noworldsystem.com


The Elderly Need to Fear Health Care Reform

The Elderly Need to Fear ObamaCare – Coburn’s Message: ‘You’re Going To Die Soon’

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuRDFeqmZNk

Obama’s Adviser Robert Reich: OLD PEOPLE MUST DIE

ObamaCare: Just Another Tax On The Middle-Class

Wall Street to Make a Killing On Early Deaths

Obamacare: ZERO compassion for the Disabled

Obama Adviser: No Health Care For The Disabled

 



ObamaCare: Just Another Tax On The Middle-Class

Baucus Bill Will Impose 23% Tax Rate Increase on Middle Class

TaxProf
October 14, 2009

Following up on last week’s post (80% Marginal Tax Rates After Health Care Reform), there is an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal by former Director of the Congressional Budget Office Douglas Holtz-Eakin, The Baucus Bill Is a Tax Bill; Middle-Class Families Would Get Hit With a Double-Digit Increase in Their Marginal Tax Rate:

Most astounding of all is what this Congress is willing to do to struggling middle-class families. The bill would impose nearly $400 billion in new taxes and fees. Nearly 90% of that burden will be shouldered by those making $200,000 or less.

It might not appear that way at first, because the dollars are collected via a 40% tax on sales by insurers of “Cadillac” policies, fees on health insurers, drug companies and device manufacturers, and an assortment of odds and ends.

But the economics are clear. These costs will be passed on to consumers by either directly raising insurance premiums, or by fueling higher health-care costs that inevitably lead to higher premiums. Consumers will pay the excise tax on high-cost plans. The Joint Committee on Taxation indicates that 87% of the burden would fall on Americans making less than $200,000, and more than half on those earning under $100,000.

Industry fees are even worse because Democrats chose to make these fees nondeductible. This means that insurance companies will have to raise premiums significantly just to break even. American families will bear a burden even greater than the $130 billion in fees that the bill intends to collect. According to my analysis, premiums will rise by as much as $200 billion over the next 10 years—and 90% will again fall on the middle class.

Senate Democrats are also erecting new barriers to middle-class ascent. A family of four making $54,000 would pay $4,800 for health insurance, with the remainder coming from subsidies. If they work harder and raise their income to $66,000, their cost of insurance rises by $2,800. In other words, earning another $12,000 raises their bill by $2,800—a marginal tax rate of 23%. Double-digit increases in effective tax rates will have detrimental effects on the incentives of millions of Americans.

 

Obamacare Means $1,700 More in Insurance Premiums for a Typical Family

Dick Morris
Townhall
October 14, 2009

Will a young, healthy, childless individual or couple buy health insurance costing 7.5 percent of their income as required by Obama’s health legislation? Not until they get sick. Then, they can always buy the insurance — and the Obama bill requires the insurance companies to give it to them. And, if the premiums come to more than 7.5 percent of their income because they are now sick, no problem. Obama will subsidize it.

Instead, young, healthy, childless people will likely opt to pay the $1,000 fine (a.k.a., slap on the wrist) mandated in the bill. After all, even if they make as little as $50,000 a year, the fine is a lot cheaper than 7.5 percent of their income (or $3,500 a year)!

So … these young households will not contribute to the coffers of any health insurance company until they are sick and need the coverage. By then, their costs will come to vastly more than their premiums.

Who will subsidize the difference? We will.

The insurance industry estimates that the bill will drive up premiums for the average family by $1,700 a year. By the time the bill takes effect in 2013, it estimates that the average annual family health insurance premiums (now $12,300) will rise to $17,200 if the Obama bill is passed, but only to $15,500 if it is defeated.

And who do you think the voters will blame for the hike in their premium? The Democrats who passed the bill.

Supporters of the bill are quick to counter that greater efficiency, etc. will hold down premiums. But they have little to answer the argument that, without higher fines, the young and healthy will not consent to pay an arm and a leg for insurance they don’t need.

Any lingering motivation to pay the premiums will disappear once the Obama bill requires insurance companies to cover them when they do, finally, limp in the door, desperately in need of insurance. Why pay now when you can always pay later? And, with a government subsidy, you gain nothing by paying for all those years when you don’t need insurance.

So Obama’s program turns out not to be one to spread insurance and thus spread the risk of costly illness, but one to make people pay 7.5 percent of their incomes once they get sick, with the government picking up their remaining premium and the health insurance customers paying for the medical expenses. Some deal!

So tote up the cost of this bill on the middle class:

— $1,700 more in insurance premiums for the average family.

— Medical devices like wheelchairs and hearing aids get taxed.

— Those who are sick must pay an average of about $600 more a year in income taxes because the bill raises the threshold for deducting medical expenses from 7.5 percent of income to 10 percent.

— A $404 billion cut in Medicare.

— Ending the subsidized Medicare Advantage insurance for costs over and above Medicare. Without Medicare Advantage, the elderly can only augment Medicare by buying Medigap coverage for which no subsidy is available and whose premiums are higher (offered, conveniently enough, by Obama’s buddies at the AARP).

— No importation of Canadian medicines and no competitive bidding to hold down prescription drug costs (Obama’s deal to get Pharma’s support and advertising dollars).

— A shortage of medical personnel and equipment as 30 million new patients are added without any expansion of the population of doctors and nurses. This shortage will make rationing inevitable, even if it shortens life expectancies among the elderly.

And, all of this assumes that the House bill, which imposes a 4.5 percent payroll tax (which will discourage new employment), does not pass — and that the cost estimates of this program prove realistic. Despite the Congressional Budget Office’s concurrence, one can’t help noticing that Massachusetts’ program was estimated to cost $200 million in 2005 and now costs $700 million!

This health care bill is, indeed, Obama’s first tax on the middle class.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL7ak__MGyw

 



ObamaCare Moves Forward

ObamaCare Moves Forward
Senate Finance Committee passes a $829 billion Baucus’ health care bill by a 14-9 vote, with the support of one Republican (Olympia Snowe R-Maine). There are many more bills health care reform has to pass before Obama signs the final bill into law.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84KkFwSHAqs

 

The Truth About the Baucus Healthcare Bill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj6GyFEA3FI

Max Baucus Placed Gag Order On Medicare Companies Concerning Cuts

 



Cop tells retired Nurse about Mandatory Vaccinations

Retired Nurse Claims Ex-Cop Told Her Police Are Preparing For Door-to-Door Swine Flu Shots

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMBmwMeH9cs

 

The Swine Flu Conspiracy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMqYlnAiIUU

 



Only 1/3 Of Americans Believe Swine Flu Vaccines Are Safe

Harvard Survey: Only 1/3 Of Americans Believe Swine Flu Vaccines Are Safe

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
October 2, 2009

A survey conducted by Harvard University has found that only one third of adults trust the safety of the imminently available H1N1 vaccine.

Just 40% of respondents said they would take the swine flu shot in the poll carried out by Harvard Opinion Research Program at Harvard School of Public Health.

The study, funded under a cooperative agreement with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, also found that respondents were worried about side effects or not concerned about catching the flu at all.

44% of respondents who were parents said they were unsure over getting their children vaccinated against H1N1, with 21% of those parents saying they absolutely will not allow their kids to be vaccinated.

Parents said that they were concerned about their children getting other illnesses from the vaccine and that they do not trust public health officials to tell them about vaccine safety.

The results show a great public distrust in the vaccine with just one third (33%) of the public viewing the H1N1 vaccine as very safe “generally for most people to take”. Even less (18%) believe it is safe for children aged 6 months to 2 years, and only 13% feel it is safe for pregnant women.

Almost one third (31%) of respondents think that public health officials’ concerns over H1N1 flu have been overblown.

Of the 40% of adults who said they would not take the shot, the majority said they may reconsider if people begin dying from the virus en mass.

The survey was conducted with a broad representative national sample of 1042 adults aged 18 and over.

The survey dovetails with a similar poll from Consumer Reports, one of the top-ten-circulation magazines in the country, that found almost two thirds of Americans would either refuse the vaccine outright or wait for more information before considering vaccinating their children.

As we have previously reported, both the GlaxoSmithKilne and the Novartis H1N1 vaccines contain both the novel adjuvant squalene, which has been linked to Gulf War Syndrome, and thimerosal, the mercury based preservative that some scientists have testified can cause brain disorders.

The vaccines have been rushed through safety procedures while the government has provided pharmaceutical companies with blanket immunity from lawsuits arriving out of the vaccine causing deaths and injuries.

In related news, more hospitals are demanding that workers be mandated to take the H1N1 shot, while Sacramento International Airport is to offer vaccinations in its terminals in a precedent setting move that critics have described as concerning.

Vaccine Is On Its Way, But Public Still Wary

Vaccine Skepticism Worries Health Officials

 



45% Of Doctors Might Quit If ObamaCare Passes Senate

45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul

Investors
September 15, 2009

Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.

The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors’ own lobby — the powerful American Medical Association — both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul.

It also calls into question whether an overhaul is even doable; 72% of the doctors polled disagree with the administration’s claim that the government can cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost.

The IBD/TIPP Poll was conducted by mail the past two weeks, with 1,376 practicing physicians chosen randomly throughout the country taking part. Responses are still coming in, and doctors’ positions on related topics — including the impact of an overhaul on senior care, medical school applications and drug development — will be covered later in this series.

 



Question a doctor and lose your child

Question a doctor and lose your child

Daniel Foggo
London Times
September 8, 2009

PARENTS are being threatened with having their children taken into care after questioning doctors’ diagnoses or objecting to their medical care.

John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP, who campaigns to stop injustices in the family court, said: “Very often care proceedings are used as retaliation by local authorities against ‘uppity’ people who question the system.”

Cases are emerging across the UK:

The mother of a 13-year-old girl who became partly paralysed after being given a cervical cancer vaccination says social workers have told her the child may be removed if she (the mother) continues to link her condition with the vaccination.

A couple had all six of their children removed from their care after they disputed the necessity of an invasive medical test on their eldest daughter. Doctors, who suspected she might have had a blood disease, called for social services to obtain an emergency protection order, although it was subsequently confirmed that she was not suffering from the condition. The parents were still considered unstable, and all their children were taken from them.

A single mother whose teenage son is terminally ill and confined to a wheelchair has been told he is to become the subject of a care order after she complained that her local authority’s failure to provide bathroom facilities for him has left her struggling to maintain sanitary standards.

Read Full Article Here