WHAT'S REALLY IN THE HEALTHCARE BILL?

[Guest guest]

Look at the pie chart below to see what part of the budget goes to social services and "human resources" Health + Social Security + Education + Food + Housing + Labor, etc. while they won't touch the military....Killing is obviously a priority over preserving life.======== Current Military $965 billion: • Military Personnel $129 billion • Operation & Maint. $241 billion • Procurement $143 billion • Research & Dev. $79 billion • Construction $15 billion • Family Housing $3 billion • DoD misc. $4 billion • Retired Pay $70 billion • DoE nuclear weapons $17 billion • NASA (50%) $9 billion • International Security $9 billion • Homeland Secur. (military) $35 billion • State Dept. (partial) $6 billion • other military (non-DoD) $5 billion • “Global War on Terror” $200 billion [We added $162 billion to the last item to supplement the Budget’s grossly underestimated $38 billion in “allowances” to be spent in 2009 for the “War on Terror,” which includes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan]Past Military, $484 billion: • Veterans’ Benefits $94 billion • Interest on national debt (80%) created by military spending, $390 billionHuman Resources $789 billion: • Health/Human Services • Soc. Sec. Administration • Education Dept. • Food/Nutrition programs • Housing & Urban Dev. • Labor Dept. • other human resources.General Government $304 billion: • Interest on debt (20%) • Treasury • Government personnel • Justice Dept. • State Dept. • Homeland Security (15%) • International Affairs • NASA (50%) • Judicial • Legislative • other general govt.Physical Resources $117 billion: • Agriculture • Interior • Transportation • Homeland Security (15%) • HUD • Commerce • Energy (non-military) • Environmental Protection • Nat. Science Fdtn. • Army Corps Engineers Fed. Comm. Commission • other physical resources Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,650 billion MILITARY: 54% and $1,449 billion NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion http://prorev.com/2010/03/whats-really-in-healthcare-bill.htmlMARCH 19, 2010WHAT'S REALLY IN THE HEALTHCARE BILL?Sam SmithAs noted here before, the healthcare bill is a horrible mixture of the good and the bad. Because, in the end, it will improve healthcare for many people, it is probably best to pass it and deal with its problems later, but it still remains in large part a god awful measure. Here's a rundown on some of the good and the bad: HOW MANY ARE BEING HELPED?The Obamites brag about the bill providing new health care for 32 million people. This is misleading on several grounds:- Nine million of these, according to the CBO study, are presumed to be people moving to another form of health care - i.e. from their employer based insurance (4 million) or presently non-group insured (5 million) moving to exchanges. - Half of the improvement (16 million) would be due to improvements in Medicaid and CHIP. You don't need a 2000 page bill to do that. - Subtract the Medicaid and policy shifters from the calculation and you end up with only about seven million new people getting insurance. And this is not, for the most part, because the Democrats are providing it (although there will be tax credits to help some). A big reason will be a hidden tax known as the individual mandate. Thus Obama and the Democrats are claiming credit for giving people something when they are instead requiring them to do it with their own funds. This would be like claiming credit for increasing millions of people's incomes by reinstituting the draft. - In sum, about 16 million people are being substantially helped and about the same number are being manipulated into thinking they are getting more than they are. For example, private insurance costs can be expected to soar, but tax credits are unlikely to rise at the same rate.THE MANDATEThe individual mandate is unconstitutional. As constitutional attorney David Rivkin has explained, it goes far beyond the standard judicial excuse of regulating interstate commerce: "What's unique is the mandate [is] imposed on individuals merely because they live - not connected with any economic activity, not because they grow something, make something, compose something. Merely because they live. And this is absolutely unprecedented." Even when the government decided to ban drinking during Prohibition, it at least had the decency to pass a constitutional amendment. Although the Democrats and the media don't want to talk about it, it's worth noting that even the Congressional Research Service would only go as far as to say that Congress "may have" the power to impose mandates but also called it the "most challenging question" of the measure. If this provision is upheld in the courts, nothing would prevent the government from, for example, ordering people above a cetain BMI to buy memberships in private health clubs and to attend them at least three times a week. THE INDUSTRY SUBSIDYBy requiring new insurance from inefficient private providers instead of through a government program, the administration is subsidizing the insurance cabal by billions of dollars. Further, even though the public option provision fell far short of what it should have been, Obama's back room deal with the industry to knife it is one of the strongest reasons why he should not be encouraged to run again for president. THE STALLAn amazing number of provisions won't go into effect for four to nine years. One of the problems with this is that if, during this period, the GOP gains control of the Congress, there is nothing to stop them from stalling these programs further. In addition, the Democrats are playing an extraordinarily dangerous political game - taking immediate credit for things that may not happen for years to come. In fact, the first significant benefits to anyone will not occur for four years according to the CBO calculations. For example, not until 2014 would employers be banned from denying coverage or providing higher premiums for women or older people. What if our civil rights laws had been written that way, say, giving restaurants four more years to ban blacks?MEDICARE DRUG FUNDINGThe reconciliation bill includes additional Medicare drug funding, closing the so-called doughnut hole in coverage. NEW MEDICARE TAXBusiness Week: "Already in the Senate bill, a higher Medicare payroll tax will be assessed on individuals who make more than $200,000 a year or families with income of more than $250,000. The reconciliation bill includes an additional 3.8 percent Medicare tax on unearned income such as dividends on these high earners."EMPLOYER MANDATEBusiness Week: "Under the Senate bill, if an employer with more than 50 employees doesn't offer coverage and has just one employee who qualifies for a new tax credit, the company must pay a fee for every full-time employee on its roster. The reconciliation bill raises the penalty to $2,000 from $750, though it subtracts the first 30 employees from the calculation.ABORTION FUNDING Not currently addressed in the bill.THE MEDICARE-MEDICAID METAPHORThe liberal Center for Budget Policy & Priorities claims that "this legislation [will] produce the greatest gains in health coverage since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid 45 years ago." This is an insult to Medicare and Medicaid, which were, after all, public programs and not regulations. There is a huge difference between providing someone with something and ordering them to buy it. WHO NEEDS A CONSTITUTION IF THE BUDGET IS BALANCED?The legislation includes a flagrantly anti-constitutional provision, as described by the CBPP: The legislation would establish an Independent Payment Advisory Board to develop and submit proposals to slow the growth of Medicare and private health care spending and improve the quality of care. The President would nominate the board's 15 members, who would require Senate confirmation, for staggered six-year terms.If the projected growth in Medicare costs per beneficiary in 2015 and thereafter exceeded a specified target level which it almost certainly would do in many years the board would be required to produce a proposal to eliminate the difference. The board could not propose increases in Medicare premiums or cost-sharing or cuts in Medicare benefits or eligibility criteria; it would focus on proposals for savings in the payment and delivery of health care services.The board's recommendations would go into effect automatically unless both houses of Congress passed, and the President signed, legislation to modify or overturn them. If the board recommended changes that the President supported, the President could veto any congressional attempt to block them, and a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate would be required to override the veto.This provision is contemptuous of the basic concept of our constitutional government. CUTTING MEDICARE COSTSOne of the big sleepers in the bill is the plan to "institute efficiencies" in Medicare programs. In fact, Medicare is far more efficient than any private insurance plan in the country. Consider this snippet from CBPP: "The legislation would reduce annual payment updates to hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, hospices, ambulatory surgical centers, and certain other providers to account for improvements in economy-wide productivity. It would also reduce payments to home health agencies, skilled nursing facilities, and inpatient rehabilitation facilities." And just what will happen to service and its availability? Remember: one person's efficiency is another's lack of service. OTHER PROVISIONSCBPP - Within months, insurers that offer coverage of policyholders' children (including in existing plans) would be required to allow adult dependents younger than 26 to be added to such coverage. In addition, new insurance plans would be barred from excluding children's pre-existing conditions from coverage and would have to cover certain preventive services at no charge to enrollees. EXPANDED MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY Saving the best until last. As the CBPP puts it: "The plan would expand Medicaid up to 133 percent of the poverty line for all children and adults younger than 65 who are lawfully residing in the United States and not eligible for Medicare. This would mean that millions of low-income parents, as well non-disabled low-income adults who do not have dependent children (and who are generally ineligible for Medicaid today except in a small number of states with waivers), would become newly eligible for health coverage through Medicaid. Medicaid is the most cost-effective way to provide comprehensive and affordable coverage to people with very low incomes and thereby ensure that the low-income uninsured gain coverage. "IN SUMThe bill will provide about 16 million poor people with significantly better health care. It will force millions more to buy health insurance, softened by tax credits that will not keep up with rising policy costs. It will put some restrictions on the insurance companies in return for providing them a multi-billion dollar annual subsidy. It will declare the right of the government to order you to buy something whether you want it or not, and will it establish a budget commission with supra-constitutional powers. Both these provisions would be struck down by a rational Supreme Court (such as we haven't seen in some time) or the Constitutional shall have to be "deemed" substantially amended.3/19/2010 5 Comments: Anonymous said...This bill is poison. Like you said, all that really needs to be done is to expand medicare for those who can't afford health insurance. What we need is more education on this subject - something the corporate media absolutely refuses to do for obvious reasons. The other thing you didn't mention is the medical records provisions. This data will be used by everyone for everything imaginable. And it will be a method for further control and restriction of our freedoms. Can mandated vaccinations and "medication" for those who question the supreme authority of the government be far off?March 19, 2010 10:42 PM Fact sheet: the truth about the healthcare bill said...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/fact-sheet-the-truth-abou_b_506026.htmlMarch 20, 2010 9:19 AM Anonymous said...Et tu, Sam? FWIW, here's my letter to Dennis Kucinich: So how did they get to you, Mr. Kucinich? Did your opposition to Obama's gift to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries start to waver when Rahm Emanuel went to the House Progressive Caucus a month ago and called you and your colleagues "a bunch of fucking retards" for not seeing the benefits (more campaign money) of voting for the bill the health care lobby drafted? Maybe it was Mr. Obama's letting you ride on Air Force One. Is that plane really cool? Maybe you got a complimentary bag of (vegan certified, of course) pretzels. Maybe Mr. Obama offered to create your 'Department of Peace', making you its first Secretary. If that's the case, but sure and ask for an office with a window. Doing nothing all day gets pretty boring if you don't at least have a window to look out. In the press conference in which you announced your switching your vote you admitted that the bill is still a bad bill -- as you have been telling everyone for months. You rationalized your new support for the bill on the grounds that a defeat for Obama's health care bill would "delegitimize" Obama's presidency. In other words, you think Obama's presidency is legitimate and worthy of protection. That is an odd defense, coming from someone who sought to impeach Obama's predecessor, Bush, because he started a couple of illegal wars, violated the Geneva Convention, and pushed through the civil liberties disaster called the PATRIOT Act. In case you haven't noticed, Mr. Kucinich, the current president, the man whose 'legitimacy' you hope to preserve, is expanding Bush's illegal wars into Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and even Colombia. There has been no congressional authorization for these illegal acts, either. Obama has also pledged to give the military and intelligence services free reign when it comes to their treatment of 'detainees' (the Obama administration, consistent with the preceding administration, refuses to call prisoners taken in this war 'prisoners of war', because prisoners of war have rights under the Geneva Convention). AND (last but not least) Obama just pushed through a reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act (in addition to defending warrantless wiretapping of American citizens). In other words, Obama is doing all the same things that you thought warranted impeachment proceedings for Bush. But, when it comes to Obama, you throw away your integrity to defend him. How does it feel to have affirmed Rahm Emanuel's assessment of you? =====In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.