Tweet Compares WikiLeaks to TSA's Full Body Scanners
posted by Bungalow Bill at BBCW [ http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/ ] - 10 hours ago
{*}Read more: http://www.atr.org/senate-healthcare-bill-uses-term-tax-a4072##ixzz16fZhPkng{Although this article is somewhat dated, I found the numbers of times the terms were used-interesting; particularly from a man who pledged 'no new taxes' much like "Bush-41!"}
Found on Twitter, a tweeter puts WikiLeaks in perspective:
WikiLeaks is what happens when the entire US government is forced to go through a full-body scanner.
Senate Healthcare Bill Uses The Term "Tax" 124 Times!
{*}
A word search of the 1,502-page Senate healthcare bill (S. 1796) reveals that the term “tax” is used 124 times, “taxable” is used 158 times, and “excise tax” is used 12 times.
Other terms of interest are:
Senate Health Care Bill (S. 1796-- "obamaCare")
- Term Number of uses
- “Tax” 124 times
- “Taxes” 16 times
- “Excise tax” 12 times
- “Taxpayer(s)” 79 times
- “Taxable” 158 times
- “Tax-exempt” 15 times
- “Penalty” 79 times
- “Require” 88 times
- “Must” 40 times
- “Shall” 2,585 times
The “excise tax” mentioned on page 194 is just one of several taxes in the bill that violate "Clown Prince" obama's tax pledge. During his campaign, obama made a “firm pledge” not to raise “any form” of taxes on families making less than $250,000 per year.
Comments:{**}
{***}
Currently, there is no uniform requirement that health insurers spend a minimum share of premiums on medical care. Consumer groups say somewhere between 80 to 85 cents on the dollar represents good value, but many plans spend in the range of 60 to 80 cents. That will change Jan. 1, when the rule goes into effect. Starting in 2012, as many as 9 million customers could get rebates averaging $164, officials estimate. It could be a discount on premiums or a payment by check or credit card.
Dorothy Louise McIntosh Rodham Slaughter Commands!
[I found this 'corrected draft' among Ms McIntosh-Rodham-Slaughter's papers-You fascist-types reading this..... I'm jis kiddin'!!]
Almost a century ago, Teddy Roosevelt called for health care reform. Since then, six presidents have tried badly to reform a badly broken system. Because those attempts were not successful, health care costs increased to almost 17 percent of our GDP, contributed to our growing deficit, and left many Americans without coverage. As of November 7, 2010, the "Total Public Debt Outstanding" was approximately 95% of annual GDP ($13.723 Trillion), which--thankfully--includes the aforementioned 17%! That is why we passed the Affordable Care Act: It cuts costs (albeit, by trasferring debt and expenses to other areas), and is paid for by law (albeit, just "printing money" which will lead to uncontrollable inflation-but I won't be here by then!).
We knew that action was necessary for the financial security of our country. Health care reform was the single most important deficit-reduction statute in the last decade (and the first time any administration and that sitting congress actually colluded to govern "against the will of the people!"). And because we have put an emphasis on reducing duplicate tests and preventive care to avoid expensive procedures later, the quality of care will improve for everyone.
For the first time in 'Constitutional history' Reform requires insurers to spend 80 cents of every premium dollar on patient care, rather than administration or profits. By creating virtual shopping markets for insurance, we increase competition to encourage lower premiums. And funds from the stimulus package which are not included in potential costs of 'obamaCare' expand information technology in doctors' offices, saving billions of dollars.
Health care reform generates additional cost-savings by improving Medicare, fighting fraud and waste and ending taxpayer-funded giveaways to private insurers; these Medicare improvements generate approximately $500 billion without cutting benefits. Through new incentive systems, targeted grants and legal changes to encourage provider communication, we will improve the quality of care and reduce medical errors. Between 2004 and 2006, medical errors --many times-collusion between doctors and the Medicare/Medicaid administration-- cost Medicare $8.8 billion.
One of the first beneficiaries of new quality improvement initiatives is New York state is a direct result of my 'pork-grabbing' abilities. We will be one of eight states to expand our nationally recognized medical homes program. A medical home converges all care in one place, with your primary care physician at the center, so care improves and duplicative tests are eliminated. Instituting medical homes will slash health care costs by $67 billion annually, primarily by cleaverly shifting expenses to other, non-related areas. Clearly, the cost-cutting strategies of health care reform are broad and deep. They will reduce the deficit by more than $100 billion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). CBO estimates authorized costs in the implementation, and for future appropriations for a variety of grant and other program spending is to exceed $115 billion over the 2010-2019 period. Over the next 20 years, it will reduce the deficit by $1 trillion. We knew that action was necessary for the financial security of our country while we happily, blindly, stumbled through our legislative paces; allowing 'Wall Street' to run rampant! Health care reform was the single most important deficit-reduction statute in the last decade.
This bill is paid for (?) and certified by the CBO.
Despite the economic and deficit-cutting benefits of health care reform, some have argued that health care reform should be repealed.
It is, therefore, worth asking: What would we lose if it is repealed?
- Children with pre-existing conditions would lose the right to insurance
(children mentioned first to tug at the 'public heart strings).
- People with insurance would lose major protections — allowing insurance companies to drop individuals if they get sick or stop paying if people reach a cap
(Think we should mentione that this is already prohibited by law?).
- Seniors would lose big improvements to Medicare, reopening the prescription drug doughnut hole
(If we hadn't passed this monstrosity, we could have corrected this problem INDIVIDUALLY).
- All Americans would lose the investments in preventive services — forcing them to once again pay co-pays and deductibles for preventive services such as flu shots or mammograms
(while those who won't pay are covered by the 'dole' they receive).
- Small businesses would lose $40 billion in tax credits for those with average salaries of less than $50,000
(which can be extended/enacted, legislatively). The tax credits are available this year, retroactive to January.
Repealing health care reform would be expensive and short-sighted but in keeping with the 'will of the people'. With this legislation, we've taken the 'public mind' off the current $130TRILLION in unfunded leabilities. Thanks to reform, we prevented a trillion-dollar burden from being placed on our children and grandchildren. At the same time, we improved the quality of care for all, and opened doors to insurance for 32 million more Americans. With federally allowed 'accounting principles' available ONLY TO US; this creative accounting allows the Congress to add vast numbers of recipients AND STILL reduce the costs!
Dorothy "Geeze-Louise" McIntosh-Rodham-Slaughter, an obamacRAT, Democrat, represents the upper crust of the 28th Congressional District.
Til Nex'Time....
{**}
Great concept John! I love the fact that you let the computer do the searching. Great work too. It looks like you caught congress in the middle of a whopper! Keep up the good work!
>> Bob in Texas
{**}
"Never underestimate the stupidity of people in large groups"
>> robert myers
{***}Does Anyone In Regime Read The Constitution?
The regulation unveiled by the Health and Human Services Department calls for insurance companies to spend at least 80 cents of the premium dollar on medical care and quality. For employer plans covering more than 50 people, the requirement is 85 cents. Insurers that fall short of the mark will have to issue their customers a rebate.
Some insurers have complained the approach is heavy handed, and doesn't take into account costs of marketing to individuals and small employers. Indeed, some are threatening to pull out of the individual market, and four states have already asked the federal government for an exemption from the rule, fearing it could lead to loss of coverage. But industry watchers said the final regulations wound up being more manageable than investors initially feared. Analyst Les Funtleyder, who covers the industry for Miller Tabak, noted that HHS has wide latitude to adjust the rules to prevent market disruptions. "From an expectations point of view, these are rules that managed care can live with in 2011," he said.
Posts
I CAN NOT publish related photos!!
