Re: Family Research Council Health News

[Guest guest]

These are political opinions.  Thus, I will give mine.   " Obamacare " is not

Obamacare--it's the mutation of input from all over--some legitimate and some

just obstruction.

Moreover, the opinion about the recent court case that found " Obamacare " was

constitutional is just ignorant.  Unconstitutional does not equate to every

time you don't get your way.  

From: Lottie Duthu <lotajam@...>

Subject: [ ] Family Research Council Health News

" CML " < >

Date: Sunday, October 10, 2010, 11:22 PM

 

WHAT'S NEW WITH THE HEALTHCARE BILL

" he President's new health care law is finally resulting in some bipartisanship.

According to a new poll, both parties are growing to hate it. Although the

numbers for repeal are solidly in the Republican camp (56% want the law

overturned), a general dissatisfaction is starting to creep into the President's

own party. A shocking one in four Democrats is now in favor of repeal--with 49%

of undecided voters piling on. That news is particularly bad for 12 Freshman

Democrats, who are taking a crack at a second term in hostile districts. In each

one, " a majority of those surveyed said they want the controversial law gone. "

And that starts with firing the people who put it there. "

http://tinyurl.com/26rf9yd

___________________

This just in: " Congress is assuming control of all your personal economic

decisions. Or so says Judge Steeh, who yesterday became the first man

ever to rule on the constitutionality of the new health care law. The suit,

brought by our friends at the More Law Center, argued that it's an abuse

of power for Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance. Judge Steeh

disagreed, insisting (in his 20-page opinion) that the federal government has a

" right " to force citizens to buy products whether they want them or not. Of

course, there's nothing in the Constitution to support that argument. Nowhere

does it state that citizens can be required by an act of Congress to purchase

anything--including insurance policies. But that didn't matter to Judge Steeh,

who also struck down a challenge over the financial penalty imposed on people

who don't buy insurance. " The minimum coverage provision... is a reasonable

means of effectuating Congress's

goal, " he wrote. " (more at Website)

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU10J05 & f=PG07J01

________________________

FYI,

Lottie Duthu

[Guest guest]

Here is a summary of some of the actual benefits in President Obama's health

insurance reform law.

Insurers will no longer be able to deny coverage to children with pre-existing

conditions, so that a child with CML can still get coverage. Unfortunately

adults CML patients will have to wait until 2014 before the insurance industry

discrimination against patients with pre-existing conditions is outlawed.

•Insurers cannot drop coverage of people who get sick, including CML patients.

•End of lifetime limits of coverage, so that if a CML patient needs a

transplant, it must be covered, no matter how high the price tag.

•Young adults can stay on their parents' plan up to age 26 or until they get

their own coverage, very important for young people with CML who may find it

difficult to find a job with health insurance due to economy.

•Preventive care must be provided with no additional out-of-pocket costs.

•Insurance companies cannot charge more for out-of-network emergency room

visits.

________________________________

From: Lottie Duthu <lotajam@...>

CML < >

Sent: Sun, October 10, 2010 9:22:04 PM

Subject: [ ] Family Research Council Health News

WHAT'S NEW WITH THE HEALTHCARE BILL

" he President's new health care law is finally resulting in some bipartisanship.

According to a new poll, both parties are growing to hate it. Although the

numbers for repeal are solidly in the Republican camp (56% want the law

overturned), a general dissatisfaction is starting to creep into the President's

own party. A shocking one in four Democrats is now in favor of repeal--with 49%

of undecided voters piling on. That news is particularly bad for 12 Freshman

Democrats, who are taking a crack at a second term in hostile districts. In each

one, " a majority of those surveyed said they want the controversial law gone. "

And that starts with firing the people who put it there. "

http://tinyurl.com/26rf9yd

___________________

This just in: " Congress is assuming control of all your personal economic

decisions. Or so says Judge Steeh, who yesterday became the first man

ever to rule on the constitutionality of the new health care law. The suit,

brought by our friends at the More Law Center, argued that it's an abuse

of power for Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance. Judge Steeh

disagreed, insisting (in his 20-page opinion) that the federal government has a

" right " to force citizens to buy products whether they want them or not. Of

course, there's nothing in the Constitution to support that argument. Nowhere

does it state that citizens can be required by an act of Congress to purchase

anything--including insurance policies. But that didn't matter to Judge Steeh,

who also struck down a challenge over the financial penalty imposed on people

who don't buy insurance. " The minimum coverage provision... is a reasonable

means of effectuating Congress's goal, " he wrote. " (more at Website)

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU10J05 & f=PG07J01

________________________

FYI,

Lottie Duthu

[Guest guest]

Carl,

Insurers in Washington State are starting to stop issuing policies for children.

This is a result of a poorly designed plan. It is a shame that something as

important as health care reform was hastily conceived to met a campaign

deadline, rather then a well thought out plan that could benefit everyone.

M

>

> Here is a summary of some of the actual benefits in President Obama's health

> insurance reform law.

>

>

> Insurers will no longer be able to deny coverage to children with pre-existing

> conditions, so that a child with CML can still get coverage. Unfortunately

> adults CML patients will have to wait until 2014 before the insurance industry

> discrimination against patients with pre-existing conditions is outlawed.

>

> •Insurers cannot drop coverage of people who get sick, including CML

patients.

>

> •End of lifetime limits of coverage, so that if a CML patient needs a

> transplant, it must be covered, no matter how high the price tag.

>

> •Young adults can stay on their parents' plan up to age 26 or until they get

> their own coverage, very important for young people with CML who may find it

> difficult to find a job with health insurance due to economy.

>

> •Preventive care must be provided with no additional out-of-pocket costs.

>

> •Insurance companies cannot charge more for out-of-network emergency room

> visits.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

> From: Lottie Duthu <lotajam@...>

> CML < >

> Sent: Sun, October 10, 2010 9:22:04 PM

> Subject: [ ] Family Research Council Health News

>

>

> WHAT'S NEW WITH THE HEALTHCARE BILL

>

> " he President's new health care law is finally resulting in some

bipartisanship.

> According to a new poll, both parties are growing to hate it. Although the

> numbers for repeal are solidly in the Republican camp (56% want the law

> overturned), a general dissatisfaction is starting to creep into the

President's

> own party. A shocking one in four Democrats is now in favor of repeal--with

49%

> of undecided voters piling on. That news is particularly bad for 12 Freshman

> Democrats, who are taking a crack at a second term in hostile districts. In

each

> one, " a majority of those surveyed said they want the controversial law gone. "

> And that starts with firing the people who put it there. "

>

> http://tinyurl.com/26rf9yd

> ___________________

> This just in: " Congress is assuming control of all your personal economic

> decisions. Or so says Judge Steeh, who yesterday became the first man

> ever to rule on the constitutionality of the new health care law. The suit,

> brought by our friends at the More Law Center, argued that it's an

abuse

> of power for Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance. Judge Steeh

> disagreed, insisting (in his 20-page opinion) that the federal government has

a

> " right " to force citizens to buy products whether they want them or not. Of

> course, there's nothing in the Constitution to support that argument. Nowhere

> does it state that citizens can be required by an act of Congress to purchase

> anything--including insurance policies. But that didn't matter to Judge Steeh,

> who also struck down a challenge over the financial penalty imposed on people

> who don't buy insurance. " The minimum coverage provision... is a reasonable

> means of effectuating Congress's goal, " he wrote. " (more at Website)

>

> http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU10J05 & f=PG07J01

> ________________________

> FYI,

> Lottie Duthu

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

:

With all due respect, the insurers are ceasing to issue policies for children

out of pure vindictiveness and greed.

The reason they stopped issuing policies for sick children is that their profits

will be diminished because of associated costs. That is what we should be

complaining about. Imagine, a child diagnosed with CML cannot get insurance

when these companies are making huge profits. Is this the society we want?

Actually, the health plan would have been much better if the Congressional

Republicans had been more cooperative instead of trying to drive our President

out of office by obstruction important legislation.

Everyone who lives in Washington or any other state where insurance companies

are placing profits over the health of their children should complain to their

respective insurance commissioners and write letters of condemnation to their

newspaper editors.

What an outrage!

Best,Carl

________________________________

From: M <johndee_54@...>

Sent: Mon, October 11, 2010 12:57:55 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] Family Research Council Health News

Carl,

Insurers in Washington State are starting to stop issuing policies for children.

This is a result of a poorly designed plan. It is a shame that something as

important as health care reform was hastily conceived to met a campaign

deadline, rather then a well thought out plan that could benefit everyone.

M

>

> Here is a summary of some of the actual benefits in President Obama's health

> insurance reform law.

>

>

> Insurers will no longer be able to deny coverage to children with pre-existing

> conditions, so that a child with CML can still get coverage. Unfortunately

> adults CML patients will have to wait until 2014 before the insurance industry

> discrimination against patients with pre-existing conditions is outlawed.

>

> •Insurers cannot drop coverage of people who get sick, including CML

>patients.

>

> •End of lifetime limits of coverage, so that if a CML patient needs a

> transplant, it must be covered, no matter how high the price tag.

>

> •Young adults can stay on their parents' plan up to age 26 or until they

get

> their own coverage, very important for young people with CML who may find it

> difficult to find a job with health insurance due to economy.

>

> •Preventive care must be provided with no additional out-of-pocket

costs.

>

> •Insurance companies cannot charge more for out-of-network emergency

room

> visits.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

> From: Lottie Duthu <lotajam@...>

> CML < >

> Sent: Sun, October 10, 2010 9:22:04 PM

> Subject: [ ] Family Research Council Health News

>

>

> WHAT'S NEW WITH THE HEALTHCARE BILL

>

> " he President's new health care law is finally resulting in some

>bipartisanship.

>

> According to a new poll, both parties are growing to hate it. Although the

> numbers for repeal are solidly in the Republican camp (56% want the law

> overturned), a general dissatisfaction is starting to creep into the

>President's

>

> own party. A shocking one in four Democrats is now in favor of repeal--with

49%

>

> of undecided voters piling on. That news is particularly bad for 12 Freshman

> Democrats, who are taking a crack at a second term in hostile districts. In

>each

>

> one, " a majority of those surveyed said they want the controversial law gone. "

> And that starts with firing the people who put it there. "

>

> http://tinyurl.com/26rf9yd

> ___________________

> This just in: " Congress is assuming control of all your personal economic

> decisions. Or so says Judge Steeh, who yesterday became the first man

> ever to rule on the constitutionality of the new health care law. The suit,

> brought by our friends at the More Law Center, argued that it's an

abuse

>

> of power for Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance. Judge Steeh

> disagreed, insisting (in his 20-page opinion) that the federal government has

a

>

> " right " to force citizens to buy products whether they want them or not. Of

> course, there's nothing in the Constitution to support that argument. Nowhere

> does it state that citizens can be required by an act of Congress to purchase

> anything--including insurance policies. But that didn't matter to Judge Steeh,

> who also struck down a challenge over the financial penalty imposed on people

> who don't buy insurance. " The minimum coverage provision... is a reasonable

> means of effectuating Congress's goal, " he wrote. " (more at Website)

>

> http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU10J05 & f=PG07J01

> ________________________

> FYI,

> Lottie Duthu

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I believe you are right Carl.  And as this is the first health care program

there are going to be kinks in it, and if they would quit acting like they are

in kindergarten, and worked together for the benefit of everyone, things would

get worked out.  Not that everyone is going to be pleased, but it will be

better than nothing. I am especially interested in how drugs like Gleevec and

Sprycel  will be covered. Bobby

a ( Bobby ) Doyle, dob 12/17/29

DX 5/1995

Interferon 9 weeks/Hydroxyurea 5 years

02/2000 to 06/2002 Gleevec trial, OHSU

06/2002 Gleevec/Trisenox Trial, OHSU

06/2003 Gleevec/Zarnestra Trial, OHSU

04/2004 Sprycel Trial, MDACC, CCR in 10 months

04/2008 XL228 Trial, U of Mich.

01/2009 PCR 5.69

04/2009 Ariad Trial AP24534

09/2009 PCR 0.01

11/2009 PCR 0.034

02/2010 PCRU

#840 Zavie's Zero Club

From: Carl Davies <ctdavies2003@...>

Subject: Re: [ ] Family Research Council Health News

Date: Monday, October 11, 2010, 4:49 PM

 

:

With all due respect, the insurers are ceasing to issue policies for children

out of pure vindictiveness and greed.

The reason they stopped issuing policies for sick children is that their profits

will be diminished because of associated costs. That is what we should be

complaining about. Imagine, a child diagnosed with CML cannot get insurance

when these companies are making huge profits. Is this the society we want?

Actually, the health plan would have been much better if the Congressional

Republicans had been more cooperative instead of trying to drive our President

out of office by obstruction important legislation.

Everyone who lives in Washington or any other state where insurance companies

are placing profits over the health of their children should complain to their

respective insurance commissioners and write letters of condemnation to their

newspaper editors.

What an outrage!

Best,Carl

________________________________

From: M <johndee_54@...>

Sent: Mon, October 11, 2010 12:57:55 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] Family Research Council Health News

Carl,

Insurers in Washington State are starting to stop issuing policies for children.

This is a result of a poorly designed plan. It is a shame that something as

important as health care reform was hastily conceived to met a campaign

deadline, rather then a well thought out plan that could benefit everyone.

M

>

> Here is a summary of some of the actual benefits in President Obama's health

> insurance reform law.

>

>

> Insurers will no longer be able to deny coverage to children with pre-existing

> conditions, so that a child with CML can still get coverage. Unfortunately

> adults CML patients will have to wait until 2014 before the insurance industry

> discrimination against patients with pre-existing conditions is outlawed.

>

> •Insurers cannot drop coverage of people who get sick, including CML

>patients.

>

> •End of lifetime limits of coverage, so that if a CML patient needs a

> transplant, it must be covered, no matter how high the price tag.

>

> •Young adults can stay on their parents' plan up to age 26 or until they

get

> their own coverage, very important for young people with CML who may find it

> difficult to find a job with health insurance due to economy.

>

> •Preventive care must be provided with no additional out-of-pocket

costs.

>

> •Insurance companies cannot charge more for out-of-network emergency

room

> visits.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

> From: Lottie Duthu <lotajam@...>

> CML < >

> Sent: Sun, October 10, 2010 9:22:04 PM

> Subject: [ ] Family Research Council Health News

>

>

> WHAT'S NEW WITH THE HEALTHCARE BILL

>

> " he President's new health care law is finally resulting in some

>bipartisanship.

>

> According to a new poll, both parties are growing to hate it. Although the

> numbers for repeal are solidly in the Republican camp (56% want the law

> overturned), a general dissatisfaction is starting to creep into the

>President's

>

> own party. A shocking one in four Democrats is now in favor of repeal--with

49%

>

> of undecided voters piling on. That news is particularly bad for 12 Freshman

> Democrats, who are taking a crack at a second term in hostile districts. In

>each

>

> one, " a majority of those surveyed said they want the controversial law gone. "

> And that starts with firing the people who put it there. "

>

> http://tinyurl.com/26rf9yd

> ___________________

> This just in: " Congress is assuming control of all your personal economic

> decisions. Or so says Judge Steeh, who yesterday became the first man

> ever to rule on the constitutionality of the new health care law. The suit,

> brought by our friends at the More Law Center, argued that it's an

abuse

>

> of power for Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance. Judge Steeh

> disagreed, insisting (in his 20-page opinion) that the federal government has

a

>

> " right " to force citizens to buy products whether they want them or not. Of

> course, there's nothing in the Constitution to support that argument. Nowhere

> does it state that citizens can be required by an act of Congress to purchase

> anything--including insurance policies. But that didn't matter to Judge Steeh,

> who also struck down a challenge over the financial penalty imposed on people

> who don't buy insurance. " The minimum coverage provision... is a reasonable

> means of effectuating Congress's goal, " he wrote. " (more at Website)

>

> http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU10J05 & f=PG07J01

> ________________________

> FYI,

> Lottie Duthu

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I think that is an excellent example of why the public option should have

been left in. A single payer system, a la France, would have been better.

[ ] Family Research Council Health News

>

>

> WHAT'S NEW WITH THE HEALTHCARE BILL

>

> " he President's new health care law is finally resulting in some

bipartisanship.

> According to a new poll, both parties are growing to hate it. Although the

> numbers for repeal are solidly in the Republican camp (56% want the law

> overturned), a general dissatisfaction is starting to creep into the

President's

> own party. A shocking one in four Democrats is now in favor of

repeal--with 49%

> of undecided voters piling on. That news is particularly bad for 12

Freshman

> Democrats, who are taking a crack at a second term in hostile districts.

In each

> one, " a majority of those surveyed said they want the controversial law

gone. "

> And that starts with firing the people who put it there. "

>

> http://tinyurl.com/26rf9yd

> ___________________

> This just in: " Congress is assuming control of all your personal economic

> decisions. Or so says Judge Steeh, who yesterday became the first

man

> ever to rule on the constitutionality of the new health care law. The

suit,

> brought by our friends at the More Law Center, argued that it's an

abuse

> of power for Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance. Judge

Steeh

> disagreed, insisting (in his 20-page opinion) that the federal government

has a

> " right " to force citizens to buy products whether they want them or not.

Of

> course, there's nothing in the Constitution to support that argument.

Nowhere

> does it state that citizens can be required by an act of Congress to

purchase

> anything--including insurance policies. But that didn't matter to Judge

Steeh,

> who also struck down a challenge over the financial penalty imposed on

people

> who don't buy insurance. " The minimum coverage provision... is a

reasonable

> means of effectuating Congress's goal, " he wrote. " (more at Website)

>

> http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU10J05

<http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU10J05 & f=PG07J01> & f=PG07J01

> ________________________

> FYI,

> Lottie Duthu

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Yes, I think even doctors know that.  A huge part of the costs of both insurers

and medical service providers is administrative, which a lot of that is figuring

how not insure certain people and how to drop certain people off the insurance

rolls.  What we have now is beastly, and I use that term with exact

specificity.

From: Neal <nwatson@...>

Subject: RE: [ ] Family Research Council Health News

Date: Monday, October 11, 2010, 4:36 PM

I think that is an excellent example of why the public option should have

been left in. A single payer system, a la France, would have been better.

[ ] Family Research Council Health News

>

>

> WHAT'S NEW WITH THE HEALTHCARE BILL

>

> " he President's new health care law is finally resulting in some

bipartisanship.

> According to a new poll, both parties are growing to hate it. Although the

> numbers for repeal are solidly in the Republican camp (56% want the law

> overturned), a general dissatisfaction is starting to creep into the

President's

> own party. A shocking one in four Democrats is now in favor of

repeal--with 49%

> of undecided voters piling on. That news is particularly bad for 12

Freshman

> Democrats, who are taking a crack at a second term in hostile districts.

In each

> one, " a majority of those surveyed said they want the controversial law

gone. "

> And that starts with firing the people who put it there. "

>

> http://tinyurl.com/26rf9yd

> ___________________

> This just in: " Congress is assuming control of all your personal economic

> decisions. Or so says Judge Steeh, who yesterday became the first

man

> ever to rule on the constitutionality of the new health care law. The

suit,

> brought by our friends at the More Law Center, argued that it's an

abuse

> of power for Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance. Judge

Steeh

> disagreed, insisting (in his 20-page opinion) that the federal government

has a

> " right " to force citizens to buy products whether they want them or not.

Of

> course, there's nothing in the Constitution to support that argument.

Nowhere

> does it state that citizens can be required by an act of Congress to

purchase

> anything--including insurance policies. But that didn't matter to Judge

Steeh,

> who also struck down a challenge over the financial penalty imposed on

people

> who don't buy insurance. " The minimum coverage provision... is a

reasonable

> means of effectuating Congress's goal, " he wrote. " (more at Website)

>

> http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU10J05

<http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU10J05 & f=PG07J01> & f=PG07J01

> ________________________

> FYI,

> Lottie Duthu

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

My doctors hate to deal with insurance companies. They don't like some

insurance company desk jockey who sold used cars the previous week telling

them what medical services they can perform.

All of my doctors, heart, CML, etc., said they favored a public plan.

One reason as that the expense ratio of a public plan like Medicare is about 3%.

Private plans can have expense ratios as high as 35% due to commissions,

junkets, advertising costs, exorbitant executive salaries, etc.

The new health reform law will place limits on insurance company expenses that

deprive consumers of vital benefits.

________________________________

From: Ted Fontenot <mortycausa@...>

Sent: Mon, October 11, 2010 2:55:27 PM

Subject: RE: [ ] Family Research Council Health News

Yes, I think even doctors know that. A huge part of the costs of both insurers

and medical service providers is administrative, which a lot of that is figuring

how not insure certain people and how to drop certain people off the insurance

rolls. What we have now is beastly, and I use that term with exact specificity.

From: Neal <nwatson@...>

Subject: RE: [ ] Family Research Council Health News

Date: Monday, October 11, 2010, 4:36 PM

I think that is an excellent example of why the public option should have

been left in. A single payer system, a la France, would have been better.

[ ] Family Research Council Health News

>

>

> WHAT'S NEW WITH THE HEALTHCARE BILL

>

> " he President's new health care law is finally resulting in some

bipartisanship.

> According to a new poll, both parties are growing to hate it. Although the

> numbers for repeal are solidly in the Republican camp (56% want the law

> overturned), a general dissatisfaction is starting to creep into the

President's

> own party. A shocking one in four Democrats is now in favor of

repeal--with 49%

> of undecided voters piling on. That news is particularly bad for 12

Freshman

> Democrats, who are taking a crack at a second term in hostile districts.

In each

> one, " a majority of those surveyed said they want the controversial law

gone. "

> And that starts with firing the people who put it there. "

>

> http://tinyurl.com/26rf9yd

> ___________________

> This just in: " Congress is assuming control of all your personal economic

> decisions. Or so says Judge Steeh, who yesterday became the first

man

> ever to rule on the constitutionality of the new health care law. The

suit,

> brought by our friends at the More Law Center, argued that it's an

abuse

> of power for Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance. Judge

Steeh

> disagreed, insisting (in his 20-page opinion) that the federal government

has a

> " right " to force citizens to buy products whether they want them or not.

Of

> course, there's nothing in the Constitution to support that argument.

Nowhere

> does it state that citizens can be required by an act of Congress to

purchase

> anything--including insurance policies. But that didn't matter to Judge

Steeh,

> who also struck down a challenge over the financial penalty imposed on

people

> who don't buy insurance. " The minimum coverage provision... is a

reasonable

> means of effectuating Congress's goal, " he wrote. " (more at Website)

>

> http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU10J05

<http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU10J05 & f=PG07J01> & f=PG07J01

> ________________________

> FYI,

> Lottie Duthu

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Carl,

I agree with you. But if lawmakers had stepped back in their rush to get this

reform passed and carefully constructed something that would eliminate

loopholes, rather than create them, everyone would have been better off. The

dartboard approach that was used by Congress is not the solution. The answers

are though and the solution will never come as long as politics is the driving

force.

Take care,

> >

> > Here is a summary of some of the actual benefits in President Obama's health

> > insurance reform law.

> >

> >

> > Insurers will no longer be able to deny coverage to children with

pre-existing

>

> > conditions, so that a child with CML can still get coverage. Unfortunately

> > adults CML patients will have to wait until 2014 before the insurance

industry

>

> > discrimination against patients with pre-existing conditions is outlawed.

> >

> > •Insurers cannot drop coverage of people who get sick, including CML

> >patients.

> >

> > •End of lifetime limits of coverage, so that if a CML patient needs a

> > transplant, it must be covered, no matter how high the price tag.

> >

> > •Young adults can stay on their parents' plan up to age 26 or until

they get

>

> > their own coverage, very important for young people with CML who may find it

> > difficult to find a job with health insurance due to economy.

> >

> > •Preventive care must be provided with no additional out-of-pocket

costs.

> >

> > •Insurance companies cannot charge more for out-of-network emergency

room

> > visits.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ________________________________

> > From: Lottie Duthu <lotajam@>

> > CML < >

> > Sent: Sun, October 10, 2010 9:22:04 PM

> > Subject: [ ] Family Research Council Health News

> >

> >

> > WHAT'S NEW WITH THE HEALTHCARE BILL

> >

> > " he President's new health care law is finally resulting in some

> >bipartisanship.

> >

> > According to a new poll, both parties are growing to hate it. Although the

> > numbers for repeal are solidly in the Republican camp (56% want the law

> > overturned), a general dissatisfaction is starting to creep into the

> >President's

> >

> > own party. A shocking one in four Democrats is now in favor of repeal--with

49%

> >

> > of undecided voters piling on. That news is particularly bad for 12 Freshman

> > Democrats, who are taking a crack at a second term in hostile districts. In

> >each

> >

> > one, " a majority of those surveyed said they want the controversial law

gone. "

>

> > And that starts with firing the people who put it there. "

> >

> > http://tinyurl.com/26rf9yd

> > ___________________

> > This just in: " Congress is assuming control of all your personal economic

> > decisions. Or so says Judge Steeh, who yesterday became the first man

> > ever to rule on the constitutionality of the new health care law. The suit,

> > brought by our friends at the More Law Center, argued that it's an

abuse

> >

> > of power for Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance. Judge

Steeh

> > disagreed, insisting (in his 20-page opinion) that the federal government

has a

> >

> > " right " to force citizens to buy products whether they want them or not. Of

> > course, there's nothing in the Constitution to support that argument.

Nowhere

> > does it state that citizens can be required by an act of Congress to

purchase

> > anything--including insurance policies. But that didn't matter to Judge

Steeh,

>

> > who also struck down a challenge over the financial penalty imposed on

people

> > who don't buy insurance. " The minimum coverage provision... is a reasonable

> > means of effectuating Congress's goal, " he wrote. " (more at Website)

> >

> > http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU10J05 & f=PG07J01

> > ________________________

> > FYI,

> > Lottie Duthu

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxNhOBemsic & feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajhWiBhPhg & feature=related

The above links are interviews with author T. R. Reid  who wrote a book

comparing many health care systems around the world.  One is a long interview

on C-Span, over an hour and very thorough, and the other is short and concise,

about 7 minutes.  Every advanced industrial nation in the world but this one

has a national health care system, and every one pays a lot less for health care

than we do.  Ours is a system of the corrupt and greedy, by the corrupt and

greedy, for the corrupt and greedy, at the expense of the trusting and needy.

 Unfortunately no issue in this country is ever resolved without turning it

first into a metaphysical question for the ages, then subverting it so that its

absurd and ineffective.

From: Carl Davies <ctdavies2003@...>

Subject: Re: [ ] Family Research Council Health News

To:

Date: Monday, October 11, 2010, 10:37 AM

 

Here is a summary of some of the actual benefits in President Obama's

health

insurance reform law.

Insurers will no longer be able to deny coverage to children with pre-existing

conditions, so that a child with CML can still get coverage. Unfortunately

adults CML patients will have to wait until 2014 before the insurance industry

discrimination against patients with pre-existing conditions is outlawed.

•Insurers cannot drop coverage of people who get sick, including CML patients.

•End of lifetime limits of coverage, so that if a CML patient needs a

transplant, it must be covered, no matter how high the price tag.

•Young adults can stay on their parents' plan up to age 26 or until they get

their own coverage, very important for young people with CML who may find it

difficult to find a job with health insurance due to economy.

•Preventive care must be provided with no additional out-of-pocket costs.

•Insurance companies cannot charge more for out-of-network emergency room

visits.

________________________________

From: Lottie Duthu <lotajam@...>

CML < >

Sent: Sun, October 10, 2010 9:22:04 PM

Subject: [ ] Family Research Council Health News

WHAT'S NEW WITH THE HEALTHCARE BILL

" he President's new health care law is finally resulting in some bipartisanship.

According to a new poll, both parties are growing to hate it. Although the

numbers for repeal are solidly in the Republican camp (56% want the law

overturned), a general dissatisfaction is starting to creep into the President's

own party. A shocking one in four Democrats is now in favor of repeal--with 49%

of undecided voters piling on. That news is particularly bad for 12 Freshman

Democrats, who are taking a crack at a second term in hostile districts. In each

one, " a majority of those surveyed said they want the controversial law gone. "

And that starts with firing the people who put it there. "

http://tinyurl.com/26rf9yd

___________________

This just in: " Congress is assuming control of all your personal economic

decisions. Or so says Judge Steeh, who yesterday became the first man

ever to rule on the constitutionality of the new health care law. The suit,

brought by our friends at the More Law Center, argued that it's an abuse

of power for Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance. Judge Steeh

disagreed, insisting (in his 20-page opinion) that the federal government has a

" right " to force citizens to buy products whether they want them or not. Of

course, there's nothing in the Constitution to support that argument. Nowhere

does it state that citizens can be required by an act of Congress to purchase

anything--including insurance policies. But that didn't matter to Judge Steeh,

who also struck down a challenge over the financial penalty imposed on people

who don't buy insurance. " The minimum coverage provision... is a reasonable

means of effectuating Congress's goal, " he wrote. " (more at Website)

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU10J05 & f=PG07J01

________________________

FYI,

Lottie Duthu