Healthcare Bill H.R. 3200 Analysis

Ok boys and girls, today we will look at the President's Healthcare bill that Congress has written. This is the first installment, as I am certain that I can't possibly fit all of the facts into this one blog, and even more certain that you won't read them even if I did. it has been updated as of 15 Aug 2009, even though the blog spot says the date of its creation, August 7th.

First, let's set the ground rules:

1. I will cite sections by page and line number, so you can go read it for yourself. I have also decided to put in headlines, or titles, so you can search by subject.
   
2. Don't just take my word for it, go check me! I get it wrong, and some things may be subject to interpretation.
3. This is not a witch hunt, it is an analysis, so there will be good as well as bad noted, not just the things that fit my bias. I get so sick of hearing only one side reported, as though the whole bill were either a totally unacceptable piece of trash or the salvational piece of legislation that will do everything for everybody. I don't believe that from either side, and I intend to not treat this bill so trivially. Too much is at stake to play politics, though I do admit my biases.
4. Since I brought up my biases, my bias is against too much government, and toward freedom. It's the American way, and self-determination, with the ability to make "stupid choices" is what I believe we all should have. If you can't choose the stupid, you have no true choice. Once Government decides what you can and cannot choose, in this context of Healthcare especially, We the People will suffer. There is a place for regulation, but excessive regulation is inimical to my way of thinking, so let's just get that out there right from the jump. Knowing that I have this bias, I will try extra hard to cover the other side as well. The reason I use the term "stupid choices" is that Elizabeth Edwards used that term when discussing Healthcare before her husband's affair came out into the news. My choices may seem "stupid" to her, or to others, but my choices make sense for my situation, as your do for yours. If they are uninformed, they may not be the best, but we all deserve the right to make choices that we deem the best for ourselves, no matter how "stupid" they may seem to others. I think many choices made by others are "stupid", like that of ever having an abortion. So you have the right to make your "stupid choices", and I have mine. Let's keep it that way!
5. If you find that I have grossly mischaracterized some passage of the bill, please bring it to my attention, with an explanation of why you think so, and what the bill really means. Lord knows I am no legal scholar, but I am a scholar in general, and a scientific mind who is trained and experienced in debug, analysis, and getting to the root cause of problems.
6. I have read, myself, every line I am pointing out.
   

Now for the actual Analysis:

• Funnel into Public Plan - Page 16, line 10-20: Existing plans may not enroll new individuals, except as family members of the grandfathered-in enrollees. They let you cover your new spouse and children, but nobody else can get in. This means that insurance plans may not grow, and their customers will die off, effectively cutting the insurance companies source of income and customers off. This will cause people to funnel into the only plans that can accept ne enrollees, the government plans.
  
• Minimum benefits set by government panel - Page 17, lines 10-20: All private insurance plans must conform to the same requirements as those for the essential benefit package described by the government plans, within five years. this removes choice of plan benefits, and makes all plans a one-size fits all type, which never fits everyone. It causes some to waste money, and others to not get level of coverage they want and are willing to pay for.
• No new plans on open market - page 19, lines 1 thru 5: All new individual plans must be offered thru the Exchange the government sets up for Health Insurance plans. This means you cannot go buy a plan that is not conforming to the Government standards or benefit packages.
  
• No rejection for preexisting conditions - Page 19, line 18 thru page 20, line 23, there are no limits based on pre-existing conditions to getting into a plan, nor can a person be dropped for another reason than not paying the premiums. this is actually a good reform, and should be so noted, unless it is negated by some other provisions. This is the best thing so far in this bill.
  
• Discouraging company self-insurance - Page 21 line 22 thru Page 23 line 7: The Bill MANDATES a government audit of the books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self-insure in order to “ensure that the law does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure”! This is totally wrong, as it should be up to the employers to find the most cost-effective way to provide for their employees, not the Government's job to disincentive companies from certain choices that are acceptable to their employees. The studies are to be done in 18 months, with reports providing recommendations (on how to change the law to disincentiveize companies from self-insuring).
  
• Limits on profits of insurance plans - Page 25 line 1 thru 11: The Government shall set the amount of profit an insurance plan can have, and the insured (you), will get money back if the plan gets too profitable. How profitable is "too profitable"? The Commissioner will decide.
• Minimum Coverage includes substance abuse Disorder Services - Page 28 lines 10 and 11: This will expand the cost for those who don't have such problems. Not all do!
  
• Minimum coverage includes maternity - Page 28, line 17. This may not seem bad on its face, but for the single guy, it is a waste of money. For the older couple, it is a waste as well. Same for well-baby/child coverage in lines 18 thru 20. Should be optional, to allow cost savings for the buyer.
• Rationing of HC Benefits - Pages 29 line 4 thru Page 30 line 10: The text is somewhat technical, but it says basically that the cost sharing will be "actuarially equivalent to approximately" 70% of the total cost of the individual benefits, and has a maximum of $10,000 per year for a family, and $5,000 for an individual. This seems to indicate taht the benefits woudl cost more a-la-cart, but together there is some cost savings. If someone who has a better understanding of legalese and/or insurance cost structures, I'd love to get a more complete explanation. I'll insert it, if it comes via email, Facebook, or comments.
• A Government Health Benefits Advisory Board will determine covered benefits - page 30 lines 13 thru 18: This board of public and private persons will recommend covered benefits, for the plans. This section introduced the idea of Enhanced and Premium plans, and they decide what goes into them. They are to take into account advances in HC and how they can reduce health disparities. Not HCI disparities, but actual "health disparities". This seems to restrict new medical advances, since the use by doctors often provides incentive to develop new technologies and products. If it can't be used until it is covered, it will slowly strangle our development process (see page 32 lines 18 thru 21).
  
• Standard Definitions of Insurance and Medical Terms - Page 45 lines 11 thru 15: the Government will develop standard terminology for HCI and medical related terms. This is another good thing. This should keep the Commissioner busy for a good while!
  
• HC will be provided to all, even non-US citizens - Page 51 line 21 thru page 52 line 3. This is part of Section 152, "Prohibiting Discrimination in Health Care ", and say "...all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services." No mention of citizenship required, and no limit is placed on non-US citizens either. This is a loophole big enough to fit all undocumented persons through!
• This Tax is not a "Tax" - Page 203, lines 13 thru 18: ‘‘(4) NOT TREATED AS TAX IMPOSED BY THIS CHAPTER FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.—The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55.’’ This speaks for itself. Not a tax? Note, there is nto even a section 55, so to what are they referring? What did Section 55 say?
  
• Home visits to Parents for child development - Page 837 line 10 thru page 839 line 5: The Government will send trained people to homes of families who are expecting or have young children, to help parents to raise their children properly. Hat tip to Chuck Norris, who pointed this out, though I have verified it myself. The exact wording of their goal is in line 13 on page 837: "to improve the well-being, health, and development of children". Also, on page 839, lines 1-5 indicates that they will "identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families or a high incidence of child maltreatment". Who determines what is "maltreatment"? Is it spanking? Deprivation of cell-phones? Allowing kids to eat "bad" food? This is a nice goal, but it is not the responsibility of the Government to intrude on the raising of our kids. I am certain that we will not be able to influence the content and standards they apply to this program. Amish and Muslims will certainly raise their kids differently from each other, and from those who are Atheists. One size will never fit all.
  
• 
  

More later!

Look at what?!

There were two pix from President Obama's recent trip, and one seemed to be really smarmy, with him ogling a young lady's "Stimulus Package". After this brouhaha erupted, suddenly a new picture came out of him when he left the summit. To the right is the first picture. Obviously Nicholas Sarkozy is ogling, but then, he's a Frenchman, so we can understand his behavior. A quick review of the actual footage that this was taken from clears things up nicely, if one cares to get at the truth.

After this turned into an international joke, the person to whom it mattered most seemed to have directed or orchestrated another picture, another photo op, if you will. That person was the First lady, Michelle Obama. When was the last time you saw the first couple enter Air Force One next to each other? Most often, they are in single file, with one going in first, then the other, waves and smiles. But this time, they had to put this incident, shall we say, behind them? They had to let the world know where the President's heart, and hand in this case, was. Look at this next picture, and see for yourself.

This should clear things up. I doubt Obama is a player. This is one area where he gets it right: he is a family man, and seems to be a faithful father and husband. Kudos to him and to his wife, who protected their family image.

TARP Too: Where do We go from Here?

As I saw the headlines about the banks needing to raise more capital, I started to cross-reference things in my mind.
FACT: many banks want to return TARP money.
FACT: some banks need more money, according to results of the Stress Tests that the government has just reported on.
FACT: The administration does not want banks to return the TARP money right now. Some may be allowed to start soon, but not yet.
FACT: The government arraigned a bankruptcy for Chrysler in which the first bond holders got about 30 cents on the dollar, while the UAW got $55billion worth of equity in the company, and the government got a significant stake in the company as well.
FACT: The First Bondholders who invested in Chrysler offered to take a 50% loss on their investment, but the Administration insisted on them taking a 70% loss.
FACT: the government wants the banks to raise private capital to be capable of passing the stress tests, or else they may need to pump more government money into those banks.

Now why do I mention Chrysler in context of the banks? Simple: the Administration is the entity in ultimate charge of the banks that need more money, and the banks may have a hard time convincing private companies that investing in those banks under control of the Government will not result in their bond contracts being overridden by the Administration in some future move that the Government thinks is best for the "rightful owners of the nation's wealth". Chrysler investors are no different than bank investors. When companies, people, hedge funds or whoever, decide to invest, they trade off return, risk, and other pertinent factors. There is a huge risk when this administration is in control of the banks that they will make some move that will negatively impact the investors who happen to not be the Government. If the banks do not raise all of the capital in six months, the Administration will take a voting stake, and then the investor who stuck their necks out now will be screwed. Never mind that most hedge funds are collections of ordinary citizens trying to provide for their retirement, trying to provide for themselves and their families' livelihood. Businesses try to raise capital to finance their growth, and if they are to be persuaded to invest in banks, they need to know that their rights will be protected. Confidence is the key to investment.

Sure, there are greedy investors who only want to be filthy rich. Who would not want to be rich? I don't begrudge them that, but those are not the majority of the investors the banks are seeking. I mean, if Warren Buffet were to invest his money, with the goal of being filthy rich, would the Administration have a problem with that? Oh, wait, they love him. So why is it bad for others to want to invest and become like Buffet? Oh yes, that's right. Warren Buffet must be one of the "Rightful Owners of the Nations Wealth", at least in President Obama's eyes. I take a simple approach: the "Rightful Owners" in the business world are those who bought the bonds, whose contracts specify that they have rights of ownership or first payment in a bankruptcy proceeding.

So where do we go from here? If a few of the banks (Citi, GMAC) need more capital, we need to approach it from a fiscally responsible perspective, and allow some banks that passed the "Stress Tests" to return TARP money, and the Administration needs to reinvest that money in the other banks that need it. We also need written assurance from the Obama administration that there will be no further interference in the banks which could result in the coveted investors losing their rights or property when they invest in American banks that have received TARP money.

Will this happen? as I sit here up at 2:30 AM on 8 May 2009, I seriously doubt it. But it would work, if done.

Answer to a Polling Point Question

Polling Point asked me this question:
What do you think Rush Limbaugh meant by his comment, "I want Obama to fail."?
I answered as follows:
Rush wants policies that are harmful to America not to succeed, and he sees many of Obama's policies as bad for America. Rush sees Obama as perpetrating a multi-pronged plan to change America away from the free, prosperous land with choices for all, to a country ruled by elites, with high taxes for all, giving away our money to those who have not earned it, and to foreign countries in the name of helping them. He also sees punishment of achievement coming from Obama, so all of those things Mr. Limbaugh wants to fail. He wants America to succeed, which means Obama should fail at crippling America with his misguided policies.

Obama Doublespeak Decoded (part 1)

As I listen to the President-elect speak about the various issues on his agenda, I often get frustrated. Yes, elections have consequences, and he is one of them. He seems to be trying to talk the economy down, disclose his private plans, and reveal his secrets while at the same time appearing to not do any of those things. So I think he is in the Doublespeak mode, and somebody had better start decoding what he means from what he says and does. Here is my first attempt.

• stimulus plan - plan to grow government in ways that take years to implement and even longer to recover from.
• clandestine meetings with Hamas - put pressure on Israel and Hamas to make concessions, because Hamas is being treated as an equal.
• Economy is getting worse - you need my plans so badly that they must be passed ASAP with no discussion or disagreement.
• work with Congress - let Congress put it together, so they can take the blame when it doesn't work.
• Bi-partisanship - include the Republicans so they can be blamed for the inevitable failure of the resulting bills including the stimulus plan.
• tax cuts for 95% of working families - wealth transfers to those who pay no Federal income tax, while soaking "The Rich".
• Secretary of State Clinton - safe place to keep Hillary so she stays away from health care, since she is poisonous, though her plan is not significantly different from my own plan, assuming she makes it through confirmation. Watch for some reasons to pop up to keep her from taking the Sec State post, and at the same time, make her irrelevant to the political scene - Obama doesn't need her or her husband to achieve his goals.
• 3 million jobs saved or created - take credit for Bush's stimulus that is beginning to take effect, and pull in however many jobs are needed in the "saved" category as necessary to claim victory.
• recession will last for years to come - my plans will deepen the recession, but I will blame it on Bush and the Republicans, so that you won't want to vote for them, even though my plans didn't make things any better.
• deepening crisis - more reason to change form free-market capitalism to socialism, because capitalism has failed this time.
• get American working - for the government.
• reward hard working taxpayers - let them give to support those who are not working, or who are in failing businesses. Hard work is its own reward.
• talk with Iran - Obama: use dialog to help them understand that the US is no longer like Bush, so we can be trusted, and they can stop their nuclear weapons programs. Reality: make concessions to Tehran that make it impossible to support Israel properly.
• Talk with Hugo Chavez - lower US diplomatic status to that of a third world dictatorship, which is what I think we should become.
• Leon Panetta is a fine choice for the CIA - I need someone over there who I can trust to tell me everything, not do much, and make the CIA a clean, friendly organization who will stop torturing those poor misunderstood Muslims, who really just want what's best for America and to be our friends.
• End the war in Iraq - quit irritating those nice middle-eastern countries who just want to peaceably co-exist with the rest of the world.
• make healthcare affordable for all Americans - nationalize healthcare, so you don't see the cost when you go to the doctor or hospital. Let the rich, the smokers, big business and the unhealthy pay more in penalties, taxes, and fees so the rest of us don't have to.
• Secure our borders - declare the borders secure, and provide a path to citizenship for thos illegals who are here now.
• One President at a time - I don't want to talk about that. Ask me later, if you dare. Does not apply to the economy, only to Israel, and heck, to foreign policy in total, since I don't have much interest in it, nor understanding of it.
  

I'm sure there will be more definitions as words and phrases are bandied about in the never-ending campaign of Barack Obama. He seems to love looking Presidential, but is short on anything other than platitudes and rehetoric.

BlagObama Senate Seat Fiasco

For those of you who have read my other posts, you know that I am a Conservative. You also know that I think a lot. I have to, to get it right. I am still gathering information about the Blagojevich abuse of power allegations. I read the indictment submissions on The Smoking GUn, and they are devastating, and very graphic.

This whole Senate Seat for Sale scandal is not only disgusting, but illustrative of the seedy political arena President-Elect Barrack Obama willingly jumped into on his way from Hawaii to the White House. I have no evidence yet that Obama was involved in this, though there is that possibility. Here is why I think this:

1. David Axelrod, Obama's Rove (chief political advisor) said Obama had spoken with the Governor about this. He was on a TV show, it was taped, and it was dug up after the revelation of Blago trying to get whatever he could for himself and his wife to relieve the financial pressure on his family, due to his only being a governor. I guess that doesn't pay enough for him.
   
2. A reporter at a local Illinois TV station reported the day after the election that Obama was scheduled to meet with the governor the next day, to discuss filling the impending vacancy. I have not seen any confirmation that any meeting actually took place, but then, I'm a consumer of news, not a producer of it. I'll await any confirmation.
   
3. Governor Blago indicated on tape when discussing the matter that Obama wanted candidate #1 (That lady, Valerie Jarrett?) to fill his seat. He said that they were only willing to give him future appreciation. Blago wanted money, so he swore about Obama that he was a M-F-, and he repeated it in different conversations. How did he know that they would only offer appreciation, if he didn't talk with someone about some sort of compensation?
   
4. Obama did not display outrage, disgust, or other anger that his still-warm Senate seat was up for bid by the governor. He said it was an ongoing investigation, so he could not comment on it. Really? Not even to say that it was a travesty, and he totally condemns that type of shameful corruption? Why not?
5. Obama has helped Blago get elected over the years, as Blago has helped Obama over the years to do the same. The press is trying to say that the two of them travelled in different Democrat circles in Illinois, though I doubt there are different circles in that state. To quote Lincoln, a House divided cannot stand. Neither can the Illinois Democrat party.

So I have yet to see proof beyond reasonable doubt that Obama is involved with this thing, but the doors for going down that path are open. One thing that gets lost in the sauce is the presumption of innocence. I have held to it in this case, as much as I would like to indict him myself. In another related idea, there is nothing in my mind wrong with governor Blagojevich getting input from different sources, including the potential Senators, on who should get the seat. There should even be room for discussion, political considerations, and even favoritism. Where the line is clear as day for me is when compensation for the selection is either sought, considered when offered, or the unspoken rule during said discussions. Clearly, Governor Blago was in this for his own financial benefit.

Obama Speech Rewrite

I have a copy of Barack Obama's speech, and I think it was very good, with a few notable exceptions. I think I will rewrite parts of it, and post it here. Did you read it? I will try to link to it, or at least the text of it. I don't think one needs to hear his actual voice reading it.

Stop back by soon, and it should be up.

Black or White: Do I have a Choice?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Fear: not the motivation we need, from Hillary or McCain

I wrote a reply to Gary Bauer's article of 2/29/08 on why we should vote for anybody but Obama. I am not an Obama supporter, let me make that clear. However, Gary was using fear as the key argument against voting Democrat, no matter who wins. I'll try to put the link in here:

John McCain may be strong on the war, but he too, would close Gitmo. He would limit our ability to interrogate (waterboarding, anybody?). McCain would fight the war "over there" while letting illegals in over here: ask Juan Hernandez, his adviser on immigrant affairs.

Yes, Obama is a leftist with some even more leftist supporters. However, I can't count on McCain with a Democrat house and Senate to do Republican things. With the Gang of 14 ideology and his signature piece, McCain-Feingold on the line, he won't push strongly for strict constructionist supreme court nominees, Ted Olson not withstanding. For every Ted Olson, there is a Warren Ruddman (David Souter, anyone?)in his campaign.
McCain is doomed to fail, because if he moves right, the libs who nominated him will bail. He will also be a flip flopper, which doesn't attract most people, if he moves right. If he moves left, Obama will be the true lib, and we, the true conservatives on social, defense, moral, and immigration issues, will stay home or vote Ann Coulter-style.

John McCain is not moving right, and he is not naturally conservative. He curses people out, holds grudges (Bush 2000), and does not admit his failures. I think McCain's Freudian slip was showing when he said his upcoming debates would be "dispirited", and he is "a proud Conservative Liberal Republican". I know what he was trying to say, but I also saw his heart. Nobody is perfect, and I certainly do not expect a candidate for President to be perfect. However, I do expect a person who seems to have a humble heart (G. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan), and who is not just the lesser of two evils. I think a good strong Republican congress and senate are the best checks against a probable Democrat president next year. Fear will not motivate enough people to swallow their principles and vote McCain in, especially when McCain is not likely to protect us much better than his opponents.