that are broadly popular but hardly central to the bill, such as closing the "doughnut hole" in the Medicare drug benefit and a provision allowing young people to stay on their parents' plans until age 27. Republicans -- and wayward Democrats -- would have to answer to their constituents for trying to block these benefits, they said.

"I defy you to go home and tell those people you voted to deny them quality, affordable health care," said Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.).

[vector7]

US House Approves Health Care Reform Measure
By Dan Robinson 08 November 2009

President Barack Obama stands with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi after caucus meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, 07 Nov 2009

The House of Representatives has approved a more than $1 trillion plan by majority Democrats to overhaul the U.S. health care system.

More than three dozen Democrats broke with their party, and all but one Republican opposed the measure, which marks a major victory in President Barack Obama's effort to improve the U.S. health care system.

About 12 hours after the House began its debate, the final tally late Saturday was 220 to 215, with 39 Democrats choosing to vote against their leadership, despite personal lobbying by President Obama to keep Democrats on board.

But Democrats were still able to assemble the 218 vote majority in the 435 member House required for passage.
Republicans Decry Cost

Republican opposition was not a surprise, with all but Louisiana Congressman Joseph Cao rejecting the bill on grounds that it would sharply increase the federal deficit, raise insurance costs, and give the government control of the health care system.

Estimated at more than $1 trillion over 10 years, the measure would require most employers to offer health insurance to employees, and prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage based on existing medical problems or impose limits on coverage.

Most contentious was the proposal for a government-run insurance option, also known as a public option, to give Americans a choice over private insurance companies.

Joe Barton of Texas was among Republicans framing the debate as a question of individual freedoms versus bigger government, saying, "So, there is a choice. Bigger government, more mandates, more control, less freedom, or lower costs, more opportunity, more freedom or more choice. I vote for more freedom."

Democrat Jim Moran of Virginia pointed out that the U.S. lags behind many other nations when it comes to health care. He said, "We are a great nation, a prosperous and compassionate one, but our health care system doesn't measure up to that greatness."

Republican Alternative Defeated

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH)

Before the final vote, the House voted 258 to 176 to reject an alternative from Republicans. Democrats noted that it would insure only 3 million Americans, versus the 36 million helped by their measure.

Republican leader John Boehner said, "The bill that we are offering is a common sense approach that does take major steps in the right direction to bring down the cost of health care and to expand access."

After meeting with lawmakers and before leaving for the presidential retreat at Camp David, Maryland, President Obama described the House vote as a historic opportunity to fix a broken system.

"What is in our grasp right now is the chance to prevent a future where every day 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance and every year 18,000 Americans die because they don't have it," said the president.

Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi

At a news conference, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she had just received a phone call from the president, and she paid tribute to the president's leadership. She said, "I thanked the president for his tremendous leadership, because without President Obama in the White House this victory would not have been possible. He provided the vision and the momentum for us to get the job done for the American people."

To ensure support, Democratic leaders agreed to a bipartisan amendment, approved 240 to 194, prohibiting a future government-run insurance plan from offering abortion services, and barring anyone receiving federal subsidies from purchasing private plans that cover abortion.

Final Bill Still Needs Work

Approval switches the focus to the Senate, where Democrats face the difficult task of achieving a 60-seat majority to approve a version there. No date has been set yet for a health care debate in the Senate.

If both chambers can pass legislation, lawmakers would still have to work out differences between the versions before they could send a final bill to President Obama for signature, something he has said he wants to do before the year ends.

[vector7]

Sunday, November 08, 2009
Mutiny in Scrutiny?

[Jeffrey H. Anderson]

It was always clear that the real health-care battle would be in the Senate. But what would have been shocking eight months ago is to hear that it would take until November for the Democrats to pass a bill even in the House. It would have been even more shocking to have heard that, even after a full-court-press by the White House, the bill would pass by only five votes — meaning that if just three of the 435 members had changed their minds, it would have changed the bill's fate. And it would have been shocking to have heard that 39 Democrats would jump ship.

The House bill has passed — barely and belatedly — and it is now dead. Nothing like it will ever pass the Senate. The question now is whether anything will, now that the voters have spoken in New Jersey and Virginia — and now that the exceedingly narrow margin in the House will likely invite even greater scrutiny of that which is being proposed.

Greater scrutiny will not help the Democrats' efforts. In truth, their hopes for passage largely hinge on successfully hiding two plain facts from the voters: One, the House Republicans and the Congressional Budget Office have now shown that a bill costing $61 billion can lower Americans' insurance premiums, while bills costing $1.7 trillion cannot (and instead would raise them substantially). Two, the Democrats' plans would be paid for only if they follow through on plans to siphon hundreds of billions of dollars out of already-barely-solvent Medicare, and to do so just in time for the baby boomers' retirement.

Given the magnitude of the challenge of continuing to hide these plain facts from an increasingly attentive citizenry, the Democratic health-care train has a very bumpy ride ahead — as it rolls into the chamber that the American Founders thought from the beginning would ultimately decide our fate: the Senate.

[American Patriot]

You know, I've never asked for anything from the government. I have given over 30 years of my life to protecting and caring for this country. I've never ONCE tried to get something for nothing.

Yes, we took food stamps while I was in the military for a short time - because I had five children to feed and we weren't paid enough. But it was for a short time and it was mostly my wife saying we needed it. I agreed and we applied. For about three months.

In all my years I've watched military personnel PLAY the system. Back "injuries" and other things.

In my medical records are a couple of things that were directly related to military duty. Migraines and hearing loss. Not to mention a bad back.

NOT ONCE have I applied for "disability".

But I should.

[Backstop]

I don't think it will pass the Senate.

[American Patriot]

You mean the bill, or me getting disability? LOL

[vector7]

Interview with the President: Jail Time for Those without Health Care Insurance?

November 09, 2009 6:30 PM
From Sunlen Miller:

During an exclusive interview with ABC News’ Jake Tapper today, President Obama said that penalties are appropriate for people who try to “free ride” the health care system but stopped short of endorsing the threat of jail time for those who refuse to pay a fine for not having insurance.

“What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don't, you're subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it's affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there's a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are -- are burdened by because of the fact that people don't have health insurance, you know, there's nothing wrong with a penalty.”

Under the House bill those who can afford to buy insurance and don’t’ pay a fine. If the refuse to pay that fine there’s a threat – as with a lot of tax fines – of jail time. The Senate removed that provision in the Senate Finance Committee.

Mr. Obama said penalties have to be high enough for people to not game the system, but it’s also important to not be “so punitive” that people who are having a hard time find themselves suddenly worse off, thus why hardship exemptions have been built in the legislation.

“I think the general broad principle is simply that people who are paying for their health insurance aren't subsidizing folks who simply choose not to until they get sick and then suddenly they expect free health insurance. That's -- that's basic concept of responsibility that I think most Americans abide by,” Mr. Obama said, “penalties are appropriate for people who try to free ride the system and force others to pay for their health insurance.”

The President said that he didn’t think the question over the appropriateness of possible jail time is the “biggest question” the House and Senate are facing right now.

Read more from Jake Tapper’s interview with President Obama HERE.
-Sunlen Miller