PISA-Paper Industry Salvation Act of 2010

Obamacare: Paperwork You Can Believe In
by Deroy Murdock
05/17/2010

NEW YORK -- President Barack Obama promised Americans “health care reform.” So far, “health care form” is more like it.

ObamaCare is devolving into the Paper Industry Salvation Act of 2010. This new law spans 2,562 tree-killing pages. Far worse, it will force Americans to spend countless, irritating hours completing, transmitting, and filing endless reams of federal paperwork.

The scariest news for America’s forests may be a brand-new mandate that will compel each business — from General Electric to the neighborhood handyman — to file an IRS Form 1099 for every business on which it spends at least $600. Form 1099 today applies only to independent contractors, e.g. a graphic artist who earns $1,000 for designing a sales brochure. Come 2012, ObamaCare vastly will expand 1099s to sellers of goods as well as services, and not just the self-employed, but also businesses — large and small.

“This will create a two-fold whammy for small businesses,” predicts Rep. Dan Lungren (R – California) who is sponsoring legislation to repeal this provision. “They will have additional accounting costs that will consume time and money,” Lungren tells me. “They will be required to keep a running tab with every vendor, all the way from restaurants to anything they buy — a piece of equipment, an airline ticket, or a hotel room. And when they reach the $600 threshold, they will be required to file 1099s for each of those vendors.”

Read the rest here.

Happy Now?

20 Ways To Lose Your Freedoms

Here are the first five of the twenty ways ZeroCare will take your freedom.

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms
By David Hogberg

If some reports are to be believed, the Democrats will pass the Senate health care bill with some reconciliation changes later today. Thus, it is worthwhile to take a comprehensive look at the freedoms we will lose.

Of course, the bill is supposed to provide us with security. But it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care.

We may be about to live Benjamin Franklin's adage, "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee.

1. You are young and don't want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the "privilege." (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status?
Tough. You'll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That's because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person's health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you'd like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn't cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that's what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn't allow your employees' slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

The rest are here.

Get educated; get involved; get tough.

States Rights Legislation-Federal Healthcare Mandates

H/T Family Foundation

Lets keep them in shock. Thank you for standing up for the citizens of the Commonwealth.

Three Senate bills on a topic that has galvanized the Commonwealth and nation – a state’s sovereignty over federal intrusion into individuals’ health care – passed the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee today by the barest 8-7 votes. Democrat Senators Charles Colgan (D-29, Manassas) and Phillip Puckett (D-38, Tazewell) voted with a united Republican committee membership to shock committee liberals, including Majority Leader and committee chairman Dick Saslaw (D-35, Springfield).

These bills now go to the Senate floor and will be voted on in the next two days! Please contact your senator immediately and ask him or her to vote for SB 311, SB 417 and SB 283. If Senators Colgan or Puckett represent you, or if your senator voted for the bills in committee, please thank them. The bills are patroned by Senators Steve Martin (R-11, Chesterfield), Jill Vogel (R-27, Winchester) and Fred Quayle (R-13, Suffolk), respectively.

They Only Change the Rules When It Suits Them

They were planning on shoving it through anyway.

H/T FreeRepublic
From Gateway Pundit

Dems Announce Plans to Ram Through Obamacare with 51 Votes if Scott Brown Wins
Friday, January 15, 2010, 7:58 PM
Jim Hoft

Democrats tonight announced that they will likely ram Obamacare through the US Senate using the reconciliation process. This would allow democrats to nationalize one-sixth of the US economy wiith only 51 Senate Democrats voting for the bill.

Bloomberg reported: Even if Democrats lose the special election to pick a new Massachusetts senator Tuesday, Congress may still pass health-care overhaul through a process called reconciliation, a top House Democrat said.

That procedure requires 51 votes rather than the 60 needed to prevent Republicans from blocking votes on President Barack Obama’s top legislative priorities. That supermajority is at risk as the Massachusetts race has tightened.

“Even before Massachusetts and that race was on the radar screen, we prepared for the process of using reconciliation,” Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said.

Ya THINK!?!?!?

Dems brace for voter backlash on health

First up (or down) wil be ex-Marine Jim (I Don't Know Where My Gun Is) Webb.

Democratic leaders are girding for a political war over the health care overhaul heading in to this year's midterm elections, preparing strategies and raising funds to fend off attacks by Republicans eager to capitalize on voter discontent.

Analysts from both parties predict the sweeping impact of the proposed health care changes, which will affect every American, to be the overriding issue, with the strongest and most personal impact in 2010.

Democratic leaders acknowledged this week in last-minute party fundraising appeals that they expect Republicans to come out with both guns blazing in pursuit of major gains in the House and Senate.

"They will spend the next 11 months spinning our health care victory into a weapon and hitting us with it. We might have the momentum now, but we must show the GOP and the pundits that we can sustain it until the 2010 elections," said Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Heritage Morning Bell - Healthcare

The Six Key Issues the House Must Cave On Before Obamacare Becomes Law

President Barack Obama attempted to downplay differences between the House and Senate bills telling American Urban Radio Networks yesterday: “The Senate and the House bills are 95 percent identical. There’s five percent differences, and one of those differences is the public option. This is an area that has just become symbolic of a lot of ideological fights. As a practical matter, this is not the most important aspect to this bill.” We’ll let President Obama fight with his base abut how important a strong public option is to health reform, but a government run plan is just one of six key differences between the House and Senate bills:

Soak the Rich or Tax Everybody:
The Senate bill relies heavily on a new excise tax on high cost health plans: a 40 percent tax on plan exceeding $8,500 for an individual and $23,000 for a family. The AFL-CIO and SEIU both call this a tax on working families. The Senate bill also includes a new premium tax on all insurers and the CBO confirms that the cost of this tax will be passed on to all Americans with private insurance. The House bill depends on a heavy new income tax targeted at top-earning taxpayers and small businesses. The 5.4 percent tax on individuals with incomes above $500,000, and on families with incomes above $1 million, is structured in a way that over time more and more Americans will be hit by this tax and small business owners would be particularly affected.

Employer Mandate Penalties:
The Senate bill imposes a $750 penalty per worker on employers of 50 or more who are not covered by the federally approved package of health benefits. The Senate mandate has other strange consequences. If an employer offers coverage, but an employee is eligible by virtue of income to qualify for taxpayer subsidies and entry into the state-based health insurance exchange, the employer is also penalized. In other words, employers are penalized for hiring people at the poverty level, even if they offer health insurance. The House bill imposes a direct requirement on employers to offer federally-qualified health care coverage to their employees or pay a payroll tax on a sliding scale up to 8 percent. Both the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Businesses have come out against the bills.

Individual Mandate Penalties:
The Senate bill requires individuals to purchase a government approved plan or pay a $750 penalty, beginning in 2014. The tax penalty, indexed for inflation, would increase over time. The House bill requires individuals to pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of their income, depending on the size of their income, for not obtaining federally-approved health care coverage.

Weak or Strong Public Plan:
The Senate bill establishes a new set of “multi-state” private health plans sponsored by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) — the agency that administers the federal civil service — that would compete against private health plans in the state based exchanges that are mandated by the provision of the Senate bill. In contrast, the House bill includes an explicit public plan.

Medicaid Expansion:
The left may complain that there is no government-run option in either bill, but both the House and Senate bill accomplish over half their additional health insurance coverage through Medicaid expansion. The Senate bill would require states to expand their Medicaid programs to cover all Americans up to 133 percent Federal Poverty Level. The House bill would require states to expand their Medicaid programs to 150 percent FPL, the same level suggested in earlier versions of the Senate HELP Committee bill. Both Democrat and Republican Governors are against this state budget-busting welfare expansion.

Taxpayer Funded Abortion:
The President promised that there would be no federal funding for abortion. In the House bill, by virtue of the Stupak-Pitts amendment, there is a genuine firewall between federal funding and abortion coverage. In the Senate bill, by virtue of the agreement between Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE), there is no such firewall. For the “pro-life” forces on both sides of the aisle, the Nelson language appears to fall short of the House language.

These are all major policy differences that go to the core of the Obama health care plan. For each option, choosing one version over the other will have huge consequences for the American people. But since Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Ben Nelson (D-NE) have threatened to veto the bill if any significant changes are made by the House in conference, it is most likely the Senate will prevail on every issue. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) might even just save herself and the leftist majority in the House the embarrassment and pass the Senate bill as is.

After all, the Obama administration wants a bill, any bill, and doesn’t really care what is actually in it.

They're Allowed To Lie-They're democrats

And since we know that going in, we know how to act.

Family Research Council
Harry Reid's Shell Game

Speaker Nancy Pelosi's health care bill wasn't exactly popular in the House, but sources say it's even more disliked in the Senate. So much so that Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has scrapped the idea of using PelosiCare as the shell for his legislation. Instead of making H.R. 3962 his vehicle for debate, the Majority Leader will try to put some distance between his version of reform and Pelosi's.

Under the U.S. Constitution, tax and revenue-raising bills (like health care legislation) have to originate in the House. Fortunately for Sen. Reid, it doesn't specify which tax bill. To comply, the Majority Leader can take up a House-passed bill--any bill as long as it's a tax bill--gut the text and insert his own. Of course, that implies that Sen. Reid actually has health care language, which, as of this morning, he didn't. His plan is still being hatched in the leadership's top secret meetings.

In the meantime, a cluster of Democrats are making their intentions known on the bill's abortion ban. One of them is President Obama. The same man who said, "No one is pro-abortion," is proving to be the most rabid supporter of it in White House history. According to his staff, the President is so violently anti-life that he may be willing to kill his biggest domestic policy goal if it doesn't force Americans to pay for
the slaughter of innocent unborn children. If that's not "pro-abortion," then what is?

David Axelrod, the President's senior advisor, broke the news that the White House wants to break with more than 30 years of tradition and introduce taxpayer-funded abortion in health care. To do it, they'll have to strip the Stupak amendment which passed in the House with overwhelming support from both parties.

Today, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), the amendment's author, told FoxNews that the White House had better brace for a fight. "They're not going to take it out," Stupak said, "If they do, health care will not move forward"--a prediction that Sens.
Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) are prepared to back up.

"We won fair and square... That's why Mr. Axelrod's not a legislator. He doesn't really know what he's talking about... The majority has spoken. Most people agree--do not use public funds for abortion," Stupak said. "You're not going to summarily start dismissing amendments which the majority of the House of Representatives wanted because some person, David Axelrod or [whoever], doesn't like it."

BREAKING: On Monday, AMA delegates will vote to withdraw endorsement of House Health Care Bill.

From the Ladies down in Atlanta at Bury the Blue.

The House plans to vote on Pelosi's health care bill this Sunday - just 2 days away! Tonight AMA announced that they will vote on Monday to withdraw their endorsement of this outrageous bill. Because Monday will be too late to affect the House's vote, I STRONGLY encourage you to email the AMA and ask that they hold an EMERGENCY meeting to vote on reversing this endorsement ASAP!AMA

Contact Info: http://webapps.ama-assn.org/contactus/contactusMain.do;jsessionid=30054D46170E2D7BD247FC27037C0A4F

Stay Strong!
Tracy

Best Sign From Yesterday's House Call

Don't mess with the old folks.
H/T FreeRepublic.com

2200 Pages and Counting

That 1,990-page Democratic health care bill?
It's longer now; includes new government controls
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
11/05/09 9:17 AM EST

It's become common practice to refer to the House Democrats' national health care bill as being 1,990 pages long. That's true of the bill introduced last week by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But now Democrats have added a 42-page "manager's amendment" to the bill. Some of the new language in the amendment replaces material already in the bill, but there are enough new provisions to ensure that the bill is now more than 2,000 pages long. And there will likely be even more additions to the bill before the final debate.

What's more important is what is in the new amendment. Much of it reflects Democrats' concerns that their bill would cause an increase in health insurance premiums. Remember when the House leadership, the White House, and sympathetic media commentators everywhere attacked the insurance industry for predicting that the Democratic bill would cause premiums to go up? The manager's amendment is, in effect, the House Democrats' admission that it would do just that. Their answer: more government control. The new language sets up a process for the government to monitor "unjustified premium increases" and threaten insurance companies with exclusion from the government-run Health Insurance Exchange if they exhibit a "pattern of excessive or unjustified premium increases." The government, of course, will determine what is "excessive" or "unjustified."

Worst Bill Ever

Wall Street Journal -- The Worst Bill Ever

The Journal’s editorial page pours out its cup of fury on the almost-final version of the $1.06 trillion House health bill. The piece is useful because it gets to the central point of the moment in Washington – for 8 months of fairly sustained debate on health care, we’re pretty much back where we started.

For all of the presidential palaver and town halls, the Democratic plan is mostly the same (only longer) that it was when the process began.Just as we knew in the spring, the Senate will pass a less liberal bill than the House and then the president will try to make a compromise between the two chambers’ plans. The Journal gives four things for those who love America and capitalism to be frothed about in the Pelosi plan.

“Even so, the House disguises hundreds of billions of dollars in additional costs with budget gimmicks. It "pays for" about six years of program with a decade of revenue, with the heaviest costs concentrated in the second five years. The House also pretends Medicare payments to doctors will be cut by 21.5% next year and deeper after that, ‘saving’ about $250 billion. ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years; it will grow more after that.”

Lawyers: Can't Afford Them, Can't Kill Them

The original bill (HR-3200) which started the Townhall blow-backs in August was 1100 pages. We don't know how big the Senate version is, because they haven't written it yet. We now have Princess Nan's version, a whopping 1,900 pages. You do realize that the mindset of the House dhimmicrats is that the bigger they make it, the less likely it will be that anyone will read it?

Pelosi Health Care Bill Blows a Kiss to Trial Lawyers
by Capitol Confidential

The health care bill recently unveiled by Speaker Nancy Pelosi is over 1,900 pages for a reason. It is much easier to dispense goodies to favored interest groups if they are surrounded by a lot of legislative legalese.

For example, check out this juicy morsel to the trial lawyers (page 1431-1433 of the bill):

Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages.

So, you can’t try to seek alternatives to lawsuits if you’ve actually done something to implement alternatives to lawsuits. Brilliant! The trial lawyers must be very happy today!

While there is debate over the details, it is clear that medical malpractive lawsuits have some impact on driving health care costs higher. There are likely a number of procedures that are done simply as a defense against future possible litigation.

Recall this from the Washington Post:
“Lawmakers could save as much as $54 billion over the next decade by imposing an array of new limits on medical malpractice lawsuits, congressional budget analysts said today — a substantial sum that could help cover the cost of President Obama’s overhaul of the nation’s health system. New research shows that legal reforms would not only lower malpractice insurance premiums for medical providers, but would also spur providers to save money by ordering fewer tests and procedures aimed primarily at defending their decisions in court, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, wrote in a letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).”

Stay tuned. There are certainly many more terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad provisions in this massive bill.

NY-23 Is the "Tipping Point"

DCProtestWarrior:NY-23 Is the "Tipping Point"

Doug Hoffman is the beginning of the conservative movement's efforts to take Congress back to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. The "Republican" leadership in the House will be measured by how well they adapt to the new/old ideas of governing.
Its time for the conservatives in Congress to put a stop to the socialist ideas being pushed down the throats of American citizens. Its time to recognize that the Constitution tells Congress what they can and cannot do.

The Constitution is the Law.
Everything else is a regulation.

Not The First Time Zero Has Feigned Indignation

In Illinois, a Similar Fight Tested a Future President

From The DC Examiner via Chris Stirewalt

A story this bad needs to be read.

Writers Michael Shear and Ceci Connolly engage in a massive bait and switch as they take thousands of words to talk about how state Sen. Barack Obama dealt with the issue of health care as the proponent of the Illinois Health Care Justice Act in 2004, intended to expand coverage to the state’s uninsured.

Like a treatment for a political remake of Rocky, the story has Obama aiming high and then seeming almost defeated by impossible odds. The story reaches its crescendo as the gentleman from Cook County rises to accuse those who complain about a back door to socialized medicine are telling lies and attacking him personally.

Shear and Connolly get the vapors writing about how Obama’s bluster won back liberals who felt the senator was aiming for impossible consensus instead of just pushing through basic legislation on a party-line vote.

But the real story is that Obama got his bill passed by stripping it down to a nothing plan that created a non-binding commission to make recommendations to the state senate.

The plan for a highly-subsidized individual mandate, like the plans that have crushed Massachusetts and Maine, came forth, just as opponents predicted, and then nothing happened.

Shear and Connolly flick away the sell out and inaction by blaming Rod Blagojevich’s corruption, but the recommendation died because it was too expensive and impractical. It sat for all of 2007 and most of 2008 before Blago went down. But even before the blue ribbon commission had made its report, Obama had ridden off to Washington with health care under his belt.

Selling out and then thundering at wicked Republicans works if you have someplace else to go, but not as well if you have the top job. Even so, Obama may look to talk tough tonight and then kick the can on health care.

Don’t tell Shear and Connolly, though. They’re still thrilling to Obama’s 2004 attack on the GOP. But that s proof itself that a harangue can get the liberal juices flowing.

“Gathered in the chamber, under the bas-relief sculpture of Manifest Destiny, were the senators who would vote that evening. Watching from the gallery was Delgado, who had begun the quest with Obama 18 months earlier and pushed the bill through the House.

Obama was known as a cool -- some say detached -- politician, rarely prone to emotion. But lawmakers saw another side of him that evening. ‘He's non-nfrontational, non-antagonistic,’ Delgado said. ‘But when all of a sudden he lets it out like he did on that last day, people say, ‘‘Wow, he really cares about this.'’”

The Nameless Enemy of Healthcare/Health Insurance Reform

Obama shadow boxes with 'enemies' of health plan

You see this nameless line of attack from Obama and the Democrats every day.
It's called demagoguery.

For Obama, a nameless enemy is more useful because it allows people to imagine whatever "well-financed forces" they like as the enemy. It's visceral demagoguery.

Since Obama won't put a name on the enemies of reform, we need to do some detective work. A prime suspect "profiting from the status quo" would be the industry within the medical sector with the highest profit margins, namely the drug makers, which averaged 16.5 percent profit margins last quarter.

But the drug makers have been team players. The Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Researchers of America, the largest industry lobbying group in the country, is shelling out $12 million for pro-"reform" ads this summer and fall. Obama has bragged that "even the pharmaceutical industry" is on board.

Doctors? Nope. Obama said in Portsmouth, "We have the American Medical Association on board."

The obvious culprit remaining is the health insurance industry. Why, then, don't Obama or the DNC name the insurers, and their lobby, America's Health Insurance Plans, as the "well-financed forces" profiting from the status quo. Is the president just being polite?

More likely the president doesn't want to name the health insurers as enemies because the industry is lobbying for most of the Democrats' plans -- especially the
subsidies for private insurance and the proposed mandate that everybody buy insurance. The industry dissents on only one proposal: a government insurance
option.

Always Use The Conspiracy Card

The VRWC is back and plotting the destruction of a bill that would end private healthcare options for 10's of millions of Americans and give control of 20% of the nations economy to a central government run by un-elected, un-vetted militants with proven ties to Communist/Marxist organizations.

So says Zero on a talk-radio show. You think he might be a little paranoid, or just scared because the facts are available to all?

Washington Times has the story.

One More To the VA Congressional Delegation

I'm writing concerning the substance of H.R. 3200 bill. I do not want a form letter in response to my inquiry, what I want is a full accounting from you as to why you think this plan is in any way suitable for your constituents, our economy and the growing national deficit. There are items in the bill that are in direct contradiction to what is being promulgated by the Obama administration.

Specifically, I would like you to address the below points from H.R. 3200 as to why this is good for small business, families and the elderly.

1. Page 22 of H.R. 3200 mandates that the federal government will audit the books of all employers that self insure.
2. Page 30, Sec 123 of H.R. 3200 states that a federal government committee will decide what treatments/benefits will be given in place of the patient or provider.
3. Page 354, Sec 1177 of H.R. 3200 states that the federal government will restrict the enrollment of special needs patients.
4. Page 42 of H.R. 3200 states that the Health Choices Commissioner will choose individual health care benefits instead of individuals or their providers.
5. Page 50, Section 152, of H.R. 3200 states that health care will be provided to all non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise.
6. Page 58, of H.R. 3200 states that the federal government will have real-time access to individuals' finances and that a National ID health care card will be issued.
7. Page 59 of H.R. 3200, lines 21-24 state that the federal government will have access to individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer, and seizure of individual funds.
8. Page 72, lines 8-14 of H.R. 3200 state that the federal government is creating a health care exchange to bring all private health care plans under federal government control.
9. Page 84 of H.R. 3200, Sec 203 states that federal government mandates all benefit packages for private health care plans in the Exchange.
10. Page 95 of H.R. 3200, lines 8-18 states that the federal government will use groups i.e., ACORN and Americorps, to sign up individuals for federal government health care plan.
11. Page 124 of H.R. 3200, lines 24-25 state that no company can sue federal government on price fixing. There will be no "judicial review"against a federal government monopoly.
12. Page 127 of H.R. 3200, lines 1-16 state that the federal government will determine physician salary regardless of training and experience.
13. Page 145 of H.R. 3200, lines 15-17 state that all Employers must auto-enroll employees into public option plan.
14. Page 126 of H.R. 3200, lines 22-25 state that employers must pay for health care for part time employees and their families.
15. Page 149 of H.R. 3200, lines 16-24 state that any Employer with payroll $400k & above, who does not provide public option, pays an 8% tax on all payrolls.
16. Page 150 of H.R. 3200, lines 9-13 state that businesses with payroll between 25,000 and 400,000, who don't provide public option, must pay 2-6% tax on all payrolls.
17. Page 167 of H.R. 3200, lines 18-23 state that any individual who doesn't have acceptable health care according to the federal government will be taxed an additional 2.5% of income.
18. Page 195 of H.R. 3200 states that the officers and employees of the health care Admin will have access to all Americans' finances/personal records.
19. Page 203 of H.R. 3200, lines 14-15 state: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax."
20. Page 239, H.R. 3200, lines 14-24 state that the federal government WILL REDUCE PHYSICIAN SERVICES for Medicaid Seniors, and low income people.
21. Page 241 of H.R. 3200, lines 6-8 state that regardless of training or experience, all physician salaries will be determined by the federal government.
22. Page 425 of H.R. 3200, lines 4-12 state federal government mandates Advance Care Planning Consultations for the elderly.
23. Page 425 of H.R. 3200, lines 17-19, state that the federal government will mandate and instruct living wills, durable powers of attorney.
24. Page 426 lines 1-3 state that the federal government will provide an approved list of end of life resources, guiding patients in death.
25. Page 427 of H.R. 3200, lines 15-24 state that the federal government mandates program for orders for end of life. The federal government has a say in how patients' lives end.
26. Page 429 of H.R. 3200, lines 1-9 state that an "advance care planning consult" will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates.
27. Page 429 of H.R. 3200, lines 10-12 state that an "advance care consultation" may include an ORDER FOR END OF LIFE plans.
28. Page 429 of H.R. 3200, lines 13-25 state that the federal government will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.
29. Page 430 of H.R. 3200, lines 11-15 state that the federal government, not physicians or their patients, will decide what level of treatment willbe available at the end of life.
30.Will you support an amendment to this legislation requiring all senators and congressmen to enroll in the public option just like your constituents will be forced to do?

Yes or no.

I will take this opportunity to remind you that you were elected to represent your constituents and our best interests and not merely do the bidding of the democratic party. I am no right wing extremist, [I am Kenneth Gladney,] just a citizen with some legitimate questions and concerns about the pending legislation.

That being said, this bill looks like it is good for no one except the democratic party. There appear to be far less intrusive and oppressive free market reforms available that would meet the needs of the American public. If I am wrong, please explain to me in the detail listed above why this is good for my family. I would be pleased to travel to your office in Washington DC to meet with your staff for sufficient answers if you would rather explain them to me in person. Your support for irresponsible, immoral and intrusive legislation such as this will forfeit any confidence I have in you as my representative and I will gladly campaign, donate money, and organize for any democrat or republican likely to unseat you in the next election. Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.

I Guess This Clears Things Up

Soros Gives $5M to Liberal Healthcare Group
Monday, August 10, 2009 10:54 PM

Billionaire [marxist sugar daddy] George Soros is weighing in on the U.S. healthcare battle, pledging $5 million to a coalition of left-wing groups seeking the so-called “public option” — socialized medicine.

But activists are disappointed that the group Soros quietly contributed to — Health Care For America Now, the leading coalition of pro-reform groups, unions and providers — hasn’t been nearly as aggressive in pushing Democrats toward the public option.

“The Soros pledge is noteworthy, because both sides will seize on it,” reports The Plum Line blog. “The right will say it shows the real astroturfing is coming from the pro-reform side — billionaire bogeyman Soros is bankrolling this fight!

“The left will cite the donation to demand that HCAN show real results,” the blog continued. “Some on the left, such as blogger Jane Hamsher, have been asking why heavily bankrolled HCAN hasn’t been able to secure more commitments from Dem members of Congress to stand firm behind a public option.”

Maybe because half of America is standing up and telling them HELL NO!!!!!!!!
But what do I know, I'm just an ignorant peasant.

Say Goodbye to Your Employer Healthcare Benefits

The longer they talk, the more likely it is some of the truth will come out.

Dems confess hopes to eliminate private healthcare

Yet another liberal lawmaker on Capitol Hill has acknowledged that the public option healthcare proposal being promoted by President Obama and Democrats on Capitol Hill is a "Trojan horse" for a single-payer socialized healthcare system.

Earlier this summer, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) told CNSNews.com that he agrees with President Obama that a single-payer healthcare system has worked well in some countries. Congressman Frank reportedly cited Scandinavia as an example. Frank was confronted at the National Press Club last week by the group Single Payer Action, which asked him why a single-payer system was off the table. "Apparently because we don't have the votes. I wish it weren't. I'm all for it. I'm a big sponsor," he admitted. Frank is referring to his support for H.R. 676, The United States National Health Care Act, which has 85 congressional co-sponsors. He says trying to push a single-payer bill through Congress before getting a public option approved would be "suicidal."