Customer Discussions > Barack Obama forum

obama health care bill, page # What it covers or does not cover


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 26 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jun 18, 2011 10:23:05 PM PDT
G. Petersen says:
111TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 3200

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3200ih/pdf/BILLS-111hr3200ih.pdf

Obama Care

THE CARE BILL HB 3200/111TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 3200

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3200ih/pdf/BILLS-111hr3200ih.pdf

If you have trouble locating the section on the page number just do a control F and type in the word you are looking for.

At age 76 when you most need it, you are not eligible for cancer treatment

What Nancy Pelosi didn't want us to know until after the healthcare bill was passed. Remember she said, "pass it and then read it!!." Here it is!

______________________________
Obama Care

THE CARE BILL HB 3200

JUDGE KITHIL IS THE 2ND OFFICIAL WHO HAS OUTLINED THESE PARTS OF THE CARE BILL.
Judge Kithil of Marble Falls, TX - highlighted the most egregious pages of HB3200

Please read this........ especially the reference to pages 58 & 59

THE CARE BILL HB 3200
JUDGE KITHIL wrote:

** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.

** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.

** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).

** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)

** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.

** Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age.

** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.

** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counseling..)

** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.
HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on to identify:

"Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick 'fix' to make the plan financially sound for their future."

Honorable David Kithil of Marble Falls, Texas

Posted on Jun 19, 2011 11:24:45 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 19, 2011 4:16:54 PM PDT
Lientje says:
You didn't read any of the segments you have listed here, did you Garland? Yes or no? Did you read
them before you posted them? If I hear no response from you I am going to assume that it is no, and
that at least will save you from being one of the most gullible posters on Amazon forums.

I could essentially refute everything up there either because it has been woefully mis-interpreted (or
there are actual lies going on here) or it is nothing that we do not have already now. Within the last
two weeks I heard a doctor say that he makes life and death decisions all the time. He is an oncologist.
He has spent his life saying when to say no to more treatment. Recognize that or be horrified by that,
but it is the truth, and it is in every hospital.

I would suggest that just out of a labor of love, or in defense of your post, you might point out where
HB3200 forbids cancer treatment to anyone over the age of 76. That is the one I specifically went over.
Find it, Garland, or I will consider you a fraud and a liar.

Meanwhile, take a message that I got in church just this morning. We must treat ALL people as God's
children. That includes felons, gays, Democrats, the elderly, even Mormons and Catholics. Do you think
that your brand of politics does that?

Posted on Jun 20, 2011 10:33:26 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Aug 18, 2012 1:31:37 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 22, 2011 5:55:41 PM PDT
G. Petersen says:
THE CARE BILL HB 3200
JUDGE KITHIL wrote:

** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.

** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.

** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).

** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)

** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.

** Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age.

** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.

** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counseling..)

** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.
HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on to identify:

"Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick 'fix' to make the plan financially sound for their future."

Posted on Jun 23, 2011 4:40:10 PM PDT
Lientje says:
Is it supposed to be "proof" when you state the same thing twice? I did see that you left out the "no
treatment for cancer after age 76," idiocy. Smart move.

Now let's discuss another one. The electronic transfer. You do realize, don't you, that the electronic
transfer can take place only after they have permission to use it.

The government subsidization for Unions is an absolutely ridiculous statement.

end of life planning sessions are absolutely not mandatory. They are available, that is all.

Again - lies. They are lies because you do not bother to check anything out and you pass them along as
gospel.

Posted on Jun 23, 2011 4:41:11 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jun 23, 2011 4:41:21 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2011 2:57:59 AM PDT
M. Gaudet says:
Dude where on the bill is it called ObamaCare even i know that it is only called that by opponents and now is popular slang for the bill.

Posted on Jun 24, 2011 3:01:55 AM PDT
M. Gaudet says:
An end of life order is murder, i hope the judge is misreading the bill if not something stinks in Washington USA District of Columbia.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2011 7:50:54 AM PDT
G. Petersen says:
Liz,

Usually I don't waste my time even reading what you and people like you have to say because that is what it is, a total and complete waste of time.
That said, my wife Donna read your your empty and baseless posts. In answer to the question have I read it, yes, I have read it. You say these
things have been refuted, by whom? CBS? NBC? MSNBC? ABC? PBS? CNN? Time Magazine? Newsweek? Whatever your source is, it is
clear that it is backed by SEIU, elitist type propaganda, which all has ties to people like George Sorrus, Henry Kissinger and other Bilderburger
members, as well as CFR members, and all the Marxist/Leninist people that obama--Barry Soetoro surrounds himself with. But would not know
anything about any of their agenda would you Liz, rhetorical question there Liz--thus the reason why there is no question mark.

Posted on Jun 24, 2011 9:25:42 AM PDT
Lientje says:
Garland: "Usually I don't waste my time even reading what you and people like you have to say because that is what it is, a total and complete waste of time."

****
First of all, Garland, that is a lie. Recognize that in yourself. You lie a lot. You don't respond most of the
time, but you read our posts, without a shadow of a doubt.

Second. I hate to think that if your wife is as dumb as you are, or as gullible, I can only hope that you
have not produced any children.

Third. "You say these things have been refuted," and the rest of that stupid paragraph is really almost
beyond the pale. You act as if those entities are somehow less reliable than the positively weird sources
you have. Sources that would be recognized by any English speaking person in the Western World as
outrageously right wing, and whether outrageously right wing is a good thing or a bad thing, it does not
make them reliable as a source of unbiased news or interpretation.

Fourth: But, at least in this particular OP, interpretation should not be needed. The bill does not say
anywhere that cancer treatment will be ended at age 76. And as I believe we have all said or suggested,
posting someone else's opinion is not proof. The document is right on the site you provided. Show us that
statement. I'm telling you it doesn't exist.

Take anyone of those statements up there, go to the official U.S. Government bill, and quote it. Is that too
tough for you? As I said before, I don't think that you ever opened it to check it out. You just posted.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2011 10:07:49 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Aug 18, 2012 1:32:00 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 17, 2012 10:06:32 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 17, 2012 10:08:07 AM PDT
The National Health Care Bill is ridiculous and insidious in so many ways. It constantly squashes first amendment rights. Who passes a bill without reading it? Only those who are ashamed of what it says. Why should Congress not be held to the same regulations and restrictions we are?

Posted on Mar 17, 2012 10:50:21 AM PDT
Lientje says:
Andrea: "The National Health Care Bill is ridiculous"

This is true. But only because Obama could not get what he wanted. He had to settle. The rest will come later when we get more of the crazies out of Congress. If a National Health Care
system is ridiculous, then every industrialized country in the world is ridiculous, except us of course. Or maybe it is the other way around.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 20, 2012 11:35:47 PM PDT
RichDA says:
Don't worry about it. The information in the initial post is totally false. Besides that bill was never passed. This thread was dead for a reason.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012 1:47:45 PM PDT
J. Gonzalez says:
Page 272, Section 1145: Cancer treatment rationed "as determined appropriate by the Secretary."

Not. Even. Close. This section includes not a single reference to rationing of any kind. What it says, in a nutshell, is that cancer treatment facilities are more costly and have greater expenses than hospitals that don't offer such treatment, and therefore payout rates can be adjusted. Instead of rationing, it's actually taking higher cost cancer treatment and paying for it (and allowing Medicare to do the same) more quickly and completely. It's worth looking at the exact text on this one, to see how far off the Senator's assertion is:

"``(A) STUDY.-The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine if, under the system under this subsection, costs incurred by hospitals described in section 1886(d)(1)(B)(v) with respect to ambulatory payment classification groups exceed those costs incurred by other hospitals furnishing services under this subsection (as determined appropriate by the Secretary). ``(B) AUTHORIZATION OF ADJUSTMENT.- Insofar as the Secretary determines under subparagraph (A) that costs incurred by hospitals described in section 1886(d)(1)(B)(v) exceed those costs incurred by other hospitals furnishing services under this subsection, the Secretary shall provide for an appropriate adjustment under paragraph (2)(E) to reflect those higher costs effective for services furnished on or after January 1, 2011.''"

Not so much rationing as better payout structure for facilities providing cancer treatments.

Page 280, Section 1151: Imposes penalties and fines on hospitals for "preventable" visits.

Calling what is defined in this section a "penalty" is like someone saying they were "penalized" by their employer when they weren't payed for skipping a week of work. The design of this bill is to make health care more affordable and more efficient. Incentives for "first time fix" speak directly to that improved efficiency.

I you wish to spread information please read the bill. If you are not willing to investigate for your self then you shouldn't making posts that makes you look foolish.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 20, 2012 9:03:42 AM PDT
G. Petersen says:
AND, not one person in either house of Congress is willing to have obama's health care. That speaks volumes right there.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 20, 2012 9:05:09 AM PDT
G. Petersen says:
J.

I wish you and everyone like you would take a good look at what it says, UNLIKE congress of course.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 20, 2012 9:06:39 AM PDT
G. Petersen says:
This thread was dead because the heading is read by a bunch of spiritually dead, blind people---both spiritually and politically.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 20, 2012 11:22:12 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 20, 2012 11:26:04 AM PDT
Lientje says:
G. Petersen: "AND, not one person in either house of Congress is willing to have obama's health care. That speaks volumes right there. "

You have got that right. But then, their health care is paid already by the State. Mine isn't. They can afford
theirs. I can't. Do you even have any?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 20, 2012 11:23:29 AM PDT
Lientje says:
G. I wish you and everyone like you would take a good look at what it says, UNLIKE congress of course.

****
Is that where you were all day yesterday? Reading the 1200 pages of the health bill? Well, more power to
you Garland. Tell us - in your own words, of course - or directly from the bill itself - what it says.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 20, 2012 11:25:13 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 20, 2012 11:26:51 AM PDT
Lientje says:
Garland: I didn't realize that using my own brain, and not relying on hate mongers, or anyone else for that matter, was being spiritually dead. Actually, we Presbyterians think quite the opposite. We believe that knowledge is a gift from God that requires some work to attain.

Posted on Aug 15, 2012 2:36:05 PM PDT
Ruby Bell says:
You know, I wish I knew how to log in the actual bill itself, so I can read it, myself. I would really like to know what it actually, factually says. There have been so many interpretations and mis-interpretations on line that I have no idea what to believe. How can I get ahold of the document? Only after reading it myself can I, or anyone else for that matter, be in a position to analyze it and decide pro or con.

Posted on Aug 15, 2012 9:00:24 PM PDT
Esgaldil says:
Bell -

http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf

More links here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 8, 2012 10:15:27 AM PDT
We call it Obama Cares.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 8, 2012 10:18:41 AM PDT
Thank you for calling him on the issue. I read through his same post in another forum and it was exactly the same. I am not sure what he is trying to do, but it appears that he is just spouting teabagger talking points that were found to be inacurate in 2010. This is 2012.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Barack Obama forum
Participants:  10
Total posts:  26
Initial post:  Jun 18, 2011
Latest post:  Sep 8, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions