Illegals (p.50):

Quite vague in the bill, could be interpreted as non-discriminatory on health issues, but I understand he could interpret it this way. Should definitely be more precise.

Electronic funds control (p.58,59):

Also too vague and I would agree with him that it sounds like payment control.

Subsidized for union retirees: p.65

Conflict of interest for me here. Sounds good to me.

Tax: p.203

Not sure why this is a big deal or if I even understand it but it looks like it is a way to calculate eligibility.

Physician fees: p.241/253

He seems wrong here. It pretty clearly states that a "conversion factor" will be used to determine each specialty rate.

Cancer hospital: p.272

That's a big, clear lie. It (for once) very clearly states that the cost of treatment of a cancer patient will be will be compared to the same cost at other hospitals to prevent certain hospitals from overcharging.

Hospital Expansion: p.425

He is not saying everything. This restriction is in ONLY for hospitals owned by a physician. They do not want a single physician/businessman to build a hegemonic care center based purely on profit.

End of Life planning: p.p.429

Here again a complete re-interpretation of the bill. The bill states that would a patient not have seen a doctor in the last 5 years, the doctor needs to clearly state to the patient all their rights and options. Very different than the nerve-poking terms "end-of-life seminar".

Government choose end-of life doctor:p.429

I absolutely do not see this in this paragraph.

…It took me an hour to go through this, and it is all in very dry legal lingo. Nothing most of us will go through the pain of doing regularly. This judge knows that and that's why he very loosely bases his facts on the bill and rephrases sentences to strike an emotional cord. Very dangerous. There is a huge amount of propaganda and facts twisting on both sides. I think it is good to be informed but these days I absolutely do not trust politicians and even less Republicans. But since we can't go through all the bills, we do indeed have to listen to both sides and at the end choose a voice we can agree with. I quickly get the big picture of someone's agenda these days. When this judge opens her letter with some bonehead recommendations, he clearly shows that he has an agenda and that he does not prioritizes enlightening us with facts.

His input?

Put money to fight drugs instead:

The Bush administration has spent billions already for 8 years. Results? Jails overcrowded with small time offenders (corporate handout), and Mexico almost under martial law because the drugs lords are so powerful. Want to fight drugs? Make pot legal and tax it like tobacco, that'll be enough to fund a health care reform. Kids can already find pot anywhere anyway so that's really not the issue.

Hire more firemen and cops:

??? How will that help provide health care? Sounds like an argument from a 4 year old.

Protecting borders:

Sure you can waist a massive amount of money to do that, it might work. You can call Israel too, they'll have good tips on walling in a country… or you could simply have a sustainable income wage enforced by raising minimum wage or taxing the hell out of companies who go take jobs abroad. How about parity? Charge companies the difference in wages when they go to China and put it in a fund to pay for unemployment? The only reason why there are illegal immigrants here is because people are willing to hire them for pennies. And yes, people do need to feed their family, nothing wrong with that. Just because we have the good fortune to have been born here does not give us the right to lecture others.

Thomas Edwards, editor of the River Cities Tribune, was contacteed to get legal permission to quote David Kithil's comments. Permission was granted, so here are excerpts from the article, giving EXACT pages and paragraphs in the bill and why it is so bad. You can forward this to all of your email contacts. I think Judge Kithil hits everything right on the head,and the opposition you may encounter cannot argue over these points:

JUDGE KITHIL wrote:

"I have reviewed selected sections of the bill and find it unbelievable that our Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a bill loaded with so many wrong-headed elements.

“How many of us believe our federal government can manage a new program any better than the bankrupt Medicare program or the underfunded Social Security program?

"Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the financial mess of those two programs.

"I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons. To start with, it is estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees will be required to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are going to hire 150,000 new employees, let's put them to work protecting our borders, fighting the massive drug problem and putting more law enforcement/firefighters out there."

NOW, here comes the good stuff:

JUDGE KITHIL continued: "Other problems I have with this bill include:

** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.

** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.

** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now – ACORN).

** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)

** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.

** Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age.

** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.

** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years.

** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on:

"Finally, it is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick "fix" to make the plan financially sound for the future."

Honorable David Kithil

Marble Falls , Texas

Also add, "No federal government employee or elected official can act as a lobbyist upon leaving office for a period of 20 years. No family members are allowed to negotiate for any government contracts or act as lobbyists for a period of 20 years. Government service is not intended for enrichment. The honor of serving and a government pension is adequate compensation from the American people."