Scalise: We Should Not Create a Health Care Czar - CSPAN, 8 28 09

Congressman Scalise joined host U.S. Sen. Vitter as well as U.S. Sen. Barrasso (WY) and U.S. Reps. Fleming and Alexander (LA) at at Health Care Town Hall Meeting in Kenner, LA on Friday, August 28.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Scalise
• Health Care
• Czar
• Vitter
• Barraso
• Fleming
• Alexander
• Town Hall Meeting

[Rivage1]

HOLY CRAP... Someone honest, someone who actually reads the Bill...Someone who is FOR AMERICA AND IT'S FREEDOM.

I like. Fav. Five star.

[KARStarla]

Thank you rep Scalise for your diligence and hard work, thank you for reading the bills and informing the people, whether its on cap and trade or the healthcare bill we appreciate you, even us in other states

[tophacud]

Too bad you read no further, in sec 123, specifically pg30, the bill discusses essential benefits and goes into detail on how they may be altered. An advisory committee is discussed consisting of the surgeon general and; a) 9 non fed members appt'd by the president, b) 9 non fed members appointed by the US comp troller, or c) 9 Fed members appointed by the president. I wonder which option obama would choose (C!) to ensure that essential benefits are altered in such a way that crushes privateHC

[tophacud]

When Steve is speaking he is acting as though this version of the bill has already passed which sheds light on what the government can do if this were a reality, it's a way of provoking the audience's emotions, he AND the audience know the bill has not passed. Furthermore, he is a proponent of keeping your existing healthcare plan, but argues that the government can take it away if it doesn't meet their standards, this isn't stated directly BUT that's the issue, anything not stated is possible.

[tophacud]

He refers to CZAR as the person that will be in control of the government run healthcare IF it passes, he is NOT referring to the people who may choose to apply for healthcare if this bill passes. Also he is saying that on page 15 it states that the gov can tax your income if your private provider doesn't meet the new government standards regardless of your satisfaction. Steve has read the bill cover to cover, and sights pages pertinent to our freedom to choose throughout his videos.

[azn4lfe1]

nical approprieateness.

(D) Additional Protections

I could go on and on, basically they're saying that if a health plan doesn't have all these standards, which is what Obama has been saying from the start, then it will be against the law to abuse it's insured persons.

So yes, the first line of the bill does in fact make sense and although I was wrong in my post, rather than the insured person, this line actually is necessary to setting the new standards as that is what people write bills do.

[azn4lfe1]

"..unless the plaintiff meets the applicable requirements" which are: Subtitles (B)(C)(D) : (B) - Prohibiting pre-existing condition exclusions. Guaranteed issue and renewal for insured plans. Nondiscrimination in benefits; {arity in mental health and substance abuse disorder benefits. Ensuring adequacy of provider networks. Ensuring value and lower premiums.

(C) Standards Guaranteeing Access to essential benefits. Including choice of coverage. No restrictions on coverage unrelated to cli

[azn4lfe1]

I see. I did misunderstand the "plaintiff" and falsely thought that it defined the insured person rather than the health. Be that as it may, suppose the plaintiff (health care provider) really doesn't meet the applicable requirements. He doesn't even say what those requirements are. Luckily I've read past the first line of the bill (the line he brought up in questions in page 15, yes that is ONLY the FIRST line of the 1017 page bill HR3200).

[azn4lfe1]

Also, it is a fallacy that if one (of the 30 million uninsured Americans) is inelligible to qualify for the gov. health plan, it's impossible for the government to take it away because the plan was never given in the first place. How can the government take away health insurance that hasn't even been given out? Next, for us (insured Americans) he says it himself in the beginning that you may KEEP your plan. What's wrong with keeping your plan? I'm using Scalise's quotes here mind you. =P

[azn4lfe1]

Czar -noun. Meaning emporor or king. I don't understand...All it said was people not applicable for the plan will not get it unless the person meets the applicable requirements. In no way does the thought "Czar" come into anyone's minds when speaking plain english occur when reading "applicants not applicable are not eligible." It doesn't make sense, however people applaud this. I hope that there are still educated critical thinkers that actually have any logical arguments to bring fourth.

[CANZEENSO]

It appears that a French revolution is inevitable

United States is ran by the pharmaceutical industry

The word pharmacy means literally or figuratively black magic sorcery witchcraft look it up

Unfortunately the vast majority of Americans are not inform about reality

Most Americans except a lie as the true then the truth as reality

Keep listening to the mainstream media that lies constantly

[fragment4u]

don`t forget about the FED audit the fed