Mandating health Insurance - Obamacare

[Ryan Ruck]

From a Liberal website so take it for what it is worth...

Vandals Hit At Least Five Dem Offices Nationwide, Threaten To ‘Assassinate’ Children Of Pro-Reform Lawmakers.

Yesterday, ThinkProgress reported that several Democratic offices around the nation had been vandalized in the days surrounding the House health care vote. Vandals have struck the Tuscon office of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), the Monroe County Democratic Committee headquarters in upstate New York, Rep. Louise Slaughter’s (D-NY) Niagara Falls office, the Knox County Democratic headquarters in Ohio, and the Sedgwick County Democratic Party headquarters in Wichita, KS. The local Rochester ABC affiliate now has more information on the upstate NY vandalism, including an assassination threat against the children of lawmakers who voted for health reform:

No one was inside when the brick was hurled through the Democratic Patry Headquarters on University Avenue. Attached was a note quoting conservative Barry Goldwater: “Exremism [sic] in defense of liberty is no vice”. [...]

[Rep. Louise] Slaughter has been at the center of the push for reform. Last Thursday she received a chilling recorded message at her campaign office. “Assassinate is the word they used…toward the children of lawmakers who voted yes.”

The FBI is now investigating.

Pictures of the note attached to the brick thrown at the Monroe County Democratic Committee headquarters:



Mike Vanderboegh of Sipsey Street Irregulars is taking credit for inspiring the vandalism, saying that he’s urging people to break Democratic offices’ windows. He insists that he’s not advocating violence.

[vector7]

Dementia patients to be tracked by GPS satellite device

Fiona Hamilton, London Correspondent

Dementia patients will be tracked by GPS devices whenever they leave their homes under a new scheme to rescue them when they get lost,

The Times has learnt.

The device is to be fitted into the jewellery or clothing of elderly patients, whose movements will be monitored by satellite.

They will have access to a panic button if they become confused or distressed, and their families or carers will be able to follow their movements on a secure website.

Westminster Council, in Central London, is to make the GPS tagging available to each of its 1,900 residents with dementia.

It will be the widest introduction of the technology to date, with other councils and health trusts throughout the country expected to follow suite. Trials of the technology have already begun in Somerset and the Thames Valley.

Under the “safer walking technology” scheme, dementia patients are tracked by a monitoring centre using satellites.

Their carers or families can be alerted if the patient goes outside a specific area or has not returned to their home after a certain time. Their location will be passed on so the patient can be tracked down.

Ed Argar, the cabinet member for adult and community services at Westminster, told The Times that the devices would be available to every resident in the early stages of dementia who requested it.

“It’s a very exciting opportunity to harness new technology to improve the lives of people with dementia,” he said. “It will allow them to live independently for longer, giving freedom but also peace of mind. It also gives relatives and friends peace of mind (that they are safe).”

The Alzheimer's Society said it supported use of the technology for those dementia patients who desired it but warned that the stigma of “tagging” meant that many were wary of the use of GPS.

Louise Lakey, the society’s senior policy officer, said the systems did not completely mitigate risk. “It is very good for people in early or moderate onset of demential,” she said.

Westminster Council believes that the technology could eventually replace the need to prevent dementia patients from wandering by using physical restraints or drugs.

The council trialled the GPS devices on two sets of residents — those who lived independently and others in care homes.

One of the participants, 78-year-old Desmond Innis, said the device made him “feel safer”. Mr Innis has a cognitive impairment and lives in a care home. However he continues to be independent, travelling by himself to visit friends, go on walks and on basic outings such as getting his hair cut.

However his confidence was undermined when he went to the shops but got lost and ended up in Lewisham, several miles away in East London. He said the tracking device now enabled him to feel confident about undertaking such outings.

Kevin Williamson, a care manager for Westminster Council, said patients such as Mr Innis, in early onset of dementia, still wanted to have an active social life. “This allows them to do that and keep their links in the community, even if they leave their homes,” he said.

About 700,000, or one person in every 88 in the UK, has dementia. That figure is expected to rise to more than one million in 20 years and to 1.7 million by 2050.

[vector7]

On the Tab: Food, Drinks & Health Care

March 24, 2010 - 10:48 AM | by: Claudia Cowan

One of the provisions in the new health care law requires small businesses to provide coverage for workers. Such an "employer mandate" has been in place in San Francisco, Calif., for over a year. The mandate has earned mixed reviews at best.

Under the law, businesses with 20 or more employees are required to provide medical coverage, either on their own or by paying into a city-run program. That's what most restaurants are doing -- albeit grudgingly.



To cover the cost, owners are either having to raise their menu prices or tack on a so-called "Healthy Surcharge" onto the tab. At some places, it's around 4 percent of the check. Others charge a flat fee of a dollar or two.

Either way, customers are footing the bill for the health care of their waitstaff, busboys, and cooks, regardless of whether the workers work part time, live in San Francisco, or are in the U.S. legally.

How well the plan is going over seems to depend on where the restaurant is located. Management at many neighborhood bistros and cafes say customers don't seem to mind paying the extra surcharge. But folks running downtown restaurants -- many of which depend on visitors -- say the mandate is hurting their bottom line.

At the venerable Fior D'Italia in North Beach, Calif., owner Bob Larive says he's having to tax his customers to fund a political mandate. "It makes doing business here much more expensive, which makes the city less attractive in the long run to the visitors and the locals," he says.

Some eateries worry they'll have to let people go, or cut shifts. But Mayor Gavin Newsom gives a different view. A former restaurant owner himself, who lobbied hard for this universal health care program, Newsom argues it's saving restaurants and taxpayers money, by offering workers preventative care. Newsom argues that this in turn keeps them out out emergency rooms, and on the clock.

"Businesses get the benefit in the back end," Newsom says. "We have a more robust work force, greater productivity and output because employees have health care." He adds the program is providing healthcare to 50,000 people who don't have insurance.

But in a city that lost more than 200 restaurants in the past 4 years, critics say the extra expense is costing jobs and revenue San Francisco can't afford. What's more, the local restaurant lobby, the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, has filed suit, claiming the "employer mandate" violates federal law. The U.S. Supreme Court is now deciding whether to hear the case.

[vector7]

Is this part of Obama's National Civilian Security Force?

United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps

http://www.usphs.gov/




United States Public Health Service

The Surgeon General Dr. Regina Benjamin



SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—There shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency.

(2) REQUIREMENT.—All commissioned officers shall be citizens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act of 1923, as amended.

(3) APPOINTMENT.—Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

(4) ACTIVE DUTY.—Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to call to active duty by the Surgeon General, including active duty for the purpose of training.

(5) WARRANT OFFICERS.—Warrant officers may be appointed to the Service for the purpose of providing support to the health and delivery systems maintained by the Service and any warrant officer appointed to the Service shall be considered for purposes of this Act and title 37, United States Code, to be a commissioned officer within the Commissioned Corps of the Service.

(b) ASSIMILATING RESERVE CORP OFFICERS INTO THE REGULAR CORPS.—Effective on the date of enactment of the Affordable Health Choices Act, all individuals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section (as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act) and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officers of the Regular Corps.

(c) PURPOSE AND USE OF READY RESERVE.—

(1) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service’s reserve program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.

(2) USES.—The Ready Reserve Corps shall—

(A) participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps;

(B) be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel;

(C) be available for backfilling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and domestic; and

(D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities (as defined in section 399SS) to improve access to health services.

(d) FUNDING.—For the purpose of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioned Corps under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to the Office of the Surgeon General for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. Funds appropriated under this subsection shall be used for recruitment and training of Commissioned Corps Officers.

http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/p...-as-passed.pdf

[vector7]

Funding for Commissioned and Warrant Officers on pages 1312 -1315

Sec. 5209 & 5210 of H.R. 3590

http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/p...-as-passed.pdf

This section amends Section 202 & 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204), removing the cap on Regular and Reserve service member numbers, and changes the name to Ready Reserve Corps.

Unlimited numbers of Commissioned and Warrant Officers of the Ready Reserve Corps, with 50 million dollars already set aside for training FY2010, and to be paid "...without regard to the Classification act of 1923...", appointed by the President, and subject to call up to active duty at all times.

[vector7]

Mar 25, 9:40 AM EDT
Senate's fix to health care law slowed by snag

By ALAN FRAM
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Republicans learned early Thursday that they will be able to kill language in a measure altering President Barack Obama's newly enacted health care overhaul, meaning the bill will have to return to the House for final congressional approval.

It appeared initially that deleting the provisions, dealing with Pell grants for low-income students, should not cause major problems for Democrats hoping to rush the bill to Obama and avoid prolonging what has been a politically painful ordeal for the party. Democrats described the situation as a minor glitch, but did not rule out that Republicans might be able to remove additional sections of the bill.

The president, who signed the landmark legislation into law on Tuesday, was flying to Iowa later in the day for the first of many appearances he will make around the country before the fall congressional elections to sell his health care revamp.

Obama was appearing in Iowa City, where as a presidential candidate in 2007 he touted his ideas for health coverage for all. His trip comes with polls showing people are divided over the new health law, and Democratic lawmakers from competitive districts hoping he can convince more voters by November that it was the right move.

As an exhausted Senate labored past 2 a.m. on a stack of GOP amendments, Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, told reporters that Republicans consulting with the chamber's parliamentarian had found "two minor provisions" that violate Congress' budget rules.

Republicans have been hunting for such violations in hopes of bringing down the legislation. Democrats had also been consulting with the parliamentarian, Alan Frumin, and hoped they had written a measure that would not be vulnerable to such problems.

The two provisions are expected to be formally removed from the bill on Thursday. Manley said he expected the Senate to approve the measure without them and send it to the House. He said Senate leaders, after conversations with top House Democrats, expect the House to approve the revised measure.

The Senate scheduled passage of the health bill for Thursday afternoon. Both chambers are hoping to begin a spring recess by this weekend.

Besides reshaping parts of the landmark health overhaul, the legislation transforms the federal student loan program - in which private banks distribute the money - into one in which the government issues the loans directly. That produces some federal savings, which the bill uses in part to increase Pell grants to needy students.

Democratic aides said the problematic provisions deal with protecting students from future cuts in their grants if Congress does not provide enough money for them. They violate budget rules because they do not produce savings, one aide said.

The development came as the Senate completed nine hours of uninterrupted voting on 29 GOP amendments to the legislation. Majority Democrats defeated every amendment.

The legislation would change the new health care law by making drug benefits for Medicare recipients more generous by gradually closing a gap in coverage, increasing tax subsidies to help low-income people afford health care, and boosting federal Medicaid payments to states.

It kills part of the new statute uniquely giving Nebraska extra Medicaid funds - designed to lure support from that state's Sen. Ben Nelson - that had become a glaring embarrassment to Democrats. It also eases a new tax on expensive health coverage bitterly opposed by unions and many House Democrats, while delaying and increasing a new levy on drug makers.

As they began pushing the bill to passage on Wednesday afternoon, Democrats ran into a mountain of GOP amendments. Outnumbered and all but assured of defeat, Republicans forced votes on amendments aimed at reshaping the measure - or at least forcing Democrats to take votes that could be used against them in TV ads in the fall campaigns.

"There's no attempt to improve the bill. There's an attempt to destroy this bill," said an exasperated Reid, D-Nev.

"The majority leader may not think we're serious about changing the bill, but we'd like to change the bill, and with a little help from our friends on the other side we could improve the bill significantly," answered Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Senators voted on 29 consecutive GOP amendments between 5:30 p.m. Wednesday and 2:30 a.m. Thursday, when they recessed.

By 57-42, Democrats rejected an amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., barring federal purchases of Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs for sex offenders. Coburn said it would save millions, while Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., called it "a crass political stunt."

Democrats also deflected GOP amendments rolling back the health law's Medicare cuts; killing extra Medicaid funds for Tennessee and other state-specific spending; barring tax increases for families earning under $250,000; and requiring the president and other administration officials to purchase health care from exchanges the statute creates.

The landmark legislation that Obama signed Tuesday would provide health care to 32 million uninsured people, and make coverage more affordable to millions of others by expanding the reach of Medicaid and creating new subsidies. Insurance companies would be forbidden to refuse coverage to people with pre-existing illnesses, individuals could buy policies on newly created exchanges and parents could keep children on their family plans until their 26th birthdays.

The $938 billion, 10-year price tag would be financed largely by culling savings from Medicare and imposing new taxes on higher income people and the insurance, pharmaceutical and medical device industries.

[vector7]

March 25, 2010
The Progressives' Perfect Trojan Horse

By Lloyd Marcus

As millions of my fellow Americans, I am extremely angry, outraged, and devastated by the Democrats' unbelievable arrogance and disdain for We The People. Despite our screaming "no" from the rooftops, they forced ObamaCare down our throats. Please forgive me for using the following crude saying, but it is very appropriate to describe what has happened. "Don't urinate on me and tell me it's raining."

Democrats say that their mission is to give all Americans health care. The Democrats are lying. Signing ObamaCare into law against our will and the Constitution is tyranny and step one of their hideous goal of having as many Americans as possible dependent on government, thus controlling our lives and fulfilling Obama's promise to fundamentally transform America.

I keep asking myself: How did our government move so far from the normal procedures of getting things done? Could a white president have so successfully pulled off shredding the Constitution to further his agenda? I think not.



Ironically, proving that America is completely the opposite of the evil, racist country they relentlessly accuse her of being, progressives used America's goodness, guilt, and sense of fair play against her. In their quest to destroy America as we know it, progressives borrowed a brilliant scheme from Greek mythology. They offered America a modern-day Trojan Horse, a beautifully crafted, golden, shiny new black man as a presidential candidate. Democrat Joe Biden lauded Obama as the first clean and articulate African-American candidate. Democrat Harry Reid said that Obama uses a black dialect only when he wants to.

White America relished the opportunity to vote for a black man, naïvely believing that they would never suffer the pain of being called racist again. Black Americans viewed casting their vote for Obama as the ultimate Affirmative Action for America's sins of the past.

Then there were the entitlement loser voters who said, "I'm votin' for the black dude who promises to take from those rich SOBs and give to me."

Just as the deceived Trojans dragged the beautifully crafted Trojan Horse into Troy as a symbol of their victory, deceived Americans embraced the progressives' young, handsome, articulate, and so-called moderate black presidential candidate as a symbol of their liberation from accusations of being a racist nation. Also like the Trojan Horse, Obama was filled with the enemy hiding inside.

Sunday, March 21, 2010, a secret door opened in Obama, the shiny golden black man.



A raging army of Democrats charged out. Without mercy, they began their vicious, bloody slaughter of every value, freedom, and institution we Americans hold dear, launching the end of America as we know it.

Wielding swords of votes reeking with the putrid odor of backdoor deals, the Democrats landed a severe blow to America and individual rights by passing ObamaCare.

The mainstream liberal media has been relentlessly badgering the Tea Party movement with accusations of racism. Because I am a black Tea Party patriot, I am bombarded with interviewers asking me the same veiled question: "Why are you siding with these white racists against America's first African-American president?" I defend my fellow patriots who are white, stating, "These patriots do not give a hoot about Obama's skin color. They simply love their country and oppose his radical agenda. Obama's race is not an issue."

Recently, I have come to believe that perhaps I am wrong about Obama's race not being an issue. In reality, Obama's presidency has everything to do with racism, but not from the Tea Party movement. Progressives and Obama have exploited his race from the rookie senator's virtually unchallenged presidential campaign to his unprecedented bullying of America into ObamaCare. Obama's race trumped all normal media scrutiny of him as a presidential candidate, and most recently, even the Constitution of the United States. ObamaCare forces all Americans to purchase health care, which is clearly unconstitutional.

No white president could get away with boldly and arrogantly thwarting the will of the American people and ignoring laws. President Clinton tried universal health care. Bush tried social security reform. The American people said "no" to both presidents' proposals, and that was the end of it. So how can Obama get away with giving the American people the finger? The answer: He is black.

The mainstream liberal media continues to portray all who oppose Obama in any way as racist. Despite a list of failed policies, overreaches into the private sector, violations of the Constitution, and planned, destructive pieces of legislation too numerous to mention in this article, many Americans are still fearful of criticizing our first black president. Incredible.

My fellow Americans, you must not continue to allow yourselves to be "played" and intimidated by Obama's race or the historical context of his presidency. If we are to save America, the greatest nation on the planet, then Obama's progressive agenda must be stopped.

-Lloyd Marcus, (black) unhyphenated American, singer/songwriter, entertainer, author, artist, and Tea Party patriot.

[American Patriot]

Pelosi just mentioned the "acts of violence" against members of congress who voted for the health care bill.

She feels that those acts of vandalism "don't have a place in civil discussion".

I think she's right.

I think we're beyond being civil though. Too many people are upset that Congress didn't listen to us when we were being civil.

[Ryan Ruck]

People shouldn't fear the government. The government should fear the people.

[vector7]

Almost a quarter of Republicans think Obama 'may be the Antichrist' as 14 states sue over healthcare reforms

By David Gardner
Last updated at 10:23 PM on 24th March 2010

• Comments (315)
• Add to My Stories

Americans who suggest Barack Obama should rot in hell are apparently deadly serious.

Nearly a quarter of Republicans believe the Democrat president 'may be the Antichrist', according to a survey.

An even greater number compared him to Hitler.

Just another boys' club: Barack Obama, centre on the phone, is surrounded by male aides at the White House as they plot healthcare reform this week in a new image released today. The President has been compared to the Antichrist

Mr Obama was jubilant this week after securing his £626billion healthcare reform plan.

But his triumph seems only to have inflamed his critics among the evangelical Christians from America's heartland who kept George Bush in power for eight years and have demonised his successor.

More...

• 'This is a big f****** deal': Jubilant Joe Biden gaffes again as Obama signs historic healthcare reforms into law
• French man is arrested for hacking into Barack Obama's Twitter account
• Obama's fightback begins as he does deal with Russia to slash nuclear arsenals by more than a quarter
• Netanyahu 'spit into Obama's eye' in second snub to U.S. over Jewish settlements in Jerusalem

More than half of the Republicans quizzed by Harris Poll, 57 per cent, believed the president was secretly Muslim, something he has consistently denied.

And 67 per cent of Republicans who responded believed Obama was a socialist, despite his central leanings.

The startling results came as lawyers representing 14 U.S. states filed lawsuits yesterday challenging an overhaul of the country's $2.5trillion healthcare system, minutes after President Barack Obama signed the landmark legislation.

One joint lawsuit by a dozen Republican attorneys general and a Democrat claims the sweeping reforms violate state-government rights in the U.S. Constitution and will force massive new spending on hard-pressed state governments.

Virginia went to court separately, while Missouri Republican Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder said he would like to join the suit.

'A big f****** deal': Mr Biden (second left) gaffed as the president signed the historic healthcare reform bill

The joint suit, led by Florida, was filed with a federal court in Pensacola, according to the office of Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum.

In addition to McCollum, the Republican attorneys general from Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington joined the suit.

The lawsuit says the law - which expands government health plans for the poor, imposes new taxes on the wealthy and requires insurers to cover people with pre-existing medical conditions - violates the Constitution's commerce clause by requiring nearly all Americans to buy health insurance.

Mr McCollum said: 'It forces people to do something - in the sense of buying a healthcare policy or paying a penalty, a tax or a fine - that simply the Constitution does not allow Congress to do.'

Mr McCollum, who is seeking the Republican nomination to run for Florida governor, said the healthcare reforms would add $1.6billion to Florida's spending on the Medicaid health program for the poor.

The Justice Department, which is responsible for defending U.S. law in court, pledged to vigorously fight any challenges to the new healthcare law.

'We are confident that this statute is constitutional and we will prevail,' said Justice spokesman Charles Miller.

The White House agreed the suits would fail.

'There have been hearings about the constitutionality of the law, and I think there's pretty much widespread agreement that it is constitutional,' Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, said.

'I think we have governors who might be aiming for higher office who are starting to just send a message.'

The suits were filed just moments after Mr Obama signed the healthcare reforms into law.

But on the most historic occasion of his presidency so far, vice-president Joe Biden managed to put his foot in it.

Gaffe-prone Mr Biden inadvertently broadcast the F-word to America after he introduced the President to sign his much vaunted health reform bill into law yesterday.

After hugging Mr Obama at a a ceremony in the White House, Mr Biden leaned in and whispered in the President's ear: 'This is a big f****** deal.'

The remark was caught on microphones recording the event that was shown live across the country. By last night, the clip was being replayed all over the internet.

White House aides seemed to be unembarrassed, with press secretary Robert Gibbs later tweeting: 'Yes, Mr Vice-President, you're right.'

[vector7]

'Go for it,' Obama tells GOP on health repeal

Mar 25 02:10 PM US/Eastern
By DARLENE SUPERVILLE
Associated Press Writer



IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) - President Barack Obama mocked Republicans' campaign to try to repeal his new health care law, saying Thursday they should "Go for it" and see how well they fare with voters.

"Be my guest," Obama said in prepared remarks for the first of many appearances around the country to sell the overhaul to voters before the fall congressional elections. "I welcome that fight. Because I don't believe the American people are going to put the insurance industry back in the driver's seat." With emotions raw around the nation over the party-line vote to approve the nearly $1 trillion, 10-year law, Obama took the opposition to task for "fear-mongering and overheated rhetoric."

"If you turn on the news, you'll see that those same folks are still shouting about how the world will end because we passed this bill," said Obama, appearing before thousands in this college town where he first, as a presidential candidate three years ago, unveiled his health care proposals. The White House released the text of his speech in advance.

No Republican lawmakers voted for the overhaul, a sweeping package that will change how almost every American will receive and pay for medical treatment. Many in the GOP are predicting it will prove devastating in November for the Democrats who voted for it.

But the president stressed the notion of a promise kept, saying the legislation he signed into law on Tuesday is evidence he will do as he said. "This is the place where change began," Obama said.

The White House suggests it has the upper hand against Republicans politically, arguing the GOP risks a voter backlash because a repeal would take away from small businesses and individuals the benefits provided to them immediately under the new law.

"We've been there already and we're not going back," Obama said.

Obama spoke as Democrats in Washington raced to complete the overhaul with a separate package of fixes to the main bill.

Senate leaders had planned to finish work on the fix-it legislation, already approved in the House, by midday Thursday. But Republican attempts to derail the process resulted in minor changes to the bill, which means the House will have to vote on it again before it can go to Obama for his signature.

[American Patriot]

Americans who suggest Barack Obama should rot in hell are apparently deadly serious.

Nearly a quarter of Republicans believe the Democrat president 'may be the Antichrist', according to a survey.

People who say this kind of stuff are the fringe.

I don't believe he's anything other than a human being who is misinformed, and brainwashed about the Leftist goals of Socialism.

I think this was a planned, orchestrated event to fundamentally change the face of America into a Russia-type country. And it is working... so far.

[vector7]

March 24, 2010
Muslims to be excused from Obamacare mandate?

WordWayze

The Senate health care bill just signed contains some exemptions to the "pay-or-play" mandate requiring purchase of Obamacare-approved health insurance or payment of a penalty fine. As Fox News has pointed out, for instance, the Amish are excused from the mandate:

So while most Americans would be required to sign up with insurance companies or government insurance plans, the church would serve as something of an informal insurance plan for the Amish.

Law experts say that kind of exemption withstands scrutiny.

"Here the statute is going to say that people who are conscientiously opposed to paying for health insurance don't have to do it where the conscientious objection arises from religion," said Mark Tushnet a Harvard law professor. "And that's perfectly constitutional."

Apparently, this exemption will apply similarly to believers in Islam, which considers health insurance - and, for that matter, any form of risk insurance - to be haraam (forbidden).

Steve Gilbert of Sweetness & Light calls our attention to the probability that Muslims will also be expempt. According to a March 23 publication on an authoritative Islamic Web site managed by Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid, various fatwas (religious decrees) absolutely forbid Muslim participation in any sort of health care or other risk insurance:

Health insurance is haraam like other types of commercial insurance, because it is based on ambiguity, gambling and riba (usury). This is what is stated in fatwas by the senior scholars.

In Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa'imah (15/277) there is a quotation of a statement of the Council of Senior Scholars concerning the prohibition on insurance and why it is haraam:

It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa'imah (15/251):

Firstly: Commercial insurance of all types is haraam because it involves ambiguity, riba, uncertainty, gambling and consuming people's wealth unlawfully, and other shar'i

Secondly: It is not permissible for the Muslim to get involved with insurance companies by working in administration or otherwise, because working in them comes under the heading of cooperating in sin and transgression, and Allaah forbids that as He says: "but do not help one another in sin and transgression. And fear Allaah. Verily, Allaah is Severe in punishment"

[al-Maa'idah 5:2]. End quote.

reservations.
And Allaah knows best.

So, it turns out that observant Muslims are not only strictly forbidden from buying any health insurance under the ObamaCare mandate, but may also not even work for any company that provides such insurance or any other form of commercial insurance.

It is not made clear whether or not it is religiously okay to accept "free" non-insured medical care such as that offered in hospital ERs and to some who are covered by Medicaid.

Whether it's all right to serve as a doctor, nurse, or orderly caring for patients whose medical services are being paid for by insurance is not covered in the present response - but one could probably obtain a religious ruling from the Sheikh, whose site welcomes the submission of questions about Islamic law and practices.

[vector7]

New Vigilance Needed in Wake of Healthcare Vote

by David Silverberg

Monday, 22 March 2010

Violent domestic extremism poses a real threat. In the wake of the divisive 219-212 House vote passing healthcare reform, authorities need to heighten vigilance against extremist violence against government facilities. The year-long healthcare debate was emotional and divisive and while the vote may have resolved the issue legislatively the passions it aroused are unlikely to die down soon. In such an atmosphere extremist violence is a real possibility, particularly directed against government installations or symbols of government authority. Coming on top of a census process that has also been infused with extremist charges, homeland security officials at all levels of government should be especially vigilant against potential attacks from domestic sources. Domestic extremist terrorism has long been on the homeland security radar. In 2009 a report by the Office of Intelligence & Analysis in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), titled, Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment noted that while there were nospecific plots under way, "rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues." These included the election of the first African-American president and the economic downturn. It also reported that extremists were recruiting returning Iraqi war veterans. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano later disavowed the report as having been released prematurely without proper vetting. More recently, on March 2 the Southern Poverty Law Center released its own report, Rage on the Right , reporting that "The radical right caught fire last year, as broad-based populist anger at political, demographic and economic changes in America ignited an explosion of new extremist groups and activism across the nation." According to this report, 363 new "Patriot" groups formed in 2009, with 127 of them being militias and the formation of 136 new anti-immigrant groups. As though to underscore the volatility of the current situation, yesterday, as the House of Representatives voted on healthcare reform legislation, tens of thousands of demonstrators descended on Washington to demand comprehensive immigration reform, an issue that may prove even more passionate and divisive than healthcare. While debate is always healthy, violent extremism is not. The use of the color-coded terror alert system has fallen out of favor with the Obama administration, but any casual observer can see that the current situation calls for at least an orange level of alertness.

[Aplomb]

Quote:
Americans who suggest Barack Obama should rot in hell are apparently deadly serious.

Nearly a quarter of Republicans believe the Democrat president 'may be the Antichrist', according to a survey.
People who say this kind of stuff are the fringe.

I don't believe he's anything other than a human being who is misinformed, and brainwashed about the Leftist goals of Socialism.

I think this was a planned, orchestrated event to fundamentally change the face of America into a Russia-type country. And it is working... so far.

Woah, what is the problem with thinking that somebody should rot in hell or that the person might be operating by the evil influence? Perhaps that is the correct view. Who knows the truth of that until after time has passed???

[vector7]

Fidel Castro: Passage of Obama’s Health Care Plan Is “A Miracle”

Posted March 25th, 2010 at 6:00pm in Health Care, Ongoing Priorities with 12 comments Print This Post





As President Barack Obama embarks on a high profile campaign to bolster public opinion of his health care plan, there is one man who is already convinced that Obamacare is the right move for America – Fidel Castro, the Cuban revolutionary leader and first secretary of the Cuban Communist Party.

According to an Associated Press report, Castro hailed Obamacare as “a miracle” and “an important battle and a success of (Obama’s) government.”

Castro went on to favorably compare President Obama’s health care plan to the one Cuba enacted a half century ago. Ironically, it was reported last year that Cuban President Raul Castro said his country’s spending on health care was “simply unsustainable.”

In the Land of the Free, Americans remain unconvinced that Obama’s health care reforms are right for the United States. A CBS News poll released Wednesday shows that 62% of Americans want Republicans to continue challenging the health care bill that President Obama signed into law this week.

[vector7]

Thursday, 25 March 2010 16:24
National Healthcare Will Require National RFID Chips

Written by Timothy Baldwin



Now that the healthcare bill has passed and been signed into law, one must inquire: How will the federal government keep track of the millions of persons in America now (supposedly) required to operate according to the federal government’s healthcare program?

Now that the federal government is responsible to ensure that millions of people’s health concerns are treated or eliminated, how will the federal government distribute, execute, and ration its resources paid for by tax dollars?

Now that the federal government has a vested interest in the health of hundreds of millions of Americans, how will they ensure that the system itself can be maintained by the government?

Identifying the means and methods by which the government will accomplish their task is less than speculative. Though the legislation itself does not mandate this technology to be used, as we reported five years ago, the implantation of Radio Frequency Identification chips (RFID) into all persons within the government’s healthcare system for purposes of “prevention, detection and treatment of diseases” is a primary objective of a number of government officials and industry proponents. Whether or not they will be successful in doing so remains to be seen.

RFID Chip

What is the RFID chip? It is a small electronic computer device placed into the skin of a person that can be used for identification, tracking, information storage and interfacing with external sources, such as for financial, business, commercial, governmental, educational, and medical institutions. In other words, an RFID can be utilized for every area of life.

Many legitimate and natural questions have been raised about RFID chips, like: What are the societal risks of the RFID chip? What are the foreseeable or likely governmental abuses? How does its implementation relate to the principles of freedom in a Constitutional Republic?

Will I be able to maintain my rights of privacy and other liberties if I have an RFID implanted in my skin for societal and governmental purposes?

As we will show, the answers are very relevant, because it is known that the federal government will likely mandate that these RFID chips be implanted into all persons in America.

The German IT industry group BITKOM recently conducted a survey that found that one out of four Germans would willingly, without force of law, have a RFID chip placed inside their skin for societal and governmental purposes. Perhaps those in the United States are not much different.

The idea of a microchip being implanted into your body for these purposes has been around for several years and is only becoming more popular and accepted.

Advocates for RFID for Societal and Government Purposes

Some of the most well-known and widely listened to news commentators and political leaders have advocated the use of RFID chips for societal and government purposes. Andy Rooney, news commentator on CBS’s 60 Minutes, said on February 10, 2002: "Something has to change. They have to find a better way to identify the bad guys or the rest of us are gonna’ stay home and watch the world go by on television…. We need some system for permanently identifying safe people…. I wouldn't mind having something planted permanently in my arm that would identify me.''

While interviewing Scott Silverman (Applied Digital CEO), Sean Hannity said on October 24, 2008: “[Parents are saying:] we can’t even allow our kids to play in the front yard. Is there anything — technologically speaking — that [parents] can do that can help the situation, like a kidnapping. Is there, for example, a microchip…we can use for our kids?”

In the interview, Silverman describes a PLD, which is an acronym for “Personal Locating Device,” which is an RFID chip. This PLD is to be implanted into the body of the “child or someone you are interested in tracking.”

While Hannity initially presents the RFID’s use into the context of “protecting children from being kidnapped,” Silverman quickly admits the multi-function purpose of the RFID: “It is the first implantable microchip for humans that has multiple security, financial and healthcare applications.” Sean Hannity’s response: “I love this idea, Scott.”

Security, financial, and healthcare: These are the vast categories of use which would encompass all of human life and activity in America.

Three years earlier, Silverman already outlined his ambitions for revolutionizing healthcare in the United States. A July 25, 2005 WebMD article opened with this bold query: "They're here. They have FDA approval. But are Americans ready to get chipped?"

According to WebMD, Silverman offered the following statistics as support for his company's technology in relation to medical care:
"When we first announced VeriChip, a network poll asked people if they would put one in their bodies," Silverman tells WebMD. "Only 9% said yes. After FDA approval, 19% said yes. When former HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson joined our board, the rate went up to 33%. But our own study shows that if you ask people whether they would have a VeriChip implant to identify their medical records in case of an emergency, the positive response goes to 80%."

WebMD concluded its report with this unsettling thought: "... Silverman says, some 2,000 people worldwide are using them for medical or security purposes. But soon he expects that millions of people will get VeriChip implants every year."

On July 31, 2005, in an articled titled "'Health Chips' Could Help Patients in US," The Business reported: "President Bush's former health secretary Tommy Thompson is putting the final touches to a plan that could result in US citizens having a radio frequency identification (RFID) chip inserted under their skin." Thompson's purpose in doing so? According to The Business: "The RFID capsules would be linked to a computerised database being created by the US Department of Health to store and manage the nation's health records."

Two months before these scattered news reports made less-than-noticed headlines, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) introduced S. 1262, the “Health Technology to Enhance Quality Act of 2005.” During a press conference at George Washington University Hospital, Senator Clinton stated: “This legislation marries technology and quality to create a seamless, efficient health care system for the 21st century.” Senator Frist characterized it as “an interoperable national health information technology system."

The only way to have an interoperable information system is to have a unique identifier for each person in the system, which can't be altered, lost, stolen, or tampered with. In 2005, Clinton and her allies sought to lay the technological infrastructure for just such a system. Now that health care has been nationalized, why would they approach things any differently?

So, will the “common person” in America accept the implantation of an RFID for societal and government purposes? Some already are. Daniel Hickey, a retired Navy Commander, expresses his of-course-attitude when interviewed by Channel 5, WPTZ news: “They’ve been putting them into dogs and cats for years. It’s about time they put them into human beings.” Perhaps like Germany, the numbers of those who accept this idea in America will only continue to grow.

Plans for RFID Chips for Healthcare

The facts already establish that certain infrastructure in America is being implemented to incorporate the use and application of the RFID chip.

Today, hospitals throughout America are already implementing RFID technology and have begun implanting RFID chips into their patients for medical purposes, such as those who suffer from Alzheimer.

Openly, “a number of U.S. hospitals have begun implanting patients with RFID tags and using RFID systems, usually for workflow and inventory management.” There are various groups that openly advocate for the use of RFID chips for all medical patients. As a result of this movement, many predict that the investment value of RFID technology will increase exponentially and dramatically, making many people very rich.

Even “the Department of Homeland Security has indicated it likes the concept of RFID chips,” CNN reported several years ago in an article about the Real ID Act. For what purpose does Homeland Security like RFID chips to be implanted into people’s skin? You name it. The same CNN report also noted that the Real ID Act required that "the IDs must include a 'common machine-readable technology' that must meet requirements set out by the Department of Homeland Security." — which could very well have meant RFID chips, though as the article pointed out, other possibilities could have included magnetic strips or enhanced bar codes. The Real ID Act requirements were derailed by a firestorm of resistance from the states. But there is, without question, a push by the private industry, investors, and the federal government to accept and (as time will tell) force this type of technology for “security, financial and healthcare” purposes.

Pre-Obama Nationalization of Healthcare and Use of RFID

What few people know is that the federal government has been making attempts to national the healthcare system for years, relating back to the Clinton administration’s push to create a National Identification for medical purposes, and which continued during the Bush administration.

To effectuate a national healthcare system, the federal government advances the use of RFID technology to be used in each medical patient for healthcare purposes. More than just for the treatment of the patient, the federal government proposes a “nationwide electronic health care information network for research and disease prevention.”

Without equivocation, on October 19, 1992, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Louis W. Sullivan, said: "It is our intention to act on our own and with the private sector in every area where we have authority to bring the new electronic network into being.” It was this same “electronic network” of healthcare that was advanced by G.W. Bush during his administration: “Strengthening the health care safety net is a necessary part of improving American's access to care.”

To the federal government, the purpose of creating a nationalized electronic safety network was to “research to improve the prevention, detection and treatment of diseases.” As became law under the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, the federal government recognized their role in “disease management programs” through their healthcare safety network. Then, one year after the FDA approved the full use of the RFID chips in humans, by executive order in 2005, G.W. Bush ordered HHS “to create a nationwide interoperable health information technology infrastructure.”

In conjunction with and to the end of creating a nationwide health information infrastructure, HHS is to advance “the development, adoption, and implementation of health information technology standards nationally through collaboration among public and private interests that are consistent with current efforts of the Federal Government [for the prevention, detection and treatment of diseases].”

This collaboration with public and private interests easily identifies the method by which this national safety network system will be effectuated: RFID technology.

Some of the most highly influential medical groups and organizations propose not only that the private industry utilize RFID technology, but also that the federal government use its “policy-making” power to advance its use of an electronic healthcare safety network and to abandon the old methods. In short, each patient would and should be required to possess an RFID chip before getting medical treatment.

The New Healthcare Application

Today, the federal government has more motivation and incentive than ever to create and mandate a national safety network system. They have been working on it for 20 years or more, but its reality is with us today. The federal government now has the responsibility and power to control much (if not all) of the regulations and systems used in the medical industry, including how patients will be identified, processed, and treated through the system. Its vested interest in the entire medical industry and in the cost of healthcare for each person will undoubtedly create a system of control upon the lives of those within its system.

To do this, facts reveal that the federal government will utilize RFID chip technology and will require every person within the healthcare system to receive this chip into their bodies. For some Americans, this may be acceptable, just as it is for one out of four persons in Germany. For others Americans, this is going to be a serious and fundamental line in the sand.

Consequently, these questions must be asked. Who will submit? Who will resist? What will the states do to protect their citizens from these mandates? What will the states do to require their citizens to comply with these mandates? What will the individual do to receive medical treatment who does not take this chip? Where will the individual go to receive quality medical treatment if all medical facilities require that you have this RFID chip? What penalties will be imposed upon those who do not take this chip?

These are all questions which must be answered and realized, because inevitably, the federal government will do all that it can to implement a RFID chip system.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Coverage under Obamacare will require an implantable microchip

There's a pretty starling thing in the bill that 95% of Americans won't like.

Below is language directly from the bill just passed. Get ready for RFID microchips implants. The Obama Health care bill under Class II (Paragraph 1, Section B) specifically includes ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable (p 2,057)."

‘‘National Medical Device Registry
9 ‘‘(g)(1) The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the
11 ‘registry’) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and
12 outcomes data on each device that
13 ‘‘(A) is or has been used in or on a patient; and
14 ‘‘(B) is
15 ‘‘(i) a class III device; or
16 ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable,
17 life-supporting, or life-sustaining.
18 ‘‘(2) In developing the registry, the Secretary shall,
19 in consultation with the Commissioner of Food and Drugs,
20 the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
21 Services, the head of the Office of the National Coordi22
nator for Health Information Technology, and the Sec23
retary of Veterans Affairs, determine the best methods
24 for—

Then below is the best part; the “other postmarket device surveillance activities of the Secretary authorized by this bill” (p 1,015)

•HR 4872 RH

1 ‘‘(A) including in the registry, in a manner consistent with subsection (f), appropriate information
3 to identify each device described in paragraph (1) by
4 type, model, and serial number or other unique idenifier;
6 ‘‘(B) validating methods for analyzing patient
7 safety and outcomes data from multiple sources and
8 for linking such data with the information included
9 in the registry as described in subparagraph (A), in10
cluding, to the extent feasible, use of—
11 ‘‘(i) data provided to the Secretary under
12 other provisions of this chapter; and
13 ‘‘(ii) information from public and private
14 sources identified under paragraph (3);
15 ‘‘(C) integrating the activities described in this
16 subsection with—
17 ‘‘(i) activities under paragraph (3) of sec18
tion 505(k) (relating to active postmarket risk
19 identification);
20 ‘‘(ii) activities under paragraph (4) of sec21
tion 505(k) (relating to advanced analysis of
22 drug safety data); and
23 ‘‘(iii) other postmarket device surveillance
24 activities of the Secretary authorized by this

What exactly is a class II device that is implantable? Lets see...

Approved by the FDA, a class II implantable device is a "implantable radio-frequency transponder system for patient identification and health information." The purpose of a class II device is to collect data in medical patients such as "claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary."

This sort of device would be implanted in the majority of people who opt to become covered by the public health care option. With the reform of the private insurance companies, who charge outrageous rates, many people will switch their coverage to a more affordable insurance plan.

This means the number of people who choose the public option will increase. This also means the number of people chipped will be plentiful as well. The adults who choose to have a chip implanted are the lucky (yes, lucky) ones in this case. Children who are "born in the United States who at the time of birth is not otherwise covered under acceptable coverage" will be qualified and placed into the CHIP or Children's Health Insurance Program (what a convenient name). With a name like CHIP it would seem consistent to have the chip implanted into a child. Children conceived by parents who are already covered under the public option will more than likely be implanted with a chip by the consent of the parent. Eventually everyone will be implanted with a chip.

And with the price and coverage of the public option being so competitive with the private companies, the private company may not survive.

[American Patriot]

Kiss my ass. No one is implanting anything in my body.

[vector7]

Timeline of Major Provisions in the Democrats’ Health Care Package





2009
•2‐year tax credit (total cap of $1B) for new chronic disease therapy investments
•Medicare cuts to hospitals begin (long‐term care (7/1/09) and inpatient and rehabilitation facilities (FY10)

2010
•States and Federal officials review premium increases
•FDA authorized to approve "follow‐on" biologics
•Increase brand name pharmaceutical Medicaid rebate (from 15.1% to 23.1%)
•Medicare payments to physicians in primarily rural areas increase (2 years)
•Deny "black liquor" eligibility for cellulosic biofuel producers credit
•Tax credits provided to certain small employers for health care‐related expenses
•Increase adoption tax incentives for 2 years
•Codify economic substance doctrine and impose penalties for underpayments (transactions on/after 3/23/10)
•Provide income exclusion for specified Indian tribe health benefits provided after 3/23/10
•Temporary high‐risk pool and high‐cost union retiree reinsurance ($5 B each for 3.5 years) (6/23/10)
•Impose 10% tax on indoor UV tanning (7/1/10)
•Medicare cuts to inpatient psych hospitals (7/1/10)
•Prohibits lifetime and annual benefit spending limits (plan years beginning 9/23/10)
•Prohibits non‐group plans from canceling coverage (rescissions) (plan years beginning 9/23/10)
•Requires plans to cover, at no charge, most preventive care (plan years beginning 9/23/10)
•Allows dependents to stay on parents’ policies through age 26 (plan years beginning 9/23/10)
•Provides limited protections to children with pre‐existing conditions (plan years beginning 9/23/10)
•Hospitals in "Frontier States" (ND, MT, WY, SD, UT ) receive higher Medicare payments (FY11)
•Hospitals in “low‐cost” areas receive higher Medicare payments for 2 yrs ($400 million, FY11)

2011
•Medicare Advantage cuts begin
•No longer allowed to use FSA, HSA, HRA, Archer MSA distributions for over‐the counter medicines
•Medicare cuts to home health begin
•Wealthier seniors ($85k/$170k) begin paying higher Part D premiums (not indexed for inflation in Parts B/D)
•Medicare reimbursement cuts when seniors use diagnostic imaging like MRIs, CT scans, etc.
•Medicare cuts begin to ambulance services, ASCs, diagnostic labs, and durable medical equipment
•Impose new annual tax on brand name pharmaceutical companies
•Americans begin paying premiums for federal long‐term care insurance (CLASS Act)
•Health plans required to spend a minimum of 80% of premiums on medical claims
•Physicians in "Frontier States" (ND, MT, WY, SD, UT ) receive higher Medicare payments
•Prohibition on Medicare payments to new physician‐owned hospitals
•Penalties for non‐qualified HSA and Archer MSA distributions double (to 20%)
•Seniors prohibited from purchasing power wheelchairs unless they first rent for 13 months
•Brand name drug companies begin providing 50% discount in the Part D “donuthole”
•10% Medicare bonus payment for primary care and general surgery (5 years)
•Employers required to report value of health benefits on W‐2
•Steps towards health insurance administrative simplification (reduced paperwork, etc) begins (5 yr process)
•Additional funding for community health centers (5 years)
•Seniors who hit Part D “donut hole "in 2010 receive $250 check (3/15/11)
•New Medicare cuts to long‐term care hospitals begin (7/1/11)
•Additional Medicare cuts to hospitals and cuts to nursing homes and inpatient rehab facilities begin (FY12)
•New tax on all private health insurance policies to pay for comp. eff. research (plan years beginning FY12)

2012
•Medicare cuts to dialysis treatment begins
•Require information reporting on payments to corporations
•Medicare to reduce spending by using an HMO‐like coordinated care model (Accountable Care Organizations)
•Medicare Advantage plans with a 4 or 5 star rating receive a quality bonus payment •New Medicare cuts to inpatient psych hospitals (7/1/12)
•Hospital pay‐for‐quality program begins (FY13)
•Medicare cuts to hospitals with high readmission rates begin (FY13)
•Medicare cuts to hospice begin (FY13)

2013
•Impose $2,500 annual cap on FSA contributions (indexed to CPI)
•Increase Medicare wage tax by 0.9% and impose a new 3.8% tax on unearned , nonactive business income for those earning over $200k/$250k (not indexed to inflation)
•Generally increases (7.5% to 10%) threshold at which medical expenses, as a % of income, can be deductible
•Eliminate deduction for Part D retiree drug subsidy employers receive
•Impose 2.3% excise tax on medical devices
•Medicare cuts to hospitals who treat low‐income seniors begin
•Post‐acute pay for quality reporting begins
•CO‐OP Program: Secretary awards loans and grants for establishing nonprofit health insurers
•$500,000 deduction cap on compensation paid to insurance company employees and officers
•Part D “donut hole” reduction begins, reaching a 25% reduction by 2020

2014
•Individuals without gov't‐approved coverage are subject to a tax of the greater of $695 or 2.5% of income
•Employers who fail to offer "affordable" coverage would pay a $3,000 penalty for every employee that receives a subsidy through the Exchange
•Employers who do not offer insurance must pay a tax penalty of $2,000 for every fulltime employee
•More Medicare cuts to home health begin
•States must have established Exchanges
•Employers with more than 200 employees can auto‐enroll employees in health coverage, with opt‐out
•All non‐grandfathered and Exchange health plans required to meet federally mandated levels of coverage
•States must cover parents /childless adults up to 138% of poverty on Medicaid, receive increased FMAP
•Tax credits available for Exchange‐based coverage, amount varies by income up to 400% of poverty
•Insurers cannot impose any coverage restrictions on pre‐existing conditions (guaranteed issue/renewability)
•Modified community rating: individual or family coverage; geography; 3:1 ratio for age; 1.5 :1 for smoking
•Insurers must offer coverage to anyone wanting a policy and every policy has to be renewed
•Limits out‐of‐pocket cost‐sharing (tied to limits in HSAs, currently $5,950/$11,900 indexed to COLA)
•Insurance plans must include government‐defined "essential benefits " and coverage levels
•OPM must offer at least two multi‐state plans in every state
•Employers can offer some employees free choice vouchers for health insurance in the Exchange
•Government board (IPAB) begins submitting proposals to cut Medicare
•Impose tax on nearly all private health insurance plans
•Medicare payment cuts for hospital‐acquired infections begin (FY15)

2015
•More Medicare cuts to home health begin

2016
•States can form interstate insurance compacts if the coverage with HHS approval (2016)

2017
•Physician pay‐for‐quality program begins for all physicians
•States may allow large employers and multi‐employer health plans to purchase coverage in the Exchange.
•States may apply to the Secretary for a limited waiver from certain federal requirements

2018
•Impose "Cadillac tax on “high cost” plans, 40% tax on the benefit value above a certain threshold: ($10,200 individual coverage, $27,500 family or self‐only union multi-employer coverage) 2018

[vector7]

AT&T to Book $1 Billion Cost on Health-Care Reform

March 26, 2010, 4:37 PM EDT

(Adds health-care bill background in 12th paragraph.)

By Amy Thomson and Ian King

March 26 (Bloomberg) -- AT&T Inc. will book $1 billion in first-quarter costs related to the health-care law signed this week by President Barack Obama, the most of any U.S. company so far.

A change in the tax treatment of Medicare subsidies triggered the non-cash expense, and the company will consider changes to the benefits it offers current and retired workers, Dallas-based AT&T said today in a regulatory filing.

AT&T, the biggest U.S. phone company, joins Caterpillar Inc., AK Steel Holding Corp. and 3M Co. in recording non-cash expenses against earnings as a result of the law. Health-care costs may shave as much as $14 billion from U.S. corporate profits, according to an estimate by benefits consulting firm Towers Watson. AT&T employed about 281,000 people as of the end of January.

“Companies like AT&T, that have large employee bases, are going to have higher health-care costs and, therefore, lower earnings unless they can negotiate something or offer less to their employees,” said Chris Larsen, an analyst at Piper Jaffray & Co. in New York, who rates AT&T shares “overweight” and doesn’t own any himself.

AT&T previously received a tax-free benefit from the government to subsidize health-care costs for retirees, who would otherwise be on a Medicare Part D plan. Under the new bill, AT&T will no longer be able to deduct that subsidy.

“As a result of this legislation, including the additional tax burden, AT&T will be evaluating prospective changes to the active and retiree health-care benefits offered by the company,” the carrier said in the filing.

3M Cost

AT&T’s announcement was followed about an hour later by 3M, the St. Paul, Minnesota-based maker of products ranging from Post-It Notes to respiratory masks. 3M said it expects a one-time expense of $85 million to $90 million after tax, or about 12 cents a share, in the first quarter because of the new law, according to a statement. 3M had about 75,000 employees as of Feb. 5.

Michael Coe, a spokesman for the carrier, declined to comment. Peter Thonis, a spokesman for Verizon Communications Inc., which also employs more than 200,000 people, declined to comment.

New York-based Verizon, the second-largest U.S. phone company, told employees in a note after the law was signed that the tax will make the subsidy less valuable to employers like Verizon and so “may have significant implications for both retirees and employers.”

AT&T rose 9 cents to $26.24 at 4 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The shares have fallen 6.4 percent this year.

Union Contracts

AT&T employees represented by the Communications Workers of America union have health benefits locked in via contracts that don’t expire until 2012 and 2013, Candice Johnson, a spokeswoman for the union, said in an interview. About 58 percent of the carrier’s workforce is represented by the union, AT&T said in a filing.

Obama signed the health-care reform policy into law on March 23 after a year of pushing the legislation through Congress without a single Republican vote. The new law will be phased in over several years and gives tens of millions of uninsured Americans health coverage. The bill, projected to cost almost $1 trillion, also calls for new taxes on the highest earners and fees on health-care companies.

Much of the public is still unsure about the plan with four in 10 Americans in favor of it, according to a Bloomberg National Poll. Obama is planning a follow-up campaign to sell the law -- the biggest change to the health system since Medicare was enacted in 1965 -- to the public.

--With reporting by Roger Runningen in Washington and Alex Nussbaum in New York. Editors: Lisa Wolfson, Stephen West

To contact the reporter on this story: Ian King in San Francisco at ianking@bloomberg.net; Amy Thomson in New York at athomson6@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Tom Giles at tgiles5@bloomberg.net; Julie Alnwick at jalnwick@bloomberg.net
Sponsored Links