Category Archives: Politics

Economy, Pensacola, Politics

Liberal Lies About National Health Care

If  that headline evokes a reflex to hit the delete button, then you’re the one that needs to read this piece. It represents a fair analysis with a dash of humor, as opposed to White House talking points with no analysis whatsoever, into the current health care turned health insurance crisis as manufactured by the Obama administration and its anti-capitalist advisers.

Put in an easily understandable way, Ann Coulter (Mike Papantonio’s favorite punching bag, next to Rush Limbaugh of course) dissects five lies, or misconceptions if you prefer, that President Obama and proponents of government-run health care/health insurance use to get you to accept their prescription for this country.

(1) National health care will punish the insurance companies.

You want to punish insurance companies? Make them compete.

As Adam Smith observed, whenever two businessmen meet, “the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” That’s why we need a third, fourth and 45th competing insurance company that will undercut them by offering better service at a lower price.

Tiny little France and Germany have more competition among health insurers than the U.S. does right now. Amazingly, both of these socialist countries have less state regulation of health insurance than we do, and you can buy health insurance across regional lines — unlike in the U.S., where a federal law allows states to ban interstate commerce in health insurance.

U.S. health insurance companies are often imperious, unresponsive consumer hellholes because they’re a partial monopoly, protected from competition by government regulation. In some states, one big insurer will control 80 percent of the market. (Guess which party these big insurance companies favor? Big companies love big government.)

Liberals think they can improve the problem of a partial monopoly by turning it into a total monopoly. That’s what single-payer health care is: “Single payer” means “single provider.”

It’s the famous liberal two-step: First screw something up, then claim that it’s screwed up because there’s not enough government oversight (it’s the free market run wild!), and then step in and really screw it up in the name of “reform.”

You could fix 90 percent of the problems with health insurance by ending the federal law allowing states to ban health insurance sales across state lines. But when John McCain called for ending the ban during the 2008 presidential campaign, he was attacked by Joe Biden — another illustration of the ironclad Ann Coulter rule that the worst Republicans are still better than allegedly “conservative” Democrats.

(2) National health care will “increase competition and keep insurance companies honest” — as President Barack Obama has said.

Government-provided health care isn’t a competitor; it’s a monopoly product paid for by the taxpayer. Consumers may be able to “choose” whether they take the service — at least at first — but every single one of us will be forced to buy it, under penalty of prison for tax evasion. It’s like a new cable plan with a “yes” box, but no “no” box.

Obama himself compared national health care to the post office — immediately conjuring images of a highly efficient and consumer-friendly work force — which, like so many consumer-friendly shops, is closed by 2 p.m. on Saturdays, all Sundays and every conceivable holiday.

But what most people don’t know — including the president, apparently — with certain narrow exceptions, competing with the post office is prohibited by law.

Expect the same with national health care. Liberals won’t stop until they have total control. How else will they get you to pay for their sex-change operations?

(3) Insurance companies are denying legitimate claims because they are “villains.”

Obama denounced the insurance companies in last Sunday’s New York Times, saying: “A man lost his health coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because the insurance company discovered that he had gallstones, which he hadn’t known about when he applied for his policy. Because his treatment was delayed, he died.”

Well, yeah. That and the cancer.

Assuming this is true — which would distinguish it from every other story told by Democrats pushing national health care — in a free market, such an insurance company couldn’t stay in business. Other insurance companies would scream from the rooftops about their competitor’s shoddy business practices, and customers would leave in droves.

If only customers had a choice! But we don’t because of government regulation of health insurance.

Speaking of which, maybe if Mr. Gallstone’s insurance company weren’t required by law to cover early childhood development programs and sex-change operations, it wouldn’t be forced to cut corners in the few areas not regulated by the government, such as cancer treatments for patients with gallstones.

(4) National health care will give Americans “basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable” — as Barack Obama claimed in his op/ed in the Times.

You want to protect consumers? Do it the same way we protect consumers of dry cleaning, hamburgers and electricians: Give them the power to tell their insurance companies, “I’m taking my business elsewhere.”

(5) Government intervention is the only way to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions.

The only reason most “pre-existing” conditions aren’t already covered is because of government regulations that shrink the insurance market to a microscopic size, which leads to fewer options in health insurance and a lot more uninsured people than would exist in a free market.

The free market has produced a dizzying array of insurance products in areas other than health. (Ironically, array-associated dizziness is not covered by most health plans.) Even insurance companies have “reinsurance” policies to cover catastrophic events occurring on the properties they insure, such as nuclear accidents, earthquakes and Michael Moore dropping in for a visit and breaking the couch.

If we had a free market in health insurance, it would be inexpensive and easy to buy insurance for “pre-existing” conditions before they exist, for example, insurance on unborn — unconceived — children and health insurance even when you don’t have a job. The vast majority of “pre-existing” conditions that currently exist in a cramped, limited, heavily regulated insurance market would be “covered” conditions under a free market in health insurance.

I’ve hit my word limit on liberal lies about national health care without breaking a sweat. See this space next week for more lies in our continuing series.

link: Liberal Lies About National Health Care: First in a Series

Media, Politics, War On Terror

Can You Trust President Obama?

If you believe what our President says, then you must be wondering now if you can trust what he says from now on. Never mind for now that all that he has said so far about the economy has not come to fruition. Things of that nature have lots of variables and, therefore, wiggle room to leave any discrepancies to chance and judgment, rather than trust.

But when it comes to turning loose Eric Holder, his Attorney General, to fire up a special prosecutor to investigate harsh interrogation techniques, after telling the CIA and its director Leon Panetta that that will not happen, goes completely and directly to his personal integrity, honesty, and trust.

I hate to say this about my president, but he is not the leader he professed to be and that the media has built him up to be. Nor can he be trusted. He is being led by the political base (the far left) of his party, and his teleprompter. And, unfortunately for us, they take priority over our enemy, al-Qaeda.

What we witnessed in April, when he visited the CIA to put out the fires started by the far left demanding he fulfill his campaign promise, and to answer the concerns of former Vice President Dick Cheney and CIA chief Leon Panetta, he said he wouldn’t go there. That was not only his ‘words, just words,’ but that of his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanual too!

“Don’t be discouraged by what’s happened in the last few weeks,” he told employees. “Don’t be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we’ve made some mistakes. That’s how we learn. But the fact that we are willing to acknowledge them and then move forward, that is precisely why I am proud to be president of the United States and that’s why you should be proud to be members of the CIA.”

As the debate escalated, Cheney weighed in, saying if the country is to judge the methods used in the interrogations, it should have information about what was obtained from the tough tactics. “I find it a little bit disturbing” that “they didn’t put out the memos that showed the success of the effort,” Cheney said on Fox News. He said, “There are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity.”

On Sunday, Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said on the ABC program “This Week” that “those who devised policy” also “should not be prosecuted.”

Since the AG is under the purview of the executive branch, ie. the President, he could keep his word and maybe even keep his CIA director Leon Panetta. To let this spectacle continue will only be to assuage the far left base while giving aide and comfort to the enemy. One could argue that it also serves as a distraction to the insurmountable and unsustainable debt that his policies are heaping upon this country as well as his imaginary health care plan that the folks do not want.

related links:

Energy, Media, Politics

Obama To Fund Offshore Drilling

In Brazil. What?  After closing down ANWR’s coastal plain, which was set aside specifically for oil and gas exploration, President Obama is giving $2 billion in loan guarantees to Petrobras, one of the largest corporations in the Americas. Petrobras is Brazil’s state owned oil company.

The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil’s Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil’s planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.

And you’ll never guess who has a 20% share in that company.  Billionaire George Soros, major Democratic contributor who spent $27 million to defeat George Bush in 2004, and then some. In fact, that share is the largest share of any of Soros’ single investments. But that was not always the case. He invested in it just before this corporate welfare plan took place.

Billionaire investor George Soros bought an $811 million stake in Petroleo Brasileiro SA in the second quarter, making the Brazilian state-controlled oil company his investment fund’s largest holding.

Just how this squares with the campaign rhetoric from Barack Obama about corporate welfare, and reducing the use of fossil fuels and separating himself from special interests is simple. It doesn’t.

As to why Obama would sanction such a thing is also simple.  Everybody gets their payback in Obama’s administration. Especially the  lobbyists he said he would distance himself from when he was a candidate. You simply have to wait your turn. AIG, Freddie and Fannie, Wall Street, the UAW, trial lawyers, and now major contributor George Soros.

Here’s an idea: Let American companies do what Obama is paying Brazilian companies to do — drill offshore. We won’t have to pay them money or float them any loans to do it, either. In fact, we will make money off of the leases, while the effort creates hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs in the US, creating more tax revenue rather than emptying out the Treasury.

You would think that, at a time when this administration is spending our grandchildren’s future in order to remake America (his words) and ‘rescue’ our economy, that making a deal like this to a foreign company that has the resources to go it alone would find its way into the mainstream media. Apparently, only when a Republican is in The White House.

Media, Politics, Race Relations

MSNBC, Propaganda Wing Of The West Wing

3 Comments

It’s really a shame that there are viewers of MSNBC that think it is a reputable news outlet. It is an outlet, but a circular muscle comes to mind when you consider what comes out of it.

Yesterday in Phoenix Arizona, there was a rally outside a place where President Obama was speaking. And Arizona happens to be an ‘open-carry’ state, which means anyone legally allowed to have a firearm can carry it in public as long as it’s visible. A permit is required if the weapon is carried concealed.

Watch how the man carrying handguns at his side and an AR-15 over his shoulder is edited so tightly that you can’t tell that the guy is black. Then listen to reporterette, Contessa Brewer, suggesting that the people carrying guns are white racists.

there are questions about whether this has a racial overtones [sic] I mean here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists, or to their legs.


In true David Axlerod style, make up whatever you can, including the race card, to discredit anyone that disagrees with Obama’s policies. GE, through all its so-called news subsidiaries is nothing more than the propaganda wing of the West Wing.

Below are pictures of the man shown in the video, who is clearly a white man, with guns strapped to him.

Guy with Assault Rifle 1

Guy with Assault Rifle 2

h/t Patterico’s Pontifications | Newsbusters

Florida, Pensacola, Politics

Trial Lawyers' Quid Pro Quo

Here comes the payback for the trial lawyers. When I say that taking away the tax hammer from the politicians in Washington, which is exactly what would happen if the FairTax were to become law, there is one other change for the better that the FairTax would do. It would end the manipulation of the tax code to favor special interests, like what Democrats in Washington are trying to do today for their most favored group of lobbyists, trial lawyers.

It’s about senate bill  S.437. Its purpose is to amend the Internal Revenue Code to allow attorneys a tax deduction in the current taxable year for reimbursable expenses and court costs which they pay or incur in connection with contingency fee cases.

It is not a coincidence that tort reform is not mentioned in Washington by Democrats when it comes to reducing costs of health care. Its absence in the health care bills, both real and imagined, is no accident. S.437 demonstrates just how much the administration is in bed with the slip-and-fall lobby.  And look who they get to sponsor it, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA).  Also note that Mel Martinez (R-FL) is one of eight primary sponsors.

Tough economic times are usually no problem for trial lawyers. Pain, suffering and liability abound even in a bad economy. Vioxx, defective products, bad hip replacement joints, video games that “cause” violence, perhaps even foods that “make” people fat — you name it.

Even so, the trial lawyer lobby is looking for a bailout of sorts. In exchange for the billion dollars that the legal profession has contributed to lawmakers since 1990 — the vast majority of it to Democrats — trial lawyers are gunning for a tax break that applies only to them, worth some $1.6 billion.

Their top lobbyist, Linda Lipsen of the American Association for Justice, remarked at a recent conference in San Francisco that the provision would have to be attached to another bill.

“You cannot have a stand-alone bill to help lawyers,” she explained, “so we have to tuck it into something.”{emphasis added}

So watch for the bill that they try to hide it in. It will most likely be a bill, like all others we’ve witnessed since January 20th of this year, that will be touted as an emergency. Another of those that won’t be read and shoved down America’s collective throat.

Everybody gets their payback in Obama’s administration. Especially the  lobbyists he said he would distance himself from when he was a candidate. You simply have to wait your turn. AIG, Freddie and Fannie, Wall Street, the UAW, and now the trial lawyers.

Where is the quid? Well, aside from the billion dollars of donations since 1990, there is this . . .

An Examiner analysis of National Law Journal’s “2008 Plaintiff’s Hot List ” shows that in the first six months of 2009, employees of the top 15 trial firms contributed $636,305 to federal politicians and political action committees.

Only $4,875 of that went to Republicans, meaning that trial lawyers at the nation’s top firms are giving more than 99 percent Democratic this year. Similarly, AAJ’s PAC gave Democrats 96 percent of its $627,000 in contributions in the first half of this year.

Trial lawyers are concentrating on the Senate, with the top 15 firms giving $236,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and $54,000 to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., a former trial lawyer who faces a potentially difficult re-election. Reid collected $978,000 from the legal industry as a whole between January and June.

You may have heard a lawyer joke or two. Like 99% of lawyers give the rest of them a bad name. It’s hard to engender any sympathy for the slip-and-fall, mass tort class of attorneys when . . .

Their political standard-bearer, former Sen. John Edwards, admitted to cheating on his cancer-stricken wife, and is being investigated for his presidential campaign’s $100,000 payment to his mistress.

Last spring, four senior partners of Milberg Weiss, formerly New York’s pre-eminent class action securities firm, were fined and imprisoned for bribing plaintiffs in cases that had netted them $250 million in fees. (The firm since reorganized, and its remaining partners and employees have made $36,537 in political contributions this year, all to Democrats.)

And Dickie Scruggs of Mississippi, a master trial lawyer and architect of the billion-dollar tobacco settlement in 1998, received a seven-year prison sentence earlier this year for bribing a judge.

related link:  Trial lawyers’ gun for their own loophole

Economy, Politics

Socialism Or Capitalism, Let's Decide

Socialized medicine is not a new concept of the 21st century, as this audio clip from 1961 will show.  There are no problems that exist in our health care or the health care delivery system that can not be solved in the private sector.

From the 1961 Operation Coffee Cup Campaign seeking to counter a proposed Democratic plan for socialized medicine, then private citizen and actor Ronald Reagan speaks out against socialized medicine.

Everywhere socialized medicine has been tried, it has accomplished government control over a population, under the presumption that the government making life choices for you, rather than yourself, is a freedom to be surrendered. That, and it has failed to live up to the promises of better and more affordable care.

As Americans, our Constitution and Bill of Rights define limits on the federal government in controlling the people. This is what President Obama refers to as ‘negative rights.’ These documents are what separates the United States from every other country on earth. That freedom, personal liberty, and a free-enterprise capitalistic system are the reasons we have become the greatest country in the world by any measure in less than 200 years.

In 1961, Ronald Reagan said this . . .

Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program. One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

Ronald Reagan’s quoting of Socialist Norman Thomas (grandfather of Newsweek reporter Evan Thomas) was as right on point nearly 50 years ago as it is today.

Sure, there are poor people in America. But compared to poor people in socialized countries, America’s poor are wealthy. America’s poor drive cars, have TV’s, indoor plumbing, electricity, and cell phones. They have free health care when needed most, not to be confused with a health insurance policy, free education, a free breakfast and a free lunch. They have free day care, after-school care, and food and housing assistance. And it is capitalism and hard working, caring Americans that pay for it all. Not socialism.

But, more importantly, and only in America, the poor have what the others do not. They have the opportunity to advance themselves based on their own application of their own God-given talents where there is no limit except those that they place upon themselves, or that the government places upon them. President Obama is a living testament to that fact.

The lessons to learn from history is that wealth and prosperity are not derived from government, but are derived from personal freedom and liberty of the people, two concepts that are antithetical to today’s batch of politicians in Washington. Democrats have learned long ago that keeping people dependent on government, rather than championing the individual and by getting out of their way, insures political power. And political power, rather than individual achievement, is their goal. Using people in this way may make political sense if political power is all you’re after. But it is also immoral. The other lesson to learn is that Democrats have not given up on the big government concept. Which reminds me of another Reagan quote. Government isn’t the answer to our problem. Government (too much of it) is the problem.

Economy, Politics

Obama's Vaporous Health Care Plan

President Obama has a health care plan that he wants us to accept. It’s called single-payer. Single payer as in the government does all the paying, to doctors, hospitals, clinics, etc.

If the government controls the money, they control the health care industry. If they control the health care industry, they control you.

But try to find out what his plan for your health care is and you will hit a dead end. No pun intended. Apparently, it isn’t written. President Obama was interviewed on national TV last month and questions of cost came up.

MORAN: One of the concerns is cost. People are looking at the cost of this plan, the Congressional Budget Office. By the way, you invited the director of the Congressional Budget Office to the White House.

OBAMA: Right.

MORAN: He had given this report, which was very damaging to your plan. A lot of people thought that was improper, that you were trying to muscle an independent arbiter of this debate
OBAMA: Terry, first of all, he was remarking on the House bill, not my plan, right? So, I think it’s important to get that clear. Number two, I invited him to come alongside a whole range of other health care experts to tell me exactly what they thought the most effective ways to bend the cost curve would be. And in fact, there was a pretty broad consensus that the plans that we had put forward around the MedPAC proposal, for example, which is essentially a commission to deal with doctors and health experts finding the best ways to improve quality while lowering costs. That that, in fact, was one of the most important levers to drive health costs savings in the system.

So his ‘plan’ is to use a committee of bureaucrats to suggest how to cut costs. That way you don’t need anything in writing. Exactly where socialized medicine enters the picture is unclear. Just vote for a pig in a poke, and if you don’t like it, just shut up and let him ‘fix’ it. Coincidentally, after his meeting with the director of the CBO, the director made a statement that was opposite of his first statement. Saying that it would not add to the deficit. Remarkable.

MORAN: So you weren’t leaning on him?

OBAMA: Terry, we don’t lean.

He doesn’t lean. He threatens. It’s the Chicago way. Like when he told auto industry creditors that he was the only thing between them and people with machetes. During that meeting, they agreed to give up a significant portion of their ownership shares (30 cents on the dollar), and Obama then gave majority ownership to the UAW.

MORAN: Do you think one of them problems is that Americans use too much health care?

He does, and explains it by saying too many people abuse emergency rooms for visits that should be in doctor’s offices or clinics. And . . .

OBAMA: We’ll have a situation in which we take five tests when we know one test would be sufficient, as long as that one test would have been forwarded to the other doctors, and specialists, and nurses who needed it to help treat the patient. That doesn’t happen right now. But, we’re paying for five tests. So if we could get a system where that one test is properly distributed, we all save money.

I get it. Aside from cutting payments to doctors and hospitals even more, where he expects to save, er I mean steal, a half billion dollars from Medicare and Medicaid, he will also save by telling doctors to do less tests. He didn’t call it defensive medicine, but that’s what he meant. You can not mention defensive medicine without also mentioning tort reform. And he is not going there. Sharing tests would be a good idea of course, but you have to believe it is defensive medicine, a practice necessitated because of trial lawyers, that Obama was really talking about.

And by doing all the above, Obama will have a socialized medical system that not only provides better care, to more people, but is cheaper and, will not add to the deficit. Must be the pixie dust.

I get the picture now. Lets tie doctors to the whipping post and give trial lawyers the whip. There is no mention about tort reform in his plan (whatever it is) or the House plan. Yet, Obama’s stated goal is to reduce the cost of health care. And while you’re going to pay them less,  and pay them by the ‘quality’ of service, as determined by bureaucrats, instead of by services rendered, then you can expect a shortage of doctors and people going into the medical profession. It all sounds like a recipe for disaster with a history for it in Canada and Great Britain.

Bottom line is this. Obama says that his plan will not cause private sector health care to go away. When the truth is it will cause private sector health care to rot on the vine.

Obama also says that his plan will not increase the deficit. Can’t say that with the House plan.

Here’s my question for President Obama when he comes to Pensacola (more pixie dust).

Mr. President, the American people have seen politicians enact legislation that ended up exacerbating the problems they were supposed to fix. For most Americans, results matter more than good intentions. If it turns out that your health care plan does not fulfill what you promise, will you provide in the plan an exit strategy to terminate the plan and pursue a private sector solution before the end of your first term?

related link: Nightline’s Interview with President Obama

Media, Politics, Russia

A Diplomatic Smackdown In Russia

Correction: The video below is not what it appears to be. There was no diplomatic smackdown. I refer you to Snopes.

So do I delete the post altogether, or leave it as it is now to show that the video is a production of some dishonest folks out there (imagine that)?

The Lunch Counter is big enough to recognize when a mistake has been made and the truth should always be given the utmost respect. Therefore, the post will remain in its current form to shed the light on what is true.

Ross

Here’s an interesting 13 second clip of President Obama’s attempt at hitting the RESET button in Russian foreign relations. It amounts to nothing less than a political smackdown for the United States. Despite what The White House website has to say about it.


Looks like the Russians were not impressed with candidate Obama’s world tour during his campaign last year or with his apology tour following his election.

It is also the first time in my memory that our President was ever treated with such disrespect. The problem is, it wasn’t just a setback for him as President, it is a setback for us as a nation. He has his work cut out for him where Russia is concerned.

Unless you were watching it live, did you see this in the news?

Economy, Fair Tax, Politics

aSide Order

A FairTax Teaching Moment

The recession is starving the government of tax revenue, just as the president and Congress are piling a major expansion of health care and other programs on the nation’s plate and struggling to find money to pay the tab.

The numbers could hardly be more stark: Tax receipts are on pace to drop 18 percent this year, the biggest single-year decline since the Great Depression, while the federal deficit balloons to a record $1.8 trillion.

Other figures in an Associated Press analysis underscore the recession’s impact: Individual income tax receipts are down 22 percent from a year ago. Corporate income taxes are down 57 percent. Social Security tax receipts could drop for only the second time since 1940, and Medicare taxes are on pace to drop for only the third time ever.

The last time the government’s revenues were this bleak, the year was 1932 in the midst of the Depression. Is raising taxes the answer to the problem? Of course not.

Which brings me to this FairTax teaching moment.  The tax base shrinks every time a job is lost. 6.7 million jobs have been lost since December 2007. Over 5 million of those have been lost since January 2009. And everyone is saying that its going to get worse before it gets better.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see how taxing income and investment leads to federal revenue losses in a big way during a recession. Revenue flow under the FairTax plan is not near as volatile during a recession. Under the FairTax, the tax base remains the same, which is about 30% larger (and growing) than under the current income tax plan. More importantly, a consumption based taxing system is more stable, more predictable, and less reactive to political actions.

In fact, if Washington could get their spending under control, and barring another ‘man made disaster,’ under the FairTax recessions would become a thing of the past.

endofstory

Rush on Obamacare

Mobfather Rush Limbaugh comments on Obamacare and the organizations behind and in front of it.

endofstory

Smallest microwave oven?

Did you know you’re carrying a microwave oven in your pocket.

Media, Politics

Obamacare Polling Questions You Won't See

Getting beyond the generic polling questions that appeal to the emotional aspect of the health care bill and who should be responsible for your health care, here are some polling questions that you probably won’t see anywhere else and which would, if asked, evoke a different result.

Keep in mind that anyone that questions the President’s plan is now labeled as un-American and part of organized angry mobs.

For a community organizer, President Obama isn’t acting very presidential by discounting over half the population he is supposed to represent. To put it another way, as President, he is acting more like a community organizer than  President of the United States.

The sad thing surrounding H.R. 3200 is that its opponents know more about what is in the bill than the President himself, most members of congress, and the mainstream media. Quoting the President himself, it’s what happens when bills get rushed through congress.

  1. Would you be strongly in favor of or strongly opposed to the provision on Page 59 in the health care bill that allows the government computer access to your bank records to transfer money from your account to their account to pay for whatever they think you owe?
  2. Are you strongly in favor or strongly opposed to the provision on Page 16 of the bill that would force you out of your private insurance plan?
  3. Are you strongly in favor of or strongly opposed to the provision on Page 30, Sec. 123  that sets up a Government committee, instead of you and your family and your doctor, to decide what treatments and benefits a person may receive?
  4. Are you strongly in favor of or strongly opposed to the provision on Page 50, Sec 152 that says that U.S. citizenship may not be used as a qualification for participation?

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Learn more about what is in the bill by looking at the bill.