Spencer - Tea Party patriots Healthcare Info

Everywhere in Iowa

Republican Ways and Means RSS Articles RSS NEWS FEED

Republican Ways and Means RSS Articles

02/02/2012 10:00 PM

Camp Opening Statement: Markup of H.R. 3864 “American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Financing Act of 2012.”

Today the Committee will consider H.R. 3864, the “American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Financing Act of 2012.” This legislation would reauthorize through September 30, 2016 expenditure authority for the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) and extend through September 30, 2018 the current Federal excise taxes that fund the Highway Trust Fund.

H.R. 3864 also would restructure the funding sources for the Highway Account and Mass Transit Account that comprise the Trust Fund, and deposit certain non-tax revenues into the Highway Trust Fund without increasing the deficit.

We all can agree that funding improvements to the nation’s infrastructure is vitally important to creating and sustaining economic growth and promoting commerce. As such, I believe that this is an issue that can and should be addressed in a bipartisan manner.

Cities and towns depend on a strong infrastructure as a way to ensure that they can attract businesses to locate in their communities and create jobs. In my home state of Michigan, where unemployment remains well above the national unemployment rate, having a safe and reliable transportation system can provide a strong foundation for attracting business development.

However, we must approach infrastructure spending in a fiscally responsible way, and H.R. 3864 accomplishes that goal.

Because infrastructure spending has consistently outpaced Highway Trust Fund revenues, we have been propping up the Trust Fund with deficit-financed transfers from the General Fund. As a result, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has recently estimated that the Highway Trust Fund will run out of money for highway projects in Fiscal Year 2013 and for mass transit projects in Fiscal Year 2014. The bill before us today will provide stable funding for these projects for at least the next 5 years—without raising a dollar in new or higher taxes or adding a penny to the deficit.

I think it is important to make two points about this bill.

First, the bill has no new excise taxes. Instead, current excise taxes are extended at current levels.
Second, general fund transfers will help pay for the highway bill, as they have in the past. However, unlike the past, House leaders have pledged to find the money to offset that transfer. Those items are not before us today and are being worked on by other committees.

The overall highway bill has three principal goals: responsibly fund infrastructure improvements, create jobs, and promote domestic energy development. By transferring new revenues from domestic energy development into the Highway Trust Fund, our bill helps to accomplish all three objectives—without raising taxes or adding to our national debt. In fact, the Joint Committee on Taxation says that H.R. 3864 will have no net effect on Federal revenues.

So, our task today is clear. We are here to ensure that the funds dedicated to infrastructure spending have a path to the Highway Trust Fund.

###

02/01/2012 10:00 PM

Johnson Opening Statement: Hearing on the Social Security Administration’s Death Records

Social Security has always collected death information so it can stop benefits to those who have died and start benefits for their survivors. Today about 2.5 million death reports are received from many sources, including families, funeral homes, hospitals, financial institutions, States and Federal agencies. Social Security shares death records with other Federal benefit paying agencies, like the Veterans Administration.

A 1980 Freedom of Information Act court-mandated settlement required Social Security to also make information about deceased Social Security number holders available to the public. Under the Freedom of Information Act, deceased individuals have no privacy rights, so their personal information can be disclosed. In response, Social Security created the so-called Death Master File.   Soon afterwards, in 1983, Congress changed the law to protect death reports received from States. The information in the Death Master File comes from non-State sources and the file is sold to the public by the Department of Commerce.

Over time, a broad commercial interest has developed in the Death Master File for use in private benefits management and as a tool to prevent fraud and identity theft. Many groups purchase the file from the Commerce Department including government agencies, credit reporting agencies, financial institutions, law enforcement organizations, and medical and genealogical researchers.

But what made sense thirty years ago, no longer makes sense today. Identity thieves who get their hands on a Social Security number can reap instant rewards, while the rightful owner has no idea what has happened.

With 84 million listed individuals and 1.5 million new individuals added each year, it appears that this File has become a resource for criminals seeking to capitalize on Americans’ identities, particularly the identities of deceased children.

In her recent annual report to Congress, the National Taxpayer Advocate found that the Federal government facilitates tax-related ID theft through the release of the Death Master File.   In no uncertain terms, the National Taxpayer Advocate states in the report that she “is appalled that the federal government is making sensitive personal information so readily available, when such information can easily be used to commit identity theft.”

We will hear the heartbreaking story of the Agin family, whose four year old daughter had her identity stolen shortly after she passed away. Only when their tax return was rejected by the IRS, did the Agins learn that an identity thief had already filed a return claiming their child as a dependent.

Worrying about a lost loved one’s Social Security number is a burden no grieving family should bear. That’s why I, along with a number of my colleagues, introduced H.R. 3475, the “Keeping IDs Safe Act of 2011,” to protect this information. Even Social Security reports that approximately 14,000 living individuals are wrongly placed on the Death Master File each year. Any one of us could find ourselves mistakenly on that list – an inexcusable mistake that exposes our personal information and could cause severe personal and financial hardship.

Through our witnesses today we will learn more about the history of the Death Master File, its accuracy, and how it’s used.   Soon this Subcommittee will hold a joint hearing with the Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee to more closely examine identity theft in the tax system.

Americans rightfully deserve action to stop thieves from exploiting our deceased loved ones.

###

02/01/2012 10:00 PM

Another Day, Another Misleading Report from the Obama Administration

Today, the Obama Administration released a “report” claiming that the Democrats’ health care law will “save the average Medicare beneficiary $4,200 by 2021.” While their savings figure is highly suspect, perhaps they attribute the savings to:

Medicare spending going down because hospitals and nursing homes where seniors are currently treated may be forced to close.
- Because of the Democrats’ overhaul, Medicare officials predicted that providers in the Medicare program "could find it difficult to remain profitable and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries).”
Medicare spending decreasing because seniors will have to wait, and wait, and wait to see their physician.
- Because of the Democrats’ overhaul, Medicare officials stated,“For now, we believe that consideration should be given to the potential consequences of a significant increase in demand for health care meeting a relatively fixed supply of health care providers and services.”

Conveniently, the Obama Administration’s “report” did not take into account the following changes in the Democrats’ health care overhaul that will increase seniors’ out-of-pocket costs:

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted that beneficiaries enrolled in a Medicare Advantage health plan, which one in four beneficiaries currently are, will see their benefits cut by $816, on average, in 2019 alone because of the Democrats’ $200 billion cut to Medicare health plans.
CBO also predicted that, because of the Democrats’ changes to the Medicare prescription drug benefit (Part D), seniors’ monthly premiums will increase by 9 percent in 2019.

###

01/31/2012 10:00 PM

Time Is Up

On February 1, 2009, President Obama said when speaking on the economy, “If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

Three years later, the results couldn’t be clearer. The failed policies and broken promises of the President’s trillion dollar stimulus have made things worse than if he had simply done nothing at all. All the while, the President and Congressional Democrats continue to further stifle an already weak economy, with the same approach - more government spending and more debt paid for with job-killing tax increases. As the charts below illustrate, the policies of the Obama Administration have left Americans worse off now than before Obama took office.

America Before President Obama Took Office and Now

	Before	Now	Change
Number of Unemployed¹	12.0 Million	13.1 Million	+9%
Long-Term Unemployed²	2.7 Million	5.6 Million	+107%
Unemployment Rate³	7.8%	8.5%	+9%
“High Unemployment” States⁴	22	43	+95%
Misery Index⁵	7.83	11.46	+46%
Price of Gas⁶	$1.85	$3.39	+83%
“Typical” Monthly Family Food Cost⁷	$974	$1,013	+4%
Median Value of Single-Family Home⁸	$196,600	$169,100	-14%
Rate of Mortgage Delinquencies⁹	6.62%	10.23%	+55%
U.S. National Debt¹⁰	$10.6 Trillion	$15.2 Trillion	+43%

¹Number of unemployed in January 2009 and December 2011. http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment.
² “Long-term unemployed” means for over 26 weeks; data for January 2009 and December 2011. http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment.
³ Unemployment rates in January 2009 and December 2011. http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment.
⁴ “High unemployment” means having a 3-month average unemployment rate of 6% or higher. From the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ “Extended Benefits Trigger Notice” for January 18, 2009 and January 22, 2012. http://www.ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/trigger/2009/trig_011809.html and http://ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/euc_trigger/2012/euc_012212.html.
⁵ The “Misery Index” equals unemployment plus inflation. For January 2009 and December 2012. http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbymonth.asp.
⁶ Average retail price per gallon, January 2009 week 3 and January 2012 week 4. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPMR_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=W.
⁷ U.S. Department of Agriculture, values represent monthly “moderate” cost per family of four for January 2009 and November 2011. http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/USDAFoodCost-Home.htm.
⁸ U.S. median sales price of existing single-family homes for metropolitan areas for 2008 and 2011 Q3. http://www.realtor.org/research/research/metroprice.
⁹ Residential mortgage delinquencies (real estate loans) for 2008 Q4 and 2011 Q3. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/chargeoff/default.htm.
¹⁰ Values for January 21, 2009 and January 23, 2012. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np.

###

01/31/2012 10:00 PM

Tiberi Opening Statement: Joint Hearing on Harbor Maintenance Funding and Maritime Tax Issues

Thank you Chairman Boustany. It’s a pleasure to have this opportunity to hold a joint hearing between our subcommittees. Our Members have a lot of interest in maritime issues and I believe today’s hearing is an excellent chance to examine how to strengthen the U.S. maritime industry.

I’m glad to have the opportunity to join with my friends on the Oversight Subcommittee in examining the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. I too agree that it has been mismanaged and I appreciate Chairman Boustany’s leadership on the issue.

Today’s hearing also examines the policy issues surrounding the unique tax structure of the maritime industry. In the past, the Internal Revenue Code has unnecessarily hindered the growth of the U.S. maritime industry putting it at a competitive disadvantage internationally. While Congress took measures last decade to correct some of these problems, I believe there is still work to be done.

The Short Sea Shipping Act and the American Shipping and Reinvestment Act are two pieces of legislation that stand to improve the maritime industry. I look forward to exploring them further with our witnesses today.

Thank you Chairman Boustany. I yield back.

###

01/31/2012 10:00 PM

Boustany Opening Statement: Joint Hearing on Harbor Maintenance Funding and Maritime Tax Issues

Thank you all for joining us for this morning’s joint hearing of the Subcommittees on Oversight and Select Revenue Measures. Today’s hearing will take a closer look at the underfunding of the Nation’s maritime transportation infrastructure, the Harbor Maintenance Tax and Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, and the tax treatment of foreign shipping operations.

The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund was created in 1986 to provide a stable long-term source of funding to pay maintenance costs in federally maintained harbors. The tax is imposed on users of the system, particularly shippers of goods passing through those harbors. The revenues, which total as much as $1.3-1.6 billion annually, are placed in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and exist to fund harbor maintenance costs.

In the past decade, we have seen growing disparities between Harbor Maintenance Tax revenues and spending. Because the revenues and expenditures of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund are part of the overall budget, if the Trust Fund does not spend all of its revenues, the “surplus” goes toward offsetting unrelated spending.

As a result, chronic underfunding of critical harbor maintenance has occurred. The uncommitted balance in the Trust Fund continues to grow, reaching $6.1 billion at the beginning of FY12. This means that there are billions of unused dollars belonging to the trust fund even though there are significant harbor maintenance needs. Because of this underfunding, the full channel dimensions of America’s busiest ports are available only a third of the time and there are increased risks of groundings and collisions.

To combat the chronic underfunding of federally-maintained waterways I have introduced H.R. 104 – The Realize America’s Maritime Promise (RAMP) Act. The bill requires that the total amount available for spending from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund each year be equal to the Trust Fund receipts plus interest as estimated by the President's budget for that year. This will ensure that taxes paid into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund will be used for their intended purposes and not for other spending.

As we strive toward economic growth and job creation, we must recognize the importance of our maritime infrastructure. The President has set a goal of doubling American exports by 2015. If we are to achieve this goal, we must have the infrastructure to handle increased maritime traffic.

This isn’t just a Mississippi or Calcasieu River problem, nor is it exclusively a Great Lakes problem – this is a nationwide transportation and economic problem. We ought to be spending these user fees on projects that improve our Nation’s critical transportation infrastructure and make the American economy more competitive.

As Congress begins consideration of the Surface Transportation Reauthorization bill this week, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today about their ports, businesses, and communities and what changes are needed to bolster American jobs and competitiveness.

01/31/2012 10:00 PM

White House Offers Small Businesses Tax Relief for Hiring Despite Group's Opposition

"Businesses create jobs if the business is doing well and customers are walking in the door, not because the federal government provides a tax credit."

White House Offers Small Businesses Tax
Relief for Hiring Despite Group's Opposition
By Heather M. Rothman

A $48 billion package of small business tax proposals released Jan. 31 by President Obama reflects ideas recommended by entrepreneurs and small business owners around the country, White House officials said while urging Congress to pass the measures.

The tax proposals are part of a greater Startup America Legislative Agenda that also includes measures to unlock capital for startup businesses.

But small businesses are not clamoring for that type of measure, Chris Walters, legislative affairs manager at the National Federation of Independent Business, told Bloomberg BNA. “We haven't been pushing this credit on the Hill and we're skeptical it would create jobs,” he said, adding that tax credits for hiring are not a proven tool. Businesses create jobs if the business is doing well and customers are walking in the door, not because the federal government provides a tax credit, he said.

According to a revenue estimate offered by Director of the National Economic Council Gene Sperling, two-thirds of the package, or $32.7 billion, would be used on a new tax credit that would provide small businesses with a 10 percent income tax credit through either hiring new employees or increasing wages during 2012.

That one-time provision, he said, would be worth up to $500,000 and would help up to 2 million small businesses.

Obama Open to Additional Ideas

Sperling said a provision making permanent a now-expired 100 percent exclusion for capital gains from the sale of certain small business stock would carries a 10-year cost of $8 billion, while another extending 100 percent bonus depreciation on qualified property through 2012 would cost $4.1 billion.

Finally, a provision to make permanent a doubling from $5,000 to $10,000 of the tax cut for startup business expenses would cost $3.1 billion over 10 years. “Our [package] reflects the president's priorities and what the president believes would be the most sensible and strong small business and startup legislative package,” Sperling told reporters. “But we also recognize that no one has all the good ideas and what the president is really encouraging … is an acceleration of the effort to put forward a strong bipartisan package that can be passed in both houses and sent to him.”

Walters said the small business community would like Congress to make permanent the tax code Section 179 expensing provisions. The limit for full expensing in 2011 was $500,000, but that amount dropped to $125,000 (adjusted for inflation) for 2012 and could slide to $25,000 in 2013 absent congressional action. He said keeping the deduction limits as high as possible and reinstating and making permanent allowing real property changes to qualify for the deduction are priorities for small business owners.

Finding the Offsets

Sperling noted that Obama's fiscal year 2012 budget proposal included more than $300 billion in potential offsets and said the fiscal 2013 budget set to be released Feb. 13 would include similar offsets, which he said could be found by “closing loopholes” in the Internal Revenue Code.

“There's more than enough specific proposals to pay for this in a deficit-neutral way,” Sperling said. “We would clearly work together with Democrats and Republicans in both houses to find an offset package that would be acceptable to the president and the relevant members of Congress as well.”

Speaking before a cabinet meeting, Obama said it is his “expectation and hope” that Congress will put together a package quickly. “I will sign it right away, and I would like to see that bill signed this year,” he said.

###

01/31/2012 10:00 PM

Camp Statement on CLASS Repeal

Washington, DC – Today, Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) made the following statement after the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1173 to repeal the CLASS program.

"Today, the House took steps to repeal yet another poorly-designed and unworkable piece of the Democrats' health care law. Opposition to the CLASS program is bipartisan and includes employers, seniors and fiscal watchdog groups. This program is nothing more than a budget gimmick, and the Administration admitted as much when they halted its implementation. I commend Ways and Means Committee Member Charles Boustany, who introduced this repeal bill, for his hard work on this important legislation. I urge the Senate to quickly pass this legislation to protect taxpayers in the future.”

In addition to the House-passed repeal of the CLASS Act, all repeals of the Democrats' health care law that have been enacted are a result of efforts by the House Ways and Means Committee. Those actions include:

Repealing the 1099 IRS reporting provision (PL: 112-9),
Reducing wasteful and fraudulent overpayments of taxpayer-funded subsidies (PL: 112-9), and
Striking the Democrats' overly-generous eligibility criteria for Medicare and other taxpayer-funded subsidies to align eligibility with other federally means-tested programs (PL: 112-56).

###

01/30/2012 10:00 PM

Why Do We Need to “Restore” Basic Values like Work, Home Ownership, Education, and Savings?

In his January 24, 2012 State of the Union Address President Barack Obama spoke of the optimism of the World War II generation and noted:

“They understood they were part of something larger; that they were contributing to a story of success that every American had a chance to share – the basic American promise that if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement. The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important.”

But as the table below shows, the "challenge is more urgent" because of the failed economic policies of President Obama:

		Before Obama	Today	Change
“Do Well Enough to Raise a Family”	Jobs	134.4 million (Dec. 2008)	131.9 million (Dec. 2011)	-2.5 million
“Do Well Enough to Raise a Family”	Unemployed	11.3 million (Dec. 2008)	13.1 million (Dec. 2011)	+1.8 million
“Own a Home”	Homeownership Rate	67.5% (2008 Q4)	66.3% (2011 Q3)	-1.8%
“Send Your Kids to College”	Average College Tuition	$16,385 (2007-08)	$17,464 (2009-10)	+$1,079
“Put a Little Away for Retirement”	Average Annual Savings Rate	6.2% (2008 Q4)	3.9% (2011 Q3)	-37%

###

01/30/2012 10:00 PM

Camp, Baucus Call on Administration to Pressure China on Currency at Upcoming WTO Meetings

Washington, DC – House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) called on the Administration today to pressure China to stop unfairly undervaluing its currency at the upcoming World Trade Organization (WTO) symposium in March. In a letter sent to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, Camp and Baucus noted that China has actively blocked currency undervaluation discussions at the WTO. The letter makes clear China's unfair trade practices, including its currency undervaluation, cost U.S. jobs.

“China continues to undervalue its currency, providing an unfair advantage to Chinese exporters and harming U.S. manufacturers and their workers,” Camp and Baucus wrote. “China will not end its currency undervaluation unless the U.S. seizes opportunities like this to insist it does. Expanding and intensifying discussions at the WTO can further this effort and bring significantly more pressure to bear on China.”

According to a recent analysis by the IMF, China’s yuan is undervalued relative to the dollar by as much as 23 percent. China's unfair trade practices have contributed to the growth of the U.S. trade deficit by nearly $200 billion dollars since 2001. In their letter, Camp and Baucus urged the Administration to address these issues at the upcoming symposium of the WTO Working Group on Trade, Debt and Finance in order to continue the pressure on China to end its unfair practices.

The full text of the Chairmen’s letter can be found here.

###

02/04/1997 10:00 PM

Committee Rules and Committee Budget for FY 1997-1998

02/11/1997 10:00 PM

H.R. 668, the "Airport and Airway Trust Fund Tax Reinstatement Act of 1997"

02/11/1997 10:00 PM

Oversight Plan

08/16/2011 02:36 PM

Hearing on Medicare Provisions in the President's Budget

08/16/2011 01:41 PM

Hearing on Annual Report of the Internal Revenue Service Taxpayer Advocate

08/17/2011 08:10 AM

Hearing on WTO Singapore Ministerial Meeting

08/16/2011 01:22 PM

Hearing on "High-Risk" Programs within the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means

08/16/2011 01:32 PM

Hearing on The Future of Social Security for this Generation and the Next

08/16/2011 01:38 PM

Hearing on The Future of Social Security for this Generation and the Next

03/11/1997 09:00 PM

H.R. 968, a bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act to permit a waiver of the prohibition of offering nurse aid training and competency evaluation programs in certain nursing facilities

Mr. President

IF YOUR DOOR IS ALWAYS OPEN, WHY ARE THE PEOPLE LOCKED OUT?

The Top Ten Health Care Questions President Obama Has Not Yet Answered. You can vote on up to ten of the questions proposed at http://toptenhealthcarequestions.com/poll.php

To vote on these questions goto http://toptenhealthcarequestions.com/poll.php

The health care reform bill currently pending before the Senate Finance Committee includes over $100 billion in cuts to Medicare. The Administration promises that the cuts to Medicare will not reduce health care benefits to seniors. The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently told senators that the cuts in the bill WILL reduce health care benefits to seniors. Why should seniors trust the Administration more than the nonpartisan C.B.O. on this point? Related Article

Mississippi has adopted lawsuit abuse reform (tort) in their state and has reduced their healthcare premiums by 92% in the last year due to this reform. Gov. Barbour estimates America can save almost 100-200 billion dollars a year implementing just this one reform. Other than the fact that Tort Attorneys and their groups donate heavily to the DNC and did to the Obama campaign, is there a good reason or explanation you can give the American people as to why you have put the Tort attorneys interests ahead of the healthcare interests of the citizens of this country?

The Administration has repeatedly represented to the American people that the proposed health care reform plan will be deficit-neutral. Referring to the Administration's plan, the Congressional Budget Office Director recently said "We do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount." Official CBO estimates for the Administration's proposals have, in fact, indicated additional deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars over 10 years. Why should the American people trust the Administration's numbers rather than those of the C.B.O. on this point? Related Article

You have said you will pay for healthcare by savings through "waste and fraud". By this statement then you are indicating that if you are able to quantify the amount in order to turn it into savings, you must be able to identify where it is. If that is true, why aren't you stopping the waste and fraud now since you can identify it instead of waiting until some unknown deadline? Don't you think this would engender some trust from the American people that you are making an effort to save money or that you know how to?

The Administration has repeatedly claimed that its health care reform plan will not cover illegal aliens. The Congressional Research Service recently issued a report contradicting the Administration's position, stating "H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens.whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently.participating in the Exchange." Is the Congressional Research Service in error? If so, where is the error? Related Article

Why won.t government employees and elected officials be covered under a nationwide health care plan? Your employer, the American taxpayers, would like to drop your family.s existing coverage and force you into the public option that you so energetically endorse.

The Administration's health care reform plan relies heavily on the idea of generating health care savings by means of increased preventative care including mammograms and colonoscopies. On this point, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently wrote "The evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall." Why should Americans trust the Administration's representations more than those of the nonpartisan C.B.O. on this point? Related Article

You have accused the opponents of this Healthcare plan of using "lies" and "scare tactics" and spreading "disinformation." During your speech on Sept 9, you state that "One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hand't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, AND HE DIED BECAUSE OF IT". In truth, the man, Otto Raddatz, began chemo and was preparing for a stem cell transplant. During a routine review by the insurer, it was found that he had not disclosed having gallstones and an anuerysm. Mr. Raddatz had never been told about the gallstones or been urged to treat them. His sister, appealed to the Attorney General, who reversed the decision within two weeks and Mr. Raddatz had the transplant and lived another 3 and half years. -an indication that the company's decision to rescind his treatment didn't cause his death. Mr. Raddatz didn't die from being denied treatment, but your speech stated so. How can you accuse critics of creating lies about the healthcare proposal when on several occasions your own words have been found to be untruthful?

The Administration argues for a government-funded health insurance plan on the grounds that more competition is necessary in order to reduce health care costs. In response to a question from CNN's Wolf Blitzer as to why the Administration's health care reform plan does not include also interstate competition as a means to reduce costs, David Axelrod responded that "[Interstate competition] is not endemic to the kind of reforms that we.re proposing " At least one study has concluded that interstate competition would be likely to reduce health care costs and reduce the number of uninsured. If competition can be expected to reduce costs and increase coverage, why is interstate competition not 'endemic' to the Administration's proposed reforms? Related Article Related Article

You indicated in your interview with George Stephanpolus that if people did not buy insurance that they would be fined a penalty fee but you insisted that it is not a tax. However, on page 29 of the Senate bill that Mr. Stephanopoulus refers to, it states that the fee will be an "excise TAX." How do you expect Americans to believe you have a grasp and knowlege of the healthcare legislation and are able to run it, when it is apparent that you had not even read the bill? Not even 29 pages of it.

A WhiteHouse.gov hypothetical question on health care rationing states the following : "What if I want [certain] tests and what if they detect something that could save my life?" The White House response states, in relevant part : "We want reform that rewards quality of care not quantity of procedures. Having dozens of procedures doesn.t necessarily make you better. In fact they can make you worse." Q: Which procedures or tests would be reduced or eliminated under the proposed health care reform plan, and what evidence is available that the quality of care would not be impaired by their reduction or elimination? Related Article

At one time, the Administration claimed that there are as many as 47 million uninsured Americans. More recently, the Administration has claimed that there are closer to 30 million uninsured Americans. What are the sources for these numbers, and how many of the 30 million are unable to purchase health insurance because of the cost of health care insurance? Related Article

On September 23, 2009, the head of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated that, if implemented, the legislation will lead to $100 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage services. Specifically what services will be cut under your legislation?

At a town hall meeting in Raleigh, North Carolina on July 29 you said " I will be available to answer any question that members of Congress have. If they want to come over to the White House and go over line by line what's going on, I will be happy to do that." A month ago, Congressman Phil Roe sent you two letters asking you for a time and place to conduct this line by line review. You've not responded to him. Do you intend to honor your promise and sit down with Congressman Roe and hold a serious line by line review of proposed health care legislation or was your July 29 statement merely an insincere political gesture ?

During the debate on the so-called stimulus package, your estimates on future unemployment and economic recovery proved to be wildly off-base. Why should Americans now believe you that they will not be forced out of the private coverage they enjoy, as basic economics would dictate?

Despite your assertions that health care reform will save money, the reality is that plans proposed by Democrats would cost taxpayers between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. How does this save money and how will you pay for this?

If, as you claim, a government-run option is essential to maintaining honest competition in the health insurance market, why is it not also true that we need a government-run competitor in the fast food industry, neighborhood babysitting, or Major League Baseball?

Proponents of a government-run option, you included, claim that it will compete on a level playing field with private insurance providers. In that case, will your government-run plan operate as a for-profit model and be forced to pay all applicable state, federal, and local taxes?

How do you expect to meet the growing need for physicians and medical professionals if the government-run plan pays lower than market rates to physicians while forcing them to participate or lose a majority of their patients and their livelihood?

If the government mandates that all Americans purchase health insurance, it must also define what qualifies as health insurance. Can you provide us your definition (with details please) and explain how this definition will not limit innovation and choice in health care?

According to the House Democrats. plan, a family of four with an income of $88,200 (four times the federal poverty level) would qualify for health insurance subsidies. In your view, is this a subsidy for low-income Americans or an effort to use taxpayers to put more health care under the purview of the federal government?

The new Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research is charged with determining what treatments should be offered to patients. Do you believe that these personal medical decisions should be made by patients in consultation with their doctors, or by unaccountable bureaucrats?

Why are there no actively practicing physicians included in the membership of the Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research?

If the final reform proposal is controversial enough that it will not receive the necessary 60 votes in the Senate, Democrats have left open the possibility of using a procedural move to pass it with only 51 votes. Do you believe massive changes to such a vital area of American life should be pushed through in this manner with only 51 votes?

Pro-choice groups NARAL and Planned Parenthood are demanding that the healthcare reform bill cover abortion, paid for by the TAXPAYER. Will you sign a healthcare reform bill that uses taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions?

HR3200 requires 500 billion in cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. How can these cuts be made without limiting access to healthcare or medicines recommended by my doctor?

According to Politifact.com, Obama.s budget represents 11 trillion in debt in five years and 17 trillion in 10 years. Specifics for paying for the program are outlined as: $544 billion from a new income tax surcharge on single people making $280,000 a year and households making $350,000 and above; $37 billion in other tax adjustments. About $500 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. About $200 billion from penalties paid by individuals (2.5% of income) and employers (8% of payroll) who don't obtain coverage. [Note: These penalties are not in existence now, why should the American public impose a penalty upon themselves?] How will the $500 billion in Medicare cuts affect the elderly? Shouldn.t we be reducing the budget instead of inflating it?

In a recent New York Post column, Betsy McCaughey, a former lieutenant governor of New York and health care expert, wrote: "One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and 'the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.' This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care." Will you sign a healthcare reform bill that in any way promotes euthanasia.

According to the plan, every new insurance policy will have to comply with government mandates, and any policy changes . "altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching coverage for this or that drug" . invalidates your previous coverage and forces you to choose a government "qualified" plan. In addition, the House plan mandates coverage for every individual. If you are self-employed or choose not buy insurance for whatever reason, the bill imposes a "healthcare tax" of 2.5% of your income. Why do you believe bureaucrats can make better decisions than me about what kind of health insurance I should have? And will you guarantee that any healthcare reform bill passed by Congress will always allow me to choose my own doctor?

A number of experts have opined that insured individuals will end up having their health insurance plan changed under the Administration plan as proposed. Employers pick health plans, not employees, and if the new law puts forward a cheap 'government option/public plan,' employers will dump employees into it and pocket the savings as smart business people will do when given such a choice. Do you guarantee that I get to keep the plan I have and the doctor I have? If so, how are the experts wrong?

Will the law require Members of Congress and federal employees to be enrolled in the "government option/public plan," and if not, why not?

Will seniors be guaranteed joint replacements, stents, and the chemotherapy they need, or will they be forced to accept less-costly and less-effective alternatives?

If seniors will be allowed the expensive but most effective treatments, how will costs be controlled?

Will seniors have to wait longer for their treatments than they do now?

Will doctors see their payment schedules drop?

If their payments fall and they make less money, won't there be fewer doctors practicing medicine?

Doesn't Canada have long lines for important surgeries? How will making our system more like Canada's not mean longer lines and longer waits here?

Have you read the bill well enough to be interviewed about it on the radio by a conservative talk show host? ("C'mon. Of course I haven't and of course I won't. Have you seen even one extended interview with even one Member of Congress about the specifics of the bill with even a moderately skeptical journalist?").

Your plan includes a reduction of $500 billion in Medicare. Why should Medicare recipients believe that $500 billion can be cut from Medicare without affecting the level of care they will receive? Has such a thing ever been accomplished previously?

Your plan includes savings of $500 billion in Medicare by the elimination of 'waste, fraud and abuse.' What portion of the $500 billion figure is attributable to fraud, specifically? How many new federal investigators and prosecutors will need to be hired in order to investigate the doctors and hospitals accepting Medicare reimbursements? Won't this new round of investigations interfere substantially with the operations of ongoing practices and their ability to treat their patients?

In your speeches, you have repeatedly emphasized that you that you are there to listen, that your door is always open and that you continue to seek common ground. Which ideas, if any, have you incorporated into your health care plan in order to find common ground with Blue Dog Democrats and/or Republicans?

You have repeatedly accused the critics of your plan of engaging in 'lies" and 'scare tactics.' Do you believe that none of the criticisms of your plan are good faith criticisms? If any of the criticisms are good faith criticisms, which ones?

In earlier speeches, you promised the American people that they would be able to keep their health insurance under your plan. More recently, you have chenged the rhetoric to express only that nothing explicitly in the plan will force Americans to change their health insurance. Is it not true that, according to objective third-party analyses, millions of Americans would likely be forced to change their health insurance under your plan? Is there an objective third-party analysis showing that most Americans will continue to have the same options they have today? If so, which ones, and why are they more credible than the analyses coming to a contrary conclusion?

You have promised that your plan will not expand the deficit. Certain objective third-party analyses, including the official analysis of the Congressional Budget Office, have indicated that your plan will expand the deficit considerably. Which objective third-party analyses, if any, have shown that your plan will not expand the deficit, and why should those analyses be trusted instead of the official estimate of the CBO?

You claim that hundreds of billions of dollars of 'waste, fraud and abuse' can be cleared out of the Medicare system. Can you cite to a historical example wherein hundreds of billions of dollars of waste, fraud and abuse have ever been eliminated from a federal government program?

Has a cleanup of Medicare waste, fraud and abuse ever been attempted before? If so, what were the results?

Assuming that a crackdown on Medicare waste, fraud and abuse has been tried before and failed to generate hundreds of billions of dollars in savings, why should the American people believe that this Administration will be the first Administration to succeed where others have failed?

_{WHO
ARE THEY AND WHAT DO THEY DO?}

Doctors demand to be included in health care debate

Powerful Petition

Published: Tue, 8 Sep 2009

Doctors demand to be included in health care debate

Automatically Generated Transcript (may not be 100% accurate)

" A large group of doctors now looking to firmly grab the attention of the United States senate they're heading to Capitol Hill there armed with a document along one. US physicians appeal let's call it's a petition signed by more than 10000. Doctors. From all over America and their mission is to let lawmakers know. At doctors must be included in health care debate. For reform to actually work. -- medical contributor doctor Martin. -- now doctor what we get to some of the recommendations from the doctors. Is it doctors haven't been more intimately involved those the first people like consult."

" Greg I couldn't agree with -- more on that and I think that that's not an accident with doctors may have a totally different take on this. Than what the politicians in Washington have as we've as I've said many times on this program tort reform malpractice reform. Should be number one on the list and decreased the amount of unnecessary tests not coincidentally. That is one of the things that this group. So remote dot com is the name of the group and they have over a 100000 doctors. Enrolled and I watched him over the weekend -- that 10000 number of doctors signing this petition went up to over 15000. In just two days this is a big deal and they have the right idea the nonpartisan. They're like a FaceBook for doctors we you have a conversation. Among doctors medical decision making. It's like a curbside you exchange of ideas it's absolutely -- very interesting and they're taking is. Tort reform more doctors involved in decision making improve how we do our billing. And basically get the doctor patient involved but less insurance involved -- third party direction involved I couldn't agree more."

" Well and let's talk about first when you mentioned -- toward -- malpractice. Laws reformed and you know full disclosure of the defense attorney a real bias in this. Because I just think you've got to put some sort of a liability. Cap or limit. On some of these these lawsuit awards because it's driving doctors out of business because they can't afford the premiums on their insurance company coverage."

" And Greg we don't talk enough about specialist you know it's the surge in the obstetricians that they really can't afford this over a 100000 dollar premium. Not only do we need to cap pain and suffering but we need less frivolous lawsuits. About 40% of the lawsuit brought by a Harvard study were nuisance suits leading to 15% of the payouts. And price Waterhouse Coopers says over 200 billion dollars is spent per year on defense of medical practices that result tort reform is key. Trial lawyers association United States very powerful no accident that's not a."

" On the third yeah we'll tell that if former senator John Edwards. -- look payment systems need to be as simplified we need to streamline the billing can it be done."

" I think it's really important that it be done especially if we're talking about computer -- everything why should doctor spend all the time with paperwork. I agree with this group when they say interaction between doctor -- patient is what's key. Decision making we can change -- we reimburse instead of slashing reimbursements 500 billion dollars of Medicare cuts proposed to hospitals and doctors. Let's actually change how we reimburse of that decision making and quality medicine is emphasized and I think doctors should occur very close to the ball I don't wanna see them go further."

" Right doctor Marc Siegel thank you very much for sharing your thoughts and glad you told us it's now 15000. Doctors who've signed -- petition. We'll keep an -- what's happening in their reaction on Capitol Hill thanks very. Maybe you."

Spencer - Tea Party patriots Healthcare Info

Everywhere in Iowa