Friday, September 11, 2009

I Can Read Too! Part 1 : Jason Chaffetz . . .

"America has forgotten how to read, or at least most of us. This must be the case because it seems that nowadays, we must be read to by our legislators and radio commentators for we don't seem to have the skills to make decisions on our own. So I have decided to read for us. I Can Read Too! is an series poised at giving context to the claims that politicians make based on snippets and excerpts that they provide to us of humongous bills and legislation passed through our Government for which we don't take the time to read ourselves. Reading is fundamental! And the more you do it, the more you can make decisions for yourself versus having to rely on persons with perhaps self-interested motives to make decisions for you. Our first goes out to Congressman Chaffetz of the great State of Utah."



Greetings Congressman Chaffetz:

I was watching a video on CNN which you quoted from the HR3200 bill regarding the "euthanasia" claims as well as the requirement to submit income tax documentation for affordability credits. My assumption is that you have read the entire document because you are quoting from it, but I am a bit baffled why you didn't provide the necessary context around the need for income tax documentation. The excerpt you quote and highlight in your video (". . . the individuals income shall be the income for the most recent taxable year . . . ") pertains to the distribution of affordability credits supplied by the government? Do you not feel this is valid information? Do you not think that it is a good process to verify that persons receiving said credits are actually in need of them? Or is the government to take people on their word and word alone? So if I make $100k a year and tell you that I make $10,000 (below the poverty line in the contiguous 48 states), would you not need to verify that? That is the true intent of the income verification you referred to but it seems that you left this out? Why is that the case?

You also spoke to the confusion surrounding the "euthanasia" claims in section 1233: Advance Care Planning Consultation. You again highlighted a portion of the bill which provided an "explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end of life services and supports available". You stated that you could see why people would be confused. Yet you didn't take the time to explain that was only a sentence of Part E of Section 1233. Unless the alphabet has changed, four letters precede letter E, those four letters providing context to section E. Context provides understanding. Context provides support. Why have you elected to leave out the context? Do you not feel your constituents are not able to comprehend? You also stated that it's not optional? Where is it deemed in either HR3200 or Social Security Act 1861 that it is mandatory? Perhaps I missed it somewhere in the context. Is the provision in actuality limiting the amount to be paid out by the government in only allowing this to be done every five years? Do you suggest that this consultation between physician and patient be done more frequent at greater cost to the government?

I would implore that you take the time to provide context to your constituents. It's imperative that we be provided adequate and contextual information as we attempt to make sound decisions on where we stand with respect to the next generation of health care legislation in our country. Not doing so could be seen as shady politics.

I suppose that you signed up to do these videos on CNN to show that you are, as your site states, "driven by what is right, guided by the Constitution, committed to integrity and personal responsibility." Please hold steadfast to these humble and noble principles. It is what is necessary from our new and future leadership in America's political arena.

With Sincere Thanks,

Robert Weaver

0 comments:

Post a Comment