"The problem here is a totalitarian uniformity, a cult-like mentality such that even allies are enemies if they fail to follow the Exact Party Line. " - Phyllis Chesler

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Health Care Quiz/Questions

I'm lifting this from Townhall.com. It's so perfect and I want you to see it. Then please go visit them and read their other articles and show them some bloggy love.


Dear Mr. Obama (info@barackobama.com):

I’m sick right now with a bad case of poison ivy. I’m not telling you this because I want the government’s help. I’m telling you I’m sick because it explains why I have been sitting at home for days and, therefore, have had time to read the first 500 pages of the new health care bill.

I had no intention of reading the health care bill until a friend of mine – in his second year of medical school – sent me a list of statements about the bill. These statements have been floating around the internet so you may have seen them. After I read the bill, I concluded that the majority of the statements seemed correct. I’ve rephrased many of these statements and put them in the form of several dozen true/false statements.

I would like for you to take the time to answer these questions for two reasons. First, I’ve spent a lot of time reading the health care bill. Second, and more importantly, the U.S. Congress has not spent much time reading the bill.

On Page 22, I saw some language, which suggested that the bill mandates audits of all employers that choose to self-insure. Can you tell me whether that is a) True or b) False?

On Page 29, I saw what appeared to be an admission that health care will be rationed under this new plan. Can you tell me whether that is a) True or b) False?

On Page 30, I discovered that a government committee will be established to decide what treatments and benefits I get. However, unlike an insurer, I see no evidence that there will be a process to appeal their decisions. Can you tell me whether that is a) True or b) False?

On Page 50, I read some non-discrimination language, which seems to suggest that all non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services. Can you tell me whether that is a) True or b) False?

On Page 59, I saw some language suggesting that the federal government will have access to all individual bank accounts for health-related electronic funds transfers. Can you tell me whether that is a) True or b) False?

On Page 124, I learned that no private company can sue the government for price-fixing. Furthermore, no "judicial review" is permitted against a complete government monopoly. Can you tell me whether that is a) True or b) False?

On Page 127, I read that the government will now set wages for physicians. Can you tell me whether that is a) True or b) False?

On Page 149, couched in esoteric “contribution” language, it looks like any employer with a payroll of $400,000 or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll as a penalty. This penalty would go a long way towards destroying the private system. It would also seem to violate your campaign promises – specifically those you made during debates I watched. If I read this correctly, it appears you looked me – via the camera – in the eye and lied. So, Barry, can you tell me whether that is a) True or b) False?

On Page 203, I read a very strange sentence: "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." I know this is supposed to be a true/false test but do you think calling a “tax” by some other name means it is no longer a tax? This seems to be a persistent theme in this bill. Please explain. Attach extra sheets of paper if necessary.

Page 272 has some of the most esoteric language of the health care bill. But it looks like the government plans to ration health care for cancer patients. Can you tell me whether that is a) True or b) False?

On Page 280, I read that hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems to be “preventable re-admissions.” Once again, I know this is supposed to be a true/false test but, please, tell me this: How is the government in a better position (than a health care professional) to determine what constitutes a “preventable re-admission?”

Page 317 suggests that doctors will soon be prohibited from owning and investing in health care companies. Can you tell me whether that is a) True or b) False?

The following page suggests that hospitals can no longer expand without government approval. Can you tell me whether that is a) True or b) False?

On Page 429 things get very disturbing unless, of course, I am reading this wrong. It appears that an advance care planning consultation will be used to dictate treatment as a patient's health deteriorates. This can include an order for end-of-life plans – specifically, an order from the government. Can you tell me whether that is a) True or b) False?

It really bothers me, Mr. President, that I can learn a lot more about pending legislation from an internet chat room than I can from my elected representatives. It also bothers me that I have to read pending bills because, in all likelihood, my representatives will not. Regardless, I want you to read this email carefully and answer all of my questions.

If you answer “true” – even to a single question - you will have lost any prospect of gaining my support. If you answer “false” to every question we can move on to pages 500 through1018.

12 comments:

Mum-me said...

Good greif, what is going on in your country?

This can include an order for end-of-life plans – specifically, an order from the government.

How can any democratic leader suggest such a thing?

Mike said...

Well, Obama WILL change things, Right?

Lauren said...

@mum-me - I think the same thing every day. I also think about you and if I'd have a place to literally escape if I needed it.

@mike - he already has and for the worse, evasive and radical TOTAL ALINSKY.

Perplexio said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lauren said...

Darrin, yes yes we all know how smart you are my dear. Seriously, why are you here asking questions that aren't related to the post? I let your last comment up even though it was clearly to drive my traffic to your site. But I'm not playing this game with you anymore Darrin. Since i'm a single gal which I've never hidden, and your wife doesn't like you having a friendship with me - I'm perlexed myself that you've popped by after all this time and especially since it's barely 6 weeks post partum that your wife had her stomach ripped open by the butchers who love to cut and here you are posting comments. I'm happy to have you around if it's not to show me up, purposely drive traffic to your site or your favorites etc...Because that is what Vampires do, they suck the life out of someone else for their own sake, so please don't come here to lift what i've made for your own life. Go enjoy your wife and new baby and come here if it's to join in not show me or anyone else up.

Perplexio said...

I'm not here to show anyone up and apologize if my presence here has created that impression.

Perplexio said...

PS: I asked about Michael Medved because you mentioned this post was taken from townhall.com-- Medved frequently advertises and contributes to that site and shares many of your views.

Lauren said...

@Darrin, it's not your presence, but the presentation and timing that makes me feel uneasy and suspect. Things my readers wouldn't understand but I know you will. You are very smart. I've ALWAYS thought that of you. And you are welcome here any time, but please be more clear when you post so as not to cause more hurt, ok?

Perplexio said...

I'm not trying to cause hurt. I've only actually mentioned my blog in comments once and it was as it pertained to your post about the whitehouse.gov request to report "disinformation" to them.

The other blog I mentioned was not mine but of someone who I've found to be far more articulate than I in expressing the core principles of conservatism (The Rational Capitalist). I've only started reading that blog recently myself but many of the postings there mirror much of what you're saying. His approach is different but in the end the message is quite the same as yours.

You're far more political on here than when our paths last crossed. It's refreshing to read the views of a conservative Jewish woman (as Hollywood and the mainstream media tend to portray a majority of Jewish people to be far more liberal).

I share the links to other conservative sites not to show you up but because I thought you might also find them interesting given the somewhat more vocal political nature of your blog of late.

Lauren said...

Darrin, I'll try this ONE more time. It's the timing and the way you state things that give the perception I called out. Whether or not my topics have changed or not, blogging is about the relationships we build and when my topics were more of a dating nature, and they will be again and intertwined or be they political should not matter, but they did and I won't go into that here with you publically. You have my email if you must, do it there. Be honest, genuine and explain yourself better here please and you'll be welcome. That's all...no more comments here from you or me on this!

BetteJo said...

Um . . . about the post? EXCELLENT!!

Mum-me said...

Hey, come and escape to Australia any time. Good luck with immigration, though. Our immigration officials would probably not accept you as you are not a terrorist, drug dealer, pedophile or member of some violent mafia-type gang. Yep, we only accept the best.