Political Discussions
Health care reform misinformation - separating fact from fiction
Posted by RuinousRight • 7/30/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: bill, care, facts, health, reform
Understandably, people have concerns regarding health care reform. Plan costs, restrictions, eligibility and effect on the private sector are all legitimate items that should be examined more closely. Unfortunately however, some opponents of health care reform are misleading the public via a campaign of misinformation and outright lies. Some are doing this in an effort to water down or kill health care reform while others are clearly putting politics first.
There are several ongoing BC threads relating to health care reform where users provide opinions, theories, slogans, rhetoric, facts, fiction and distortions. My aim with this thread is for users to contribute information supported by external links from reputable sources that either supports or debunks the various claims that are being made regarding this very important item on the country's agenda.
Please provide article titles with your links.
User Comments
-
“What most people would view as truly bizarre, conspiracy theorists find energizing.”
“Evidence … has been proved to feed conspiracies, rather than kill them.”
Liz Halloran, “Why Do Doubts About Obama’s Birthplace Persist?,” NPR, July 29, 2009
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111194869&ft=1&f=1001
Her observations appear to apply to the health care debate as well. -
But here's a link about the newest euthanasia lies: factcheck.org/2009/07/false-euthanasia-claims/
-
One claim we've been hearing over and over again is that 'health care reform will outlaw private insurance'. This is FICTION and here are links to articles that debunk the claim:
Private health insurance not banned on page 16 of the House bill
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/22/ibdeditorialscom/pr...
IBD falsely claimed House health bill would "outlaw individual private coverage"
mediamatters.org/research/200907160040-
More links regarding this false claim:
"Outlawing Private Insurance" Is the New "Obama Birth Certificate"
healthcare.change.org/blog/view/outlawing_private_insurance_is_the_new_obam...
Does H.R. 3200 Ban Private Insurers?
sumfolio.com/does-h-r-3200-ban-private-insurers-012/ -
Read for yourself, ruin. Directly from H.R. 3200 concerning private health care.
Page 16, Section 102, Lines 1-26.
"SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.
(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health
insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.
(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be fore the first day of Y1."
Tell me, how is that not killing off private insurance? -
-
Page 16 doesn't outlaw private insurance. There will be individual policies available, but people will buy those policies through the national health insurance exchange.
The House bill allows for existing policies to be grandfathered in, so that people who currently have individual health insurance policies will not lose coverage. The line the editorial refers to is a clause that says the health insurance companies cannot enroll new people into the old plans.
The conservative Heritage Foundation also said the IDB editorial misread the legislation, writing on its Foundry blog, "So IDB is wrong: individual health insurance will not be outlawed."
The articles above debunk your claim and I'm sure there are many more. Time to give up pushing that propaganda my friend. -
What propaganda? Tell us ruin. Why are you so gung ho for a Government run health care system? Do you have a dog in the fight? Or are you just such a far left liberal that you cannot fathom the idea that your precious Government and Obama can't run a foot race, much less our entire health care system?
So you say that the new enrollees will have to go through this National Health Exchange? How is that going to work? A bureaucratic panel that tells the private companies what they can and cannot cover? And you are naive enough to think that Obama doesn't want a single payer system that would kill off the private insurers. I guess you didn't hear Barney Frank and what he told an activist from a group that is for socialized medicine in America.
"I think if we get a good public option it could lead to single payer and that's the best way to reach single payer," Frank told a member of Single Payer Action, an activist group in favor of the universal government plan.
Frank called himself a "big sponsor" of the single payer system but reiterated his support for the less-comprehensive public option.
"The best way we're gonna get single payer, the only way, is to have a public option to demonstrate its strength and its power," Frank explained in defending his support of the current House bill, which includes the public option."
www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/30/barney_frank_admits_public_optio... -
Propaganda: information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
Your statement (in this case): "House Bill Outlaws Private Health Insurance"
Verdict: FALSE - as demonstrated in the linked articles above.
IE: Propaganda
------------
"Why are you so gung ho for a Government run health care system? Do you have a dog in the fight? "
I'm more 'gung ho' about people communicating clearly and honestly. The far right has been criticizing Obama and the Democrats at every turn - often with sensationalized distortions. I'm for cutting thru the BS, getting the real facts and helping others see things more clearly. -
Great way to avoid what I posted about Barney Frank. He and Obama both want to go to the single payer system. That would be a catastrophe for the American public. You seem to not care that under such a system rationing, or "allocating" as Ezekiel Emanuel calls it, would be implemented in order to cut costs. The elderly and disabled would be the first ones to feel that crunch and you just don't seem to give a rat's a$$ about them. Your only desire seems to be able to prove anyone on the right that they are wrong. You seem to have a very strong commitment to defending Obama "at every turn." I would shudder to think about you in any position of power with your attitude.
-
There are plenty of articles that debunk your claim: "House Bill Outlaws Private Health Insurance" and I don't believe a public option would put private insurance companies out of business. There are far too many people who would want to continue their private coverage regardless of any savings they may get by switching to a public plan. After all, you and others don't believe the government is capable of running anything well.
-
ruin, did you EVEN WATCH the Barney Frank video where he admits to how he wants to go about transforming our health care system to a single payer, Government run plan?
I am beginning to wonder if you even bother to look at what people post. Yet you clamor for "more links!! more links to what you say!!!"
Just watch the video. Put down the Cheetos bag for 90 seconds and watch it. Then defend what he says when he talks about wanting single payer.
-
-
Some misleading or false statements made regarding health care reform:
"Under a public health care option, 120 million Americans will "lose what they now get from private companies and be forced onto the government-run rolls as businesses decide it is more cost-effective for them to drop coverage." - Karl Rove
Rove's op-ed distorts health study
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/12/karl-rove/roves-op-...
The Democrats propose "a government-controlled health care plan that will deprive roughly 120 million Americans of their current health care coverage." - Mike Pence
120 million "deprived" of health care is not correct
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/19/mike-pence/120-mill...
"Under the Obama plan . . . all the health care in this country is eventually going to be run by the government." - Tom Coburn
Obama health plan does not call for government-run health care
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/05/tom-coburn/obama-he...
"The health care reform bill "would make it mandatory — absolutely require — that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner." - Betsy McCaughey
McCaughey claims end-of-life counseling will be required for Medicare patients
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/23/betsy-mccaughey/mcc...
The claim that the House health care bill pushes suicide is nonsense.
www.factcheck.org/2009/07/false-euthanasia-claims/ -
Canadian Straw Man
Two ads from related independent groups make claims about an overhaul of the health care system, saying Congress wants a government-run health care system:
- One ad claims that “Washington wants to bring Canadian-style health care to the U.S.” But the health care bills moving through Congress don’t call for a single-payer system like Canada’s, and legislation that does support a purely government-run system is quietly dying in committee. Obama, too, has said repeatedly that he doesn’t back a conversion to a single-payer system.
- Another ad, targeting specific members of the Senate, similarly claims that “Congress is rushing to take over health care.” It says that a government health insurance option would cause “tens of millions” to move from their current insurance to a government plan. That claim is on the mark, according to one study, which found that millions would move from private insurance to a much cheaper government option.
See why the plan put forth by Obama and the Democrats is not a Canadian-style, government-run health care system:
www.factcheck.org/2009/07/canadian-straw-man/ - One ad claims that “Washington wants to bring Canadian-style health care to the U.S.” But the health care bills moving through Congress don’t call for a single-payer system like Canada’s, and legislation that does support a purely government-run system is quietly dying in committee. Obama, too, has said repeatedly that he doesn’t back a conversion to a single-payer system.
-
The ‘Real’ Uninsured
Proponents of health care reform say something needs to be done regarding approximately 46 million that lack access to health care coverage. Some say fewer people lack access than official statistics make it appear. See how the numbers break down here:
www.factcheck.org/2009/06/the-real-uninsured/-
You are at it again, I see ruin. Well the article you cite is from an organization that I already pointed out is hardly unbiased. Especially where Obama is concerned, since he is a former chair for an arm of the parent foundation that started factcheck.
But here we go, all from the article you cite:
"Claim: Many of the uninsured are not U.S. citizens.
"Factcheck: About 9.7 million of the uninsured are immigrants, both legal and illegal."
Hmmm, even factcheck admits that nearly 10 million are not citizens. They try to cover by saying, "The National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation estimates that 5.6 million of these are undocumented, but there are no hard data on that – NIHCM stresses that "the CPS does not collect information on legal status among non-citizens." Immigrants, especially new immigrants, are more likely to be uninsured than citizens."
Next:
"Claim: Many of the uninsured can afford private health care."
"Factcheck: About 9.1 million of the uninsured have household incomes greater than $75,000, and 10 percent (about 4.7 million) make more than 400 percent of the federal poverty threshold, according to KFF."
Guess that statistic is correct, too.
"Claim: Many of the uninsured are young people who think they’re invincible."
While Factcheck and NRI disagree about the percentage on this one, both agree that it is at least 40%.
"Factcheck: The National Review Institute writes: "More than half of the uninsured are between 18 and 34 years of age, a group which has relatively few expensive health issues and for whom self-insuring (paying their own medical bills) makes sense." Actually, only about 40 percent of the uninsured are between 18 and 34, according to the Census."
Next:
"Claim: Many of the uninsured already are eligible for public coverage. -
-
I simply provided the link that lets BC users see how the numbers break down.
Funny how you try and discredit the site, but then spend a whole lot of time citing their information. Do you have a link to an article that discredits or proves bias regarding FactCheck.org?? -
I used your article to demonstrate that the 47 million Americans without health coverage is false. By using the article you cited, it prevented you from claiming that I was using phony figures and false info, which is a favorite tactic of yours.
As far as Obama chairing for the parent foundation, you must have a short memory. I already showed you that. But since you have etch-a-sketch memory issues, here you go.
Factcheck is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, and is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.
"Barack Obama, elected by the Board of Directors as founding chairman and president of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (1995–1999), resigned as chairman and president in September 1999 to run as a candidate in the 2000 Democratic primary for the 1st Congressional District of Illinois, and was succeeded by Edward Bottum (1999–2001)."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge
As for the bias? I am not the only one who has noticed.
albanymediabias.blogspot.com/2008/07/factcheckorg-turns-left.html
newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2008/10/07/checking-fact-checkers -
But since you have etch-a-sketch memory issues..."
Well... there you go again with the personal attacks. I figured it wouldn't be long.
- Obama chairing the parent foundation over 10 years ago does not prove bias on the part of FactCheck.org. I doubt the website even existed when he was a chairman.
- Of the 3 links you provide, only 1 even mentions FactCheck.org and it's a personal blog with 2 conservative authors.
- Obama chairing the parent foundation over 10 years ago does not prove bias on the part of FactCheck.org. I doubt the website even existed when he was a chairman.
-
Obama is listed on that foundation governing body as recently as 2001.
"The final Board of Directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in 2001 were:[46]
1. Patricia Albjerg Graham
2. Barack Obama
3. Edward S. Bottum, managing director of Chase Franklin Corp.; former president and vice chairman of Continental Illinois Bank[47]
4. Connie C. Evans, founder and president of the Women's Self-Employment Project
5. Susan Blankenbaker Noyes, former labor attorney at Sidley & Austin; daughter of Republican former Indiana state senator Virginia Murphy Blankenbaker; goddaughter of Patricia Albjerg Graham[48]
6. Scott C. Smith, president, CEO and publisher of the Chicago Tribune; former president, CEO and publisher of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel of Fort Lauderdale; former chairman of the South Florida Annenberg Challenge
7. Nancy S. Searle, consultant to the Searle Funds at the Chicago Community Trust
8. Victoria J. Chou, dean of the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago
9. John W. McCarter, Jr., president and CEO of the Field Museum
10. James Reynolds, Jr., co-founder, chairman and CEO of Loop Capital Services"
But it doesn't matter to you. Factcheck gives you what you want, so therefore they are credible. How intellectually honest you are.
Hmmm. Only one of my links mentions factcheck. I can see you didn't click on any of the links I posted. The second link has "FactCheck.org Turns Left" as the title to the article.
The last link is for context into how factchecking is A. a recent political fad and B. it is not always credible or unbiased.
You know, you really embarrass yourself when you make claims about sources I cite without reading them. -
Funny... I came up with 10 years from the quote you used in your post:
Barack Obama, elected by the Board of Directors as founding chairman and president of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (1995–1999), resigned as chairman and president in September 1999...
It really doesn't matter if it was 8 years or 10 years. It certainly does not prove any bias on the part of FactCheck.org.
"You know, you really embarrass yourself when you make claims about sources I cite without reading them."
No, I'm not embarrassed at all. I asked a specific question and expected a specific answer. I followed each link you provided and only one discusses FactCheck.org - a personal blog authored by two conservatives. The Newsbusters link led to a generalized fact checking article that focused on USA Today. -
"The last link is for context into how factchecking is A. a recent political fad and B. it is not always credible or unbiased."
You are really slow on this point ruin. Even for you, so let me say once again, that you really embarrass yourself when you make claims about sources I cite without reading them. -
The 'recent fad' of fact check sites are necessary due to the massive amounts of misinformation and shoddy journalism these days. People need resources to cut thru the BS spread by biased news channels, divisive pundits and dishonest bloggers.
Keep spinning it however you want if that's what makes you happy antics. You have an opportunity to post links that clearly support your claims, but it seems you'd rather spend time arguing and making personal attacks. -
I'll give you this, ruin. You got your Rules for Radicals down pat. Just keep spewing rhetoric and demonizing the right and you will certainly get your Saul Alinsky achievement patch.
-
Suggestion: If you don't like the good sites RR is offering, try offering some fact-based sites yourself. Problem is, though, not accepting Politifact and FactCheck really places you on the fringe. Maybe you should consult the first link I offered at the top. Are they talking about you? If not, get over what RR is posting, and offer links to resource sites, here. You've offered enough rhetoric on the growing number of other threads you've started, and I don't doubt this will continue. Why not make an exception here and contribute to a resource base instead? If you can't or won't, I can only think of the explanation I offered up top.
-
I'm not going to rehash the discussion about the total number of uninsured with you again. Bottom line: the info you originally posted was misleading and not outlined in the census bureau report the way you promoted it. The FactCheck.org link was provided so users could see how the numbers break down for themselves, but you don't trust FactCheck because Obama served on the board of the parent organization 10 years ago before the site even existed. You fail to mention the site also debunks claims coming from the left and you have yet to show any valid evidence that they have distorted the facts.
Not accepting Politifact and FactCheck really places you on the fringe as Mark pointed out. You also disagree with the conservative Heritage Foundation regarding the claim about outlawing private health insurance. You seem to share the extremest views of Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck, Savage and others. Perhaps you don't identify with the Republican party because your views are so far right. -
I used ruin's article about the so-called 46 million Americans that are uninsured. The very article he cited destroyed his argument. The problem I have is that ruin does exactly what you are accusing me of. He does not accept any facts presented to him.
On another thread, he asked where I got my figures for debunking that very myth. When I linked the census, he said I was wrong. So he is not accepting the UNITED STATES CENSUS. Yet you stand with him and attack me. Very juvenile.
I guess I touched a nerve.
"I'm not going to rehash the discussion about the total number of uninsured with you again. Bottom line: the info you originally posted was misleading and not outlined in the census bureau report the way you promoted it."
To say that you are unable to read a Census Report is laughable. Your big problem is that the info I presented wasn't "bulleted." Typical liberal response, you want everything spoon fed to you. Do yourself a favor and don't ever get a job where you have to do research. Real research, not just typing words into google, I mean. You have to read the report, ruin. You have to look at the tables and pull the info you are looking for out of it.
You do realize that you are saying that the Census Bureaus is lying. Or I am lying.
Let's look at that.
If you are saying the Census Bureau is lying, well there is no hope for you. They aren't run by ACORN, yet.
If you are saying I am lying, then prove me wrong. Dig into the Census Report and pull out the facts, like I did and show my errors.
I know you won't and I know you can't.
-
-
General links regarding health care reform FACT and FICTION:
FactCheck Wire: Health Care
wire.factcheck.org/category/health-care/
PolitiFact: Health Care
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/subjects/health/
Truth or Fiction: Health Care
www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/h/health-plan.htm -
Obama: No reduced Medicare benefits in health care reform
...plan will maintain Medicare benefits and allow people to keep the coverage and doctors they now have.
...plan would improve the value of spending on Medicare, so that the quality of coverage would remain the same while the cost would go down. Insurance companies also would no longer be able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions...
www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/28/obama.health.care/index.html -
Last I heard, the current legislation no longer provides a public option. Is this true?-
I've heard that of at least one committee, I think, but my coffee grinder was running. I don't know if it applies to the whole shebang. I do wish Congress were better at making information available on the website. Real, usable information from one central location. Or would battles over how that worked prove to be a distraction to the business of legislating?
-
No. My source is the interview with Sen. Sherrod Brown on Countdown last night. -
I guess there is still differing legislation out there. Perhaps I am talking about what is now being called the "Blue Dog Bill"
idk
-
-
Divisive pundit Rush Limbaugh, who will say just about anything to discredit Obama and the Democrats, has been a strong force in spreading misinformation regarding health care reform. His dittoheads recite the misleading mantras here and on blogs.
Here are a few highlights:
Limbaugh Again Fearmongers Over Health Care Plan He Says Would Deny Care To Elderly
mediamatters.org/research/200907280031
Limbaugh Continues To Promote McCaughey's Health Care Misinformation
mediamatters.org/research/200907240027
Limbaugh Stands Up For Health Insurance Companies' Profits
mediamatters.org/research/200907240027
Limbaugh Credits Himself, "Brethren In Talk Radio" For Opposition To Health Care Reform
mediamatters.org/research/200907220029
Limbaugh Praises DeMint's "Waterloo" Comments About Health Care Reform
mediamatters.org/research/200907220022
I think most sensible people realize Limbaugh is more interested in himself and his bank account than he is in finding a solution for run-away health care costs, denied coverage or the uninsured. His support for the divisive and highly-politicized comments recently made by some on the right are yet another indicator of who he really is.
"If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."
"...even though they may want to compromise, it's better politics to 'go for the kill."
"...defeating health reform is about 'breaking' him"
"...this is no time to pull punches. Go for the kill."-
only a matter of time before he compares it to dragging Obama behind a pickup
-
More BS from Dr. Limbaugh:
Limbaugh's Fact-Free Rant On Health Care: Forced Gov't Plan, Mandatory End-of-Life Counseling
mediamatters.org/research/200908050036 -
Rush Limbaugh compares Obama to Hitler... The Democratic Party to Nazis
mediamatters.org/research/200908060022
This guy is a deranged, lying bastard... and he seems to be the de-facto leader of the GOP. Scary stuff.
-
-
-
lol! Testify. Why bother with actual facts when it is much more fun to just spout rhetoric?
If I didn't know better, I would say that ruin is actually Jeffery Immelt and has a LOT to profit from a Government run health care system. I mean he sure is a Gov't Health Care system cheerleader. -
"Why bother with actual facts when it is much more fun to just spout rhetoric?"
Yes, we know you enjoy that tactic.
This thread is a far cry from the distorted facts and slogans found on some other health care reform posts and I'd like to keep it that way. You are encouraged to participate by including links to articles that back up your claims.
-
-
Thanks for all of the links, RR and Mark. Very cool of you, and this collection will come in handy.
-
You'd think so, even for those who want no part of this legislation.
-
-
The Republicans have a plan and it ain't socialized medicine.-
If I recall, it revolved around making doctors less accountable, by making it cheaper to sweep butchered patients under the rug--thereby making it easier to insure saw-bones hacks
-
So... let's here it! Where is the link to more info??
-
Right on my blog
-
No Agit8r by fixing the 20% that is broke and letting the other 80% that works great well work the way it always does. Most people are happy with their health care the way it is. It's the cost that gives some trouble. Why do we need to destroy our entire medical system just because a few people can't pay for it? help those few get their health insurance and let the people who already have it keep it. And also trying to lower the costs by ways that are not government controlled and socialist.
-
@jhixon2
There are other threads on health care reform where you can share your opinions, views and slogans. This thread is for those who want to either contribute or discover facts regarding reform. Users should supply links to articles that support their (pro or con) claims. We don't need another thread of BS to confuse the issue. -
Why do I even bother with you Ruinous?
-
Why should we bother to let the Government run the entire health care system when they can't even run Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security?
And who didn't close their < em > tag? -
Oops! Evidently it was me. I fixed it, I think.
-
"Why should we bother to let the Government run the entire health care system when they can't even run Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security?"
The government isn't proposing a takeover of the entire health care system and there will still be private options available.
Medicare and Medicaid need reform which is part of the plan being authored now.
-
-
The Lewin Group
Many opponents of health care reform have recently been citing various studies from an "independent, nonpartisan" think tank called The Lewin Group. They use stats from these studies to argue against health care reform. I've seen it here and on cable news.
Problem is... The Lewin Group is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, which also offers private health insurance. This should be considered a conflict of interest and those using their information should come clean.
Lawmakers Who Called Lewin Group's Data 'Nonpartisan' Collect Cash From Parent Company UnitedHealth
www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/07/lawmakers-who-called-lewin-gro.html
Research Firm Cited by GOP Is Owned by Health Insurer
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/22/AR2009072202216.ht...
Lewin group linked to private insurers
www.healthjournalism.org/blog/2009/04/lewin-group-linked-to-private-insurer...
The Lewin Group and GOP
action.seiu.org/page/s/lewin?gclid=CODV4YrE_psCFRM_xwod_UDQTg
In addition... earlier this year UnitedHealth Group agreed to pay $350 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by the American Medical Association on behalf of physicians and patients alleging the company’s health plans used flawed data administered by its subsidiary Ingenix to justify low reimbursement for out-of-network care.
The UnitedHealth Group reimbursement fraud has national implications, and goes far beyond UnitedHealth Group's own customers. The system UnitedHeath Group set up to determine reimbursements was used by insurance companies nationwide. This system was based on a computer database operated by Ingenix, a wholly-owned subsidiary of UnitedHealth. Under this set up, millions of people were underpaid when Ingenix determined reimbursements.
UnitedHealth Group agrees to settle lawsuit with AMA
www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20090115/REG/301159993
UnitedHealth Group (United Health Care) Reimbursement Fraud Lawyers
www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/UnitedHealth_Care_Reimbursement_Fraud
UnitedHealth settles lawsuit over insurance claims
articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/16/business/fi-unitedhealth16
So... all this begs the question: If Obama and the Democrat's health care reform plans are so flawed on their own as opponents claim, why do those against reform rely on so much misinformation to argue against it??-
I would like to know how many of these Democrats get money from special interest groups for helping bring socialized medicine through? Probably most of them.
-
Google it and post the links you find.
-
-
-
Accompanying text and article titles would probably encourage others to click thru.
-
Why does it matter to you Ruinous? You aren't going to care about what I post regardless.
-
Not true... I'll take any sensible information into consideration and I think others here will as well. The accompanying text helps people decide which links to consider.
-
-
New GOP Health Bill Promotes on Tax Incentives
www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/29/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5195904.sh...
Republican Health Care Reform Nixes Public Option, New Taxes
www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2009/05/20/100709.htm
Senate Begins Work on Health Care Legislation, House Republicans Unveil Reform Plan
abcnews.go.com/Politics/Health/Story?id=7859941&page=1-
some of the ideas in Patients' Choice Act of 2009 sound reasonable, although I do have to pause at limiting damages awardable to those who have had their lives ruined by quacks. Isn't there any way that republicans can just let this unpopular and uncaring idea go? If insurance compnies want less liability, how about a market-oriented approach--don't insure quacks!
-
Regarding the Insurance Journal, it does have a rather clear constituency, one that does not tempt me to trust it for policy opinions, though it makes sense that it would be reporting on Republican thinking. At least it's a place for a specific viewpoint, which is useful.
Here's the beginning of their "About Us" page: "Insurance Journal, considered the most read national property and casualty publication for independent insurance agents and brokers, kicked off its legacy some time in 1923. While the exact date of the magazine's first issue remains a mystery, what the Insurance Journal has become is no secret." -
Exactly the response I expected. Agit8r- The American people really don't support obama's health care so what makes you think some don't support the Republicans?
-
@jhixon2
Well... at least there are some Republicans being proactive and that's good. Currently, they are only offering a 3 1/2 page summary of an idea that doesn't include a public option.
The plan touches on Obama's proposal to further implement comparative effectiveness research (CER) as a means of reducing waste, which is very controversial. CER attempts to use research and scientific evidence to conclude which health care treatments are most cost effective. I bet some on the far right will have a problem with this.
Let's see what they have in a few weeks and how it compares to the Democratic plan. -
The Democrats usually write 1000 page bills and never read them. Just saying
-
I'm sure some do... perhaps insurance executives. Though I have heard that some of these same executives have moved on to porkier pastures. The strategy seems to be to get a "compromise" where they get their cake and eat it too
-
"The Democrats usually write 1000 page bills and never read them."
Well, it's a complicated issue. In regards to reading bills... I think both side have a problem with that one.
Keep us posted on the progress of the Republican bill. -
how many pages was the PATRIOT Act?
-
No only those with an urgency to push stuff through fail to read through bills. I don't know why they are moving so fast. maybe it is because they think the American people will change their minds. the Republicans didn't really have this problem.
-
-
Can anyone turn off these italics? Where's the ninja when you need her?
-
The far right and special interest groups are working hard to confuse the public regarding health care reform. Here are some of the latest falsehoods being spread via chain-email and other media:
"All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services."
This statement is FALSE.
No free health care for illegal immigrants in the health bill
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/30/chain-email/no-free...
"In the health care bill, "The 'Health Choices Commissioner' will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None."
This statement is FALSE.
Health Choices Commissioner does not decide your health benefits
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/30/chain-email/health-...
If Obama and the Democrat's health care reform plans are so flawed on their own as opponents claim, why do those against reform rely on so much misinformation to argue against it??-
because it worked back in '93
-
Special interest groups? You're kidding right?
The AMA? They threw in with Obama without even having time to read what the bill was.
The AARP? Thrown in with Obama.
The American Nurses Association? Thrown in with Obama.
The Pharmaceutical companies? Thrown in with Obama.
So what special interests are you speaking of ruin? -
monied interests
-
So what special interests is ruin talking about? Or is he just spouting Democratic talking points?
-
Didn't think I would get an answer on that one...
-
I'm guessing the insurance companies, but, as I've mentioned elsewhere they seem to be playing both sides of the debate, in order to get some victory either way this goes... disgusting
-
Oh yes... thanks for reminding us.
The AMA supports health care reform.
The AARP supports health care reform.
The American Nurses Association supports health care reform.
The Pharmaceutical companies support health care reform.
AFL-CIO supports health care reform.
Wal-Mart supports health care reform.
... and 450,000 doctors have shown their support for health care reform in the following video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkGGDOp4uUg
Special interest groups that do not support health care reform? These come to mind:
Conservatives for Patient's Rights - A front group organized by Rick Scott who is a multimillionaire former hospital CEO. Scott's ad campaign is being coordinated by CRC Public Relations, the group that masterminded the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" attacks against 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry.
Family Research Council - a neoconservative, right-wing group criticized for misleading and inaccurate claims: factcheck.org/2009/07/surgery-for-seniors-vs-abortions/ -
but factcheck.org is a commie rag
-
@ruin...The AMA? They are so desperate for new members and afraid of running low on funds that they will grasp at any straw. My physician told me he called and stopped his membership in the AMA because when he asked them why they backed Obama and HR 3200 without even reading it, they said they had struck a deal and "wanted a seat at the table." Now I can't cite this, but since the AMA's numbers are down to only 20% of U.S. doctors, then it is easy to see what is going on here.
"By 2000, the AMA claimed only about 30 percent of American doctors as members. The organization had struggled with dwindling membership for decades, and the trend did not seem as if it would reverse easily.
Faced with this probability, the AMA looked for ways to trim its budget and to bring in more money. At its 2000 national meeting, the group announced it would begin to peddle its information technology services."
www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/American-Medical-Association-Comp...
AARP is in the bag for Obama because they favor reducing what they pay for supplimental insurance policies to those on Medicare. Duh. They are also losing members over this, but that doesn't bother them like it does the AMA because AARP gets most of its money from insurance premiums and endorsements.
"But AARP's leadership has outsmarted itself by going all out to aid President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in their drive to nationalize America's health care system.
That was predictable, given AARP history. In 2005, AARP led the charge against President Bush's still-born proposal to reform Social Security by allowing younger workers to put a small portion of their contributions into private investment accounts. Two years before that, AARP backed Bush's Prescription Drug Benefit, the largest expansion of the Medicare program since its creation in 1965.
In short, stick around D.C. for any length of time during the past three decades and you likely figured out that AARP's national office was and is today a key player on the side of Big Government, higher taxes and more bureaucracy."
www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Obamacare-could-kill-AARP-803604...
AFL-CIO and Wal-Mart. Gee I wonder why a HUGE union and a HUGE employer who offer health care would want to let the Government pay for it? Now that is a stumper.
And as far as big Pharma and big Insurance being for it? Well when Grassley, Baucus and Rangel have as their top campaign contributors big Pharma and big Insurance, is it really hard to see why the back Obama and the far left Dems? I mean Baucus collected $3 million from the health insurance, health and insurance sectors from '03-'08. His top contributors? Schering-Plough
Blue Cross Blue Shield
New York Life Insurance
Amgen
Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican got over $2 million from the health care lobby since 2003.
Charlie Rangel, a Democrat and head of the House Ways and Means committee got over $1 1/2 million the last two years.
Boy it is sure hard to figure why those big corps would throw in with Obama.
-
-
Some useful facts and figures on health care premiums from last year from The National Coalition on Health Care: www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
Some won't like the source, even though there should only be disagreement from conservatives about the National Coalition's conclusions, not the costs. Still, to make those happy who think there's a liberal conspiracy out there, here's a headline from the Insurance Journal from a year earlier that shows the same general trend in costs: www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2007/09/12/83416.htm
Actually, that is one thing that has been strangely absent from supporters of the status quo on BlogCatalog. Let's have more numbers on rising health care costs and the effects of those on small businesses and larger companies alike.
Here's a story of health care costs and one small business (chocolate cupcakes): www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111339763 It includes the math that affects the business. -
Campaign contributions from the insurance industry and other health businesses: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073004267.ht...
-
USA Today: Myths on health care
Nothing President Obama or Congress is proposing would replicate the Canadian, British, or French systems or remotely resemble nationalized medical service.
Democrats and Republicans embrace the idea of exchanges and broad new federal insurance rules. They also agree that this new proposed system would be a boon to private insurers, doctors, hospitals, nursing homes and drug companies. That's because tens of billions of dollars of government funds would help many of the 46 million uninsured get coverage.
Those subsidies are one big reason insurers are so opposed to the idea of a "public plan" being offered in the exchanges; they don't want to lose any of those new customers to a government-run plan.
Cookbook and rationed care? This fear stems from concerns that the government aims to dictate what doctors do and cut costs by limiting access to care. These notions are wrong. Rather, what Obama and both Democratic and Republican leaders want to do is aggressively measure the quality of care that doctors and hospitals deliver and change the way those providers get paid so quality of care — rather than quantity — is rewarded.
Far from leading to rationing, shedding light on, and then correcting, bad care practices would lead to better, safer, more efficient care — while saving money.
Read more...
blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/06/myths-on-health-care-.html-
What does Obama know about health care? In fact what do any of these LAWYERS know anything about health care? Nothing
-
Doctors know a lot about health care.
The U.S. has a catastrophically fragmented system that provides incentives for sick care instead of prevention. The system is in dire need of reform - reform to save lives, to save families and to save money for both patients and the American health care system.
It's time to put our health back where it belongs, out of greedy insurance companies' grasp and back into your and your doctor's hands. It's time to stand with more than 450,000 doctors who support health care reform.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkGGDOp4uUg -
Then why is the messiah continually accusing Doctors of taking out tonsils instead of treating a sore throat because they make more money that way? You mean those Doctors? Or maybe a doctor like 'ol Zeke here...
"Consideration of the importance of complete lives also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritising adolescents and young adults over infants (figure). Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. Similarly, adolescence brings with it a developed personality capable of forming and valuing long-term plans whose fulfilment requires a complete life."
www.lancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60137-9/fulltext
www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60137-9/abstract
www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf
For some reason, the Lancet links don't want to work properly. I think it is because you have to subscribe to the Lancet, which I do.
Yes, Dr. Emanuel has quite an influence on Obama. He sits on two committees regarding the health care destruction, err 'reform' process. Seems Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (brother to Rahmbo Dead Fish Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff) has some particular views on who he thinks ought to receive health care...
But that's okay, because I know you will come up with some plausible way to spin what he said into being compassionate, ruin.
-
-
It's only one incident, but a health insurance company appears to have rationed health care to one girl, killing her in the process: cbs2.com/local/nataline.sarkisyan.CIGNA.2.615167.html
(hat tip: twitter.com/Wisco)
Now I realize that there are stupid things that happen in all kinds of systems. Only, usually I hear anecdotal evidence from the right. Might as well collect some of these kinds of stories too, as cold-blooded as it sounds.-
That is a tragedy, mark. And thank you for providing that link. It starkly illustrates the dangers of rationing. But it is a bit different under the free market system. The difference being that with rationing or denial by private insurance coverage, the consumer has choices. Take their business elsewhere, although not always practical, or filing a lawsuit against their insurance company. That is what is happening in the story you provided. Under Government run, single payer systems, the consumer has no recourse, because you cannot sue the Federal Government for denial of health care. You have nowhere to turn. That is the principle reason so many Americans are against what Obama is wanting to do.
-
So because the insurance company seems to have killed this girl, it is an argument in favor of leaving things as they are and against reforming the system. You would have done Orwell's masters of doublethink proud.
-
sounds like Anok's point from days ago...
-
My god,
There aren't many people against fixing the system.
There are however a lot of people that thinks the current proposal isn't the way to do it.
The libtards are showing the weakness of this plan by their consistant arguing that it's either this... or nothing.
Why in the world would it be a better situation to change from one system where people die because of rationing, to one where rationing will most likely be more prevalent?
Hopefully the august break will indeed break this proposal once and for all so that we can move on to something that will be better instead of worse. -
@mark...Once again you spin what I say. You are trying to sensationalize my comment, and make it seem as if I am against reform. I am not against reform. I was making a point that under ANY free enterprise system, people have recourse. Under Government run health care, there is no recourse. When they control ALL health care, and tell you no, then you are screwed.
Does your position mean that you want the Government to control all health care? Leaving Americans with no way to address grievances? No way to find other avenues to obtain the health care they might need but get denied from their Government? Is that what you want? -
@csiunatc: Your suggestion that this is a false dichotomy would make sense if two conditions obtained: (1) the GOP was not openly trying to stop *all* reform in an effort to weaken Obama (recall the "Waterloo" comment), and the best way to stop it is to delay it; (2) Democrats had a monolithic plan imposed on them by Obama instead of a compromise plan being arduously worked out among a wide variety of interested parties. Since there is no one single plan yet, I can only interpret GOP opposition as an opposition to all reform.
@anticsrocks: I've explained my position enough elsewhere to make answering your questions superfluous. -
Find me one GOP Voting member of government who doesn't want any reform, and is voting to stop "ALL" reform like you say. Just one.
How about they are voting against everythign that is coming out of this package because it is the wrong solution.
Just because someone wants wheels, doesn't mean any ol' wheels will do. And if you ask them to vote on the parts of a horsebuggy, it's all still horsebuggy parts.
Espeacially when the dem's aren't even sure how they are going to afford the horse to pull it.
The foundation is rotten in this plan, that the dems are arguing and "ardously working out" what tiles that should go on the roof doesn't make the foundation less crappy.
It needs to die so that we can move on to something better. -
if only it was like the old days, where they would hash the details out in congress. Maybe i'm being naive/sentimental, idk
-
@mark...So you ARE for leaving Americans with no recourse to address grievances under a Government run health care system? How telling that you refuse to answer.
-
-
More FALSE statements:
President Barack Obama suggested on national TV that the Democratic health care bill "will have government decide" that a healthy, 100-year-old woman in need of a pacemaker "should take a pain pill" instead. - Dan Lungren
This claim is FALSE.
Lungren says Obama would have government require a centenarian to get a pill, not a pacemaker
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/03/dan-lungren/lungren...
"The Congressional Budget Office most recently came out and analyzed the current (health care) plan and said that it was not only deficit-neutral, but also that over 10 years it would create a $6 billion surplus." - Russ Carnahan
This claim is FALSE
Carnahan misquotes CBO about cost of health care reform plan
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/03/russ-carnahan/carna...
If Obama and the Democrat's health care reform plans are so flawed on their own as opponents claim, why do those against reform rely on so much misinformation to argue against it??-
""The Congressional Budget Office most recently came out and analyzed the current (health care) plan and said that it was not only deficit-neutral, but also that over 10 years it would create a $6 billion surplus." - Russ Carnahan
This claim is FALSE"
So you are admitting that Obamacare not only won't provide a $6 billion surplus, but it isn't "deficit-neutral?" Thank you for finally dropping the rhetoric, ruin. In the article you provide, it says this:
"So as for Carnahan's statement, he is definitely misstating CBO's findings. The budget office did not say there would be a $6 billion surplus, it said there would be a $239 billion deficit."
It is good that you finally admit Obamacare is the largest single entitlement system ever known to man. Even FDR and LBJ knew that you can't create entitlements and finance it only on the back of the rich. That is why they structured in to their respective socialist programs, (Social Security and Medicare) the mandate that all people pay. Therefore that is why we have witholding for them in our paychecks.
""We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program." - FDR
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal
"During your working years, the people of America--you--will contribute through the social security program a small amount each payday for hospital insurance protection." - LBJ
www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom/650730.asp
So I wonder why Obama thinks that he can achieve the most egregious entitlement program in the history of the world on the backs of the top 1% of Americans? -
I have no problem with people seeing the FACTS in the midst of rhetoric coming from both sides. I agree that Carnahan misquoted CBO's report, but I don't agree with your view of reform.
Again, here are links to sites where people can research for themselves information coming from both LEFT and RIGHT:
FactCheck Wire: Health Care
wire.factcheck.org/category/health-care/
PolitiFact: Health Care
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/subjects/health/
Truth or Fiction: Health Care
www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/h/health-plan.htm
-
-
White House responds to misleading claims surrounding health care reform.
www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/-
The Whitehouse had a Liberal bias.
-
Just thought you'd get that out of the way, did you?
-
(It's all about prevention)
-
-
Health Care Reform Opponents Resort to Mob Rule
The extremist fringe of the anti-health care reform movement—with a wink and a nod from more mainstream health care opponents—is using mob rule to disrupt town hall meetings and community forums set for the congressional recess.
blog.aflcio.org/2009/08/04/health-care-reform-opponents-resort-to-mob-rule/
I'm all for people voicing there concerns regarding health care reform at these town hall meetings, but the juvenile and obnoxious behavior encouraged by groups like FreedomWorks, Right Principles, and the American Liberty Alliance are not constructive.-
Ruinous,
These are the same people that call disrupting Republican Speeches a "successful protest"....
Ok... good link..
As a sidenote to another post. Check out the AFL-CIO's "links" section on the right hand side bottom.
First Link.
ACORN
Getting kinda hard to come up with anything Pro-Obama that ACORN doesn't have their hand firmly behind.
And then they call Tea parties "astro-turf"... -
Your ACORN accusation will only make sense if the organization is proven to be as bad as the GOP and its tea-partying adherents suspect. And so far that hasn't happened. What a grand sport. Demonizing unions, community organizers, etc., as if this weren't a free country, as if organization were permitted only to lobbyists and those who abuse the memory of the Boston Tea Party.
-
Wow, that rant kinda showed a little more emotion than logic...
Proven to be as bad. UNless you want to quantify bad as a neutral and measurable point, and not based on your own emotions, that's goign to be either very easy or impossible. Depending on who you talk to.
I'm guessing you have to see Acorn themselves saying it before it would be true to you. (and if it showed any link to Obama, nothing would make it true to you anyway I suspect) -
*rolls eyes*
Oh yea... now I remember the kind of people we're dealing with...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E
PS: Well said Mark. -
So let me understand this. When the left demonstrates and organizes, like they did with the immigration demonstrations a few years ago, that is okay. That is patriotic. That is voicing your opinion. That gets coverage in the mainstream media.
"The demonstrations are expected to culminate April 10 in a “National Day of Action” organized by labor, immigration, civil rights and religious groups."
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11442705/
Yet when demonstrations occur that go against the left's agenda, then it is a fringe group. Organized and paid for by K street lobbyists. No way can it be Americans exercising their rights to free speech and voicing their concerns over the continued contraction of their liberties.
That is so one sided that it isn't even funny. -
Disrupting a town hall meeting, shouting down a congressman trying to answer questions and others trying to ask questions IS CONSTRUCTIVE?... IS PATRIOTIC?... IS MATURE?
It doesn't help the person who just lost his/her job and health care coverage to boot. It doesn't help those with pre-existing conditions who are turned away from private insurers again and again. It doesn't help small businesses that are being strangled by the rising cost of health coverage.
Large protests FOR or AGAINST policies have their place. Disrupting a town hall meeting where people have gathered to listen, ask questions and voice concerns is another environment. Booing plus shouting talking points so nothing gets done is juvenile.
This is the message being circulated by Right Principles:
"Be disruptive early and often. You need to rock the boat early in the rep’s presentation. Watch for an opportunity to yell out. The goal is to rattle him…stand up and shout out. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions."
You support that kind of behavior?? I know sensible Republicans who do not. -
Seems like us regular everyday American folk are taking a page from Saul Alinsky's play book. What's the matter ruin? You all of a sudden are against community organizing? Be careful, you might lose your lib card.
I tell you what I am for. I am for American citizens making their voices heard. If their Government Representatives and Senators on both sides of the aisle, would listen to their constituents instead of voting in lock step with the far left element of their party then maybe they might not be so angry.
Now our President wants us to tattle on each other.
"Yesterday, White House director of new media Macon Phillips wrote a blog posting urging readers to flag questionable claims about health care proposals.
“There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”
blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/08/gop-senator-white-house-encroaching-on-fi...
www.breitbart.tv/?p=171523
So now we have our Government wanting us to inform on one another? Hmmm, sounds like, what country was that? Oh yes!! The USSR!
Tell me ruin, do you have a problem with Obama's Administration asking Americans to turn each other into the White House? -
You certainly have a distorted view of community organizing. I assumed you would support this immature tactic... thanks for the confirmation.
In regards to the White House director of new media asking people to identify bogus and misleading health care information... I already sent them your blog address. I figured they already had Rush Limbaugh's. -
Once again, when the left does it -"Hey! It's okay!!" But when the right does the same thing - "They must stop this unpatriotic behavior!!" How droll that your position on this is so predictable. Myself, I support Americans speaking up and voicing their concern with the direction this administration is going. You on the other hand, do not.
So you support their Gestapo tactics? You WANT to live in a country where the citizens are told to turn their neighbors in to Big Brother? That in itself is very interesting. That you turned me in fazes me not at all. I have nothing to hide and welcome their scrutiny.
ruin, at one time, I thought that honest debate was possible with you. Yet nearly every post I make is twisted by you to try and demonize me. (straight out of 'Rules for Radicals') When I cite something, you disregard it. You have even done that when I use the very articles you cite to destroy your stance on something. Hell, I even cited the UNITED STATES CENSUS and you claimed that was false. It is impossible to debate someone who never admits the truth. You sir, fall into that category. -
You must have comprehension problem. This is from my statement above:
"I'm all for people voicing there concerns regarding health care reform at these town hall meetings..."
In addition, the OP clearly states:
"Understandably, people have concerns regarding health care reform. Plan costs, restrictions, eligibility and effect on the private sector are all legitimate items that should be examined more closely."
What examples can you provide of Democrats shouting down congressmen and other attendees at town hall meetings to the point where nothing is accomplished?? So far, you've only referenced the National Day of Action - an immigration rally. The two do not compare.
The White House director of new media asking people to identify bogus and misleading health care information is similar to 'Gestapo tactics'?!?!?! That's a stretch, but of course you identify with the fringe far right who hangs on Rush Limbaugh's every word and complains fact check sites are lying and part of the 'drive-by media'.
"I thought that honest debate was possible with you. Yet nearly every post I make is twisted by you to try and demonize me"
You have got to be one of the most hypocritical, dishonest people I've ever come across. I spend most my time debunking misinformation by posting facts and links to sites where people can research the topic further on their own. You continually try and bait me and others with personal attacks, demonizing statements and juvenile references to The President and Democrats.
I'm sure you'll post some twisted logic in your rebuttal, but I believe most intelligent people can review your history here at BC and see the patterns for themselves. -
ruin, you are a piece of work. You spew rhetoric, avoid direct questions and claim to be impartial. You are full of sh*t. Calling me dishonest is laughable. I present facts. You constantly try to "debunk" my facts to the point that you claimed the U.S. Census numbers I quoted were lies. You are sad.
"What examples can you provide of Democrats shouting down congressmen and other attendees at town hall meetings to the point where nothing is accomplished??"
Watch any youtube video of the town hall meetings. You think only Republicans are upset? Are you that stupid? The majority of the videos I have seen showed older Americans. Yeah, Granny is a K Street Lobbyist. The majority of older Americans are Democrats.
people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=95
You will have to scroll down and read the table, I know that is difficult for you because of your inability to read the Census report I linked for you. But it is there, I assure you and it says that of the 65+ age group, 41% are Democrats and 32% are Repubs. So for you to say that only Republicans are at these town hall meetings - these meetings of which many are by invitation only, so that means that the Democratic politicians are inviting the people that are on their mailing lists. You think they invite very many Republicans?
Go ahead and insult me, that is about all you are capable of. Every time I prove you wrong, that is what you do. So go for it. I am a big boy and can take it, I don't cry about it like a lib.
By the way ruin, I have liberals, conservatives, anarchists, independents and many more categories of people on my friends list and believe me, I get quite a few private shouts about you and your tactics. That you try and say I have a bad reputation here is laughable. Everyone who knows me, knows that when I am wrong, I admit it. Ask Agit8r. Ask Anok. Guess what, neither one of them is of the same political view that I am. But yet we seem to be able to have civil discourse. We have reached common ground. I tried with you. But you just like to insult me, over and over. So you can kiss my a$$ if you think that when you present statements that are false that I will go quietly into the night. No, my friend you are wrong. I am not afraid to speak up, so bring it on.
Lastly, I knew you would avoid my question. You mentioned it, but never answered it. For all those interested, this is where our President and his administration is going:
"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."
That is posted, not on barackobama .com but on the OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE WEB SITE. I will try one more time. Does that bother you? Is it okay with you that our Government now wants us to turn on each other and be snitches? It is no where near the same as when we were encouraged to turn in possible terrorists. That is someone who is a danger to others. But now El Presidente wants American citizens to look for anyone who disagrees with him and turn them in. To what end? So the Secret Service can knock on your door? The FBI? His brown shirts?
So pay attention to this ruin, if you can. DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH OUR GOVERNMENT ASKING US TO TURN IN ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES??
I bet you don't have the guts to honestly answer that one. -
Another tirade... another round of personal insults... more distortions... thanks for the demo antics.
-
"So pay attention to this ruin, if you can. DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH OUR GOVERNMENT ASKING US TO TURN IN ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES??
I bet you don't have the guts to honestly answer that one."
"Another tirade... another round of personal insults... more distortions... thanks for the demo antics."
I knew you were too cowardly to answer that question honestly. Hell you're too cowardly to even answer it at all. So we must take it that by your silence you favor American citizens turning fellow citizens into their Government for disagreeing with the President. Very telling, your silence.
Maybe you should brush up on your 'social studies.'
"In 1930's Germany, the new socialist government of Adolf Hitler (NAZI National Socialist Workers' Party) began indoctrinating children in the quasi-military organization, the Hitler Youth, to inform on their parents should they overhear discussions subversive to the policies of the Leader. As the noose was tightened, local community organizers were appointed to watch their neighbors and were told to report subversive comments to the bureaucrats above them. Neighbors informed on neighbors, some for reasons of patriotism or loyalty, some from fear. A modern inquisition ensued; a terror to free thought and expression. Increasingly harsh penalties were meted out to those who dared to dissent."
www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/citizen_informants.html
It is very interesting that you support this type of activity by your Government. -
Condescending tone... more personal insults... more distortions... what a surprise.
You'll find my views on the White House director of new media asking people to identify bogus and misleading health care information, NOT PEOPLE here:
www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/reporting-fishy-things-to-the-go... -
Well, it seems that you will go to great lengths to carry Obama's water for him. Gee, I think most patriotic, freedom-loving Americans have a HUGE problem with the White House asking for people to turn each other in. If they are only looking for information they why didn't they specifically say so? Do they think the American public is too stupid to copy and paste? No, they want email addresses and blog and website addresses. They just don't have the backbone to outright ask for them. They worded it very ambiguously.
"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."
Further, if you really believe that they only want the info, then why did you say this? You didn't say that you were sending them information. You state that you are sending them my address. Hmmm. But they only want info, huh?
"In regards to the White House director of new media asking people to identify bogus and misleading health care information... I already sent them your blog address. I figured they already had Rush Limbaugh's."
First of all, I don't mind at all letting the White House know how I feel about our Pretender-in-Chief and secondly I also don't mind being compared to Rush. Thanks! -
Obama's favorite union, the SEIU evidently didn't like it when someone was giving away pins, flags, etc.. that said "Don't Tread On Me."
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqpfU_AC7Ls&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcbullitt.wordpress.co...
"Six people were arrested at a town hall meeting for Representative Russ Carnahan. Kenneth Gladney, 38, said he was attacked by some of those arrested as he handed out yellow flags with "Don't tread on me" printed on them. Gladney, who is black said he was approached by a black member of the SEIU and called a racial slur before he was assaulted. As you can see in the video below Gladney was also assaulted again, by the white male seen in the picture to the right and thrown to the ground.
Also in the second video below you will see that members of ACORN or the SEIU are let into the doors while hundreds of protesters opposed to Carnahan's support of universal health care were barred from entering. The Democrats have recently resorted to the tactic of trying to claim that all of those opposed to universal health care are being bussed in and are "astroturf" - fake grassroots people - who are being paid by the insurance industry, but as the video below clearly shows these union thugs and community organizing groups are the ones busing people in."
Seems that it is okay when the left protests, but not those on the right...
*cue ruin to tell me how this article is wrong, has it all backwards, is too biased to be true, etc...*
www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/003187.html -
"This is the message being circulated by Right Principles:
"Be disruptive early and often. You need to rock the boat early in the rep’s presentation. Watch for an opportunity to yell out. The goal is to rattle him…stand up and shout out. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions."
LOL. Here is the PAC that is "organizing the country" to disrupt town hall meetings.
"When the "manufactured" outrage the Left is trying to demonize lines up so inconveniently with public polling, it's sometimes necessary to create evidence for the "manufactured" storyline.
Enter Think Progress, which unearthed this shocking, secret memo from the leader of a small grassroots conservative organization in Connecticut, which allegedly instructs members on "infiltrating town halls and harassing Democratic members of Congress."
Right Principles PAC was formed by Bob MacGuffie and four friends in 2008, and has taken in a whopping $5,017 and disbursed $1,777, according to its FEC filing."
LOLOLOL. There ya go ruin! There is your national PAC that is organizing the entire country. And to think they do it on a budget of $5,000!! We need to put THEM in charge of health care if they can do so much with so little!!!
www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/08/think_progress_msnbc_manufactu...
ROFLMAO!!!
"As is often the case, MSNBC anchors and the DNC alike have taken Think Progress' inaccurate sleuthing at face-value, elevating the humble Right Principles to heretofore unknown levels of national importance." -
ROTFL!!... If I would have known that my joke about sending your blog URL to the WH was going to lead to 3 more tirades, I would not have made it. What a waste of space.
RELAX Antics... you are just repeating the mantra of the far right and the misinformation (or disinformation, if you prefer) you parrot can be found at rushlimbaugh.com, glennbeck.com, www.cprights.org and others. I would not waste my time writing the WH about your distorted views.
"LOLOLOL. There ya go ruin! There is your national PAC that is organizing the entire country. And to think they do it on a budget of $5,000!!"
The size and budget of Right Principles does not negate the instructions they authored nor does it negate the fact that the instructions where echoed by larger far right media which has led to the disruptive town hall meetings. Expressing a dissenting view is one thing... shouting down a congressman trying to answer questions and others trying to ask questions is juvenile.
Keep spinning this however you want Antics. It's obvious special interest groups and the far right have launched an intensive propaganda campaign supported by pundits who are inciting people to be disruptive and even violent. We saw this during the campaign too.
North Carolina Lawmaker Gets Death Threat Over Health Reform
www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/08/north-carolina-lawmaker-gets-death-thre...
Health Debate Turns Hostile at Town Hall Meetings
www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/us/politics/08townhall.html?hp
Town hall meeting on health care turns ugly
edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/07/health.care.scuffles/ -
I find the Left's arguments starting to get a little panicked and squeezed.
first the right is disorganised, can't run anything, can't get their priorities straight, can't find leadership.
The next sencond, they are capable of organizing thousands of people to secretly show up at tea-parties as astruturf, disrupt town halls, and basically infiltrate everything almost completely without tangible evidence that this is anything BUT a real grassroots movement.
I say keep it up, everytime these attacks happen, the tea parties grow bigger, people are getting more p-ssed off, the joker's popularity is low for 200 days in office, It's slipping, he is losing the popular vote on healthcare, and keep ramming it down peoples throats anyway.
Obama did teach us one thing, if you don't like something the government is doing. You vote for change.
And we will... -
@csi...Well said!! Obama did teach us to vote for change. Awesome thought and great way with words!
@ruin...First of all, make sure you get my blog address correct when you turn me in. I really don't give a rats a$$ if you do. Secondly, you are such a drone. I mean really, do you ever do ANY thinking of your own? Because you accuse me of being a parrot, yet you don't even read the article I cited. In it, it says this:
"The block quote Think Progress provides from MacGuffie's memo (dutifully reproduced on other liberal blogs) also implies there are sentiments in the memo that simply aren't there. Each of TP's examples of the "harassment" MacGuffie is inciting is preceded by a headline MacGuffie didn't write, which lends a considerably more sinister tone than MacGuffie used. The bolded headlines below do not appear in the memo, but do appear in Think Progress' block quote of it."
And further down it says this:
"The memo also includes these phrases, which are left out of the reporting and demagoguery:
"Do not bring the signs into the hall if you want any chance to be picked for a question."
"Don't carry on and make a scene, just short, intermittent shout-outs," which may sound familiar because the shout-out part was quoted without context by Think Progress.
It also offers such guerrilla tactics as, "When the formal Q&A begins, get your hands up and keep them up— be persistent throughout the entire session. Keep body language neutral and look positive to improve chances of being selected." It instructs participants to be ready with follow-up questions and insist that representatives answer questions instead of launching into talking points.
The memo outlined strategies MacGuffie had used during a town hall meeting with his Rep. Jim Himes in May of this year. While organizing that event and writing the memo, he emphasized that critics should not get out of hand, he said.
His objective was to "make sure we didn't get kicked around, asked good, thought-out questions, and had follow-ups ready," he said. "We took him off his script, but we did not shout him down."
I bet you feel pretty stupid right about now. That is a memo extolling peaceful demonstrations, yet you say otherwise.
"The size and budget of Right Principles does not negate the instructions they authored nor does it negate the fact that the instructions where echoed by larger far right media which has led to the disruptive town hall meetings. Expressing a dissenting view is one thing... shouting down a congressman trying to answer questions and others trying to ask questions is juvenile."
This only proves you didn't read the article.
What a drone you are.
drone
1 /droʊn/ Spelled Pronunciation [drohn] Show IPA
–noun
1. the male of the honeybee and other bees, stingless and making no honey.
2. a remote control mechanism, as a radio-controlled airplane or boat.
3. a person who lives on the labor of others; parasitic loafer.
4. a drudge.
Origin:
bef. 1000; 1945–50 for def. 2; ME drone, drane, OE dran, dron; akin to OHG treno, G Drohne
-
-
No link to offer, just a funny anecdotal story from a conversation today with my mother....
She was repeating many of the myths about the new proposed policies today, and then used her insurance and health care maintenance as evidence that privatized is better. She went on...and on....and on about how GREAT her health care is.
And then I reminded her that she's on a GOVERNMENT HEALTH PROGRAM!
Her husband is a city employee, whose health benefits are provided by, run by, and funded by the state and city government.
Me: "what were you saying about government health care?"
Boy did she turn beet red. -
Good stuff. That's like the conservatives who praise the military, which is, uhm, a government institution---last time I heard, anyway.
-
You should have seen my face when she got good and going about the "freedoms and reliability and service their health care provides from them, and they don't want the government coming in and ruining all tat for them..." and on and on....
I didn't even really say it, but more sputtered it out - You, you, you! You have government health care!!!!!" And she tried to deny it - she kept saying, but we paid into it...it's not a government program, we pay into it....
*shakes head* No wonder there is so much confusion out there about these proposals - people have absolutely no understanding of how any of this works. -
"But we pay into it . . ." Priceless.
-
But is it paid into a private insurance company? Or do you go to Government hospitals, Government doctors, etc...?
-
It's run the exact same way our state insurance (medicaid) is run.
In other words, it's a public option, if you will - and it works just like "regular insurance" only it's funded and controlled by the government - they do have their own insurance companies, as well as insurance companies who offer their policies at group rates to the government along with their regular single policies.
The only "government hospital" we have here is the VA hospital - all other medical care is done just like "regular insurance" with all of the same options.
Only it's run by the government. -
Okay, the payment aspect is government run, but the health care itself is not. Your mother still has her choice of doctors. Under a government run system, your choice of doctor will be taken from you.
-
*EH* Wrong answer!
It is a government run program The government runs it - they decide the pay, the policy amounts - completely regulated to their standards - the fact that they (and I) have a choice in doctors has no bearing on the fact that it is exactly what a public option is/will be. (In other words, if a private insurance company decides to participate - they must adhere to the government's standards - not their own).
I have straight up medicaid - and I have more choices than most people with employer based or single policy health care.
That's all it is - that's all a public option is! And I gotta tell ya - it's fantastic! And my mom agrees, even if she's just realized that it's run by the government -
Anok, it is exactly what a public option would be, but it has nothing to do with right-wing fears and rhetoric. They imagine something so completely different that their heads might explode, were they to actually comprehend what is being discussed.
-
Sorry hon, but Obama, Barney Frank and others are on video saying that the "public option" is the path they want to take to single payer Government run health care. How can you say otherwise when they are on video saying these things? When the Government gets involved to the extent that Obama wants, then we will lose all choice in our health care.
-
mark, do you even KNOW what is in H.R. 3200? Have you read it? I have read nearly half of it. Or are you just going to support anything that the present administration puts forth without thinking about it, reading it, or scrutinizing it? That is the definition of a drone. Are you a drone, mark? This is not an attack, I am interested in knowing whether you use critical thinking on anything that Obama wishes to do.
-
Antics - seeing how it works now - I really don't see where the concern is.
Even if it did eventually turn into a single payer system - are all of the doctors and hospitals out there just going to magically disappear? Where is the limitation in choice of doctors? Where is the logic behind that choice?
If all doctors accept the insurance payment, then all doctors are game for service. Unlike now, where you have to play eenie-meenie-miney-moe with doctors to find out if they're...in your PPO/network, AND accept your insurance, AND taking new patients, AND....etc....
Right now, with both mine and my mother's health care - we get a list of medical providers whom they know for a fact accept the insurance, however there are NO restrictions (from the insurance) on what doctor you can see - if you find one not on the list, and they accept your insurance, you're in.
Furthermore, switching PCP's and other doctors comes with no hassle at all. Unlike dealing with other insurance providers who have a strict list of medical provides to choose from, and make switching providers (and God forbid, going out of the network) a serious paperwork nightmare. I've never seen such inadequacies!
AND we are not excluded or prevented from treating pre-existing conditions, are protected form 3rd party compensation, and can't be dropped.
My mother was very confused today when we were talking about the insurance laws in our state - she refused to believe the laws about riders, waivers, exemptions, premium rates (being raised after using the insurance), third party compensation lawsuits, and it being legal to terminate one's policy upon getting seriously ill or injured. She kept saying 'that's not true, we're just fine, they've never dropped us or done that!"
Well......that's because it's not a privatized insurance program - it's government, and they cannot do that like the private insurers can. If they had regular insurance, her husband would be an invalid by now (due to serious injuries on the job) and they would not have any insurance - certainly one that they could afford. -
Anok, maybe you aren't concerned because you have never lived under a government run health care system, such as in Canada or Great Britain. If you do any research at all, or speak to citizens that live in those countries you see that choice is something they do not have.
Will the change be immediate if the Dems ram through socialized medicine? No. But the results will inevitably be the same as what Canada and Great Britain have. -
I have friends and family who live and have lived all over the world - none of them have any problems with their health care
In fact many of them have said, at some point, that they can't believe how bad our system here really is compared to their new/old home. I have two friends from Poland who have both returned to Poland (at one point or another) for the health care - one as a patient, the other as a doctor.
My sister in law is in the Netherlands, her soon to be husband and his brother who lives in Canada came here and were appalled by the health care here.
My own Uncle - who has lived all over the world - also feels that our system is subpar compared to the systems abroad.
People polled in countries such as Denmark, Iceland, and Switzerland give their health care programs glowing ratings - all "socialized" programs to varying degrees. -
I hang out with a lot of Europeans from several countries, Sweden, Norway, France, Germany, Italy, Poland.
And all of them prefer the system here.
I guess it comes down to who you hang out with. If you hang with people that never amount to anything, they'll need someone else to pay for them, ergo a gov't system seems pretty good to them.
If you hang out with successful, driven people, you'll find that they'd rather have autonomy in their decisions.. -
Yeaaaah.....OK Erik.
I guess the DOCTOR I referenced above amounted to nothing Must be a damn slacker - tryin' to cure cancer and all that...pffft what a hack!
Actually many of my friends and family members are quite successful - they just don't throw it in people's faces every chance they get, like some people. They don't need to, their lives are already validated.
But it's good to know where you stand on things.... -
Like it was any news that i don't believe in rewarding failure and failures...
-
Who one hangs out with in this case might include only single people, or even only single guys. Things usually look different when families are involved. Age might also matter.
-
@Mark - indeed. Many of the people I speak with (friends and family members) who have lived overseas and have had the time to compare and contrast range in age from the early 30's to their late 60's.
My sister in law is originally from the US, in her early 30's, and has been living in the Netherlands for about 10 years now. her boyfriend is from New Zealand, and has lived in the Netherlands for a good deal of time (both are IT professionals, but no children) - and his brother moved around a while and settled in Canada where he is well paid to design large structers as a civil engineer. the botehrs are in their mid 30's.
The doctor I mentioned above is in his 40's, and came to the US as a teenager. He went back to Poland as an adult to continue studying medicine, came back here to work, and after a few short years said his final goodbyes and went back to Poland permanently. He said the medicine over there is much better. Same with my Polish friend, who is in her 60's, has grandchildren all over the world, and an American husband. She can't wait to immigrate back to Poland - she had to go there not too long ago to cure a chronic sinus infection that US doctors couldn't seem to handle.
My Uncle - a well decorated US Veteran and career military pilot has lived all over the world. After retirement, he went back to England - he said it's much better over there. (He's well into his 50's or early 60's)
The list goes on and on, really. My Slovakian friends who visit once a year - their perception on the US in general is really bad (not the people, just the policies) - and they're very young.
There are more than a few BC members of varying ages and backgrounds who are not US citizens who also have the same opinion.... -
@Anok...a couple of weeks ago, I was having some pretty serious chest pains. I went to the ER, of course and got checked out. Seems my cardiac defibrillator/pacemaker was having a software problem. Got it fixed and soon the pains passed. But the reason I tell this is because the nurse who attended to me was speaking to the lab tech who was drawing my blood about a patient they had taken care of in the not so distant past. He was a person from Sweden visiting relatives here. He had some problems (they did not relate what his ailment was due to the HIPAA laws) and had to go to the ER. I heard her and asked if he said anything about his health care in his home country. She said that he told her that he had been on a waiting list for over 6 months to get the surgery he needed. When he was stabilized in the ER, he was transferred to a hospital in our state capitol and got the surgery he needed. Immediately.
So not everyone thinks our system sucks, Anok. I cannot provide a link to this anecdote, but you can take my word for it as truth. -
Your argument makes sense for those who have good health insurance. Now imagine you lost your job and your health insurance with it. Or you kept it, but you couldn't afford cobra. Or you could afford cobra, but you got different insurance with your new job, and they didn't cover this condition, because it is preexisting . . . That is the crux of the matter for those of us who want insurance for all.
Essentially, every argument I've seen you make is against a bogeyman that doesn't exist. No one is talking about a huge government-run operation of all health facilities. No one is talking about rationing. It's about getting a a health insurance system that serves everyone, not just people who are able to get and keep a solid plan.
And even the availability of what you have is limited to regions that can afford good hospitals. Talk to underserved urban and rural areas, and you'll hear other stories. -
The US has huge waiting lists for people who need surgery, too.
the problem is that you don't know why he had to wait, nor do you know what kind of surgery he needed.
Perhaps there was no organ donor or suitable blood donor for his procedure at that time. Happens all the time, here. -
But it's the good, wholesome kind of waiting, the capitalist kind.
/sarcasm -
Antics is fighting for the CEO's of insurance companies... not for people like Isabella:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKI9be55N00 -
Well Anok it certainly wasn't an organ transplant or he wouldn't have been able to immediately have surgery, would he? He told the nurse that he had been waiting to SEE A SPECIALIST. In America, the specialist came to see him in the ER once he was moved to the state capitol. Our hometown hospital is a good one, but too small for major surgeries like he needed.
ruin, you are full of sh*t. I am not fighting for anything other than everyone's freedoms and personal liberties. You are fighting for Obama and his expansion of power so that people can be put on waiting lists to die. -
You don't know that, though Antics. Honestly - if you don't know the person you don't know the circumstances of their medical needs. He could have been on a waiting list here for all you know. He could have had some rare problem or requirements that we don't know about.
People sometimes do have to travel across the globe to receive the medical care they need or want - including traveling outside of the US. For example, again, my friend from Poland who had to travel back to Poland just to cure a simple sinus infection. The doctors here simply treated the symptoms, and could not or would not test her for the actual cause of the chronic infection. Back in Poland they isolated the bacteria causing it, administered the proper medicine, and boom! She's all better!
*shrugs* -
Anok, I told you what I could about that patient. The nurse told me that he kept saying to her that he couldn't believe he was going to be able to see the specialist (she mentioned the doctor's name, I believe he is a cardiologist, but I could be wrong) that day. He told her he had been waiting and waiting in his home country and had not been able to even see the specialist. He was not here in the United States to receive health care, he was here visiting relatives. His symptoms forced him to go to the ER. He could not have been on a waiting list here in America when he is a citizen of Sweden.
As far as you friend traveling to Poland to get a cure for sinus infection, I am sure you didn't mean to type it that way. It seems like your friend went there solely for that. Quite an expensive trip for a very minor problem. It is funny you mention that by the way because my wife is in Florida currently. Her father passed on and she is taking care of his arrangements and estate. She had a sinus infection when she left and had me call our doctor for a script. They called it in and she picked it up at a Walgreens down there. Good enough, right? Wrong, lol. The Z-Pack antibiotic didn't do the trick. She went to her Mom's doctor and he saw her. Gave her not only a different antibiotic, but a steroid to also treat the infection. After only 3 days, she is better! But does that mean that our health care system sucks because she got a doctor who tried something different while she was in Florida? No. It means that she just happened to go to a doctor who, well, tried something different. What I am saying is that your friend might have had the same experience here in this country, by going to a different doctor.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Health care is a complex issue and you have to know how to be a good patient. Ask the right questions, and don't be afraid to speak up to your doctor. -
She also has family in Poland...However her problem was chronic, and the doctors here refused to address the actual issue.
That's pretty standard here - if we can continue to medicate you without curing your problem (so long as it's not life threatening) - they will. Why? Because that guarantees higher profits.
Your wife's story is like comparing someone with a once in a while headache taking aspirin to relieve the pain until it heals itself - vs. someone who gets chronic headaches and migraines and needs an actual cure. The US medical industry isn't going to give you a cure for that. They will give an expensive prescription, though.
Yes, Healthcare is a highly complex issue here, but it doesn't have to be. If we simply focused on preventing diseases, and curing rather than treating diseases we could cut our costs in half. Further that, if we could get doctors who become doctors to help people and not to make ginormous salaries - that would also cut costs, and raise care - because a person who loves his or her job is far better at it than one who does it for the money. -
Anok, hon. I was born with a heart defect. So therefore I have been around and known doctors all my life. I can guarantee you that none of them wake up and go to work thinking about how they can turn a bigger profit on their patients. Have you ever asked your doctor if he thinks that way? You know I respect you greatly, but you are way off the mark on this one. I am not saying that there aren't wacko doctors out there, but they are few and far between. Most doctors become doctors because they care. I mean, 12 years of school, excruciatingly long shifts for their residency, then the boards they must pass and you think that they when they finally start their own practice, they say to themselves I can make a few dollars more by giving them this pill? C'mon you don't really believe that, do you?
-
I think there are more than just a few who do think that way. Unfortunately I've had my unfair share of them
You have a lot of people who get into careers because of social pressure, family pressure, lure of money etc and so forth. Even more so - after all of that "excruciating" education and residency - they feel even more entitled to even more money. Even if they're a hack.
Why else would a doctor turn patients away because they had the "wrong insurance" or no insurance? If they're there to help people, then they should help them - not price them out of their office.
This is true with every profession that has a high profit/payscale. Lawyers, doctors, executives - etc...
-
-
10 Health Care Reform Myths
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/05/politics/main5215880.shtml
GOP using paranoia to try reason out of health-care debate
blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/08/06/gop-using-paranoia-to-try-reason-...
Rationing? It's happening already
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/31/rationing-democrat-say... -
Obama wants to kill your grandma: Five right-wing myths about healthcare reform, and the facts
Turning America socialist apparently wasn't enough for him -- now President Obama is trying to make old people kill themselves, callously deny important medical procedures, funnel tax dollars to abortion clinics and wiggle the government's way into every doctor's office in America.
www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/08/06/healthcare/ -
Republicans Propagating Falsehoods in Attacks on Health-Care Reform
The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they've given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They've become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/06/AR2009080603854.ht...-
Of course that is an OPINION PIECE. An Op-Ed column. But from that column, it is interesting that you left this part out.
"As a columnist who regularly dishes out sharp criticism, I try not to question the motives of people with whom I don't agree. Today, I'm going to step over that line."
But then again, I am the one who is dishonest... -
*roll eyes*
The links I've posted are provided so people can continue reading the information for themselves.
There is nothing dishonest about that. -
Of course not ruin, you are completely honest. That is why you avoid most of the questions I put to you...
-
-
Anok,
Since you are so convinced of the greatness of the Polish Public System.
www.nowpublic.com/polish_health_care_crisis_reaches_fever_pitch
www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jun2006/pola-j13.shtml
These hospitals today are not permitted to treat patients who pay for themselves, unlike, on the other hand, the smaller private clinics, which usually average around 40 beds and employ relatively few doctors compared to the state facilities. The clinics are frequently presented as an alternative to the wretched conditions existing in the public sector, but due to the price of treatment (monthly private insurance premiums for a family of four can cost up to 810 zloty, or approximately $262)
(note from first article, Nurse earns under 400, Non specialized doctors around 400-500 USD per month.
www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2006/02/feature/pl0602103f.htm
PZ doctors announced that they would keep their practices closed after the New Year. In response, the Minister of Internal Affairs issued a warning that they might bear criminal liability, or even be called up for the army for a period of three months.
www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch/Detail/?ots591=4888CAA0-...
Faced with the shortage of doctors and nurses, the Polish government is likely to turn to the east, for example to Ukraine, for medical personnel. Ukrainian nurses, making about US$100 monthly, are likely to accept job offers with Polish salaries, which despite being low, are still a much higher than those found in Ukraine.
Yeah Anok, Sure sounds like the Polish Gov't system is GREAT!
Any other country you would like to sing the praises of?-
Sorry I didn't see this response earlier.
Every single one of your article is 4+ years old - they all talk about the same exact event, from the same date except one - which gives a very TELLING tale of the years 1991, and 2001 respectively when their proposed government insurance program was cut down to localised (re, inefficient) positions, and then eradicated entirely.
At which point pay and services started to go downhill. WHen they started compromising with PRIVATE insurance dealings rather than using the program they had before then.
However - the strikes are long since over, and reform has occurred (just shortly after the strikes) and wages were raised:
www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL08617092
"Out of 18,000 types of treatment, 3,000 will be excluded from the guaranteed basket of treatments," Kopacz said. "For example wart removal will not be on the guaranteed list."
Kopacz added the government had already moved to significantly raise wages for young doctors, those most likely to join fellow Polish healthcare workers who have left to take higher paying jobs in other parts of the European Union.
The problem, as addressed by many, was the introduction of privatization where corruption on both state and office/doctor's levels were introduced, in the early 2000's.
But hey, one of my friends moved back to Poland - leaving his high paying US medical employment to work there. For some people, it isn't about the money.
-
-
CNN Anchor Rips Into Health Care CEO Who's Funding Anti-Reform Effort
A CNN anchor today tore down Rick Scott, the founder of an organization that's been funding anti-health care reform protests and the former CEO of a hospital company that, as Sanchez pointed out, paid $1.7 billion to settle charges of overcharging Medicare and Medicaid.
Story:
www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/2009/08/cnn-anchor-rips-into-health-care...
Video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwjcxyuUf5A-
More on Rick Scott / CPR:
SHADY
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tItAd_rzJ48
Rick Scott and CPR: "Not So Innocent," And Just Plain Wrong
www.youtube.com/watch?v=P986uuPqlhQ -
LOL, you cite a video made by mediamatters? That is a hoot. But to the CNN interview. For one thing, it was edited so that you could not hear the entire interview and garner its full context. Remind me ruin, aren't you the one who usually yells the loudest when context isn't presented? Or does that only apply when it is everyone else? Rick Scott ran a corporation with hundreds of hospitals. So the fine is going to be bigger. But if you look at the percentage of that fine to their income, then I suspect you get a better picture of it.
As he said, HCA wasn't the only health company to pay fines in the late '90s and into this decade.
www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/May/05_civ_292.htm
In fact, the Mayo Clinic says this about Obamacare:
"A world-renowned clinic that President Obama held up as an example of good medicine said Monday that the American people would be "losers" under the House's health care proposal, joining the growing chorus of critics the Obama administration is trying to fend off as the debate intensifies from Capitol Hill to Main Street.
Minnesota's not-for-profit Mayo Clinic, which Mr. Obama has repeatedly hailed as offering top quality care at affordable costs, blasted the House Democrats' version of the health care plan as lawmakers continue to grapple with several bills from each chamber and multiple committees.
The Mayo Clinic said there are some positive elements of the bill, but overall "the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher quality, more affordable health care for patients."
In fact, it will do the opposite," clinic officials said, because the proposals aren't [R]patient-focused or results-oriented. "The real losers will be the citizens of the United States." "
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/21/mayo-clinic-calls-house-plan-bad-m...
So do us a favor, and shutup, ruin. Go home, you only say what the DNC tells you to say. -
So... what you are saying is that SEVERAL insurance companies had to settle charges of overcharging Medicare and Medicaid...??
The Conservatives for Patient's Rights founder was CEO of just ONE of the companies found guilty for overcharging Medicare and Medicaid...??
Regarding the Mayo Clinic... It's TRUE they have been critical of the HOUSE bill... stating:
"Although there are some positive provisions in the current House Tri-Committee bill – including insurance for all and payment reform demonstration projects – the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients."
Full text here: healthpolicyblog.mayoclinic.org/2009/07/16/mayo-clinic’s-reaction-to-hous...
Unfortunately, they didn't go into specific details, but I'd like to hear more.
You'll also find this on their website:
May Clinic Policy Center Recommendations - Building Upon The Cornerstones
"Mayo Clinic believes that American health care urgently needs reform to ensure the future of quality patient care. Recognizing that widespread consensus and collaboration will be essential to successful health care reform..."
"To reform health care, participants in Mayo Clinic Health Policy Center programs – including providers, academics, medical industry leaders, businesspeople, insurers, political leaders and patients — recommend four areas of focus."
1) Create Value
2) Coordinate Care
3) Reform the Payment System
4) Provide Health Insurance for All
www.mayoclinic.org/healthpolicycenter/recommendations.html -
Pay close attention ruin. I am going to answer your question.
You asked: "So... what you are saying is that SEVERAL insurance companies had to settle charges of overcharging Medicare and Medicaid...??"
Last I heard, the Mayo Clinic wasn't an insurance company. My, but you are taking the DNC talking points of 'hating insurance companies' to heart aren't you?
For the record, what I said was: "As he said, HCA wasn't the only health company to pay fines in the late '90s and into this decade."
But once again, you neglected to answer my question. I hate to harp on this, but you just keep running away from direct questions.
Here is what I asked you:
"But to the CNN interview. For one thing, it was edited so that you could not hear the entire interview and garner its full context. Remind me ruin, aren't you the one who usually yells the loudest when context isn't presented? Or does that only apply when it is everyone else?"
*yawn* I know you will ignore this one, too.
-
-
One of the biggest problems out there is the inability of people to distinguish between a reform of the way health insurance works and what will happen to their hospitals and doctors. The idea is to address the former issue, to make sure insurance works more fairly and is more widely available. But no one is talking about denying people their usual resources, if they are happy with them.
Why would I post that to facts thread? I'd like to see references to successful pushes to explain this distinction so that anyone can understand it. -
WOW.... there's almost too many lies and distortions regarding health care reform for people to keep up.
"The Democrat-backed health care reform plan "will require (Americans) to subsidize abortion with their hard-earned tax dollars." - John Boehner
This statement is FALSE.
Boehner says Democrats' health care plan would lead to taxpyare subsidizing abortions
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/07/john-boehner/boehne...
"Page 992 of the health care bill will "establish school-based 'health' clinics. Your children will be indoctrinated and your grandchildren may be aborted!" - Liberty Council
This statement is FALSE.
School health clinics would not provide abortions
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/07/liberty-counsel/sch...
If Obama and the Democrat's health care reform plans are so flawed on their own as opponents claim, why do those against reform rely on so much misinformation (and now violence) to argue against it?? -
MORE false claims...
"Health care reform legislation is “likely to mandate free ‘sex change’ surgeries.”" - Bloggers
This statement is FALSE.
Conservative news release says health care bill "likely" to cover sex change surgery
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/07/blog-posting/conser...
"The health care reform plan would set limits similar to the "socialized" system in Britain, where people are allowed to die if their treatment would cost more than $22,000." - Club For Growth
This statement is FALSE.
Club for Growth's health care ad campaign is misleading
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/06/club-growth/club-gr...
If Obama and the Democrat's health care reform plans are so flawed on their own as opponents claim, why do those against reform rely on so much misinformation (and now violence) to argue against it?? -
@Ruinous Right
Thanks for following up and exposing these falsehoods.
If Obama and the Democrat's health care reform plans are so flawed on their own as opponents claim, why do those against reform rely on so much misinformation (and now violence) to argue against it?
In another forum thread polybore contributed this:
The bereavement process applies more to the voter although similar symptoms can be seen in the professional they are typically more short lived.
1. Shock and Numbness: During this initial phase, survivors have difficulty processing the information of the loss; they are stunned and numb.
2. Yearning and Searching: In this phase, there is a combination of intense separation anxiety and disregard or denial of the reality of the loss. This engenders a desire to search for and recover the lost person. Failure of this search leads to repeated frustration and disappointment.
3. Disorganization and Despair: Individuals often report being depressed, and have difficulty planning future activities. These individuals are easily distracted and have difficulty concentrating and focusing.
4. Reorganization: This phase overlaps to some degree with the third phase.
Your Republican voter is probably still in phase 1 or 2, perhaps 3, however your republican political professional is already in 4. After all the next election is only 3 and a bit years ago.
www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/right-wing-messiah-rhetoric#comm...-
Funny,
Next we hear how the Right is organizing all these fakes to become "Astroturf" and how organized they are in disrupting meetings etc.
Sounds like step 4 to me. -
I don't think you can call these Democrat run townhall's "townhalls". Sitting and listening to some bureaucrat tell you what he wants you to hear is not a townhall. It is a lecture. People spent enough time in college so thus they don't need politicians to start doing it.
-
Drones like ruin and timethief only regurgitate what the DNC tells them to say. It takes original, intelligent thought to evaluate the Democrats health care plan. When anyone does evaluate that bill and report on it, the drones spend more time and energy trying to "debunk" the claims that they begin to resemble a barnyard full of chickens running around endlessly.
"Bawk! This if false! Bawk! That isn't true! Bawk, Obama loves you!! He cares for you!" -
Actually, TT is in Canada, and has a mixed economy along with Canadian health care, and no dealing with the DNC whatsoever.
I value her opinion about this topic along with Poly's because quite frankly - they have public health care in various forms.
-
-
Sarah Palin telling it like it is: www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=113851103434
. . . in her strange imagination.-
I find it funny how liberals have basically inducted Palin as the new Limbaugh. Just like Limbaugh, the more you talk about her, the more powerful she becomes.
-
I've been wondering about that too, which is why I started this thread: www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/when-is-it-better-not-to-engage
-
"We must step up and engage in this most crucial debate. Nationalizing our health care system is a point of no return for government interference in the lives of its citizens. If we go down this path, there will be no turning back. Ronald Reagan once wrote, “Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” Let’s stop and think and make our voices heard before it’s too late." - Sarah Palin
Hmmm, I like what she said. It is thoughtful and to the point. What's the matter with you libs? Does it make too much sense for you? -
Well, if she considers providing health care as an interference into your life...I wonder what she thinks of the private insurance industry which intrudes on your every medical need? Is that an intrusion?
In other words, it would only make sense if it were even remotely accurate. -
@anticsrocks: The part about the "death panels" and "evil" was surely thoughtful too, no?
@Anok: And I wonder if she's planning on living without any government benefits for her youngest. Not even the supposed millions of a book deal can go very far in that regard, considering the size of her brood. -
"@anticsrocks: The part about the "death panels" and "evil" was surely thoughtful too, no?"
Pay close attention mark. I am going to do something you rarely do. I am answering your question, thoughtfully and without rhetoric.
Was what she said about death panels and the evil they represent thougthful? I believe so, because she was voicing her concerns about where Obamacare will wind up. Every single nation on the planet that has socialized medicine has to, at one point institute rationing. Right now, under private insurance, rationing goes on. But it isn't systemic. In other words, you have options. Other insurance companies, lawsuits against the insurance companies or doctors/hospitals/clinics,etc... Once there is only one game in town, then where do you go? How do you fight city hall when city hall is nationwide? At no time during these debates have anyone from the White House addressed this point, other than Obama just saying that it won't happen. Yet when he is asked about specifics on the bill, he cannot talk to that, because he doesn't know what is in it. I think if Obama would make sure that a provision was put into the bill making it clear that the United States would never adopt a single payer system, then you would see a lot of this opposition dissipate. But he refuses to do that. Why do you suppose that is, mark? I think it is because he wants us to get to single payer. After all, there are enough examples of him on video saying so. Along with Barney Frank and others in his admin.
There, I answered your question thoughtfully and without rhetoric. Now please answer mine. Why do you suppose Obama won't make sure that there is a provision in the bill that outlaws single payer? -
Hmmm, I guess he has me on ignore...
-
-
The Dems will think what they want to think is fact and fiction. Good thing most people are smart enough to figure this out and express their discourse at Townhall meetings.
-
Sarah enlightens us with her wisdom...
"Seniors and the disabled "will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care." - Sarah Palin
This statement is FALSE.
Sarah Palin falsely claims Barack Obama runs a 'death panel'
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/10/sarah-palin/sarah-p...
Just two weeks after she implored journalists to "quit making things up," Palin has manufactured the idea of a "death panel" out of thin air.
www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019404.php
The claim that the House health care bill pushes suicide is nonsense.
www.factcheck.org/2009/07/false-euthanasia-claims/ -
This is a very interesting complication from the legislation.
Naturally, it is in the Democrats interest to show that there are no "provisions" to mandate early termination of life or anything else,
BUT, the problem isn't in the legal text itself, it is in the human psyche.
The Factcheck link posted by ruinous leads to this source.
www.ahrq.gov/research/endliferia/endria.pdf
Which states:
Patients were likely to accept or refuse treatment based on
how invasive they perceive that treatment to be and how
long the treatment is expected to last.17,39,44,46 Presented with
hypothetical scenarios, patients from three AHRQ studies
were more likely to want CPR than long-term mechanical
ventilation if they were in their current state of health
(Figure 3). When given a hypothetical scenario of a stroke,
fewer patients would opt for either CPR or mechanical
ventilation.
Now, ask survivor of stroke if they're unhappy being alive.
When healthy, the proposition of stroke is terrifying, for those that have recovered or partially recovered, life goes on even if it's been changed.
The problem with living wills are that they are written by people who when healthy think they'd rather be dead. But survivors are of a much different persuasion.
More living wills would lead to more deaths because of this phenomenon.-
Do you have any idea of how many people have signed DNR's? Do you realize that euthanasia has become a debate in the US because [people who have "survived" catastrophic illness or accidents want nothing more than to end the pain, or end their lives before the pain become too debilitating?
Yes, most people would rather die than become an incapacitated vegetable. Nothing new there....
Honestly now...living wills and patient counseling already exists. Let people talk with doctors and counselors and make up their wills when they're still sound of mind and body and on their own terms. This provision is neither a complication, strange - or new.
Is everything a conspiracy theory? -
Yada yada, a mere statement of fact and now it's a "conspiracy theory". Don't you lefties ever get tired of repeating the same mantra. Are there really no NEW instruction pamphlets on lefty argument out??
UNderstanding the EFFECT as opposed to merely reading the text is not a conspiracy.
And all these people who "want nothing but end the pain"... May be that some are completely handicapped, but the remainder would probably be capable of doing it if that is what they really wanted. Somehow they aren't. Wonder why?
Yet, a surprising number of for instance stroke victims are happy to be alive. And aren't looking for the nearest cliff to jump off. -
Yes, because those are the people who CHOSE NOT to sign a DNR!
Of course they're happy! For those who have chosen to sign one (or made their intent to not live like that through a living will or other contract) would be pissed if they were saved against their wishes.
Why? Becasue they didn't want to!
Get it now? There is no "effect" of this bill. Claiming that people will choose or be forced into euthanization, or be tricked into by psychology is absolute idiocy. -
No effect of this bill. So lets take it out then.
No "consulting" provision in the bill would be better, just like the right has asked for all along.
glad you agree -
I interpret the bill to mean that counseling is covered by the insurance - not that it is mandatory or something new. As it stands now, health counseling services are not a covered medical claim.
Edit: there are a few medical procedures that I think should have mandatory counseling, however. Euthanasia being one of them, as well as abortion, and elective surgeries such as (non medical) plastic surgery -
Anoks inconsitentcy is only rivaled by her consistent ignorance.
If it's worth paying for then it would have an effect. Which would mean more living wills = More early terminations of life.
MAke up your mind, no effect, or worth paying for...
Oh, never mind, i forget that you make sh-t up as you go along. -
Actually - counseling has a great effect, and people already seek it privately (mainly for legal reasons). By my interpretation of this bill, the cost of it would be covered - rather than having to pay out of pocket for it.
I'll say it more simply: It's not going to change anything but the cost. -
You could say that about every other feature I've heard of. It's about reforming insurance and reducing cost, not changing the way medicine is practiced, except insofar as it will finally be practiced on people who earlier had access only to emergency rooms, and you won't be a slave to one employer because of a preexisting condition.
-
So the people who are already paying out of pocket would get others to pay for it instead?
And the ones that aren't getting it now aren't gong to get it later either.
Well that to me says it should be kept out, or we'll end up paying tax money for more early terminations of life. -
Yeah, that argument makes as much sense as saying:
Liability claims are covered by insurance.
So that means that people who used to pay out of pocket will now be able to get that service covered by their insurance provider? And people who don't get that service won't? So more people will get into car accidents?
Logic is clearly not your strong suit
Let's try it again: my interpretation of the bill is that counseling will be something that is included in your insurance policy. SO if you have insurance, you can get counseling in a similar manner that you would get a doctor's appointment.
Counselors can help you make medical decisions for long term care (hospice/retirement homes/convalescent homes) determine if you want to have a DNR or not, and a variety of other medical issues that you should deal with while you're still able to use your mind and free will. You would then take that advice, and either see your lawyer or other legal counsel to fill in the appropriate paperwork.
Is that easier for you to understand?
-
-
I know opponents of health insurance reform won't trust this source, but it will be of interest to some: "Reality Check" www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/
-
I know proponents of health insurance reform won't trust this source, but it will be of interest to some: "The Plans" www.cprights.org/plans.php
-
Conservatives for Patient's Rights - A front group organized by Rick Scott who is a multimillionaire former hospital CEO. Scott's ad campaign is being coordinated by CRC Public Relations, the group that masterminded the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" attacks against 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry.
-
Thanks for the heads up, RR. Always good to know who is peddling (mis)information.
-
about as fair and balanced as getting it from the Whiehouse.
NOt to mention.. the swift boat mess was about uncovering the truth behind his claims. Kinda what they are doing now. -
Oh God, here we go again with the diatribe against Rick Scott.
Get it right, Rick Scott was not a hospital CEO.
He was the head of a conglomerate that owned hundreds of hospitals. When Clinton took office he changed the way Medicare claims were handled and subsequently a lot of what prior to that were considered mistakes were then referred to as fraud. By percentage the fines were no larger than that on other hospitals and health providers.
I got this from factcheck. org. Even though they are hardly unbiased, they at least called this one down the middle. Although you won't like this ruin, because it defends Rick Scott.
"An e-mail message from David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager, says:
Plouffe, DNC pitch: We knew healthcare reform would face fierce opposition — and it’s begun. As we speak, the same people behind the notorious "swiftboat" ads of 2004 are already pumping millions of dollars into deceptive television ads.
Not exactly.
The health care ads in question are financed by Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, which is funded partly by Rick Scott, its chairman and the former head of hospital chain Columbia/HCA. (We wrote about one of the group’s ads in late April.) Scott’s group is using CRC Public Relations, which also worked for the 2004 Swift Boat group that attacked Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry’s military service. (We wrote about those ads, too.) But CRC isn’t the one "pumping millions" into TV ads about health care. Spokesman Brian Burgess tells us that the PR firm hasn’t contributed money to run the ads.
And there’s no evidence that those who bankrolled Swift Boat Vets are funding Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, either. The organization is not obligated to reveal its funding, though Scott has said he has put in millions of his own money. Burgess says that Scott didn’t contribute to Swift Boat Vets — and there’s no record of him having done so, according to the Center for Responsive Politics’ database. We asked Burgess if there was any truth to the DNC claim that those behind the Swift Boat ads are pumping money into CPR’s health care ads, and he said "no."
And just to let ruin and mark know, the left is expert at (mis)informtaion as evidenced by this - also from factcheck:
"But the ad is an example of a common fallacy, an ad hominem argument, which attacks the person behind the claims rather than the claims themselves. "Ad hominem" means "to the person" in Latin.
The ad implores "before you listen to Rick Scott, look at his record." Some people may well be skeptical of Scott’s assertions because of his former company’s felonious past (and we’re all for skepticism, no matter the circumstance). But Columbia/HCA’s shady dealings can’t determine whether Scott’s (and CPR’s) claims about Congress and health care are true or false. Health Care for America Now stops short of claiming that CPR’s ads must be bogus because of who Scott is — but the ad leaves viewers to connect the dots.
For the record, Scott has said that he was never implicated of wrongdoing at Columbia/HCA. "We had great outcomes, we had great patient satisfaction, and nobody ever accused me of doing anything wrong," Scott said in a National Public Radio segment that aired May 12.
We’ll also note that the ad ends by speculating that Scott’s motive is to protect his wealth. It says he wants to "block health care reform because he and his insurance company friends make millions from the broken system we have now." The ad’s sponsor points to support for Scott voiced by an advocacy group that includes insurance companies and positive mentions by an insurance trade group of urgent-care clinics, like those run by Scott’s current company, Solantic. But regardless of whether insurance companies like him, Health Care for America Now can offer only speculation about Scott’s intent, not fact. (This is also a circumstantial ad hominem — a fallacy that argues a person’s claims are not to be believed because of a personal stake in the matter.)"
So I guess that kinda makes you look like a conspiracy theorist, ruin. "Oh that evil Rick Scott. He was behind the Swift Boat ads!!"
LOL, looks like factcheck. org doesn't think so. -
Alright Antics... Let's look at this more closely.
The first of my two sentences above states:
"Conservatives for Patient's Rights - A front group organized by Rick Scott who is a multimillionaire former hospital CEO."
I agree... "Rick Scott: multimillionaire former hospital CEO" IS misleading.
He was not CEO of A hospital, but rather a founding partner and CEO of Hospital Corporation of America/Columbia Hospital Corporation - one of the largest private operators of health care facilities in the world. A company that purchased and operated hundreds of hospitals.
Several articles found on the web will refer to Mr. Scott as "former hospital CEO" or "ex-hospital CEO", but he was actually the CEO of a company that ran hundreds of hospitals.
So, this would be MORE accurate... "Conservatives for Patient's Rights - A front group organized by Rick Scott who is a multimillionaire and former CEO of one of the largest private operators of health care facilities in the world."
The second of my two sentences above states:
"Scott's ad campaign is being coordinated by CRC Public Relations, the group that masterminded the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" attacks against 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry."
- Scott's CPR ad campaign IS being coordinated by CRC Public Relations
- CRC Public Relations IS the same group that worked on the "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" campaign.
Nowhere do I say CRC Public Relations is "pumping millions into TV ads about health care". I simply state that Scott is using the same public relations firm that worked on the Swift Boat campaign.
Now... I wonder why you didn't include the FactCheck.org link?? Could it be that you didn't want others to see the full text?? It addresses the SHADY video found above. Here's the link and a few highlights:
"Health Care for America Now released this TV spot, titled "Shady," on May 7, attacking the character of the chairman of CPR, Rick Scott. The ad says that Scott’s former company (that’s Columbia/Hospital Corporation of America) "pleaded guilty to 14 felonies" in a Medicare fraud case that involved "overbilling" and "kickbacks" and ended with the hospital chain paying $1.7 billion in penalties, the "biggest false claims settlement in history." That’s all true. Scott was forced to resign as head of the company in 1997 as the U.S. government was investigating its practices."
FactCheck goes on to conclude: "Health Care for America Now can offer only speculation about Scott’s intent, not fact."
factcheck.org/2009/05/the-real-scotts-shady/
So... Just because Rick Scott - a multimillionaire former CEO of one of the largest private operators of health care facilities in the world who pleaded guilty to 14 felonies is behind Conservatives for Patient's Rights, it does not mean he cannot be trusted when providing health care reform advice.
Ex-Hospital CEO Battles Reform Effort
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/10/AR2009051002243.ht...
CPR’s Rick Scott Holds Himself Up As A Model For Health Reform
wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/03/05/scott-offers-himself/ -
And? You said the same things I did. I inadvertently left out the factcheck links. You want them?
I got this -
"But the ad is an example of a common fallacy, an ad hominem argument, which attacks the person behind the claims rather than the claims themselves. "Ad hominem" means "to the person" in Latin.
The ad implores "before you listen to Rick Scott, look at his record." Some people may well be skeptical of Scott’s assertions because of his former company’s felonious past (and we’re all for skepticism, no matter the circumstance). But Columbia/HCA’s shady dealings can’t determine whether Scott’s (and CPR’s) claims about Congress and health care are true or false. Health Care for America Now stops short of claiming that CPR’s ads must be bogus because of who Scott is — but the ad leaves viewers to connect the dots.
For the record, Scott has said that he was never implicated of wrongdoing at Columbia/HCA. "We had great outcomes, we had great patient satisfaction, and nobody ever accused me of doing anything wrong," Scott said in a National Public Radio segment that aired May 12.
We’ll also note that the ad ends by speculating that Scott’s motive is to protect his wealth. It says he wants to "block health care reform because he and his insurance company friends make millions from the broken system we have now." The ad’s sponsor points to support for Scott voiced by an advocacy group that includes insurance companies and positive mentions by an insurance trade group of urgent-care clinics, like those run by Scott’s current company, Solantic. But regardless of whether insurance companies like him, Health Care for America Now can offer only speculation about Scott’s intent, not fact. (This is also a circumstantial ad hominem — a fallacy that argues a person’s claims are not to be believed because of a personal stake in the matter.)"
from -
factcheck.org/2009/05/the-real-scotts-shady/
And I got this -
"A new fundraising plea from the Democratic National Committee highlights the link between a new conservative group’s health care ads and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth — but it goes too far in its claim of a connection.
An e-mail message from David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager, says:
Plouffe, DNC pitch: We knew healthcare reform would face fierce opposition — and it’s begun. As we speak, the same people behind the notorious "swiftboat" ads of 2004 are already pumping millions of dollars into deceptive television ads.
Not exactly.
The health care ads in question are financed by Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, which is funded partly by Rick Scott, its chairman and the former head of hospital chain Columbia/HCA. (We wrote about one of the group’s ads in late April.) Scott’s group is using CRC Public Relations, which also worked for the 2004 Swift Boat group that attacked Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry’s military service. (We wrote about those ads, too.) But CRC isn’t the one "pumping millions" into TV ads about health care. Spokesman Brian Burgess tells us that the PR firm hasn’t contributed money to run the ads.
And there’s no evidence that those who bankrolled Swift Boat Vets are funding Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, either. The organization is not obligated to reveal its funding, though Scott has said he has put in millions of his own money. Burgess says that Scott didn’t contribute to Swift Boat Vets — and there’s no record of him having done so, according to the Center for Responsive Politics’ database. We asked Burgess if there was any truth to the DNC claim that those behind the Swift Boat ads are pumping money into CPR’s health care ads, and he said "no."
from -
factcheck.org/2009/05/not-so-swift/
It still disproves what you are always saying about Rick Scott. But he is a handy evil person to rail on. He is a handy foil for you to try and deflect real debate about on the health care issue. Typical pathetic liberal tactic.
By the way, you left your italics tag open... -
I hate to break this to you Antics... but your lengthly posts help support the point I was trying to make:
Conservatives for Patients’ Rights is backed by Rick Scott - a multimillionaire former CEO of one of the largest private operators of health care facilities in the world. His company pleaded guilty to 14 felonies in a Medicare fraud case that involved "overbilling" and "kickbacks" and ended with the hospital chain paying $1.7 billion in penalties - the largest false claims settlement in history. Scott was forced to resign as a result.
"It still disproves what you are always saying about Rick Scott"
The only thing I've said that you have 'disproved' is that Rick Scott is not A "former hospital CEO". -
ouch!
-
Lengthy posts? What's the matter? Oh! I forgot, you don't like reading because othewise you would read the articles I provide links for.
Show me what criminal charges were brought against Mr. Scott. And let me understand this, Rick Scott was CEO of a corporation that paid fines for Medicare fraud. He opposes health care reform as presented by the DNC and El Presidente, so his opposition is somehow suspect? The Mayo Clinic was a health corporation that paid fines for Medicare fraud. They now oppose the health care reform as presented by the DNC and El Presidente, but they are okay?
My but you do seem to pick and choose what you support and what you denounce. It must get hard trying to remember which entities and people you demonize and which ones you like. But that is what happens when you are dishonest in your debates. -
Let me keep this short, because I don't want ruin to have to read any "lengthy" posts...
I knew you would not answer my question, ruin. Instead you took mark's cowardly way out and call it "better not to engage." LOL
"Show me what criminal charges were brought against Mr. Scott."
-
-
The president's pitch in Portsmouth: www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26014.html (article with lots of quotes; I'm sure video will be up soon)
He speaks directly to a lot of what RuiniousRIght has been working on here.-
Good quotes from that meeting:
""Where we disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to what's been proposed.”
"So this is what reform is about, for all the chatter and the yelling and the shouting and the noise, you need to know this, If you don’t have health insurance, you will finally have quality affordable options once we pass reform. If you do have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need."
"This is not about putting the government in charge of your health insurance,” Obama said. “I don’t think government bureaucrats should be meddling, but I don’t think insurance company bureaucrats should be meddling."
Thanks for the link Mark. -
"If you don’t have health insurance, you will finally have quality affordable options once we pass reform."
Funny, the CBO doesn't think so...
"By 2019, CBO and the staff of JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people without health insurance would be reduced by about 37 million, leaving about 17 million nonelderly residents uninsured (nearly half of whom would be unauthorized immigrants)."
www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf -
Once again, ruin has nothing in response...
-
How does the CBO quote you offer demonstrate there won't be quality affordable options available for the uninsured??
In regards to... "leaving about 17 million nonelderly residents uninsured (nearly half of whom would be unauthorized immigrants)."
No free health care for illegal immigrants in the health bill
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/30/chain-email/no-free... -
Oh really? Take your little truth o meter and put it someplace where the sun doesn't shine, ruin.
You and I both know that the far left wants to cover illegals. If not, then why did they vote down - straight down party lines - an amendment that would exclude illegals from coverage in House Ways and Means Committee?
www.kxmb.com/News/Nation/408841.asp
And then another amendment excluding illegals was voted down in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
www.numbersusa.com/content/news/july-30-2009/house-committee-votes-against-...
How do you explain that, ruin? Or will you just ignore this question, as well?
Why do you only accept evidence that is PRO OBAMA? Any evidence that is against what he wants you claim is supsicious, wrong, lies, etc... You don't even believe the CBO. How typical. But more to the point, why do you think the CBO is wrong? -
"Fascists" are interested in the plight of illegal immegrants? Who knew! o_0
-
LOL... What's a matter antics?? FACTS getting you down?
OR... maybe it's the growing number of BC users that aren't buying what you're selling...??
And why is it that you avoid DIRECT questions by making more FALSE accusations??
My question was:
How does the CBO quote you offer demonstrate there won't be quality affordable options available for the uninsured??
You answer is that I don't believe the CBO... How does that make ANY sense??
Why do you only accept evidence that is PRO OBAMA?
FactCheck, PolitiFact, Truth or Fiction aren't PRO OBAMA or PRO Democrat. If they were, they certainly would not include information that debunks some claims coming from the left.
Poor antics... feeling the squeeze as the TRUTH catches up with the LIES. -
"How does the CBO quote you offer demonstrate there won't be quality affordable options available for the uninsured??"
Well I keep forgetting how much trouble you have reading. So I will type slow for you...
The report from the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) and the JCT (Joint Committee on Taxation) took a look at H.R. 3200. They crunched the numbers, that means they took the proposal and did something magical called "arithmetic" and figured out how much the bill would cost if passed into law. While doing so, they found that not all the people who are presently without insurance would be covered under this bill. (Am I going to fast? Too many big words, I know how much trouble you liberals have with big words.)
""By 2019, CBO and the staff of JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people without health insurance would be reduced by about 37 million, leaving about 17 million nonelderly residents uninsured (nearly half of whom would be unauthorized immigrants)."
Is it that hard for you to understand? This is now twice that I have answered your question. Do try to keep up.
So do you or don't you believe the CBO and JCT report that says there will still be millions uninsured under El Presidente's plan?
Which is it? Yes or No?
You said - "And why is it that you avoid DIRECT questions by making more FALSE accusations??"
What false accusations? I showed links proving that amendments put forth by Republicans that would exclude health insurance for illegal aliens. The Democrats voted both amendments down. How is that a false accusation? I know!!! I made it all up!!
And you do only accept evidence that is Pro-Obama. You may take it from sites that you think are unbiased. But you cherry pick items that you think make you look like you know what you are talking about. Sad, really.
And finally, I saved the first crap you spewed for last -
"LOL... What's a matter antics?? FACTS getting you down?
OR... maybe it's the growing number of BC users that aren't buying what you're selling...??"
I have no problem with facts. The "growing number of BC users that aren't buying" what I am selling? So, because I read nearly all of H.R. 3200 and understand it much better than you, then I talk about it on here that means I am selling something?
You are sadly mistaken and obviously you are talking out of your a$$. I have conservatives, liberals, anarchists, independents, democrats, republicans and all sorts of people on my friends list.
1. When I am proven wrong, I apologize or admit it right away. Ask Agit8r or Anok this. They will vouch for me. I am not too big to admit that I am wrong about something.
2. I always answer direct questions, I don't hide behind that "when is it better to not engage" cowardly crap that you and mark use all the time. Unlike you, I am not afraid to debate. I am not afraid to discuss.
3. And lastly I find it oddly amusing that you, among a few other libs on BC follow the DNC talking points almost to a tee.
C'mon ruin, grow a pair and stop hiding behind your stupid insults and false facts. -
So... is this your NEW STRATEGY?? Provide answers to questions that are not being asked and then ridicule the person asking the question??
-
Golly gee, every question I answered was posted in quotes from your post.
-
-
CNN: Health care fact check video
Campbell talks with her guest from PolitiFact.com about some of the rumors circulating about the proposed healthcare changes.
www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/08/12/cb.fact.fiction.cnn -
Rush Limbaugh and others on the far right are getting results. They're sowing the seeds of hatred via their campaign of health care reform propaganda.
Congressman finds swastika
www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/12/congressman.swastika/index.html
Rush Limbaugh compares Obama to Hitler... The Democratic Party to Nazis
mediamatters.org/research/200908060022 -
Apparently some have interpreted Obama's remarks of having the AARP "on board" as meaning they endorse whatever the current plan is. They don't. (factcheck.org/2009/08/obama-wrong-on-aarp-endorsement/) But it seems they're engaged in a constructive manner.
Now I'm waiting for at least one right-winger to start a whole new thread on this topic. The headline will include the word "lied." -
Here is a classic. IBD claimed that Stephen Hawking would not be alive today if he had been cared for by the UK National Health System. (Now edited) www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333933006516877
Guess they thought Hawking was a US citizen or did they think no one would check. Well shock horror Hawking is British and says "I would not be here today without the NHS".
This example exemplifies the arrogant and ignorant nature of much of the "arguments" opposed to reform.-
The funny idea is that opposers seem to think there isn't rationing in the U.S. system. It is just done by private companies instead of by the government. -
*sigh* Yes there is rationing, but as I have said over and over, if you are denied by a private insurance company now, under our present system, you have options.
You can sue the insurance company. You can sue the doctor. You can switch insurance companies, although I do admit that isn't always the easiest thing to do, however you do have that option. If you need a drug and cannot pay, have no insurance, you can most times qualify for patient assistance through the pharmaceutical companies.
Under socialized medicine, you cannot sue the Government. You cannot switch providers. You are left with no options other than to be denied the drug or service you need. -
You can sue and people do sue the NHS.
-
Like all other opponents of health care reform in the US who scream "socialism", antics isn't talking about real socialized medicine (which isn't even on the table), but his imagination of it, which is shaped by a self-sustained closed loop of misinformation and fantasy among specific media outlets and their fan base.
-
"28 U.S.C. S 2680(h) provides that the government is not liable when any of its agents commits the torts of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights."
Denial of services would not fall under those categories under the Federal Tort Claims Act. So you can not sue if they ration care or services. And last I heard, the NHS was in the UK, not the US.
@mark...socialized medicine is not on the table?
"SEC. 142. DUTIES AND AUTHORITY OF COMMISSIONER.
(a) Duties- The Commissioner is responsible for carrying out the following functions under this division:
(1) QUALIFIED PLAN STANDARDS- The establishment of qualified health benefits plan standards under this title, including the enforcement of such standards in coordination with State insurance regulators and the Secretaries of Labor and the Treasury."
Correct me if I am wrong, but how does the Commissioner state what is and isn't covered by health insurance that not only the Government provides but mandates to private insurers if it isn't socialized medicine? He is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate so that makes the Commissioner a federal employee. He will mandate what is and isn't covered, yet it won't be socialized medicine. Interesting twist.
Have you even read the bill, mark? I have read approx. half of it.
-
-
LOL
SHOULD WE CALL IT 'REPUBLICAN-ENCOURAGED EUTHANASIA'?
A provision in the health care reform bill would, as the NYT put it, "provide Medicare coverage for the work of doctors who advise patients on life-sustaining treatment and 'end-of-life services,' including hospice care." It doesn't seem especially controversial.
Unless your goal is to deceive the public, that is. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said the provision "may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia." Other Republican leaders, including Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Eric Cantor, have repeated the argument, and a wide variety of right-wing lawmakers have told voters the provision might compel the government to kill senior citizens.
Even by conservative standards, the argument is insane. It's extremely common, and has even "made its way into the standard conservative critique of the Democrats' reforms," but it's not in any way grounded in reality.
Those on the right pushing this may not care about the facts, but maybe they care about partisanship?
[I]t turns out a GOP Senator, Susan Collins, sponsored a virtually identical initiative this spring, before this became an anti-reform GOP talking point -- and praised it as necessary to improving our health care system's "care for patients at the end of their lives."
This sharply undercuts the GOP and conservative claim — unless, of course, you believe Collins backed an initiative she thinks could lead to mass government extermination of the elderly. Though this talking point has been debunked multiple times, conservatives and GOP leaders like John Boehner continue to employ it with abandon.
Yes, the not-so-radical idea Republicans hope to exploit was crafted, sponsored, and touted by a sitting Republican senator.
Of course, this only matters if those who want to shamelessly mislead the country care about getting caught. Given the rhetoric from opponents of reform, it's safe to assume they'll keep repeating the "euthanasia" talking point, regardless of it being wrong, and regardless of its Republican origins.
www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_07/019292.php-
Collins? She is a RINO. You can have her, throw her in with Specter.
-
-
Sarah's going to have a hard time finding much support for a presidential run if she keeps up this campaign of lies.
"A provision in the health care reform bill for end-of-life counseling for seniors is not "entirely voluntary." - Sarah Palin
This is ANOTHER FALSE claim from the former governor of Alaska.
Palin claims Obama misled when he said end-of-life counseling is voluntary
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/13/sarah-palin/palin-c...
Commentary: 'Death panel' fears are false
www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/14/blayney.death.discussions/index.html
CNN Poll: Favorable view of Palin dipping
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/12/cnn-poll-favorable-view-of-palin-d...-
Yeah, she is lying so much that Baucus and Grassley decided those end of life provisions needed to come out of the bill. So guess what? They took them out.
"Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, who is working with Finance Committee chairman Sen. Max Baucus on a health care compromise, has just issued a statement saying that concerns about end-of-life issues in the House health care bill are entirely legitimate. In addition, Grassley says the Finance Committee has "dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely" because of those fears and also because of concerns that they could be "implemented incorrectly." Grassley's statement:
The bill passed by the House committees is so poorly cobbled together that it will have all kinds of unintended consequences, including making taxpayers fund health care subsidies for illegal immigrants. On the end-of-life issue, there’s a big difference between a simple educational campaign, as some advocates want, and the way the House committee-passed bill pays physicians to advise patients about end of life care and rates physician quality of care based on the creation of and adherence to orders for end-of-life care, while at the same time creating a government-run program that is likely to lead to the rationing of care for everyone. On the Finance Committee, we are working very hard to avoid unintended consequences by methodically working through the complexities of all of these issues and policy options. That methodical approach continues. We dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly. Maybe others can defend a bill like the Pelosi bill that leaves major issues open to interpretation, but I can’t."
www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Grassley-Weve... -
Obviously, the propaganda campaign against health care reform is having some affect and sometimes you need to make concessions to appease the ignorant and misinformed.
It's still a distortion of reality. It had nothing to do with putting government in control of your decisions... in fact, it would have provided information - IF DESIRED - to put YOU in control of your decisions. -
Sure.
-
-
Seven Falsehoods About Health Care
- False: Government Will Decide What Care You Receive
- False: The Bill Is Paid For
- False: Private Insurance Will Be Illegal
- False: The House Bill Requires Suicide Counseling
- False: Families Will Save $2,500
- False: Medicare Benefits Will Be Slashed
- False: Illegal Immigrants Will Be Covered
Read the more here: www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/
-
"False: Illegal Immigrants Will Be Covered"
Huh, then I wonder why these amendments were voted down by the Democrats?
www.kxmb.com/News/Nation/408841.asp
- and -
www.numbersusa.com/content/news/july-30-2009/house-committee-votes-against-...
Even the good Dr. Gupta says this - (while denying that illegal immigrants will be covered - but at least he seems unbiased on his coverage of this issue)
"“There’s no system for verification,” said Ira Mehlman, media director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a lobbying group that aims to reduce immigration.
“On the one hand, they have language in there that says illegal aliens are not going to be eligible, but at the same time they’re getting a lot of heat from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, from the Hispanic leadership groups, that say we want everybody covered including illegal aliens,” Mehlman said. “They’re trying to have it both ways here. They’re saying to the public, ‘Don’t worry. Illegal aliens aren’t being covered,’ and they’re turning around to these special interests and saying, ‘Well, don’t worry. There really is no system to prevent them.’”
In July, Democrats voted down an amendment to the House bill that would have required mechanisms to verify citizenship. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which advocates on behalf of Latinos, said in a statement to CNN that health reform should include legal immigrants who have followed the rules."
pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/14/will-health-reform-cover-illegal-imm...
How would you address that, ruin? -
H.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
So... there it is in black & white.
Now, to address your twist... In July, Democrats voted down an amendment to the House bill that would have required mechanisms to verify citizenship. This creates a loophole that MAY allow undocumented residents to benefit.
I DO NOT SUPPORT that position and I think proof of citizenship should be required to participate in the public OPTION.
The issue of undocumented immigrants is a separate one that is too often used to confuse the health care reform debate. -
My twist? I posted an article that addressed the topic of illegal immigrants getting covered under H.R. 3200. I thought you wanted debate? I guess debate to you means only points that fall in line with your far left agenda.
I also showed where Dems downed two amendments to insure illegal aliens weren't covered.
You said - "In July, Democrats voted down an amendment to the House bill that would have required mechanisms to verify citizenship. This creates a loophole that MAY allow undocumented residents to benefit."
How exactly would making people prove citizenship create a loophole for non citizens to get health care?
But to your reply - what you said is clearly outlined in H.R. 3200. It says that the Federal Government will not PAY for health care for illegal immigrants. However, the point made by the article presented by Dr. Gupta does show that the eligibility of illegal aliens to receive the health care is ambiguous. In other words, it is right where we are now. They can receive the health care, continuing to drive the costs of our health industry up.
Lastly, you said this - "The issue of undocumented immigrants is a separate one that is too often used to confuse the health care reform debate."
That is just a leftist talking point.
- False: Government Will Decide What Care You Receive
-
EXCELLENT commentary from an INSIDER - former public relations executive for CIGNA Corporation:
How insurance firms drive debate
Having grown up in one of the most conservative and Republican places in the country -- East Tennessee -- I understand why many of the people who are showing up at town hall meetings this month are reacting, sometimes violently, when members of Congress try to explain the need for an expanded government role in our health care system.
Until I quit my job last year, I was one of the leaders of [ the army of PR people who are influencing opinions and actions ]. I had a very successful career and was my company's voice to the media and the public for several years.
It was my job to "promote and defend" the company's reputation and to try to persuade reporters to write positive stories about the industry's ideas on reform. During the last couple of years of my career, however, I became increasingly worried that the high-deductible plans insurers were beginning to push Americans into would force more and more of us into bankruptcy.
The higher I rose in the company, the more I learned about the tactics insurers use to dump policyholders when they get sick, in order to increase profits and to reward their Wall Street investors. I could not in good conscience continue serving as an industry mouthpiece. And I did not want to be part of yet another industry effort to kill meaningful reform.
Read the FULL article here:
www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/potter.health.insurance/index.html-
And ironically, it is those folks being manipulated who feel that their demands will save their freedom. Ridiculous.
-
A typical left wing nutjob think tank. Stauber is about as far left as you can get, I don't doubt that you like this article, ruin.
Remember that you posted this the next time you try to say that only the right issues rhetoric and propaganda.
Funny that Stauber is in favor of less corporate and less government, yet his think tank advocates the Government takeover of our health care... I guess for enough money, he will be in favor of whatever the person with the most money wants him to be in favor of.
-
-
Good political cartoon on this thread's subject: thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2009/08/cartoon-of-day_17.html
-
I'm reading the healthcare bill (h.r.3200) and detailing what it actually says at www.FaithfulinPrayer.wordpress.com. Come see what it says and let me know what you think.
I also have a page with that erroneous email from a supposedly Dr. Stephen Fraser showing what the bill actually says on each of his points.-
Thanks for participating FaithfulinPrayer. It's refreshing to hear someone who opposes the bill, but also opposes the massive amounts of misinformation that is influencing the debate. I've been reading through your website and will be interested in hearing more from you here.
We've seen the email from Dr. Stephen Fraser pasted in threads here. I really like the way you address each item with honest analysis.
faithfulinprayer.wordpress.com/email-from-dr-stephen-fraser-to-senator-bayh...
-
-
False rumors influencing health care debate
Heated protests have disrupted town hall meetings nationwide, with people shouting at legislators and venting anger at President Obama...
While the anger is genuine, some of it is based on misunderstandings of the actual proposals. People are freaked out because there's a lot of bad information and misinformation being ... put out there by opponents of health care reform...
...It is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue...
Speaking on MSNBC, Steele said the town hall meetings across the country are reflecting that debate. However, when asked directly about one of the most controversial statements by some Republicans -- that a House bill would create so-called "death panels" to decide who gets treatment -- Steele refused to acknowledge that such language was misinformation.
The CNN Truth Squad determined the "death panel" claim was false, along with others spread by conservative commentators and activist groups who say Democratic proposals would promote euthanizing elderly Americans and mandate free health insurance for illegal immigrants.
Wendell Potter, a former insurance company communications executive, told CNN that the insurance industry deliberately spreads false information with the goal of disrupting the debate.
The insurance industry hires public relations firms that create front groups to try to "destroy health care reform by using terms like 'government takeover of the health care system' or we are heading down toward a 'slippery slope toward socialism' or 'we're going to kill your grandpa' because of these health care regulations," said Potter, now a senior fellow at the Center for Media and Democracy, which calls itself a nonpartisan watchdog group on public relations spin.
www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/20/health.care.bad.info/index.html-
You know ruin, your inane defending of everything Obama is silly. There are at least two health care reform bills and several drafts have also been floating around. What is in one bill, might indeed not be in the other one. You're acting like a one man crew on a battleship that has a swiss cheese hull leaking water profusely. You run and plug one hole and then two more pop up. You run and say "That isn't in the bill!! Here are my links to lefty websites to prove it!" Then someone else reads something and you do the same. Why spin your wheels when it just makes you the joke of the server? Wait until there is one bill, or at least admit that in the version you have read this or that isn't in there. I mean I AM sure you've read one of them, right? It would really be stupid to run around defending something you haven't read...
-
Antics, you're just upset because hardly anyone here agrees with your views and many here debunk your claims. There's now an overwhelming number of links to articles and videos that debunk most of what you say here on BC - some are even from conservative sources.
It's obvious you detest the current administration and you've proven you're willingness to put aside honesty to advance the agenda of the far right. I'm not here for you or any other zealot who feels dishonesty is the way to win in politics. I'm here to help people cut thru all the BS and read the facts for themselves. I post many different articles from many different sources. Accusing me of taking things out of context or referencing only 'lefty' websites is yet another attempt at distorting the truth.
I will continue this effort regardless of your attempts to trivialize it. -
Yeah, suuure. I am a blogger from Illinois. I am really advancing an agenda. Wow. When you reach, you really reach. I am not upset, I have already labeled you a useful tool and easy foil that help me make point after point after point. ruin, you are the gift that just keeps giving. Kinda like when El Presidente said that Fed Ex and UPS compete just fine, it is the post office that is always having problems. LOL. Yep, that is Government management at its best.
I noticed in your pretend piousness that you neglected (BIG surprise there... /sarcasm) to answer my question.
Have you read ANY of the bills? I know you don't like to read "lengthy" posts, and the bills are over 1,000 pages so you probably haven't. But I thought I would ask, or is this one of those times when it is better not to engage because you don't have an answer? I mean you really aren't getting all high and mighty all the while relying on the work other people have done to actually read the bill to make you little posts, are you?
-
-
Odd that ruin hasn't posted this latest little fact from his favorite left leaning website, factcheck. org. Seems that claim that El Presidente keeps making about "if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor; if you like your plan, you keep your plan" is not exactly true.
"At a town hall event Aug. 15 in Grand Junction, Colo., Obama said:
Obama, Aug. 15: if you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan. Nobody is going to force you to leave your health care plan. If you like your doctor, you keep seeing your doctor. I don’t want government bureaucrats meddling in your health care. But the point is, I don’t want insurance company bureaucrats meddling in your health care either."
"That’s true – the government won’t switch your plan for you under these bills. But that’s not exactly the claim the president is making."
Further, the CBO projects that the supposed "cost saving premiums" of any federal option won't impact industry savings at all.
"CBO, analysis of Senate HELP draft: The new draft also includes provisions regarding a “public plan,” but those provisions did not have a substantial effect on the cost or enrollment projections, largely because the public plan would pay providers of health care at rates comparable to privately negotiated rates—and thus was not projected to have premiums lower than those charged by private insurance plans in the exchanges."
Additionally, factcheck says that no one will be "forced" into health plans by the Government, but that people will be involuntarily switched. But both the House and Senate bill will lead employers to find that it will be cheaper to opt out of private insurance and pay the fine/tax of the public option.
So when El Presidente says that you can keep your coverage if you want, you might not have that option. If your boss decides it is cheaper for him to drop coverage, then you are SOL. I know that right now businesses can do that too, however if they drop coverage, there is no public option to take up the slack, making the perks offered to prospective employees less desirable. This prevents a lot of businesses from dropping coverage altogether. The presence of a public option would not hinder businesses from doing that. Then you have to face the possibility that your doctor does not subscribe to the public option.
This is the problem with hurry up legislation. Bill Clinton reformed welfare and he took his time, evaluating what worked and didn't work in the states that had tackled this problem. That is the wise way to go about this. Obama just wants this passed and consequences be damned.-
I believe we've addressed this before and I've seen the president address it when asked.
It's TRUE that no one will be "forced" into health plans by the Government, but people COULD be involuntarily switched. Employers MAY find it will be cheaper to opt out of private insurance and pay the fine/tax of the public option. Those who get insurance thru an employer have this risk.
It's worth considering however that employees can voice their opinion as a group to sometimes influence management to provide the best value. Many employers will want to offer good benefits to attract better employees. If the public option is crap then many will stay away. -
right, he only specified government bureaucrats, and insurance company bureaucrats... nothing about world's-largest-retailer bureaucrats though
-
Speaking of bureaucrats, I wonder why El Presidente, the Congress and the Senate won't opt themselves into this monstrosity of a health care system that they want to shove down America's throats?
-
-
"What the GOP brings to the table . . ."
blog.techfun.org/what-the-gop-brings-to-the-table -
""President Obama . . . wants to mandate circumcision." - Rush Limbaugh
This statement is FALSE.
Yes, I know, I know.... Rush Limbaugh telling a LIE?!?! Distorting facts?!?! Say it aint so! He's such an HONEST fellow. *rolls eyes*
Limbaugh wrong that Obama is mandating circumcision
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/27/rush-limbaugh/limba...
Just add this outlandish falsehood to the long list of other Limbaugh hallucinations.
If Obama and the Democrat's health care reform plans are so flawed on their own as opponents claim, why do those against reform rely on so much misinformation to argue against it?? -
Interesting piece of news out now.
"Congressional Research Service: Illegal Aliens Can Receive Benefits Under House Health Care Bill."
Now before ruin gets his panties in a bunch, let's consider who is saying this. It is the Congressional Research Service, and who are they?
"The Congressional Research Service (CRS), known as "Congress's think tank", is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis."
Now what exactly did they say?
"Tuesday, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the "research arm" for the United States Congress, issued a report validating an analysis by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), that illegal aliens would be able to receive benefits under the House health care reform bill, America's Affordable Health Care Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200).
The report, Treatment of Noncitizens in H.R. 3200, states definitively, "H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens - whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently - participating in the Exchange." H.R. 3200 establishes a Health Insurance Exchange which would provide individuals and small businesses with access to health care plans, including the "public option" to be managed by the government.
CRS also confirms FAIR's assessment that the House bill does not include a mechanism to prevent illegal aliens from receiving "affordability credits" that would subsidize the purchase of private health insurance. CRS specifically noted the absence "of a provision in the bill specifying the verification procedure." Because the language is ambiguous, all CRS could reasonably conclude is that any eligibility determination would be the responsibility of the Health Choices Commissioner.
The CRS analysis comes after weeks of denials by Members of Congress that illegal aliens could receive benefits under the House bill. These denials were echoed by countless media and health care "experts" who dismissed public concerns as myths, or as politically orchestrated attacks."
Gee, I seem to remember ruin saying that when I said the same thing all I was doing was "spreading misinformation" and lies.
Any chance ruin will apologize to me?-
darn those fascists and their soft spot for foreigners!
-
You obviously didn't read or understand my statements here:
www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/health-care-reform-misinformatio... -
So you never said this?
"No free health care for illegal immigrants in the health billwww.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/30/chain-email/no-free..."
Or this?
"The far right and special interest groups are working hard to confuse the public regarding health care reform. Here are some of the latest falsehoods being spread via chain-email and other media:
"All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services."
This statement is FALSE.
No free health care for illegal immigrants in the health billwww.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/30/chain-email/no-free..."
Those are all statements you made to me. And you have repeatedly accused me of lying, distorting facts about whether illegal immigrants would be covered in H.R. 3200. I guess you are not going to apologize to me for saying I lied when in fact I have proven that I was telling the truth.
Too bad for you, if you don't have personal integrity to apologize when you are wrong. -
Apologize?! For what?
The info I posted was disputing the claim that there was verbiage in the draft health care bill that outlined coverage for illegal aliens. IN FACT, there is clear verbiage that says they should NOT be covered. Of course, had you read the linked articles you knew this already.
As you have pointed out, there would be ways around that clause since there does not seem to be a way to verify a person's citizenship. I AM AGAINST THAT and I think those who receive benefits under the proposed plan should be required to show proof of citizenship.
So.. I will acknowledge... on this particular claim.... you have a valid point and I would urge my representatives to close this loophole. I also do not want my tax dollars covering those who are here illegally and do not pay taxes. I also support hefty fines on companies that hire undocumented workers.
It is TRUE however that many who oppose health care reform have been distorting the facts and putting out false information to confuse the public. Many of your posts mimic this strategy and I'm not the only BC user who has pointed this out.
I wonder how you would respond to FaithfulinPrayer's post that debunks many of the claims made by Dr. Stephen Fraser since you quoted his info elsewhere.
www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/health-care-reform-misinformatio... -
meh, I knew you didn't have the testicular fortitude to apologize for saying I was lying and distorting the "truth" when in fact, I was merely talking about what the bill would do, which is cover illegal aliens.
So you called me a liar and said I spread misinformation. If you are comfortable with that, then so be it. Says a lot about you as a person. When I am wrong, I admit it. You however don't subscribe to the same morals, I suppose. -
Anyone can read thru these threads and see that many of your posts directly correlate with many of the myths that have been circulating and debunked regarding health care reform. There is no disputing this simple fact.
Why won't you respond to FaithfulinPrayer's post that debunks many of the claims made by Dr. Stephen Fraser since you quoted his info elsewhere?? This is a BC user who opposes health care reform, but someone I can respect for engaging in honest dialog. -
I believe I was talking with you, ruin. And besides, I have not said anything about the health care bill that was not shown with supporting evidence. Why do you want me to respond to someone else when you fail to say you were wrong about the illegal aliens being covered?
What's the matter? Don't like eating crow? -
I knew you would avoid that one.
-
I will do what you ask and read Faithful's post after you admit you were wrong about H.R. 3200 covering illegals. I know you won't, because you don't have enough integrity to admit when you are wrong.
-
I've responded to this several times now:
www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/health-care-reform-misinformatio...
www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/health-care-reform-misinformatio...
If you want to continue using this as your excuse for not addressing FaithfulinPrayer's post... go right ahead. I expected as much and I already know the answer anyways.
-
-
Fox News viewers overwhelmingly misinformed about health care reform proposals.
thinkprogress.org/2009/08/19/fox-news-viewers-misinformed/
Report: Fox News gives opponents of health care reform a 6-to-1 advantage.
thinkprogress.org/2009/08/13/report-fox-health-coverage/
Fox News Coverage Of Health Care Reform Parallels Right Wing Strategy
www.newshounds.us/2009/08/04/fox_news_coverage_of_health_care_reform_parall...
Conservative Idol: Health Care & the Fox News Incentive
open.salon.com/blog/david_sirota/2009/08/11/conservative_idol_health_care_t...-
Same old ruin, ignore the question posed and instead invent new arguments.
-
@csi...lol, you got me on that one. I should have said that he drones on and on about anything other than what was asked of him.
But considering his inane posts -
What is the methodology of the polls in the first two posts? Is it scientific? What was the sampling size? What sampling methodology did they use?
The other two links are simply opinion pieces with a VERY left wing slant. So other than just posting the links because you like them? Does it mean anything? I mean I could dig up plenty of links about MSLSD being left wing and distorting things, too. What does it prove? At least when I made this thread - www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/bias-in-cable-news-outlets - I made the point about how MSLSD was twisting facts to manufacture racism. -
I simply posted these links for Fox News viewers to consider. I know most people would prefer to know the actual facts when making decisions or engaging their representatives at town hall meetings. There are multiple non-partisan sources online where they can research claims further and I encourage them to do so.
I have little doubt that the claims are accurate since FNC is the self-proclaimed 'voice of opposition to the Obama administration' (www.politicususa.com/en/Fox-News-Voice-of-Opposition). Like other opponents of the administration and health care reform, their strategy relies on distortions and falsehoods that confuse the public. Their agenda is undisputedly aligned with one political party. -
I'm showing my TRUE COLORS?!?
Fox News is FINALLY coming clean with the American people. They are NOT 'fair and balanced' as they claim. IN FACT, they have aligned themselves with one political party and during an interview with NPR in March the senior vice president for programming at Fox News called his network the 'voice of opposition to the Obama administration'.
Are you disputing he made this statement?? Are you disputing that FNC has aligned itself with the far right?? -
@ruin...And yet you still fail to address my question from the post above, which was asking you to comment on the fact that illegals WILL receive free health care under Obamacare.
Very telling that you avoid this issue. You rail against people, like myself who have said that illegals will be granted health care at taxpayer expense, calling us liars and saying that we distorted facts and spread misinformation. Yet when the CRS debunks YOUR claims that illegals won't be covered, you are suddenly mute.
You sir, are not intellectually honest. You fail to address this issue and you fail to apologize for calling me a liar in the past. This behavior is stripping away any slight bit of credibility you ever had.
So I ask again, did you or did you not ever say this?
""The far right and special interest groups are working hard to confuse the public regarding health care reform. Here are some of the latest falsehoods being spread via chain-email and other media:
"All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services."
This statement is FALSE."
Are you man enough to admit you were wrong? -
Are these posts invisible to you??
www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/health-care-reform-misinformatio...
www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/health-care-reform-misinformatio...
You have a peculiar way of not acknowledging answers then accusing people of avoiding your questions. -
Been there. Done that.
-
You guys seem to be two peas in a pod.
ruin likes to twist things to suit whatever story he tells and mark does the same.
-
-
AARP vs. Mr. Steele in the Battle for Seniors
When it comes to advocating on the behalf of older Americans, AARP does not want to join Michael S. Steele’s parade.
AARP lashed out Friday at Mr. Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, accusing him of “scare tactics and misinformation”...
In a statement Friday, AARP, which has not endorsed any of the bills currently circulating in Congress, said the Republicans were publicizing issues that “have been largely dismissed over the last several months.”
“Death panels, rationing and cuts to Medicare physician payments are simply not in any of the bills before Congress,” Drew Nannis, an AARP senior vice president, said in the statement, issued in response to a reporter’s request for comment.
John Rother, executive vice president of AARP, said in a statement earlier this week that “we are pleased nothing in the bills that have been proposed would bring about the scenarios the R.N.C. is concerned about.”
prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/aarp-vs-mr-steele-in-the-battle-... -
NPR: Separating Fact From Fiction In Health Care Debate
"Adair says that because much of the action in the health care debate has been on the side of the groups that oppose an overhaul, that side is also responsible for much of the misinformation."
Read and/or listen here:
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111672582 -
Twenty-six Lies About H.R. 3200
A notorious analysis of the House health care bill contains 48 claims. Twenty-six of them are false and the rest mostly misleading. Only four are true.
www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/ -
Newsweek: The Five Biggest Lies in the Health Care Debate
To the credit of opponents of health-care reform, the lies and exaggerations they're spreading are not made up out of whole cloth—which makes the misinformation that much more credible. Instead, because opponents demand that everyone within earshot (or e-mail range) look, say, "at page 425 of the House bill!," the lies take on a patina of credibility.
www.newsweek.com/id/214254 -
The misinformation campaign takes another step towards crazy.
RNC: Republicans will be denied healthcare
Apparently the death panels myth wasn't enough for the Republican National Committee. They're apparently trying to start a whole new one -- now, it won't just be old people who will be refused care under Democratic healthcare plans, but all Republicans.
www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/08/27/rnc/index.html-
This one I found particularly entertaining. It has everything. Conspiracy theory based on personalization of threat. Wacky enough enough that people will pass it along but always plants little seeds of doubt. Great stuff.
-
-
-
Will you ever grow up??
-
-
More ‘Senior Scare’ - A TV ad's false claims about Democratic Medicare proposals.
The conservative 60 Plus Association is running a TV ad saying Congress plans to pay for overhauling health care "by cutting $500 billion from Medicare." It claims that this "will mean long waits for care" and cuts to MRIs and other imaging services, that "seniors may lose their own doctors" and that "government, not doctors, will decide if older patients are worth the cost." Actually, the House leadership’s version of the health care bill would trim a net total of only $219 billion from the projected growth of Medicare spending over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. And Congress isn’t proposing to cut benefit levels or to deny treatment to anyone who is "not worth the cost." We find this ad to be mostly false.
www.factcheck.org/2009/08/more-senior-scare/ -
Surprise, surprise.... Beck caught in another lie.
Forty-five percent of doctors "say they'll quit" if health care reform passes.
- Glenn Beck
This statement is FALSE.
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/15/glenn-beck/beck-say... -
The health care reform bill passes the House, but lies and distortions are still prevalent.
Health care reform "establishes a new board of federal bureaucrats (the 'Health Benefits Advisory Committee') to dictate the health plans that all individuals must purchase." - House Republican Conference
This is FALSE
The Health Benefits Advisory Committee doesn't tell you what plan to buy
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/nov/04/house-republicans/h...
Page 92 of the House health care bill "says specifically that people can't purchase private health insurance after a date certain." - Michele Bachmann
This is FALSE
She should read the other 1,989 pages.
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/nov/03/michele-bachmann/mi...
Can Michelle Bachmann even tell the TRUTH?!?!
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/michele-bachmann/
If Obama and the Democrat's health care reform plans are so flawed on their own as opponents claim, why do those against reform rely on so much misinformation to argue against it??-
From politifact -
"We find the House Republican Conference's statement, "Page 111 - Section 223 establishes a new board of federal bureaucrats (the 'Health Benefits Advisory Committee') to dictate the health plans that all individuals must purchase," makes it sound as if bureaucrats tell you which plan you have to buy. In reality, the committee advises the secretary of Health and Human Services on what baseline coverage should include. We rate the statement False."
So a panel that sets the baseline, i. e. minimum coverage, isn't telling people what coverage they have to have?
Tell me concrete, how would you interpret that statement? And remember it is from the very web site that you hold up as gospel.
From propagandafact, errr, I mean politifact:
"But if someone liked a plan they owned before the new law kicks in, they'd be able to keep the policy, no matter the level of coverage. The rules would largely prevent insurance companies from changing benefits in these grandfathered plans or altering the premiums.
So Bachmann is referring to language that prevents the health insurance companies from enrolling new people in old plans that don't meet the new standards, Pollitz said. Any plan sold after the new law is enacted must provide better coverage."
That is true, you can keep your old plan IF it meets the minimum standards set up by the government. However, the flip side of that coin is that after Y1, no new policies can be sold.
Kinda one sided in their examination of those statements, but that's okay, because they say things you like to hear, concrete. -
"... committee ADVISES on what the baseline coverage should INCLUDE."
NOT
"... committee DICTATES the plan you MUST BUY."
Here's how the exchange would work: Under the House bill, insurance companies would sell individual policies through a government-run health care exchange, and the government would set minimum standards for coverage. For example, the government would require companies to cover people even if they have pre-existing conditions such as serious illnesses or pregnancy. The government would also set levels for minimum coverage for services such as mental health coverage.
But if someone liked a plan they owned before the new law kicks in, they'd be able to keep the policy, no matter the level of coverage. The rules would largely prevent insurance companies from changing benefits in these grandfathered plans or altering the premiums.
So Bachmann is referring to language that prevents the health insurance companies from enrolling new people in old plans that don't meet the new standards, Pollitz said. Any plan sold after the new law is enacted must provide better coverage.
Bachmann is incorrect that people "can't purchase private health insurance after a date certain." To the contrary, a key principle of the bill is to create a new marketplace for people to buy private insurance. People who already get private coverage from their employer would continue to do so and should be able to shop for new plans with different coverage. People who are self-employed or work for small businesses will be able to buy private insurance through the new exchange.
In fact, the bill requires that everyone have some form of coverage, Pollitz said. "Not only do you have to [buy insurance], but you can" buy it after the bill goes into effect, she said. "There's no reasonable way to look at Page (91) and say that you couldn't."
Bachmann isn't just guilty of misinterpreting the language from one page of the bill. She's taken that misinterpretation to a ridiculous extreme — the claim that no private insurance could be sold after a certain date. That ignores the central tenet of a plan that's been discussed for months — that the plan would rely on a marketplace of private insurance.
Far right conservatives HATE when someone calls them out on their DISTORTIONS and LIES. They often demonize and attempt to discredit the source as a distraction from their dishonesty. -
@concrete...you copy and paste well. Too bad you can't defend your holy grail of a health care industry destroying bill on your own. *shrug*
So I will ask you again, concrete:
"Tell me concrete, how would you interpret that statement? And remember it is from the very web site that you hold up as gospel."
And for clarification, the statement I refer to is the fact that by having a panel that mandates minimum coverage, how is that not dictating which coverage citizens can buy?
And further, how is the government not mandating if they are saying that citizens face taxes, fines and jail time if they have no coverage or coverage that the government does not mandate as necessary?
Here's an idea - why not answer in your own words. Believe me, everyone on this board knows that you have mastered the copy and paste function. -
That's all you are capable of? You don't believe in your cause enough to put your thoughts into words? Then when pressed for actually writing your own thoughts, you choose to attack me, call me names and demonize me?
And you say I need help... lol
I was honestly wanting you to put your thoughts into words. I wanted you to explain why you think it is a good idea for this administration to take away liberties from the American people.
All you can do is try to mock me, call me names, and think that you are being clever in the way you attack me. It is very funny and ironic that when I asked you to stop cutting and pasting and talk in your own words, you not only attack me, but you copy and paste to do it. ROFLMAO!!! You can't even throw an insult on your own. Sad. -
-
LOL...That little smiley face proves my point.
www.associatedcontent.com/article/486857/does_your_child_crave_attention_kn... -
So let me understand...my actions prove your point. Your links prove your point, but you are unable to put into your own words your argument. So you rely on others to make your point.
Do I have that right?
-
-
The OP clearly states:
"There are several ongoing BC threads relating to health care reform where users provide opinions, theories, slogans, rhetoric, facts, fiction and distortions. My aim with this thread is for users to contribute information supported by external links from reputable sources that either supports or debunks the various claims that are being made regarding this very important item on the country's agenda.
Please provide article titles with your links.
A review of the thread will reveal that opponents of health care reform rather continue on with their tired rhetoric rather than contributing valid facts that support their claims... very telling.
There are now so many articles exposing the distortions coming from Republicans, health insurance lobbyist, far right conservatives, Limbaugh, Fox News and others, it's a wonder why anyone with any intelligence would trust anything they say.-
Half of the population is below the median level of intelligence.
-
-
The problems with Pelosi Care:
illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2009/11/manzullo-finds-problems-i...
Excellent points are brought up by Rep. Manzullo. Like for instance why in a HUMAN health care bill, there are provisions for scholarships, loan repayments and grants for VETERINARIANS!
Yeah, that will help bring down the cost of health care. Maybe they want the veterinarians to be able to bring medicine to the people that they are going to ration regular care to...
He also talks about the tax on wheelchairs, pacemakers, etc... It is funny that the resident "pro-obamacare" troll on this board has nothing to say about that.-
Added after edit time elapsed:
What about the HALF A TRILLION DOLLAR cut in Medicare?
Or the fact that in the bill, states that do NOT have a cap on attorney fees or a cap on award amounts in medical malpractice suits? How does that help bring down health care costs? -
Yeah and the way it does not say that all medical care should be free at the point of use like in the UK. Shocking and elitist.
-
To loosely quote Madame Thatcher, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
So it is elitist to use the best system around to bring the best and most healthcare to the most people? Because capitalism is the model that does that-not socialism.
But it is good you are sticking up for concrete, he only responds by copying and pasting and then attacking. There is no intellectualism there at all. -
Mrs Thatcher did say that. But did she dismantle the NHS, no she did not.
It is elitist to use "the best system around to bring the best and most healthcare to the MOST people"?
Yes it is because it is not all the people and many of the "most" don't get all the benefits of the few.
As for "sticking up for concrete" don't forget that polybore was brought into this debate by attacks on the UK's NHS. -
Your argument fails in that you miss the point.
There is a HUGE difference between health care COVERAGE for all and actual health care for all.
No government, yours nor mine, has enough money to give health care to all people.
I would suspect that after decades of the NHS, Madame Thatcher would have had a very hard time dismantling it. -
Added after timeout of above reply:
Sorry, my daughter decided she needed a bottle in the middle of my reply.
I was also saying that I am FOR health care reform and health care coverage for all Americans.
What I am not for is destroying the best health care system in the world for want of a minority. There are relatively few long term uninsured in America and it would be simple to extend health care coverage to them.
First of all, there are - according the U.S. Census - about 12 million Americans that go without health care coverage for more than 4-6 months. By expanding Medicaid, allowing portability of insurance policies, giving tax credits to cover the cost of purchasing insurance, removing the onerous mandates that some states place on insurance companies and some healthy tort reform you would not only lower the cost of health care, but you would increase coverage.
But let us not forget, there are some citizens that do not want health coverage. In America we value our freedom and personal liberty. We should not be forced to purchase something if we do not want it.
One of the many problems with this bill is that after spending $1.2 trillion, we end up with about 15 million uninsured Americans. That is actually more than are long-term uninsured now. Insane.
-
-
""In the health care bill, we're now offering insurance for dogs." - Glenn Beck
This is FALSE
Glenn Beck is one generous rodeo clown! The ridiculous and somewhat entertaining falsehoods just keep coming.
No public option for Bo
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/nov/12/glenn-beck/glenn-be...
There are now so many articles exposing the distortions coming from Republicans, health insurance lobbyist, far right conservatives, Limbaugh, Beck, Fox News and others, it's a wonder why anyone with any intelligence would trust anything they say.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
