The Health Care Bill: Looking Forward

Ooo before reading I want to make a guess..Amy will say that abortion is very important.

Number 4 of the top 5.

She’s a one trick, well two if you want to throw in her obsession with the USCB, pony.

Hey KT – there was a pretty good discussion in comments the other day on the Constitutionality, or lack thereof, of a mandate without a true public option.

Can you or the impressive Kate Pickert shed any light on that, please?

(he asks on Christmas Eve, so I expect you have more pressing matters but when you have the time)

KT, I just read the list. Thanks / kudos to you, Kate, and Amy for this. I hope you three didn’t have to pull all-nighters to do this, although I’m guessing Amy’s a night owl. Yes, Paul, Amy discussed “that issue” – I call it the “pubic option” – but I’m pledging NOT to kick her today (like I ever do, but I digress).

“pubic option” -Ha.

My prediction is women and liberals will be the only ones expected to compromise, because the centrists and conservatives will refuse to. At the same time centrists and conservatives will accuse women and liberals of being unyielding extremists and their hand maidens, the MSM, will carry that theme to the airwaves, just as they have since this process started. No one in the media will expose the bribe taking centrists for what they are.

i’m no constitutional scholar, but here’s a link to what Baucus had to say about this the other day:
.
http://www.enewspf.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12473:floor-statement-by-senator-baucus-re-constitutionality-of-health-care-reform&catid=88888989:health-care-reform&Itemid=88890248

KT – Merry Christmas to you. Hope you and your family have a joyous time together.

(and to all my fellow swamp denizens who celebrate the day)

The constitutionality of the mandate is a very open question. With respect to the Commerce Clause power of Congress, I think that the issue, fundamentally, is whether Congress’ power to “regulate” interstate commerce includes the power to coerce individuals to enter into a commercial transaction. In other words, does that inhere in the ordinary understanding of the word “regulate”? I think the answer is plainly no. Congress can “regulate” transportation–can it make me buy a car?

You’re right about this, but of course women and liberals will be the ones to compromise because they’re the ones that want the bill! If both sides wanted a different bill, then both sides would be compromising. But those who want something have to compromise to get those who don’t want something to agree to it. And in that respect, there are centrists and conservatives who are compromising. Many of them don’t want anything at all.

One question that I think needs answering, and maybe I’m just mistaken, is whether the Cadillac tax is harmful to people with large families. Let’s say someone has five kids–I would assume that their health insurance premiums will go up, and may blow past the $23,000 limit. That would clearly be unfair. Am I right to suggest that is an issue, and if it is, will there be a fix?

Karen,
.
Do they need super majorities in the House and Senate to pass the reconciled version?

Kathy, even the obstructionist right has held the position that reform is necessary. They even put forth a 19 page plan and with such a limited number of pages, you know it had to be good.

Lieberman, and all the other so-called right-wing Liberals, have always argued that change is necessary too. They just absolutely refuse to support anything that the unyielding, extremist Left would like, like cost competition.

Thanks KT. Interesting if, for me, unpersuasive case by Baucus.
.
This is far from my area of expertise but I wonder more about the 9th amendment issue than the 10th.
.
Hard to imagine that this won’t end up in the courts, as it should.

Here comes the sell-job for the centrists’ new health care policy.

Again the trick to achieving constitutionality is making sure that the penalty for non-compliance is framed as a tax. There are many precidents of Congress using their taxing powers to influence behaviors that have already passed Court muster. The current bill is worded with that fact in mind.

Of course someone will sue and of course the bill will wind its way up through the Court system but I suspect there’s enough settled precident that the danger of it being struck down is slight.

spob: I don’t know how it is for private industry plans, but for federal employees there are two tiers to choose from. Self Only and Family Plan. Self only covers only yourself. Family covers the spouse and children regardless of the number of children. There is no difference in premiums whether it is husband and wife only or husband, wife and 10 children. The number of children (or lack of) makes no difference in the family option price. I have a few friends that work in the local power plant and theirs is the same payment structure.

kathy:
.
You’re correct about most liberals wanting this bill, but not all liberals do. There are structural reasons for this.
.
You’re incorrect about centrists not wanting a bill, they do. They want this one. That’s why they passed this centrist policy into law.
.
Most liberals took this, the centrists’ industry-oriented approach over nothing, but there are many reasons for this, amongst which was that the centrists held the welfare provisions of the bill up as representative of the bill, and played the liberal base very expertly.
.
The anti-centrist liberals, the ones who see that a center-left coalition in the Democratic party gets them zero in the way of liberal policy, and find that arrangement dangerous for the country are very, very limited in terms of messaging and mass communications in comparison to the right and center, which have huge media organizations and the leadership of the major political parties.
.
Liberals are also divided ideologically, which is another complicating factor ruthlessly exploited by the politically powerful centrists. This ideological division can roughly be described by the terms “Great Society liberals” vs “New Deal liberals”.
.
“Great Society liberals” describes those liberals for whom government’s role is exemplified in federal welfare programs like Medicaid, and for whom the prime purpose of an activist state is the remediation of social wrongs associated with poverty and social injustices.
.
“New Deal liberals” see the government’s role exemplified in federal entitlement programs like Social Security, and see the purpose of an activist state to be the representation and pursuit of all non-elite interests to balance the private power of industry elites.
.
For welfare liberals, to the extent that the current Senate bill redresses the desperation of the least fortunate, then it’s worth passing, because it’s better than doing nothing about the very real economic and medical problems of those below 200% poverty.
.
For New Deal liberals, to the extent that the current bill redresses the failures of the current health care system that affect everybody but corporations and the most wealthy in America, it’s worth passing, because it will fundamentally alter the balance back in favor of common folks’ interests.
.
Basically, New Deal liberals see this centrist deal as a bank bailout with welfare attached. Great Society liberals see the welfare attached and are largely satisfied with that result –and don’t get to hear much in the way of real, substantial disagreement on the left, except in rightist or centrist terms.
.
The Third Way centrists have shown no hesitation whatsoever in attacking anti-coalition and New Deal liberals by appealing to the welfare liberals in a now classic fashion: by painting Social Security/Trust Busting liberals as extreme ideologues who Don’t Care About People Suffering –just like the rightists!
.
The centrist New Democrats have an extreme structural advantage in this regard, as Chris Bowers lays out very accurately in his post at Open Left ( link to “Grand Unifying Theory of Progressive Frustration” ).
.
So most liberals at this point get their messaging from a very pro-institutional Democrat, pro-Obama, centrist-dominated infrastructure, and are therefore puzzled and disgusted by their “All or Nothing” brethren who don’t seem to care that they might be damaging Obama and the Democrats by loudly complaining about this bill.
.
…And a minority of liberals are looking at the entrenchment of the private system of health care coverage, the continued plundering of the treasury by private interests, and the downward trend on everybody’s wages promised by continued health care price inflation, and have concluded that limited welfare isn’t worth the cost of installing this terrifyingly bad partnership between government elites and industry elites.
.
For the latter group, it’s like seeing the bank deregulation frenzy of the late 1990′s with an unemployment training tax credit program grafted on…the smallest that it could be before welfare liberals started to smell something.
.
That’s the ideological dynamic in play, and there will be many, many more expressions of disgust and antipathy from both sides over the coming year as the centrists prod welfare liberals to crow and preen over this “historic” and “Social Security-esque” legislation, and Social Security liberals figure out what to do with their sorry lot in politics.
.
Thanks for reading and considering this, kathy.

Thats actually a good point.

I think though that you’ll find that the people in that situation pretty uniformly have employer-provided coverage and that the tax will fall on the provider of the group coverage. I’m not sure what the current law has to say about employers discriminating against individuals but I suspect that your hypothetical family will just be subsumed under a group policy and will not be individually affected by the tax.

Of course any tax that has a cut-off point will ‘unfairly’ affect anyone slightly over the cutoff. That’s why many tax bills are written specifically to exempt the majority of voters.

PD-That’s restating your case from the other day, I wish you would have had the time to respond to shakrai’s other points the other day.
.
Beyond the “your wrong” stuff, I mean.
.
That said time will tell as it works its way through the courts.

I first want to say Merry Christmas to everyone in the Swamp.
.
Secondly, the “historic” health care reform bill should be passed at this time, but in actuality, it is not. I do congratuate those on the left for a well fought battle over health care. Many parts of it are indeed worthwhile, and in the best interests of the average American.
.
However, there are many things contained within this bill which are in my humble opinion, detrimental to us all as well.
.
1. Cost – At a time when many people are out of work, and jobs are scarce, businessmen and women will have much to think over in the up-coming year. They will be thinking, how this bill will impact their companies. While there are a few things that help to lessen the burden on some small businesses, the overall burden to pay for insurance for the nearly 31 million people included in the bill falls upon these businessmen and women. (Those being taxed at incomes above $200,000 per year). While all the double counting and the smoke and mirrors show goes on, the cost of this bill is astronomical in size. Another entitlement program that we can ill afford as a Nation at this time. The real losers today, our children and grand children. They will be in debt the rest of their lives.
.
2. Rising premiums – For those who do not fall into the 133% of poverty, will see their health care insurance premiums increase I believe dramatically. 15%? 20%? or more. That is a question time has yet to answer. Time will also tell if those in the middle class will eventually come to a point and they will have to give up their coverage, and “opt out” for a hopefully cheaper “exchange” insurance. Of course they will make too much money to be afforded any kind of subsidy that the lower income and poverty level folks will enjoy with Obama’s “spread the wealth” meme.
.
3. Our constitution under attack. With the “mandate”, a door in my opinion has been opened. Power and control by the Federal Government has taken yet again, and nother step into uncharted waters. For the first time in history, the Federal Government will exercise a right to make you buy something. No choice in the matter, you must do it or face a penalty of potential jail time and/or a fine. You face these penalities regarless of your want, need or desire to have it. An example of how Governments chip away at our individual freedom and liberty. I can only imagine what is next.
.
Things which are good in the bill, insurace companies will no longer be able to deny someone coverage due to pre-existing conditions. But, as most of the bill will not take effect until at least 2013, most in 2014, you will still have time to be denied coverage. Lifetime caps and limits also are to be discontinued in practice, but leaves an unanswered question as to how much our premiums will increase to give us this coverage.
.
But, what this bill really exposed is the corruption on Capitol Hill. How deals are struck to buy and bribe votes. How special interest groups like Big Pharma are given special consideration, and real health care reform was thrown to the curb to protect major campaign contributions. You can see it in the votes cast on the Dorgan Amendment. 17 Republicans and over 30 some Democrats voted “nay” on a real reform that would have saved the American consumer over 100 billion dollars.
.
Merry Christmas America. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have given you your lump of coal. Enjoy it!

“And in that respect, there are centrists and conservatives who are compromising. Many of them don’t want anything at all.”

.
I love it when liberals attempt to paint Republicans as “do nothing”, “just say no” politicians. They paint Republicans as obstructionist, when in fact they simply believe that this bill in and of itself is wrong. The bill is in fact a bad bill all together, and should have been voted down. Painted as not being bipartisan and not acting in the best interest of the American people.
.
All of this a total lie. Given two things in this bill which Republicans overwhelmingly supported, the part which will no longer allow pre-existing conditions to continue as an insurance practice. And, the part which will not permit someone being denied coverage becasue they have exceeded some type of limit to their coverage.
.
Other than these two exceptions, Republicans fought a no win battle to stop the further escalation of spending, the debt this country will owe. They fought against special interest groups like Big Pharma receiving sweetheart deals. They fought against the gutting of Medicare, and the billions of dollars Seniors lose under this bill in coverage they now enjoy.
.
Yes, Seniors in America who have come to rely upon Medicare for their health care coverage, a group of people who based their retirements upon this coverage are the ones who lose the most. Now they are subjected to go back to eating dog and cat food to survive.
.
How happy are liberals now, forcing grandma to eat dog food? Why do liberals hate grandma so much?

Speaking of Constitutional questions-

“The top prosecutors in seven states are probing the constitutionality of a political deal that cut a funding break for Nebraska in order to pass a federal health care reform bill, South Carolina’s attorney general said Tuesday.”

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/AP/story/1395276.html

More links on the subject to be found here:
.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_12/021618.php

Interesting link PD, thanks.
.
The arguments, Erik Hall’s being the best one made I think, would all be fine IF there was a public buy-in.
.
That the “tax” would be handed off to non-governmental bodies will be the issue.

Thanks sacredh. I suspect that it’s something that could be an issue for some people. I’d say we all should agree that it shouldn’t. KT, if this is an issue, shouldn’t there be a fix?

spob: You’re welcome and Merry Christmas.

PD, I think that courts will not necessarily swallow the labels used by Congress. I think the crux of the problem is that “regulate” does not mean “pass any law with respect to”. Like I said, the government cannot force me to buy a car, even though it can regulate transportation.
.
What is truly stunning to me is that the government is going to coerce a massive payment stream to private insurance companies. From a purely ideological standpoint, I’d favor single-payer (note that excludes the practical standpoint) than this bastardized plan which combines the worst of the nanny state with ugly government guarantees to big business. When the government tells a free citizen that it must pay money to corporation X, we’ve lost something.

Rusty, your boys blew it.
.
Nelson, Lieberman, Bayh, and Lincoln got everything they wanted in order to pass this bill, and they watered it down dramatically. Those four votes could’ve been Republicans, who could’ve steered the bill in ways they wanted — including making it a lot less expensive and expansive — by embracing the time-honored republican concept of real free-market competition.
.
Instead, your people yammered about idiotic nonsense like “death panels,” while Lieberman got his way in protecting predatory insurers based in his state.
.
Face it: your boys could’ve done a lot, but instead they let you down.

On what is next—-
.
I’ve finally answered my own questions about what type of vote is needed in the House and Senate for final passage after reconciliation:
.
Simple majorities are the only requirement.
.
What is hopefully going to happen is that since GOP intransigence will no longer be a problem, both the funding side and the consumer side can be cleaned up.
.
On the consumer side, with the exception of the mandate (which is being debated above), our state’s Basic Health plan comes to mind as a good, general working model.
.
In that respect, even if the public option is not in the final bill, this would be acceptable. I was on Basic Health since they first started it and it worked very well. Consumers would pick amongst various plans, and would pay a premium commensurate with their income level, and the state picks up the difference as subsidy.
.
On the funding side, I’m hoping that the unacceptable taxation on Cadillac health care plans is scrapped, along with the over-reliance on sin taxes. Straight up progressive taxation is much more preferable.

Do you think that with only majority votes required from here on out, the final bill might be a bit more to the left?
.
I know Obama has been all over the map on the issue of the Public Option, but I can see the possibility that he might offer quiet support of a somewhat more progressive bill than this one.

53_3: That’s what I’m hoping for. If a simple majority is all that is needed now for passage of the compromise bill, it may be possible to move it a litttle further to the left without the final version getting held hostage by the blue dogs. Merry Christmas.

Merry xmas to you, too sacred, and everyone else.
.
I really think that this isn’t the final form. Now that they’ve essentially sailed the ship into safe harbor, I think that the tanning bed and sin tax provisions will be dropped and replaced by more direct and progressive taxation.
.
Maybe the HCIC caps on insurance will be raised or eliminated, too.
.
Neither of these policies will fly in the house, I think, anyway. There are too many to the left of the Senate for that.
.
Let’s see who gets selected for the reconciliation committees. I am hoping that no Blue Dogs or Liebermann gets a seat on the Senate committee.

53_3:

Do you think that with only majority votes required from here on out, the final bill might be a bit more to the left?

No, I think that this is the bill that Obama and the rest of the New Democrats in the Senate & Blue Dogs in the House wanted starting in 2005.
.
Once “if could start over, it would be single-payer” and “the new public option” became snicker-fodder for the Beltway savvy, this fully describes the total structural value of this “reform”:

There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada’s — (applause) — where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everybody. On the right, there are those who argue that we should end employer-based systems and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.
.
I’ve said — I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both these approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have. Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn’t, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch. (Applause.) And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the past several months.

Well, by making it illegal to not pay into private insurers’ coffers, they have built a new system, just one that they can simultaneously sell to the hopeful as “build on what works” and “historic new system.”
.
Those on the left who thought they might get single-payer out of the deal were listening to liars like Joe Klein or liberals who genuinely bought the idea that the public option was Obama’s Trojan Horse to single-payer. We were stupid again.
.
The “bit more to the left” that it might get has to do with welfare crumbs that they’ll toss out, but these are both carrots and sticks. The welfare will be a hammer to be held over the heads of welfare-oriented liberals.
.
We got the centrists’ vision of “reform,” which means industry bailout plus some welfare they’ll be able to negotiate a repeal of later, when the next “end welfare as we know it” wave happens.
.
…or they start down the privatized “entitlement reform” road…

spob:
.
Aside from hoping the Cadillac plan taxation is replaced by a different, more equitable means of obtaining funds, I also think you may have a point.
.
To wit:
.
Is it the value of the package offered that is taxed? If it is, then this may be a problem and should be fixed.
.
My plan is similar to the one that Sacred described, but I have three tiers: Subscriber only, Subscriber and spouse, and Family, which includes all children for the same premium. Since my plan differs in structure from Sacred, I think it is entirely possible that plans incrementally add to premiums as children are added.
.
In addition, the HCICs could go to that strategy anyway as a tactic to increase revenues in the face of new restrictions, which are sure to come.

I’ve written one of my Senators on the large family/Cadillac issue. We’ll see what the response is. I will share it. If people think I raise a legitimate point, then please write your elected officials.

Is it true that after this there are no more cloture votes required? We don’t have to worry about that with the conference bill? If so it would be a merry time!

Merry, merry Christmas to the Swampers who celebrate and to those who don’t, lots of cheer!

“I love it when liberals attempt to paint Republicans as “do nothing”, “just say no” politicians. They paint Republicans as obstructionist, when in fact they simply believe that this bill in and of itself is wrong”
..
That dog won’t hunt Rusty. The Repubs had a chance to introduce their own bills and instead, they vacillated. They proceeded to spend the recess inciting mobs of teabaggers instead of finding ways to contribute to or modify this bill. As slowp stated, your boys blew it. They chose not to participate and when you do that, you’ve no right to complain about the outcome.
..
“How happy are liberals now, forcing grandma to eat dog food? Why do liberals hate grandma so much?”
..
Please tell me you’re joking. It the Repubs had their way, “grandma” would have been out in the cold long ago as they did not support Social Security or Medicare and have been trying to cut (or “privatize”) both ever since they were enacted. This bill does not cut a dime in benefits for those on Medicare so, again, you are wrong on the facts.
..
BTW, Merry Christmas to all!

I am one of those who feels strongly that there must be competition — as well as a lot more regulation of the health insurance industry, in order for the HCR bill to be truly successful and be really considered “reform”.

Having read comments above that have pointed out that only a simple majority vote will be required to pass the final, merged version of the HCR bill, I am able to breath a tiny bit easier.

I will now watch to see whom Nancy and Harry appoint to the conference committee. Those selections will tell us a great deal about what will come out of committee.

My hope is that a robust public option will be put back in, in order to ensure more competition and which will help persuage insurance companies to drive down premiums to more reasonable levels.

Either that or the proposed expansion of Medicare to include those from ages 55-64.

I am also concerned about the individual mandate and it’s constitutionality. Maybe they could leave the mandate possibility up to individual states, tying their agreement to a mandate to various possible incentives.

I am also concerned about Nebraska’s Medicaid “gift”, written into the Senate bill. I do not believe that it will stand up to constitutional muster.

But, having only to secure a simple majority on the final vote on the merged bill, will give the dem’s a lot more flexibility. Hopefully, they will use that opportunity to fix those parts of the HCR bill that are lacking in true reforms.

Will there not be debate in both houses on the final bill before each house holds a final vote on the reconciled bill? If so, won’t a cloture vote be required to end debate in the Senate? It seems to me that this is true given what I have read. Otherwise, why would the House be beholden to the bill that the Senate passed? If only majority votes were required from here on out the House members on the joint committee could just push for of the House bill to be included in the final bill with no repercussions from the Senate holdouts.
..
Perhaps you (or someone else) could clarify this point further. Thanks in advance!

stuartzechman it mystifies me why they won’t simply include the public option in the bill and solve the intra-party war that is breaking out. It is as if they want to pick a fight with the Left. They must think there is some benefit in making the Left an enemy. Given the total rejection of Obama by the Right, one can only guess at what alienating the Left offers them, that is of any benefit. Perhaps they are still dreaming about bipartisanship, even in the face of the reality that no one on the right supports anything they do. The public option isn’t even a Left only issue. Poll after poll have shown the vast majority of Americans want it, including 50% of Republicans.

Must read. Jonathan Chait in the New Republic

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/just-noise

And the Rest Is Just Noise

Why the health care bill is the greatest social achievement of our time.

I think your commentary reflects a mistrust of the political system, SZ, which I entirely agree is justified.
.
However, when we look at the political leverage, which means votes, it appears to me that the dem base has the bulk of the votes in the house, with less influence in the senate.
.
There will be no doubt that money will be waved in the noses of those who would change or remove those clauses favorable to the HCICs but I’m not sure how effective it will be.
.
When I look at it, I feel almost certain that it will move to the left some. It isn’t a good bill by any means, but having lived in a state which had a similar system on the consumer side (with the exception of the mandate) I feel that the resultant bill could be effective, up to a point, and of course, depending on what’s in it.
.
BTW, do you know of any other requirements, such as cloture on debate, as mentioned by another commenter below, that exists as a possible roadblock?
.
If there is, it would change my guessing on the outcome considerably!

diecash1:
.
I had to ask SZ in the thread above (see 7.5) as I really don’t know. I’m as afraid of obstacles as anyone is, but right now, it appears to be smooth, glassy waters now that the ship is in safe harbor.

Even Obama vocally supported the public option before he vocally abandoned it.
.
I don’t think Obama really will have a problem with that happening.

It doesn’t look quite so smooth by this account:
..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-lucey/steps-in-reconciling-hous_b_402618.html

Oops…..one more time:
..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-lucey/steps-in-reconciling-hous_b_402618.html

While the author tosses the word “liberal” around like an epithet far too often, and I don’t particularly like New Republic, this is a very intelligent article that makes a lot of points worth considering!

Checked it out, and I disagree here. I don’t think this will be a problem unless there are too many of the wrong kind of voice on the committees.
.
It is conceivable that we, having all the spoils to fight over, won’t come to an agreement about how to divvy ‘em up, but with only 51% of the vote needed for a political outcome, satisfying it won’t as much of a hill to climb as 60% required to suppress obstruction.
.
If this is the worst, then, (kaff! kaff!) in the Immortal Words Of Dick Cheney, it’s a known known…

I send mail (my paper) *appeal to your people*, for you, so you know.
History of Ukraine contains all roads which pass through its state is the state of the Black and Caspian Sea states of Europe and the Russian Federation and Belarus and the Baltic States. In this environment, Ukraine was and will be, but you should know about the many communities of national minorities in Ukraine, which should assist the indigenous population to win the victory over Russian chauvinism and cynicism.
Many professors from the science of physics know what the torsion fields, which affect the human brain, and at different frequencies program commands to perform the person will be in it in the brain. This experiment was prepared and holding extensive amount in Ukraine during the Orange Revolution, the square of the capital and major cities of Ukraine. During the Orange Revolution, where I took part in rallies, I was surprised by the behavior of a video camera operator, who runs a video camera on the faces of people actively speakers for Yushchenko and Ukraine’s future. Why people who participated in the election of President Yushchenko and the future of Ukraine, located in a large garden and joy (remember the first speech by President of Czechia) after the election. I am a former journalist was surprised not competent operator, because the video camera does not include dae signal on a video shoot. To me, at my invitation arriving Jaroslav Ksonzhek, Consul of Poland, where our conversation and confirmed abuse of the Moscow government. It turns out that Moscow is continuing research to control and possess the human brain. It turns out that Putin is in this regard will have the state not only Europe and America but to solve their business programs. Carrying gas pipe through the Baltic States. I want to thank the many Jew for their help when I conducted an investigation, rabbi warned their communities do not come to the square, then be bad for health and psychological disorder. In order to save not only the state president, people, foreign embassies are located in Ukraine, I send the mail letters and telegrams to the President, but in the presidential administration or the children sit or bureaucrats. I understand that Ukraine is very far from your country and therefore should be realistic and simple plan for withdrawal from such situations. You may be surprised by my feeling high torsion fields “But I believe in God and constantly attend Protestant church Evangelicals, Bible study, psychology, folklore, cultural studies, analytics, folk music and songs. Second great experience to travel by military enterprises of when I worked in a factory where assembly consisted of turbines in Krivoy Rog. So I like the saying: The wisdom of man checks only way direction and goals. To convey to the President of Ukraine is a question I have for the first time in its life wrote a letter to the USА Embassy Vil’yamu Taylor, knowing that letters to foreign embassies can check (I wrote the text of the letter to enter a deadlock that people check messages on Post Office in Kiev ) counting on professional psychologists embassy. Maybe my innocence and romanticism great kindness not give me a quiet life, so I thought that everything will be like in the movies. For example, Come from Kiev or the USА embassy good man, and on home phone inviting meeting in Dnipropetrovsk administration and great pity it is all fairy tale, which shows in the film. How can I feel a major role analysis on various issues when I sent a fax wife Ekaterina Yushchenko president and then president’s wife appealed to the USА Ambassador (because her aides have not read Catherine fax). So no one sees me as an expert, thinking that I am working with the USА Embassy, President of Ukraine in 2006, invited himself to the USА Ambassador and the Ambassador of Poland. Unfortunately there is not securing for copyrights. Very please note the danger, that Russia may give your country, and protect my copyright on intellectual property, to realize their potential to the benefit of our good relations. Now, please imagine if Russia can use the torsion field during military operations as well as in public (panic, revolution, rebellion and what you want) to be a civil war and chaos in the elections and other companies. If Russia will send a torsion field in the brain of miners from the city of Donetsk, what then will be in Kiev?. Why do I appeal to you Your Majesty, for help! Because you are a patriot of the United States Americas and the state can imagine that a person before the rally (The action darling) can drink tea or coffee active liquid, the influence of torsion fields resulting in a mutation of the body!. This is a question that I have studied, we save lives and you and the President of the United States Americas and many people! And the main thing that Ms. Catherine Chumachenko was born in the United States and was the square with the children. With great respect to you and hope for your tolerance and kindness, Your Majesty. And for me there will be enormous gladness when any man will arrive to me in guests that could make sure in veracity of my moral principles.

Valeriy Kharchenko, son of Mary Chumachenko father Vladimir Kharchenko. Kirovograd region, Dolinsky district, village Vasylivka.

city DNIPROPETROVSK 49029
Street. Заміська 39-1
phone mobile 380985052947
home 38056 7166470

UKRAINE xarchenko2009@meta.ua

Р.R.

In the Regional State Administration in the archives of Х26148 is evidence and the failure of the President of Career and many officials where the main role played Kyslynskyi (Moskal know) and sent by fax to the fund Ekaterina Yushchenko 2006, no one know who saved the life of the President and the citizens of Ukraine.

Therefore for us and to the nemae securing for intellectual property, but I Gorbulinu in did in kar’eru. In Evropi above all things bachut’ man so as I was seen by the consul of Pol’shi Yaroslav Ksenzhik. To god that I did not write script clip where passage-way on elections of dae 90 percents of beautiful result! To Ukraine! I can not arrive in KYIV and be as a cadger near a baba Paraski! On the large failing such for us are skilled questions!
Р.Р.
Only the huge sponsor for dictators and a victory to a bad mode of authority, is our indifference, a negligence, egoism and a sluggishness in decisions of questions! What sense of living by the example to uphold moral principles of trust and increase of intellectual level of our society is in.

Valery Harchenko, the culturologist of Ukraine.