Congressman Henry Waxman clarifies it.
In this stunning YouTube video he explains how under ObamaCare the government would have the power to "suspend" the enrollment of any American in any health care plan, that is, kick you off your plan. With the help of an aide, he begins reading from the 2,074-page bill;
"The remedies described in the paragraph with respect to a qualified health benefit plan, they [federal officials] can levy civil money penalties, or can suspend the enrollment of individuals under such a plan after the date the commissioner notifies the entity of the determination under paragraph 1 that the plan does not qualify."
If federal officials determine your health plan does not qualify, you will be disenrolled, that is, kicked off. In government-speak "remedies" means punishment, and "suspend" means cancel.
Watch it here. Tell us again, President Obama, how you guarantee that I will be able to keep my current health care coverage. Oh, you left out one little word - NOT.
Thanks to Paul Guppy at Washington Policy Center
Posted by Ron Hebron at December 05, 2009 08:03 AM | Email ThisAs I sat on the bed in the spacious and well-equipped ER facilities, I thought about how if it had been a Canadian hospital, the experience would have been far different--long waits, inadequate faciliites, overly-rushed and overworked staff, etc.
I felt gratitude for my experience, and how efficient everything was. Then I felt a bit of anger at the thought that Obow-ma and his leftwing democrat henchman have already declared that this "Health Deform" is really just a trojan horse to the nightmare of Single-Payer. Under single-payer, my experience would have been far different, as mentioned.
We should never, ever go to Single Payer. And we should thus not let these fascists put us on the road to Single Payer, as they are trying to do right now.
Obamacare is evil. Merely an attempt to control people, while stripping them of competent, efficient medical care.
One of the tell-tale signs of what's to come is how they are now dictating when women can get mammograms. the governement is legislating this. They don't legislate it currently. So why would they have to legislate this? Watch out, people---this is how it would become, should Single-payer happen; what is unnecessary and in the way right now would start to become bureaucratic and messy. Don't go there!
Posted by: Michele on December 5, 2009 09:31 AM
So as Health-care consumer how did they compete for your business? As a informed conservative who takes charge of her health-care choices what did Overlake, Group Health and number of Urgent care facilities offer as an incentive for your business? Were they more expensive or did you not like the selection of magazines in the waiting area.
And of course since Evergreen had that nice note (at the bottom thanking me for choosing Evergreen for my needs), I am sure they gave you a fully itemized bill. This was probably entirely reasonable as well as you negotiated the cost beforehand. Bet you beat them down on the cost of pain-killer prescription too.
Did they also say "have a nice day" when you left also, that always makes me feel better.
It's interesting that you took this approach. You chose the most expensive way possible to treat your "relatively minor" injury, something we accuse the illegals and non-insured of all the time. Next time call an ambulance or even a stretched limo, go all out.
Posted by: ExPatBrit on December 5, 2009 12:45 PMTRue that health care in America (currently the best in the world) costs more than it does in the UK, but you get what you pay for..
Posted by: KDS on December 5, 2009 06:44 PMAfter deciding what factors in an ER were important to me, I called Overlake first and then later determined that Evergreen would be a better choice for me that night. My experience proved that my evaluation of who would better serve me with my particular needs was correct. So, yes, they did compete for my business, ExPat. I made a very deliberate choice based on factors that were most important to me.
I arrived at 1:30 am where there was no waiting and was cheerfully greeted and helped in entirety in about one hour. Even though I didn't get to go to bed until 4:00 am, I was grateful that I was no longer in searing pain and could actually sleep. What a blessing, something that sounds so simple and seemed so impossible just a few hours before.
I would not trade the quality of care we have here in the U.S. for anything. In Canada, I don't think they even know what "no-waiting-in-the-ER" even means. They also lack as a country adequate medical facilities and equipment---which is why they have to farm out numerous patients each year to the U.S. and people wait months for what you can get here in days or weeks, or even less.
If we pay more for medical care here, it is guaranteed because we get better care. This is a case where you DO get what you pay for.
Posted by: Michele on December 5, 2009 09:18 PMPity it wasn't addressed when Republicans were in control.
Should have fixed this then, no???
I left the UK a long time ago and didn't mention that country in my post.
Not to get sidetracked.
It's certainly good that your experience at that "tax payer provided facility" was pleasant.
You proclaimed that Evergreen "competed for your business", how exactly did they do that?
Posted by: ExpatBrit on December 6, 2009 06:35 AMYou see Michele, the Evergreen Hospital Medical Center was conceived and funded
by people who were more concerned about community health care and service than they were about fantastic delusions of SOCIALISM!!.
Weren't you lucky that when you were in pain and in worry about losing function of your hand that the hospital you praise so highly was not derailed from being built and funded by people like you?
Michele???
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 6, 2009 07:32 AM"After deciding what factors in an ER were important to me, I called Overlake first and then later determined that Evergreen would be a better choice for me"
So, when you had the option to compare and choose a facility for your care, you evaluated Overlake, a privately run facility, and Evergreen, a publicly run, community owned, tax payer funded facility, and chose the later. And you are effusive about the service you got at the publicly run, community owned, tax payer funded facility, Evergreen.
It therefore follows that public=bad, private=better.
Michele???
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 6, 2009 10:11 AMWhy bother to post at all then? We all could pick a name, login then post nothing.
It would surely save some time.
Talk about jumping to conclusions, but if it makes you happy knock yourself out.
I did not say anything about the NHS to Michelle in my post, the subject of my post was how did they compete?
I am interested in this because I believe a true free market does not exist in Healthcare in this country.
Posted by: ExPatBrit on December 6, 2009 12:13 PMGovernmental control of our health care system is a big step toward socialism, and a big step away from capitalism. Unsustainable is just another word and when Government Health Care becomes unsustainable, rationing will occur.
So mbs, mike and dk - you know all of this yet you still push for a more socialist economy. Besides being skilled at slinging insults and lies, you are the epitomy of political hacks.
If god forbid another unfortunate accident occurs, she only has to ask how the facility is funded before making that important decision.
Put it down as our good deed for the day, and Michelle that infinitesimal fraction of a cent that I contributed to your well being via taxes. Don't thank me.
You're welcome.
Posted by: ExPatBrit on December 6, 2009 12:35 PM"Besides being skilled at slinging insults and lies, you are the epitomy [sic] of political hacks."
Shall you point out a specific lie in my comments on this post?
Or can we just scream
ACORN! MARXISM!! Also too, SOCIALIST!!
If a public option is so terrible, why does Michele support it? And rave about the service provided by the publicly owned and operated Evergreen Hospital system?
Have you ever been cared for in a hospital? Which?
What's the closest hospital to your place?
The government already has that power if a plan does not comply with the law. I'm guessing that the bill Waxman was reading would increase the requirements to comply. Good. Your post is based on the paranoid idea that government is out to screw us and will use every power it has toward that end. I'm sorry you feel that way.
Posted by: Bruce on December 6, 2009 02:16 PMLiar. Michele doesn't support the public option. Go back and read @3 Michele. We can see that you have run out of arguments. Why do Liberal Progressives (phonies from the get go) have such a hard time telling the truth ?
"Your post is based on the paranoid idea that government is out to screw us "
That's hard to deny as being the end result. Special interests often run opposite of the will of the people - as they focus on protecting fragmented minorities. The politicians comply with special interests because money talks. Constituents do not compete well with the $ from special interests.
"and will use every power it has toward that end."
Looks like they are following that script with Obamalosi-Reid care when only 38% approve and 54% of the public are against it.
Posted by: KDS on December 6, 2009 04:11 PM"Liar. Michele doesn't support the public option. Go back and read @3 Michele."
Go back and read Michele on December 5, 2009 09:18 PM @8. She evaluated her option for an ER to treat her painful and functionally at risk hand as the privately run Overlake and the publicly run, community owned, tax payer funded - Evergreen.
That is a public option. That is the option she chose.
Michele did rave about Evergreen Hospital and the care she got at a publicly run, community owned, tax payer funded hospital.
"We should never, ever go to Single Payer. And we should thus not let these fascists put us on the road to Single Payer, as they are trying to do right now.
Obamacare is evil. Merely an attempt to control people, while stripping them of competent, efficient medical care."
She is more clear in #3 than #8. Michele - tell mike bs again what you meant.
Posted by: KDS on December 6, 2009 06:48 PMI've distorted nothing.
There is no single payer proposal on the table.
Michele chose the option to compare ER-s to treat her painful and functionally at risk hand as the privately run Overlake and the publicly run, community owned, tax payer funded - Evergreen.
That is a public option. That is the option she chose.
Michele did rave about Evergreen Hospital and the care she got at a publicly run, community owned, tax payer funded hospital.
When given the opportunity to actually exercise or not exercise a public option, Michele did choose to have a public option in her health care.
Michele obviously supports a public option, and preferred publicly administered health care.
Sure, you keep the faith KDS.
In the meantime, why don't you contact her and start the teabagging bandwagon to shut down the publicly run, community owned, tax payer funded Evergreen Hospital Medical Center?
No, I didn't think so.
As I said in the last post; Liar, until proven otherwise by Michele. Posted by KDS at December 6, 2009 07:49 PM
Posted by: KDS on December 6, 2009 08:36 PM"Let the rest of the folks weigh in this topic."
Sure, cuz if enough people tell us Evergreen Hospital Medical Center is not a publicly run, community owned, tax payer funded health care facility, that changes everything!!
Also, I sent an e-mail to Senator Cantwell saying this. I recieved an e-mail back thanking me for supporting goverment health care. This is just stupid. I think everyone can agree that is just dumb to send an e-mail of thankd for your support when you are against something.
Posted by: Mathew "RennDawg" Renner on December 6, 2009 09:46 PMYou do know that prison has "goverment [sic] health care", and that in prison the "goverment [sic]" is going to force you to do lots of things, no???
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 6, 2009 09:56 PMLook, either you're for the plan to require plans to have minimum amounts of coverage or you're not. Most folks find that uncontroversial, including most of the GOP in Congress. It's one of those things that'd be the baseline in any bipartisan health bill. But instead of debating the merits of this honestly, we have to scaremonger people with threats of the government ripping insurance away from you. The practical effect is that insurance companies will follow the guidelines so they don't lose their entire market.
You know, if you ever lost insurance due to this, you can freely acquire any other insurance as you otherwise would. Except now you don't have to worry about high premiums because you're sick or denial of care because of pre-existing conditions.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 6, 2009 11:55 PMThis is damn maddening. How many times must we scream that tobacco revenues will never be what the state tells us they'll be before people get it? And the state *knows* it's never going to be what they claim.
So, we now have government health care rationing in California. The statists will argue that private insurance does it too, to which I answer, so what? If that's bad, why do you want to the monopoly of the State doing it? Why do you want to turn it all over to the State and then have rationing for which there is no alternatives, ever?
Posted by: Gary on December 7, 2009 06:32 AMAny hospital in the U.S. has to compete with other hospitals. In countries where they don't have to compete, things can be quite different.
And lets not forget that Evergreen doesn't just have revenue from local community and the government. I seem to remember a huge wall of names of rich people who had given the hospital big chunks of money of the years. (Yes, that's right capitalists - probably millionaires and maybe even white.) There won't be many more of those as Obama and his friends nationalize the economy.
Posted by: johnny on December 7, 2009 06:32 AM"This argument of MikeBoyscouts [sic] is pretty silly."
Silly?
Do you mean silly like railing and ranting against public health care then choosing it and praising it?
Or do you mean silly like railing and ranting against public health care but not having a clue about the benefits that publicly run, community owned, tax payer funded health care has brought to your community for over 30 years?
Never mind, silly on all counts.
What happens in a hospital in competition with others and that is the recipient of many big donations doesn't have a lot of comparison with the kind of things you see at hospitals in true government run systems.
You're trying to compare apples to oranges to make a point, and it's pretty strained. (Yes, even silly.)
It's also a pretty dedicated attempt on your part to deflect conversations from the true subject of this master posting, which is that under this plan your government can shut down your healthcare plan.
Posted by: johnny on December 8, 2009 08:52 AM"you're trying to set up this hospital as an example of what would happen to hospitals if they were federally run under Obamacare."
Check again. Did I ever claim that Evergreen Hospital Medical Center, a publicly run, community owned, tax payer funded health care facility is or would be run federally? Nope.
In the many bills and proposals being discussed in the US House or US Senate, are there any that talk about converting to federally run hospitals? Nope.
What I discussed was a public option. You know, the one Michele chose, and raved about.
Michele at December 5, 2009 09:18 PM:
"After deciding what factors in an ER were important to me, I called Overlake first and then later determined that Evergreen would be a better choice for me...I made a very deliberate choice based on factors that were most important to me....I would not trade the quality of care we have here in the U.S. for anything. ... it is guaranteed because we get better care. This is a case where you DO get what you pay for."
And as we all know, taxpayers paid for Michele to have the option of Evergreen Hospital Medical Center, a publicly run, community owned, tax payer funded health care facility.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 8, 2009 10:42 AM"First, show us documented proof of the percentage funded by taxpayers pay for health care at Evergreen Hospital"
No. Do your own research.
Oh, never mind, you don't know how.
CBO: 10 million will lose employer health coverage under Senate plan.
I wonder if John "the Spinmeister" Jensen will dare show his face in this thread again, and tell us that no one will lose their health benefits, that it's all a lie, especially that his chosen golden-reference - the CBO - says that 10 MILLION will lose their insurance choices...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 8, 2009 12:25 PM"No. Do your own research"
Not my problem - you made the claim. We're still waiting.
I know its tedious to get the info. It would take obtaining financial statements from Michele's health insurance plan providers and confirming with Evergreen Hospital then understand the balance sheet, then do the math.
Posted by: KDS on December 8, 2009 02:45 PMFrom their own article: The CBO found that by 2019, 157 million people would have their insurance provided through an employer, about 5 million fewer than current law.
So, no, half the number you assert. Also, the article said the data was released "last night." It was released on November 18th.
Of course, all of those 5 million individuals will still have insurance they purchase through the exchange. Those five million people will have higher wages relative to current law, since their employers will not be paying for expensive insurance. Most of these employers, according to the CBO, are small businesses who could stand to escape the burden of health care costs. And Republicans have long argued for more individual purchasing of insurance -- and, indeed, that is a good idea. Combine that policy with tax credits for those who need assistance buying insurance, and you've got a framework so people don't need to rely on their job for insurance. I wish the number were higher, to be honest.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 8, 2009 03:18 PMThe CBO says otherwise; twist it how you want, but the fact is that millions will forced out of their current coverage. So much for keeping what you have... Which is exactly what you and your Obamassiah promised would not happen.
So much for your claims, John...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 8, 2009 04:31 PM"I know its tedious to get the info. It would take obtaining financial statements from Michele's health insurance plan providers and confirming with Evergreen Hospital then understand the balance sheet, then do the math."
No, it is not tedious. As I stated @44, you don't know how. How do I know this?
The financial statements of Evergreen Hospital Medical Center, a publicly run, community owned, tax payer funded health care facility, are posted on the link I provided you.
Nobody needs any info from any insurance plan,
but of course you wouldn't be able to figure that out for yourself; see above.
"Nobody needs any info from any insurance plan,
but of course you wouldn't be able to figure that out for yourself; see above."
This is for ER only, not her health insurance plan - that is why I kept asking her which insurance plan she has. Pay attention next time.
I don't have any more time for this garbage.
"This is for ER only"
Oh, you "only" want to talk about the Evergreen ER that was built entirely with tax payer funding?
The completely tax payer funded Evergreen ER was something Michele told us about @3 "As I sat on the bed in the spacious and well-equipped ER facilities".
How did you vote on the bond issue?
Did you oppose it?
So much for your claims, John...
The CBO does not say "otherwise." I wrote a post cited the original source of the article. The headline is completely wrong. The article itself says 5 million, not 10 million. Clearly you're more interested in attacking me personally than finding out the truth.
I wish the number was 167 million and not 5 million. But it's five million. Look at the CBO data yourself.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 9, 2009 12:01 PMYou're being dense and dishonest. This also explains it. Ten million will most likely lose their current coverage, but another 5 million will gain some. Meaning 10 million still get involuntarily shuffled off their plan.
Yes, John, the FACT is that your beloved CBO even says that TEN MILLION will get kicked off their current plans. That's the fact.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 9, 2009 05:34 PMno?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 10, 2009 11:45 AMGreat - give me $10,000 and I'll give it to someone else. Hey, it's a wash, no net change, that doesn't impact you at all, does it?
Get it now? No, probably not, because it's not what you want to hear.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 10, 2009 04:13 PMWhat next? Accepting fees for participation on 'Death Panels'???
Are these the acts of clueless commentators or the actions of fellow traveler moles?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 11, 2009 12:17 PM