UNDERNEWS

Undernews is the online report of the Progressive Review, edited by Sam Smith, who covered Washington during all or part of one quarter of America's presidencies and edited alternative journals since 1964. The Review, which has been on the web since 1995, is now published from Freeport, Maine. See main page for full contents

September 17, 2009

HEALTHCARE BILL REAX

Bob Cseca, Huffington Post - First, Baucus' entire goal was to construct a bipartisan plan. Mission accomplished. Insofar as both parties hate it. Just as we predicted, Baucus tailored his plan to appeal to the Republicans who, as it turns out, don't support the plan anyway. For example, one of his concessions to the Republicans was tort reform language which not only won't work, but has also failed to bring in any Republicans . . . Meanwhile, the bill is so diluted and bad that roughly half of the Democrats on the Finance Committee appear to be opposed to it. Good job, senator!

Furthermore, as I described last week, there are individual mandates, but no public insurance option. Baucus included his buddy Conrad's pathetic co-ops which are destined to fail due to their limited bargaining power.

The government subsidies in the Baucus Plan don't extend deep enough into the middle class in order to protect families from massive health care debt if a family-member becomes sick or injured. Put another way, mandates would imprison families and force them to buy insurance policies that could still bankrupt them if they actually need to use their insurance for an emergency situation like an accident or being diagnosed with cancer.

The Baucus Plan also discriminates against low-income Americans. In one of the most awful provisions of the plan, the "free rider" provision, Baucus taxes businesses for each hiree who qualifies for subsidies. So this tax incentivizes businesses to not hire poor or disadvantaged workers. The list goes on and on.

Politico - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) continued his attack on Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus' (D-Mont.) health care bill, sharply questioning the chairman's decision to conduct months of bipartisan talks that failed to win a single Republican backer, while shutting out Democrats on the committee. . . "You don't run a committee that way," Rockefeller continued. "That's just process talk, the American people don't care [about process], but they should because it means they are not getting as good a bill unless we could amend it properly.". . . Rockefeller signaled he would have dozens of amendments to offer during the panel's markup.

ABC News - Leading liberal groups are blasting the health care bill being offered by Sen. Max Baucus, in biting dismissals that don't bode well for the bill's chances of attracting Democratic support. Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn.org, called the bill a "dream come true for the insurance industry," and was particularly critical of the lack of a public option in the measure. "The Baucus bill will not solve the health care crisis that plagues millions of Americans, and fails to meet the basic tenets on successful reform laid out by President Obama," Ruben said in a statement. "The insurance companies have found their champion in Senator Baucus. The only good news is that the senator stands nearly alone in supporting his bill.". . . The National Coalition on Health Care, an umbrella organization that's working on behalf of Democratic reform efforts, issued a statement expressing "deep disappointment" in the draft being offered by Baucus, D-Mont. "We do not believe that this plan would achieve affordable, quality health care reform for everyone. Very importantly, it does not appear to incorporate the necessary short-term and long-term cost containment measures that would make a new health care reform law sustainable," the coalition said.

Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager of Health Care for America Now, also offered a stinging critique: "The Baucus bill is a gift to the insurance industry that fails to meet the most basic promise of health care reform: a guarantee that Americans will have good health care that they can afford. The Baucus bill would give a government-subsidized monopoly to the private insurance industry to sell their most profitable plans -- high-deductible insurance -- without having to face competition from a public health insurer."

3 Comments:

Blogger Brittanicus said...

Its time to re-examine instant citizenship (Anchor babies) which hasn't been illuminated enough, to growing concern of the American public. For decades now pregnant women have arrived on tourist’s visas, through the fence and even at ports of call. Very aware of our mis-interpreted law governing "birthright citizenship", that attributes full rights to the Mother of an illegal immigrant. How can Americans benefit from this Health care reform package, when we must subsidize millions of households and not just the original interloper? Outlined in the spring issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is an article that will stun a prudent person. An illegal alien entered the states in 1997 to work as a fruit picker, bringing with him his wife and three children; all illegal aliens.

The lady gave birth to a fourth child, and with that birth the family had an "anchor baby"—an American citizen by birth, who provided the entire family with a free pass to remain in the United States permanently and collect government, subsides. Unfortunately the baby was born prematurely, spent three months in the neonatal incubator, and cost the San Joaquin Hospital more than $300,000. Meanwhile, the oldest daughter married an illegal alien and gave birth to her own anchor baby, and then the wife gave birth to yet another baby. ALL PAID FOR BY—YOU!

This is just one taxpayer example of the 'Rule of law' that has cost taxpayers billions of dollars. A nurse admitted last weekend, according to Review-Journal reported that cash-strapped UMC hospital in Nevada is providing more than $20 million a year in emergency dialysis care for uninsured, illegal immigrants. Is American society insane when poverty stricken Americans are turned away, go bankrupt and sometimes die? TAXPAYERS ARE TAXED FOR THIS, BUT NOT FOR OUR OWN PEOPLE? We must insist that a Birthright Citizenship lawsuit be filed with the federal court and its original intent revisited? That E-Verify should be fully funded and a highly skilled MIT team, building on the original Immigration enforcement database to a highest level of security that cannot be compromised by the use of fraudulent documents.

The PC oriented application must be installed permanently on every business computer across this country? ICE should have the manpower to audit every workplace, with the power to arrest and detain employers who snub immigration laws? Repeat offenders should be dealt with harshly, including prison and confiscation of business assets. There should be no mitigating excuses because illegal immigrants are—STEALING JOBS-- on any rung of the employment ladder? These employers for years have been an intended magnet for destitute labor in many cases, but have left the burden of paying for schooling for the children, health care and a veiled miscellaneous core of government handouts to US taxpayers. THIS IS NOT ABOUT RACISM, BUT AN ULTIMATE FINANCIAL MATTER OF SURVIVAL FOR US ALL! Coincidentally, I want a government health care, specially for some low income American family members.

September 17, 2009 5:37 PM  
Blogger Brittanicus said...

Insist your politicians guarantee E-Verify is fully funded and is not scuttled by Sen. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Janet Napolitano or any other high ranking Democrats. The Washington switchboard has their number at 202-224-3121. Research these laws, true facts and incredulous stats at NUMBERSUSA & JUDICIAL WATCH

September 17, 2009 5:37 PM  
Anonymous Mairead said...

I'd agree that, until we change the world such that there is no longer overpopulation or national boundaries, that a child's citizenship should depend on that of the parents.

The idea that anyone born here is automatically a citizen is long past its sell-by date. It comes from the very racist early days, and is completely and disgustingly comparable to the situation in Palestine today, where anyone claiming to be Jewish is automatically a citizen, but Arabs who were born there and whose families lived there a thousand years or more aren't.

Ethically, that should have no place in the world.

September 17, 2009 8:57 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home