UPDATED 09-14-09: WILL OBAMA HAVE ACCESS TO YOUR BANK ACCOUNT IF HEALTHCARE BILL PASSES?…

Posted on August 7, 2009. Filed under: News And Politics... |

 
UPDATED:  Monday, September 14, 2009 4:10 PM (My original post follows my update)
 
I came across these two sites, both of which say that our government will not have access to our bank accounts; however, if you pay your bill electronically, they would have access to take payment out, wouldn’t they?  I am skeptical over this simply because our government has a bad reputation for changing the laws to suit their agendas.  Just look at what Ted Kennedy wanted to do just before his demise.  He wanted to change the very law he put in place to suit the Democrats and their majority.  This is still up in the air, but it’s a good example of the way our government runs.
 
All you have to do is look at the promises Obama campaigned on and fast-forward to today and see how the tides have turned, and not in a good way.  He has broken many campaign promises and has not lived up to many of them.  Why should we take him at his word when he sings a different tune down the road?  I want to believe that he will help us get America back on track, but he won’t be able to do it by ruling from the left…
 
QueenBee
 
 
 
 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
 

 
This is the latest news spreading through the Blogosphere and it isn’t good news.  Some say that our government will be able to access our bank accounts in order to fund Obama’s new HealthSCare bill.  According to the Patriot Act, this may be possible.  If this is, in fact, true, then I’m thinking that our government had something to do with September 11th…infusing fear into Americans purposely so that the Patriot Act could pass and which will now give a free pass to Obama in taking over every aspect of our lives.  When the Patriot Act was put in place, I thought it was a great bill that would allow our government to monitor terrorists.  Thinking that they would use it against regular Americans didn’t even enter my mind at the time.  No wonder Obama kept it in place, even though he spoke against it.  It’s one lie after another, and he’s the only one who benefits by every bill he passes.  Speak out against Obama and you will be pounded by Obamabots (ACORN would help with the dirty deed, I’m sure).  If we try to leave, they will not allow us to.  I’m sure the airports will be shut down to prevent this.  They’re already pitting smear campaigns against American citizens, and they have the cash to do it.  Now Obama and the Democrats are calling us "angry mobs" (see video) because we are speaking out against what our current government is trying to ram down our throats. 
 
I don’t picture myself as a fearful person, but I’m now fearful for our country and everything it stands for.  Freedom is slowly changing to Doom.  The only thing "fishy" that I’m seeing is every bill that Obama puts into play.  In a free country, which we now have, we are within our rights to disagree.  Who the heck died and left Obama and the Democrats boss?  America’s freedom, that’s what!    We no longer have freedom of choice or speech under this radical government we have.  We are told to notify the White House if we see or hear fellow Americans speaking out against Obama and his HealthSCare.  The audacity of Obama and his version of "change" is not something I voted for, and I certainly didn’t vote for him or his "change".  I hope all of you who voted for him like eating crow.  Because of Obama, no longer are we able to reap the rewards from working hard as our rewards often go to the undeserving.  This will only discourage Americans from working hard because everything you earn will be taken away from you to go to people who don’t work.  What’s the incentive?  This is a major catastrophe what is happening to America.  Say goodbye to America and hello to Obamica…
 
 
 
QueenBee
 
 
 

Obama Health Bill Allows Government Real-time Access to Bank Accounts

Posted By admin On August 3, 2009 @ 12:35 pm In Featured Stories | 83 Comments

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
August 3, 2009
 

Not only will Obama ration your health care — especially if you are a senior citizen — and have the government decide what treatment and benefits you get, the proposed plan will also build and expand the government’s surveillance and control grid.

Section 163 of the bill now in Congress allows the government real-time access to a person’s bank records, including direct access to bank accounts for electronic fund transfers.

Section 163 of the bill now in Congress allows the government real-time access to a person’s bank records, including direct access to bank accounts for electronic fund transfers. “Even-though the bill mentions privacy aspects, the fact remains that if approved, Obama’s health care plan will allow government access at any time to your personal bank records,” KFYI News reports.

“It’s pretty Orwellian, it certainly gets the government pretty darn deeply involved in private matters in our lives,” Arizona Congressman John Shadegg told the news radio station.

Orwellian it is, but hardly surprising or unprecedented.

After September 11, 2001, the government began tapping into a vast global database of confidential financial transactions. The government implemented a surveillance program and used a broad interpretation of the Treasury Department’s administrative powers to bypass traditional banking privacy protections. It is run by the CIA and managed by the Treasury Department.

“Current and former counterterrorism officials said the program works in parallel with the previously reported surveillance of international telephone calls, faxes and e-mails by the National Security Agency, which has eavesdropped without warrants on more than 5,000 Americans suspected of terrorist links,” the Washington Post reported on June 23, 2006. “Together with a hundredfold expansion of the FBI’s use of ‘national security letters’ to obtain communications and banking records, the secret NSA and Treasury programs have built unprecedented government databases of private transactions, most of them involving people who prove irrelevant to terrorism investigators.”

Treasury officials did not seek individual court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions, according to the New York Times.

As the Department of Homeland Security admits, the terrorists who supposedly threaten the United States are not Muslims plotting in distant caves, but the American people.

Section 163 of Obama’s bill is merely an attempt by the government to legitimize its massive snooping under the cover of health care. In addition to deducting medical costs directly from you account, the law will allow the state to monitor all of your financial transactions.

 
 
QueenBee
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Advertisements

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

8 Responses to “UPDATED 09-14-09: WILL OBAMA HAVE ACCESS TO YOUR BANK ACCOUNT IF HEALTHCARE BILL PASSES?…”

RSS Feed for QueenBeeWorld… Comments RSS Feed

Queen,I\’m slow to respond. I was traveling and not online much. We are a representative government. Citizens don\’t vote directly on issues of national policy, like whether to invade Iraq. Legislation is proposed, debated and enacted by our elected representatives. our "voice" comes from our opportunity to try ti persuade our personal representative, to elect/re-elect or not, based on performance AND from our ability to speak up in certain public fora, like town hall meetings and rallies.Actually, of the bills that is before one of the committees contains a provision that requires Senators and Congressmen to immediately move to the "public option" (in some bills referred to as an "insurance exchange") as soon as it becomes available. So, yes, I can imagine the possibility that I could be on the same health care insurance plan as a member of Congress. As for "old Ted Kennedy," he is the beneficiary of significant inherited wealth. Do you really think that the health care he is receiving now is limited strictly to the coverage that is provided under the Senate\’s plan? I have heard this egalitarian appeal from all the outspoken opponents of health care reform, including fat old millionaire Rush Limbaugh. Do you imagine for one minute that his treatment for drug addiction, phlebitis and coronary artery disease was limited to what you and I might get on our current health care plan? The idea that a reformed system will institute inequalities in the level of care from which the present system is free is just too preposterous for words. It always amazes me that this canard keeps getting pushed.As for the flaws in the Canadian system, as long as you are willing to operate on the theory that the proposed plan will, in fact, be completely different from what is proposed, then opposing it becomes an easy task doesn\’t. You just conjure up any "bad" system and say, "They say this will be different but of course they will change that later." What President Obama HAS said a number of times is that he believes the best system, over all, is a single-payer system and that if we were starting from scratch, that would be the best way to go. (I agree, but explaining that takes a lot of space.) He ALWAYS goes on to say that we have, however, a long history of developing an extensive system of private health insurers and employee paid health benefits and that scrapping that now to start all over would be foolish. It\’s not hard to understand the meaning of that, is it? Quoting the first part of that statement, and pretending the rest of it never happened is a favorite tactic of the conservative talk radio hosts and others leading the opposition. But it is not honest. It is a form of swindle.I can\’t speak with any knowledge of Daniel Hannon. I will have to look into him, his background and his position. It is not my style to impugn or question anyone without giving him/her a real hearing. I will say this, being a member of the British Parliament is no guarantee, in and of itself, of any measure of good sense. I have to know something about the actual guy. I promise you I will look into it and come back.FWIW, I have a sister who has lived in London for nearly thirty years. She has been through all the normal health stuff for a 66 year-old plus some severe back problems and an acute parasitic affliction as a result of travel in Africa. She also recently lost her husband to pancreatic cancer. Throughout it all, she has given high praise to the doctors, facilities and availability of care under the British system. I will have to ask you to take it on faith that my sister is NOT an easy person to please.Since you feel that the people behind health care reform are "sneaky and despicable" it is pretty easy to see why you have trouble believing what they are saying. I DO wonder, though, why you speak of a plan to "enforce universal healthcare onto us." Do you feel like you have a personal stake in making sure that a portion of the population does not have coverage?This is getting pretty long. I will come back in another comment and address the cost overrun and some of your other points. Exciting to know that I have more to say, isn\’t it? <s>

Like

Stephen, thank you for your kind words.The thing that I\’m having trouble with over this healthcare issue is this: Why is it that we can\’t vote on this healthcare bill or even voice our opinions on it and our government can? After all, the government isn\’t even going to participate. Why is it that they aren\’t? Do you really think for one minute that old Ted Kennedy would be getting the superior treatment he\’s getting if he was on government-run healthcare system? Do you really think old Chris Dodd would have gotten prostate surgery as quickly as he did if he was on universal healthcare? I have a friend who is living the nightmare of universal healthcare in Canada and what she says is not the same as what Obama is saying it is. Of course, Obama is saying "it won\’t be like Canada\’s". He may say that now, but he will be recanting those words down the road. Remember when (and there is a video proving it) where Obama is taped saying that "he is in favor of a single-payer healthcare system" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDAPLb-HVcM then he changes his wording to get around it, as he always does. I\’m afraid we will all be the recipients of a terrible healthcare system if Obama\’s universal healthcare gets through. What do they care? They don\’t have to suffer with it. Obama is trying to tell us that he wants us to have a system "like what they have". Well, if it\’s "like what they have", why not get on it like the rest of us? That will not be done because it isn\’t the same. One man I respect highly is Daniel Hannon, a Member of UK\’s Parliament, who states that universal healthcare is a nightmare and once you have universal healthcare in place, it\’s extremely hard to remove it, which is the main reason why the UK still has it. Here he is in his own words (posted on my blog): http://queenbeeworld.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!57C67D21BFBFAD82!893.entry?wa=wsignin1.0&sa=296828740I\’ve watched the town hall meetings and the ones attended by senators were not like the ones attended by Obama himself. Why? Because the protesters were held outside in Obama\’s. The Democrats were savvy enough to downplay the resistance when Obama is in the picture, misrepresenting the public\’s opinion to this nightmare of a bill. It\’s a fact that they have "plants" in these town hall meetings, and I\’m talking about the Democrat "plants". You can\’t tell me that that 11 year old who attended one of the town hall meetings where Obama was manufactured that question to him asking why so many people opposed his great healthcare system that would help people. Please! She was most likely put up to it by her parents or members of the Obama posse. They are so sneaky and despicable and will use any tactic at their disposal to enforce universal healthcare onto us even though they don\’t know what\’s included in the bill and they don\’t want any part of it themselves. I\’ll tell you, Stephen. I would not purchase a product where the advertiser did not want to have anything to do with their own product. One more thing, why are they going to offer free healthcare to illegal aliens? We\’re going to be the ones paying for them. Is that fair to us? Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are government-run programs, and they\’re all just about broke. This is what happens to government-run programs–they\’re a sham. One thing I\’m sure even you have to agree with…Because they\’re all going broke, the government is going to have to rescind some benefits to help defray the cost overrun, and that will be benefits to seniors, I can assure you. They already want to cut $500B from Medicare. If it\’s going to come down to a decision between a hip replacement for a 75 year old or a 46 year old, where do you think the money will go?I don\’t buy any of Obama\’s crap, Stephen. He\’s already lied and has flip-flopped on several issues. His rhetoric may be colorful to some, and he may seem charismatic to others, but what I see is a wolf in sheep\’s clothing. Fear mongering won Obama the election (remember how all the Democrats were saying if people didn\’t vote for Obama, they were racists)? Even the media had all sorts of stories stating that there would be rioting in the streets if Obama didn\’t get elected. Now we have the Democrats running at the mouth against everyday Americans who are opposed to Obama\’s healthcare plan. I no longer see a government for the people. What I see is a government against the people…QB

Like

Okay, we are discussing, which is good. First of all, Queen, let me express my sincere condolences on the passing of your sister\’s mother-in-law. Always a sad event, even when the person is not as well-loved as she obviously was.I took in all you said about the inequality in her access to care vs. Ted Kennedy\’s etc. I was puzzled as to why that would be an argument for NOT making radical changes in the way we currently "insure" medical care for everyone. Imagine how much worse is the situation for the person in their 30s or 40s who was laid off a year ago. Having lost their employer-sponsored coverage, they are now out of the range of COBRA, working part-time with no benefits, years away from Medicare eligibility. We need change, and the two major changes that are needed are: 1) move health care toward wellness-care and prevention and away from reactive treatment, and 2) Move toward universal coverage. Overall, health care expenditures will grow more slowly if everyone has the opportunity to be treated before conditions become emergencies.As for the "disclaimer," I am not very sympathetic, in the current debate environment, to those who spread wild inaccuracies with just a mild "if this is true…" A cartoon, two long paragraphs about "one lie after another" and the closing of airports to keep desperate citizens from fleeing the chaos are not balanced by a brief "if this is true, then…"You *DO* have a right to your opinion. That is fundamental to America and my opinion, Pres. Obama\’s, Ted Kennedy\’s or no other opinion is any more entitled to expression than is yours. Note that I didn\’t speak in any way against your right to express your fears. All I challenged was that the title, illustration and first few sentences (what my old teachers always called the theme of the piece) were all predicated on the preposterous idea that the president has promulgated a bill in Congress that authorizes confiscatory withdrawals from private bank accounts in order to pay for a government program.To Tom: Nobody is saying that Medicare costs won\’t go up over the long-haul, as the Boomers (I\’m one) come on the plan. The cost-savings that has been referred to is from administrative changes. A significant compnent of the planned overhaul is chnaging the way most claims are processed. Presently, it is not worthwhile for a doctor\’s office or a clinic to make an investment in electronic processing (card scanners, electronic data storage equipment etc.) if just a couple of insurors are going that direction. However, if some 40 Million cureently Uninsureds will move onto a single program, plus financial incentives make it worthwhile for all the major private plans to migrate, then even a small provider benefits immediately from changing over. That means a huge savings in processing of pretty much ALL the medical claims handled each year.

Like

@Stephen, in simple terms that we can all understand, if the Senior population is growing (and it is) and Medicare spending is cut (and that is the proposal), something will have to give. We can quibble about exactly what will be cut, but a lot stuff will have to go. And we can already factor in the fact that Medicare is already going broke.

Like

I\’m back and I checked this out. only one (1) of all the bills before the House or the Senate regarding health care reform has a Sectiion 163. This would be Rep. John Dingell\’s H.R. 3200 titled "America\’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009." Feel free to jump on the databases and double-check that. It will take you quite some time.In Dingell\’s bill, Subtitle S (Early Investments) of Title I contains a Section 163 (Administrative Simplification) which speaks to various administrative requirements to facilitate the speedy processing of authorizations and payments. Among those are included "utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card." It then goes on to discuss the verification of financial responsibility for payment. Only an idiot, or someone trying to deliberately deceive the public, could possibly construe this language as the process of accessing private bank accounts.This is simply what goes on every time you visit your doctor\’s office and are asked for your insurance card. Someone in the doctor\’s ofice contacts the Insuror, verifies that the person being treated is a covered individual (whether an Insured, a spouse or a dependent child). In other words, the guy whose name is on the policy IS, in fact, covered, and IS, in fact legally responsible for the charges.The bill speaks of having this done by using a machine-readable ID card that can be scanned and verify coverage. You probably do exactly that at your local CVS or Walgreen\’s when you pick up your pills , if you have prescription drug coverage.Chill out, and get real!

Like

I have to say this post has a strong whiff of bullsh*t to it. I will check out the language of Section 163 in re the bank account situation. Sounds to me like a big misread, whether intentional or not. As for the new plan "rationing your health care especially if you are a senior," that is a completely bogus scare tactic. Seniors are on Medicare, already run by the government. Almost every senior I talk to has found far less bureaucratic interference with the approval of treatments from Medicare than they experienced when covered by a private insurer. There exist no private health insurance programs that do not involve a "bureaucrat" between the patient and the doctor who must certify every little step. I will be back re the bank account thing.

Like


Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: