President Obama and Healthcare - Taxes, Choices and Coverage - Was Obama Truthful

@jackmcg Said

Two stories in today's New York Times.

In the first, a detailed look at the potential state lawsuits to be directed against the new federal healthcare law. In it the writer outlines how the feds may defend the healthcare law against lawsuits. However, part of the fly in the ointment were statements by the President that no new taxes would be levied against US taxpayers during his Administration and repeated televised and media reports of interviews and speeches in which the President insisted the new healthcare bill was not a federal tax. Now the Administration intends to defend the new healthcare bill as a tax on US taxpayers in an effort to strengthen its argument that it has the right to reach into areas thought to be previously beyond its power by claiming the "reach" or bill or action is a necessary tax for human welfare purposes. Troubling statement in the report near the end that should this argument prevail in a final court decision, the government will be able to use it to regulate virtually all segments of citizens lives. Interesting story worth the read. Interested in the views of both sides and why the previous statements of the President were or were not misleading in his effort to get support for his healthcare initiative and law. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy/18health.html?ref=politics


The second story reports that insurance providers are beginning to develop insurance policies and plans that will limit choice of doctors and health providers to the insured. Interesting development because, again, the American taxpayer was assured by the current Administration that choice would not be affected by this healthcare bill and that people would be able to keep their plan and keep their preferred physician(s). Not fully developed yet, but that appears to be only fractionally true. In limiting choice, the insurers will drive insured patients to an ever smaller group of preferred healthcare providers who agree to reduced service rates. Those healthcare doctors and groups who will not provide service at the "preferred rate" will be outside the chosen pool of providers. To reach those practitioners, the insured will have to opt for more expensive plans that allows for a widening of the pool of doctors. Where will your doctor be and how many patients will be trying to get in to get healthcare from him/her? Will you be able to afford the higher insurance rate (tax?) to see your physician if they are not in the "preferred" group? Will these "preferred" lower cost healthcare providers be able to provide viable care and services to a large pool of insured who must take the lower end plans? Could this be considered a subtle form of rationing and doesn't the discrimination that President Obama claimed would end become ever more entrenched as only the fortunate few can continue to afford an even potentially higher cost in healthcare. This looks like a mess to me. What do you think?
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/business/18choice.html

@WASH Said

NO! Too much "must dos" and too much vaugeness as to what is to be done The bill covers too many areas and does not restrain any of the mandates.

@jackmcg Said

Two stories in today's New York Times.

The second story reports that insurance providers are beginning to develop insurance policies and plans that will limit choice of doctors and health providers to the insured. Interesting development because, again, the American taxpayer was assured by the current Administration that choice would not be affected by this healthcare bill and that people would be able to keep their plan and keep their preferred physician(s).
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/business/18choice.html

@ohReally Said

lol... maybe the people who support this tragedy aren't commenting because they don't exist.