Wake up!  Congress is using the coverage thing and helping the poor as a diversion to fund their last bankrupt health care idea, Medicare!  It is costing too much!  That is the only reason health care has been brought up!

They don't care about us and the diversion is souring!

They can't run businesses like GM or Amtrak, the post office is in fail mode, social security won't be around soon and they want to tackle 1/6th of the US economy?  Look out America!

I received an email from Rep. Scott Garrett concerning his objections to H.R. 3962. In his statements, he misrepresents many aspects of the proposed health care reform legislation. Moreover, he asks through an email link if I would participate in his survey. The only question:

"Do you support the health care bill, H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act?" and leaves only a "Yes" or "No" option.

Now, to be clear, I will not support the alternatives that Mr. Garrett supports, nor do I support H.R. 3962. That is because I support a single payer solution with health care as a human right and Mr. Garrett, along with most other members of Congress refuse to allow that solution to be considered, evaluated, and placed before the people. So, the honest answer is "No" but I refuse to be part of the Republican spin.

Mr. Garrett's objections:

"Page 94-Section 202(c) prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government"

False. He is objecting to the formation of the insurance exchange created under Title III. This exchange does not facilitate purchase through the federal government. It defines the coverage that may be sold by private entities that chose to participate in providing health insurance. The purchase is between the consumer and member of the exchange.

"Page 110-Section 222(e) requires the use of federal dollars to fund abortions through the government-run health plan-and, if the Hyde Amendment were ever not renewed, would require the plan to fund elective abortions"

Correct. But, no one is required to buy into the public plan under this bill.

"Page 111-Section 223 establishes a new board of federal bureaucrats (the "Health Benefits Advisory Committee") to dictate the health plans that all individuals must purchase-and would likely require all Americans to subsidize and purchase plans that cover any abortion"

There is no evidence in this or any nation to support less regulation of insurers as a means to better and universal coverage. Premiums collected by private insurers are fungible and, if anyone believes that a private insurer has moral high ground in not providing funding for abortions if a particular consumer opts not to pay for this coverage, that person is misinformed. Mr. Garrett contributes to the misinformation.

"Page 211-Section 321 establishes a new government-run health plan that, according to non-partisan actuaries at the Lewin Group, would cause as many as 114 million Americans to lose their existing coverage"

The Lewin Group is a partisan organization representing private insurance. It cannot be cited as an objective source. The CBO does not agree with the Lewin Group on this issue. Stating this as a definite with "would cause" indicates that Mr. Garrett and the Lewin Group have the kind of crystal ball that ought to have prevented the current financial crisis.

"Page 225-Section 330 permits-but does not require-Members of Congress to enroll in government-run health care"

We pay dearly to insure them now. What is the difference? Does he want to be required? Perhaps if they were served by the VA, our service men and women would receive better treatment and facilities. They can always buy private coverage, they earn enough.

"Page 255-Section 345 includes language requiring verification of income for individuals wishing to receive federal health care subsidies under the bill-while the bill includes a requirement for applicants to verify their citizenship, it does not include a similar requirement to verify applicants' identity, thus encouraging identity fraud for undocumented immigrants and others wishing to receive taxpayer-subsidized health benefits"

Makes a great single payer argument, cuts the red tape. A person in need of care ought to receive care based on his humanity, alone. Dithering over how to divide us in our common needs plays on our deepest fears, bigotries, and basest instincts.

"Page 297 - Section 501 imposes a 2.5 percent tax on all individuals who do not purchase "bureaucrat-approved" health insurance - the tax would apply on individuals with incomes under $250,000"

I agree but for different reasons. That the policy is approved by the exchange is a good thing. That we are given the option of a tax and no coverage or buying an insurance policy is not good. Single payer does away with this issue.

"Page 313-Section 512 imposes an 8 percent "tax on jobs" for firms that cannot afford to purchase "bureaucrat-approved" health coverage; according to an analysis by Harvard Professor Kate Baicker, such a tax would place millions "at substantial risk of unemployment"-with minority workers losing their jobs at twice the rate of their white counterparts

Page 336-Section 551 imposes additional job-killing taxes, in the form of a half-trillion dollar "surcharge," more than half of which will hit small businesses; according to a model developed by President Obama's senior economic advisor, such taxes could cost up to 5.5 million jobs"

If one looks at this situation, one finds that workers with employer-provided insurance are receiving a far higher wage. In NJ, we've grown to see this as the norm. This situation, I am sure, results in the migration of jobs to lower wage areas where employers prey on people with lower expectations concerning their compensation. Desiring to lower or allow the lowering of his constituents' wages is disturbing. Looking at this in the aggregate, we find that nations with greater regulation and public funding of medical care are able to compete quite well against American workers and American businesses.

Again, single payer addresses this.

"Page 520-Section 1161 cuts more than $150 billion from Medicare Advantage plans, potentially jeopardizing millions of seniors' existing coverage"

The "existing coverage" at stake is not the availability, affordability, or entitlement to services that seniors currently enjoy. It is a reduction of the excess given to Medicare Advantage insurers in amounts over and above that granted to traditional Medicare subscribers. It is a more equitable and efficient allocation of tax dollars.

Seniors will retain their extensive single payer benefits at the expense of working families not permitted to consider the option.

"Page 733-Section 1401 establishes a new Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research; the bill includes no provisions preventing the government-run health plan from using such research to deny access to life-saving treatments on cost grounds, similar to Britain's National Health Service, which denies patient treatments costing more than £35,000"

There's nothing in the bill to require unlimited coverage from any insurer and part of satisfying conservatives in Congress was agreeing to a "level playing field" with private insurers. Some form of cost containment must be implemented if we are to decrease the aggregate cost of health care. We need to examine the real cost of treatment and not simply rely on the desired price of the provider as our gauge. We need to measure the efficacy of treatments and not simply accept that everything done by a provider is something significant to the patient.

"Page 1174 - Section 1802(b) includes provisions entitled "TAXES ON CERTAIN INSURANCE POLICIES" to fund comparative effectiveness research, breaking Speaker Pelosi's promise that "We will not be taxing [health] benefits in any bill that passes the House.""

The debate is not over and Ms. Pelosi is only one member of the House and the tax is a whopping $2 per capita enrolled in the plan in 2013. I think the beneficiaries of the plans targeted can handle it.

One thing that bothers me about the bill.  President swore the bill had to be deficit neutral.  I was under the impression that 800 billion was maxing things out with taxes, cuts,etc.  This bill goes way over that high water mark.