Re: Guess What---again

Curator's note: This FWD: is a revision of this submission already in the archive.

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



Thomas Edwards, editor of The River Cities Tribune, was contacted to get
legal permission to quote David Kithil's comments. Permission was
granted, so here are excerpts from the article, giving EXACT pages and
paragraphs in the bill and why it is so bad.
hits everything right on the head, and the opposition you may encounter
cannot argue over these points:

JUDGE KITHIL wrote:

"I have reviewed selected sections of the bill and find it unbelievable
that our Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a bill
loaded with so many wrong-headed elements.

We do need to reform the health insurance system in America in order to
make coverage affordable and available to everyone. But, how many of us
believe our federal government can manage a new program any better than
the bankrupt Medicare program or the underfunded Social Security program?

"Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the financial
mess of those two programs.

"I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons. To start with, it is
estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees
will be required to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion
of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are
going to hire 150,000 new employees, let's put them to work protecting
our borders, fighting the massive drug problem and putting more law
enforcement/firefighters out there."

NOW, here comes the good stuff:

JUDGE KITHIL continued: "Other problems I have with this bill include:

** 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.


** 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:


"Finally, it is specifically stated 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
the future."

Honorable David Kithil
Marble Falls , Texas


All of the above should give you all the point blank ammo you need to support your opposition to Obamacare. Please send this information on to all your email contacts.

14 comments:

almoderate said...

Oh how cute! They still think we're working on HR 3200! (Of course, even then, it's wrong.)

ferschitz said...

Old news & totally irrelevant. Wake up and realize what happened on 1/21/10 with the Supreme Court decision to sell us all into slavery to the corporations.

I'll keep repeating this until everyone is sick of it, but it's gotta be done.

Anonymous said...

Calm down, ferschitz. The campaign finance case isn't the end of the world. Corporations can buy ads. Big deal. So can unions. And, there are, or will be, disclosure rules.

Besides, if you want corporate slavery, try the current (near dead) Senate health-care proposal of an individual mandate without a public option. Loose version: you MUST buy insurance, but it has to be from a private company unless you qualify fore Medicaid/aire. Yippee.

Anonymous said...

@ anon

That's all well and good, except that for every dollar unions give to politics business gives 10. Its nowhere near a level playing field.

As for disclosure, we already have that. People don't care about disclosure. Or more accurately, the small but important percentage of swing voters who are actually affected by brainless attack ads don't care.

Anonymous said...

Just got my group's health insurance rates in for the new year--we're looking at a 46% increase in 2010 premiums. I guess they've gotta recoup some of that million dollars per day they've been spending to fight real reform in the health care bill. I'm thinking of self-insuring.

ferschitz said...

I agree that I am somewhat frantic about the Supreme Court decision, but, well, I guess we'll all see. IMHO I think it's quite frightening & of a very serious concern, and I have real concern about how this will affect us. But it is just my opinion.

However, KO last night seemed to share my own feelings, which he voiced in a special comment on 1/21/10. Several others on KO & RM seem also to share my level of concern. Just saying....

Anonymous said...

Anon 1 again here: Well, I realize that union v. corps isn't a fair fight. But, not every corporation will support right-wing nonsense. Besides, from a free speech perspective, I'm not sure the decision is wrongly decided. It's a mixed bag.

Anonymous said...

@ anon

True, not every corporation will put up their money. But its scary to think that even one citibank, one exxon, one walmart, makes more in profits in a year (or even a quarter) than was spent on the entire political cycle in 2008.

As for the decision itself, I never again want to here conservatives complain about "activist" judges.

gruaud said...

Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito,
and the other whose name escapes
me are literally radicals.
Of COURSE they're activist.

Everything the reactionaries
complain about progressives
doing is just a smokescreen so
they can do those very same things.

Which progressives DON'T do in the
first place.

The intellectual mendacity on the
right is staggering at times.

Anonymous said...

Kennedy was #5 and wrote the court's main opinion.

For some real fun, look up Thomas's dissent on one of the points -- he thinks the Court should abolish even the disclosure requirement because of those dastardly gay rights activists attacking honest Prop 8 supporters.

Anonymous said...

And can I just say it would be a dream come true to live in the liberal nightmare these e-mails inhabit? At least then people would actually consider human life worth preserving -- even after birth.

ferschitz said...

Read Justice Stephen's quite lengthy and well-reasoned dissent. He expresses a great deal of concern about this decision and was most against it. Justice Stephens is in his mid-80s; knows quite a lot about the constitutional & legal issues involved, and I hold him in high regard.

CJ Roberts is a crook of the highest order and was rewarded witht his position by the Bush family.

I hope I'm a million percent wrong in my henny-penny freak-out, but some of the other more trustworthy justices on the SCOTUS have expressed deep concerns about this opinion.

Ok: 'nuff said. And I agree w/gruaud. Most often the right is merely projecting onto the left all of the nefarious, dangerous and wrong-headed stuff that they are doing themselves.

On that note... more later. Thanks for being patient with my rant.

katz said...

My favorite parts? The reference to ACORN (eek!) and the 150,000 jobs (we don't want government to create jobs, now do we?).

Hey Anons, you should get handles if you're posting repeatedly. Gives us a chance to sort out who's saying what a bit better.

gruaud said...

Anon said (and katz is right --pick a name, any name):

"That's all well and good, except that for every dollar unions give to politics business gives 10. Its nowhere near a level playing field. "

Quite right. The unions are merely a sop to
the hoi-polloi.

All the unions combined couldn't match the oil
companies and their associates.

Now add Big Pharma, Insurance conglomerates,
Defense Contractors, Finance, Utilities, and on
and on...

It's been bad enough for the past 50 years,
even with limits. Now the gloves are off.

 
Creative Commons License
MyRightWingDad.net is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.