Concerns and Questions about National Health Care Reform
By Chris ButtarsSenator, District 10 The concerns and questions below are based on the original version of the House Affordable Health Care Choices Act. They represent just a few of the many alarming practices presented in this bill. There are actually four primary versions of the proposed health care bill. In addition, a fifth version from the Senate Finance Committee is expected in the near future. It is certain that there will also be many proposed amendments. In total, these bills represent more than 1,600 pages. The House Affordable Health Care Choice Act, in itself, has more than 1,000 pages. Not only is this bill extremely long, but it is written in governmentese, making it difficult to understand and subject to interpretation, which is even more frightening. Here is a collection of my questions and concerns - some were spurred by outside sources, some from my own readings of the bill: - Page 124, Lines 24-25: Does this ban anyone from suing the federal government? And does it ban the entire judicial system from hearing cases on the legitimacy of the proposed plan?
- Are all federal employees exempt from the proposed national health care program(s)?
- Pages 272 & 452: The entire bill is loaded with the comment, “As determined appropriate by the Secretary.” What does this mean?
- Page 429, Lines 10-11: In addition to almost everything being subject to the Secretary’s approval, the words the “Secretary may” are also peppered throughout the bill. What does this mean?
- Page 226, Lines 12-22: An example of “governmentese.”
- Page 58, Lines 11-13: Will everyone be issued a government health care ID? Will it outline limitations of services we can receive?
- Page 317, Line 13-20: Prohibits doctors from purchasing or investing in health care facilities from the point of plan implementation.
- Page 91, Lines 4-7: Mandates that health care providers pay for interpreters for illegal aliens.
- Page 170, Lines 1-3: Stipulates that all nonresident aliens are exempt from the tax penalty presented in this chapter. Does that mean nonresident aliens will pay nothing for their health care?
- Page 272, Section 1145: Cancer treatment rationed “as determined appropriate by the Secretary.”
- Page 280, Section 1151: Imposes penalties and fines on hospitals for “preventable” visits.
- Page 298, Lines 9-11: Could impose penalties and fines on hospitals for re-admission after first treatment (fix on the first try or suffer the consequences).
- Page 341, Lines 3-9: Does this grant federal power to arbitrarily disqualify HMO’s, thereby forcing people into public health care at random?
- Page 149, Lines 16-24: Imposes an 8 percent payroll tax penalty for any employer that makes more than $400,000 and fails to offer to its employees the option to enroll in a qualified health care plan.
- Page 195: The Secretary will have full access to every citizen’s most private records.
- Does everyone have a right to government health care? Where and when was that right established?
- Page 429, Lines 10-12, & Page 430, Lines 12-14: May seniors opt out of end-of-life consultations?
- Page 429, Lines 10-12: Empowers federal government to create physician payments for end-of-life plans under something called “advance care consultation.” Can decisions by the patient be overridden by the Secretary in an advance-care consultation plan?
- Page 429, Lines 13-25: The health care bill is 1,018 pages. I would venture that the rules to implement these pages would, at least, double the size of the bill.
- One of the foundational reasons for the Affordable Health Choices Act is to reduce health care costs. Since the most conservative estimate to implement this program is $1 trillion (some say it will be multiples of that), how, then, can a dramatic rationing of health care services be avoided? How drastically will health care services be rationed?
Note: These questions and concerns cover only the first 500 pages. The other 500 pages are every bit as concerning. For Example: - Page 768, Lines 20-24, and Page 769, Lines 1-3: Is the language concerning increasing the birth intervals between pregnancies mandatory?
- Page 1018, Lines 6-19: In regards to “subtitle E, limitation on federal funds,” does this require compliance by the state to the entire bill or federal funds will be withheld?
I have read and reread this bill several times. Everything considered, it’s my personal opinion that this act is more about government control than health care; and there is no doubt it pushes our nation toward classic socialism.
Just under half of the items, above, were raised from my readings of the bill. Other references cited here came from E-mail and blog sources, but the questions are mine. I am concerned and sincerely interested in honest answers.
|
|
26 Comments:
Note: the original version of this blog was posted earlier today. Some questioned the origins of this list of concerns, above. The senator added two clarifying remarks (in italics) and republished.
Like so many in the party of NO, there are never answers. There are only people who shoot holes in anything presented and give no answers. So far my best friend in the part of NO who worked on the campaign of his candidate has given his only answer for those who are uninsured. Get the Government out of charitable organizations and they will be able to take care of the uninsured. That sure makes my currently uninsured heart feel better for the next time I get an Angina attack in the middle of the night. Our Mark Shurtleff gives the answer I should go to the Nurse in a box at the grocery store. Another nice one, but both still better than anything Chris Buttars has suggested. After being laid off from a large company with a 6 figure income, nearly every other person I work now who also have 6 figure incomes are uninsurable. They lost insurance for periods of as little as 6 months and for years no insurance company will touch them because of certain medications they take to control long term conditions that area taken by 10's of thousands of people in the US that are insured under large employer plans. My wife now fits into that class. She can no longer be insured for the rest of her life after being insured for 26 years with the same condition.
Don't pull that private industry doesn't ration insurance. They do. My son and his wife are both uninsurable for the rest of their life for the same reasons.
When my previous employer changed health plans, I was not allowed to see my doctor of 22 years under their insurance plan. I was not allowed to see any IHC doctor or facility. Unless I had a life threatening emergency, I had to drive 35 miles past several hospitals until Timpanogos hospital was built.
You've had 8 years to start fixing the problem, yet you only made IHC stronger and Insurers stronger so they could deny coverage to more people and get away with it. Come on Chris, if Government healthcare is so bad, give yours up, give up the Medicare too and come try the options I have available as a contractor consultant.
Nothing the Government does could be worse than the private option millions of us deal with every day. I doubt you want to dismantle PBGC and FDIC. Yet they are government run.
I've never met anyone in the part of NO who can explain why it is that those countries with the most "social" of health plans have the happiest people who live the longest. Everyone rations healthcare, it's just how it's done. If done fairly, people live longer and are happier. If done with the private option where it's all about money the wealthy and those with high paying jobs at major corporations that is not the case. It only took one trip to the doctors office in the Netherlands to figure out how screwed up we are.
It also showed that we could probably get rid of 25% of all expenses immediately if there was reasonable tort reform, which is something else the party of NO won't do. They have just made it worse over the last 8 years.
This is all sincere, you have no answers to it. You can only pull stunts like printing the largest bill out single sided on heavy paper and say it must be bad because it's 6 inches high.
I see a dozen horror stories a day of lives ruined by the private option a day on the survival forums people set up to support those released from major corporations who are losing their retirements and health insurance. You do not see the real world. You see Insurance company lobbiests. Talk to us one day. We are white middle class people. Unlike the poor who are rationed out of insurance by the private option, we can't be ignored. It's the beginning of a title wave and until the party of NO gives viable alternatives, it will just get smaller and marginalized more.
Re Sen. Buttars Point #9:
"False: Illegal Immigrants Will Be Covered
One Republican congressman issued a press release claiming that "5,600,000 Illegal Aliens May Be Covered Under Obamacare," and we’ve been peppered with queries about similar claims. They’re not true. In fact, the House bill (the only bill to be formally introduced in its entirety) specifically says that no federal money would be spent on giving illegal immigrants health coverage:
H.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."
- from FactCheck.org at http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/
Utah Owl (Who hides behind a newly created blogger id with no identifiable information in it thereby making this an anonymous post). Virtually every point Sen. Buttars beings up has been exhaustively shown to be lies and misrepresentations by well respected neutral websites. Since when did that matter to most Senators of either Party (Sorry you Blue Dogs who are hiding in your kennel acting scared and barking at your master). Although it has certainly been stock in trade for the party of NO for a very long time.
This is what Gayle Ruzicka is using that much feared email list for? Sending repeatedly debunked chain emails to Senator Buttars (who then apparently can't use Google even enough to fact check them before posting)?
Truly a sad day for conservatives in Utah. This post makes us look stupid.
I mean that ridiculous chain email contains much of the same content, wording, and mention of "and that's just the first 500 pages."
Very foolish of the Senator, and I should hope he would've known better. Does he believe us to be this naive? There are many reasons to oppose this legislation, but not of those reasons is contained in this chain email posted as serious questioning submitted by Buttars.
Shame on you, Senator, for disrespecting the electorate to get a cheap political dig in on an issue that you really have no involvement in.
Senate leaders, you've often made me proud. If Senator Buttars can put no more thought into what he posts on this website, please keep him quietly behind the curtains. The debate has been dumbed down enough and it's hard for those of us to oppose Obama's policies from a credible point of view when those who get the most attention are posting chain emails passed off as intelligent reasoning. It makes those of us working hard to win hearts and minds have to fight even harder to be taken seriously. By giving further spotlight to a thoroughly debunked chain email, you are giving the advantage to the Dems and undermining the work many of us are doing on the ground.
Again, shame on you Senator Buttars.
This just has me furious, and the Senator owes serious activists and those who've taken the time to actually educate ourselves enough to argue against this plan without lies a serious apology.
All: Let's keep it civil, and assume patriots on all sides are working in good faith.
Trudy from Utah County - it sounds like you have spent quality time on this issue. If you can provide analysis of the health care bill, I'd be grateful. In fact, if it helps elevate the discussion I'd like to post it here on the Senate Site. Let me know: 801-538-1035.
With all due respect to Sen. Buttars, it is time the discussion about health system reform moved beyond the number of pages in the bill, socialism, and conspiracy theories. As Sen. Buttars knows, I am an active member of his political party and a believer in fiscally responsible government. I prefer local over national solutions and agree that market forces, when applicable, are more efficient distributors of goods and services. I agree that the health system legislation now under consideration in Congress will not improve our health system, and have published on op ed piece in the SL Tribune detailing the reasons for my opinion (wrong issue, wrong premise, wrong venue). But the status quo is unacceptable, not just because of the harm being done to patients at enormous cost, but because the entire American economy is being undermined by the stupid spending we allow for health care. Radical change is required and therefore I have organized a political issue committee (PIC) here in Utah with the intent of bringing a comprehensive, sustainable health system reform proposal before the electorate of Utah as a ballot initiative. I encourage all citizens of the Beehive State with serious intentions to work towards a better health care system to become supporters of the Utah Healthcare Initiative. Find our blog at www.utahpatientspac.blogspot.com and our website at www.utahpatientspac.com. Send me your stories of health system failure at jqjarvis@gmail.com.
Thanks,
Dr. Joe Jarvis
That's great, Buttars. Align those of us opposing this bill for reasons of merit with the idiot fringe who can't discern between a made-up chain email, and actual policy positions to argue from. Why don't you just hand The SideTrack guys and their followers the white flag? You made this one easy for them with this stupidity.
Buttars proves again that he's not one to think things through beyond the surface level, and should be kept far from all microphones. We need to replace him and those who speak like him with someone who serves the GOP well before we loose our foothold in this fine state.
With all due respect Cantrell, Buttars has just cut and pasted items from a debunked and dishonest chain email that has no interest in furthering a discussion but rather inciting fear and prospering misunderstanding and misinformation. It's intellectually dishonest of you to defend attacks against such behavior with a call for civility. You should be concerned for the integrity of your site not concerned for the distaste with which the public reacts to what you've allowed Valentine and Buttars to soil it with.
This post has been removed by the author.
Ric, we've tried our best to answer Buttars questions here:
http://thesidetrack.blogspot.com/2009/08/answering-sen-chris-buttars-health-care_24.html
Honestly, as we did our research, it became increasingly difficult to take the Senator seriously. As I have said elsewhere, the Senate Site has a choice at this point. Either the goal is to give platform to (surprisingly!) poorly informed Senators and willing misinformation for public consumption, or the goal is discussion. If the goal is discussion, we should expect our response to Chris Buttars grandstanding to be mentioned as prominently on this site as Buttars own chain email incited questions have.
http://thesidetrack.blogspot.com/2009/08/answering-sen-chris-buttars-health-care_24.html
I agree. If we are acting in "good faith" here, then let's see the bloggers response to the Senator's questions on the front page. They deserve as much attention as the questions themselves. That or Buttars and Valentine dillute the credibility of the site with their hackneyed questions already repeatedly debunked. If their questions were ernest and deserving of posting, then so is the response from The SideTrack (et al).
Jason The (above) has done some excellent research on this and posted it on his blog. In the interest of hearing all sides of the debate, The Senate Site should post his responses as a top-level post equal to Sen. Buttars original post here. Posting Jason's research as a top post would certainly demonstrate for all of us that you are interested in finding facts and truth and not just in promoting a pre-determined position on the issue.
I agree. I'm not in support of this reform entirely, but Jason has responded to the Senator's questions, and the response should get just as much attention if it's discussion and not grandstanding The Senate Site was promoting in putting Buttars' questions up.
Continuing, as promised, to answer the Senators questions. Day two, questions 6 through 10.
http://thesidetrack.blogspot.com/2009/08/answering-sen-chris-buttars-health-care_25.html
Honestly, either the Senator has never read this bill, or is committing an act of willing misinformation in claiming the answers to his questions weren't clear as day. Amazing how far astray a chain email can get you, huh? Perhaps there's a lesson for us all in that. Until tomorrow...
http://thesidetrack.blogspot.com/2009/08/answering-sen-chris-buttars-health-care_25.html
Let's hear it Senate Site. You had the inclination to post Buttars questions and bring the debate down, will you elevate it and make it an actual discussion by giving Mr. The's (so far very astute) answers as much digital ink?
We're watching, and how you respond will tell us the character of The Senate Site, going forward.
Day three, answers to questions 11 through 15:
http://thesidetrack.blogspot.com/2009/08/answering-sen-chris-buttars-health-care_26.html
In fairness, today's five questions from the Senator are a much more reasonable set of questions that open up an ideological debate, and stay clear of willing misinformation (for the most part).
http://thesidetrack.blogspot.com/2009/08/answering-sen-chris-buttars-health-care_26.html
Kudos to Buttars for stepping away from the chain email propaganda at least for these five. That said, it's still difficult to take him seriously. It's not been difficult for us to find these answers, and none of us involved are elected officials with a responsibility to be educated on any issue we might speak publicly off. We've yet to stumble across anything in our reading/parsing of the bill that implies both Buttars and Valentine shouldn't be ashamed of what they've posted here at the Senate Site.
Back tomorrow with the final set of questions...
Shame on the Senator. Does he think we're that naive?
Can't help but notice Cantrell and crew are ignoring your answers to Buttars's questions. Is it safe to assume all this talk of having a discussion for the public good is just smoke?
Day four, and our answers to questions 16-22. I believe my mother called what the Senator is doing here "malarkey" when I was a kid:
http://thesidetrack.blogspot.com/2009/08/answering-sen-chris-buttars-health-care_27.html
As we've researched and learned ourselves, it's become increasingly difficult to believe this wasn't a willing attempt to mislead on the part of the Senators Buttars and Valentine. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Hopefully, our answers linked throughout these unfortunate posts will help someone understand better than what these two elected officials have just tried to pass off as information and legitimate discussion over policy.
http://thesidetrack.blogspot.com/2009/08/answering-sen-chris-buttars-health-care_27.html
Back tomorrow with a conclusion of what we learned, not only about this bill, but the Senator(s) actions here at The Senate Site.
Have to started reading everything posted here with a grain of salt from the looks of things
Wow. I leave this group alone for a few days and look what happens.
Food fight aside, I do appreciate the actual research Jason & Company have provided here.
All: Thanks for the input. A few quick thoughts...
Trudy: Same comment I left before. If you have an analysis of this bill we'd love to look at it.
Dr. Jarvis: Same.
Anonymous, 1:28 a.m.: I wouldn't mind looking at a Sidetrack guest blog. The more educational and edifying the better. When Jason Williams is a state senator, we'll post anything he writes.
Deanne: You might want to take anything you see on the internet with a grain of salt. Seems prudent.
Anonymous, 12:50 a.m.: Nonetheless, I'm asking that this discussion be civil.
My working assumption is that everyone involved in this debate has the best interests of their country at heart. Respectful discussion leads to better policy decisions.
Great advice and info! I’ve tried. If you want more information about electronics appliance you can visit us http://www.dealshunt.com/
Excellent site, keep up the good work. I read a lot of blogs on a daily basis and for the most part, people lack substance but, I just wanted to make a quick comment to say I’m glad I found your blog. Thanks,
anti keylogger
Post a Comment
<< Home