Posted by
Arik on Wednesday, September 02, 2009 11:07:28 PM
In order to better serve you, I have taken the bold step of attempting to slog through the House Version of the ObamaCare Bill currently
online at the House.gov website. Though I am about 1/15 of the way through the bill, it is quite a boring read, and frankly, I've probably read about 1/15 more of the bill than any of your elected representatives.
My opinion so far? A bad idea poorly executed. You may have read an email making the rounds supposedly by a doctor to Senator Evan Bayh (d-IN), and most of what he says is correct, to a point, at least as far as I've read so far. I have only found one outright misstatement, and, in all honesty, the language in that section of the bill is so poorly conceived that I could almost see how he came to his conclusion. Not that the rest of it is any better, but, then, what do you expect from a bunch of lawyers, Shakespeare?
I must warn you, I'm not a lawyer. However, I think this lends an authority to my opinion that it would otherwise lack. After all, if I can interpret the law in the way I do, then you can bet there will be an outhouse of lawyers that would interpret it the same way, and an outhouse that would argue for the exact opposite. (Is that the proper term for a group of lawyers? You know, flock of geese, school of fish, outhouse of lawyers?)
So, without further ado, here is my interpretation so far. I will reference the email when applicable, and give my own interpretations of things with the page numbers on the bill.
On page 16, Sec 102(a)(1), The grandfather clause appears to allow no new private policies on current plans to be written after the first effective day of the bill. Essentially, this means that if your employer has a healthcare package, no matter what it is, no new employees will be able to get onto it after the first day of the implementation. Any employees after that date will have to be given the new and improved, government approved healthcare package. In sec 102(a)(2), the bill tries to force your employer to scrap their old plan by allowing neither changes in coverage, nor changes in copay. This is not the "End of Private Insurance" that was trumpeted on the talk shows, just the end of any semblance of free market in what Private Insurance will cover.
Page 19, lines 1-6, is where the government tells your insurer that they (the government) knows what is best for you, and they will have to approve any new policies after the effective date.
The first page mentioned in the email is page 22, where the doctor says "Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self insure!!" This appears to be true, from my interpretation.
Page 24 sec. 115 has the whim of the Federal Government determining what is and isn't acceptable in terms of a provider network. More in a moment on what constitutes government whim.
On the same page, sec. 116, profits are capped by requiring insurers to pay a minimum percentage pf premiums back out in claims.
The email next references page 29, lines 4-16, where it claims that Healthcare is rationed. This is the one instance that I find the doctor off base, at least as far as I've read. It appears to me that this section is attempting to cap copays at a certain level. I think it says that, once you pay out a certain amount in copays and related costs, you don't have to pay any more out of pocket. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but this is what it appears to say to me.
Another reference in the e-mail is to page 30, where section 123 creates a government committee staffed solely by political appointees to determine what is and is not appropriate for your healthcare plan. Most of these committee members are appointed by the President, with just a few requiring any confirmation from Congress. This is where things can change from one administration to the next, or even day by day, depending on how the polls look at any given time. This committee is the first of the REALLY bad ideas in the bill, as opposed to the just plain pretty bad ideas and kind of bad ideas. Giving the government control of such a basic right as what healthcare you can seek, at the whim of a bunch of bureaucrats seems to me to be not such a good idea.
Page 39 is the laugh of the day: The bill attempts to define "Plain Language," and I'll be damned if, after reading as much as I have, I've been able to find any in this bill.
Page 41, Subtitle E, creates an entire new government bureaucracy, the "Health Choices Administration." Oh boy.
On page 42, the email says that "The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have no choice!" I didn't interpret it quite this way, but I see that it definitely could be read that way. The language here was so "un-plain" that it was a little hard to decipher.
On page 43, lines 19-24, we discover that, under this bill, our medical records become property of the federal government. And what could possibly go wrong with that?
Pages 44-45 give the Comissioner of the HCA, through the use of capricious regulation and enforcement, the power to destroy private insurers. "What!" you cry, "surely the government wouldn't be so injudicious as to destroy insurers just to accrue more power to themselves!" Why don't we ask our CIA agents what the Obama Administration is willing to do to make themselves more powerful, and insulate themselves from any possibility of outside oversight.
Page 50 section 152 is one of the more controversial ones, claiming that things not relevant to treatment will not be used to determine access to treatment. The doctor reads this to mean that healthcare will be provided to illegal aliens, and, though it is not explicitly stated as such, I agree. Any two-bit lawyer for an illegal immigrant would look at it and say the same thing. That the democRats say that it says no such thing simply shows that they are lawyers not worth two-bits.
Pages 58 and 59 set up government access to individual finances and accounts, though it's not clear whether it means doctors' accounts or patients', which, in government probably means both. These pages also set up a national healthcare database, as well as a national healthcare ID, which could be linked to deny services. Interesting that the democRats throw a fit when you suggest showing an ID to vote, but want to require it to see your doctor. Of course, showing an ID to vote would deny the voting rights of core democRat constituents: Illegal aliens, convicted felons, cartoon characters and repeat customers.
As far as I've gotten is page 62, lines8-11. This has another good laugh, but it's more a sinister mwa-ha-haaaa than an amusied chuckle. It says, and I quote, "Limitations on use of data - Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the use of information collected under this section in a manner that would adversely affect any individual." Yeah, right. Pretty much the entire bill to this point talks about how to adversely affect individuals. Yet they expect us to believe they'll stop when it comes to respecting our right to privacy? Please. It's hard to believe these are the same people who pitched such a fit over the PATRIOT Act. Of course, that was the reviled George W. Bush in charge. Now we have Saint Barry to save us.
Barf.
Anyway, I'll get back with more later, and maybe throw in some more goodies in between. Keep fighting the good fight!