The Top Five RW Lies About Healthcare

[Secretariat]

In lieu of the RW propaganda machine:

Top Five Health Care Reform Lies—and How to Fight Back

Lie #1: President Obama wants to euthanize your grandma!!!

The truth: These accusations—of "death panels" and forced euthanasia—are, of course, flatly untrue. As an article from the Associated Press puts it: "No 'death panel' in health care bill."4 What's the real deal? Reform legislation includes a provision, supported by the AARP, to offer senior citizens access to a professional medical counselor who will provide them with information on preparing a living will and other issues facing older Americans.5


Lie #2: Democrats are going to outlaw private insurance and force you into a government plan!!!

The truth: With reform, choices will increase, not decrease. Obama's reform plans will create a health insurance exchange, a one-stop shopping marketplace for affordable, high-quality insurance options.6 Included in the exchange is the public health insurance option—a nationwide plan with a broad network of providers—that will operate alongside private insurance companies, injecting competition into the market to drive quality up and costs down.7

If you're happy with your coverage and doctors, you can keep them.8 But the new public plan will expand choices to millions of businesses or individuals who choose to opt into it, including many who simply can't afford health care now.


Lie #3: President Obama wants to implement Soviet-style rationing!!!


The truth: Health care reform will expand access to high-quality health insurance, and give individuals, families, and businesses more choices for coverage. Right now, big corporations decide whether to give you coverage, what doctors you get to see, and whether a particular procedure or medicine is covered—that is rationed care. And a big part of reform is to stop that.


Health care reform will do away with some of the most nefarious aspects of this rationing: discrimination for pre-existing conditions, insurers that cancel coverage when you get sick, gender discrimination, and lifetime and yearly limits on coverage.9 And outside of that, as noted above, reform will increase insurance options, not force anyone into a rationed situation.


Lie #4: Obama is secretly plotting to cut senior citizens' Medicare benefits!!!

The truth: Health care reform plans will not reduce Medicare benefits.10 Reform includes savings from Medicare that are unrelated to patient care—in fact, the savings comes from cutting billions of dollars in overpayments to insurance companies and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.11

Lie #5: Obama's health care plan will bankrupt America!!!

The truth: We need health care reform now in order to prevent bankruptcy—to control spiraling costs that affect individuals, families, small businesses, and the American economy.

Right now, we spend more than $2 trillion dollars a year on health care.12 The average family premium is projected to rise to over $22,000 in the next decade13—and each year, nearly a million people face bankruptcy because of medical expenses.14 Reform, with an affordable, high-quality public option that can spur competition, is necessary to bring down skyrocketing costs. Also, President Obama's reform plans would be fully paid for over 10 years and not add a penny to the deficit.15

. "Stop Distorting the Truth about End of Life Care," The Huffington Post, July 24, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51730&id=16789-3975589-dkxIsZx&t=6

6. "Reality Check FAQs," WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 11, 2009.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#i1

7. "Why We Need a Public Health-Care Plan," The Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51737&id=16789-3975589-dkxIsZx&t=7

8. "Obama: 'If You Like Your Doctor, You Can Keep Your Doctor,'" The Wall Street Journal, 15, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51736&id=16789-3975589-dkxIsZx&t=8

9. "Reality Check FAQs," WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 10, 2009.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#r1

10. "Obama: No reduced Medicare benefits in health care reform," CNN, July 28, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51748&id=16789-3975589-dkxIsZx&t=9

11. "Reality Check FAQs," WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 10, 2009.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#s1

12. "Reality Check FAQs," WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 10, 2009.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#c1

13. "Premiums Run Amok," Center for American Progress, July 24, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51667&id=16789-3975589-dkxIsZx&t=10

14. "Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies," CNN, June 5, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51735&id=16789-3975589-dkxIsZx&t=11

15. "Reality Check FAQs," WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 10, 2009.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#c1

[robert99]

Republican vested interest LIARS have messed up big time with their Stephen Hawking health fantasy. The unelectable GOP has hit rock bottom when it cannot come up with a single factual argument or offer any practical alternatives on a major political issue.

DOWNRIGHT LIES
"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."

Stephen Hawking actual experience of UK NHS Health system
"I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2009/08/12/stephen-hawking-defends-british-health-care-system-against-u-s-conservatives.aspx

Who to believe, the actual person receiving the treatment or some despicable blowhard defending a worthless viewpoint with ever more desperate fantasy?

[newtothegame]

believe you got the title of the thread wrong...but thats ok...here let me help...

Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies

Shikha Dalmia (http://search.forbes.com/search/colArchiveSearch?author=shikha+and+dalmia&aname=Shikha+Dalmia), 07.01.09, 12:01 AM EDT
President Barack Obama walked into the Oval Office with a veritable halo over his head. In the eyes of his backers, he could say or do no wrong because he had evidently descended directly from heaven to return celestial order to our fallen world. Oprah (http://www.qctimes.com/news/local/article_af9c9ab4-6b7a-5be7-8425-57c53103d78b.html) declared his tongue to be "dipped in the unvarnished truth." Newsweek editor Evan Thomas averred (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/06/05/newsweek-s-evan-thomas-obama-sort-god) that Obama "stands above the country and above the world as a sort of a God."

But when it comes to health care reform, with every passing day, Obama seems less God and more demagogue, uttering not transcendental truths, but bald-faced lies. Here are the top five lies that His Awesomeness has told--the first two for no reason other than to get elected and the next three to sell socialized medicine to a wary nation.

Lie One: No one will be compelled to buy coverage.

During the campaign, Obama insisted that he would not resort to an individual mandate to achieve universal coverage. In fact, he repeatedly ripped Hillary Clinton's plan for proposing one. "To force people to buy coverage," he insisted, "you've got to have a very harsh penalty." What will this penalty be, he demanded (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120234937353949449.html)? "Are you going to garnish their wages?" he asked Hillary in one debate.

Yet now, Obama is behaving as if he said never a hostile word about the mandate. Earlier this month, in a letter (http://www.coalition4healthcare.org/fs/global:module/xq6x80cazfxil6/article/list/release.php?id=y111u7m8ie5yt1) to Sens. Max Baucus (http://topics.forbes.com/Max%20Baucus), D-Mont., and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., he blithely declared that he was all for "making every American responsible for having health insurance coverage, and making employers share in the cost."


But just like Hillary, he is refusing to say precisely what he will do to those who want to forgo insurance. There is a name for such a health care approach: It is called TonySopranoCare

Lie Two: No new taxes on employer benefits.

Obama took his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain (http://topics.forbes.com/John%20McCain), to the mat for suggesting that it might be better to remove the existing health care tax break that individuals get on their employer-sponsored coverage, but return the vast bulk--if not all--of the resulting revenues in the form of health care tax credits. This would theoretically have made coverage both more affordable and portable for everyone. Obama, however, would have none of it, portraying this idea simply as the removal of a tax break. "For the first time in history, he wants to tax your health benefits (http://topics.forbes.com/health%20benefits)," he thundered (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/02/AR2009060201491.html). "Apparently, Sen. McCain doesn't think it's enough that your health premiums have doubled. He thinks you should have to pay taxes on them too."

Yet now Obama is signaling (http://www.californiahealthline.org/Articles/2009/6/29/Administration-Officials-Say-Obama-Is-Open-to-Taxes-on-Some-Benefits.aspx) his willingness to go along with a far worse scheme to tax employer-sponsored benefits to fund the $1.6 trillion or so it will cost to provide universal coverage. Contrary to Obama's allegations, McCain's plan did not ultimately entail a net tax increase because he intended to return to individuals whatever money was raised by scrapping the tax deduction. Not so with Obama. He apparently told (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/02/AR2009060201491.html) Sen. Baucus that he would consider the senator's plan for rolling back the tax exclusion that expensive, Cadillac-style employer-sponsored plans enjoy, in order to pay for universal coverage. But, unlike McCain, he has said nothing about putting offsetting deductions or credits in the hands of individuals.

In other words, Obama might well end up doing what McCain never set out to do: Impose a net tax increase on health benefits for the first time in history.

Lie Three: Government can control rising health care costs better than the private sector.

Ignoring the reality that Medicare--the government-funded program for the elderly--has put the country on the path to fiscal ruin, Obama wants to model a government insurance plan--the so-called "public option"--after Medicare in order to control the country's rising health care costs. Why? Because, he repeatedly claims, Medicare has far lower administrative costs and overhead than private plans--to wit, 3% for Medicare compared to 10% to 20% for private plans. Hence, he says, subjecting private plans to competition against an entity delivering such superior efficiency will release health care dollars for universal coverage.

But lower administrative costs do not necessarily mean greater efficiency. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office analysis last year chastised Medicare's lax attitude on this front. "The traditional fee-for-service Medicare program does relatively little to manage benefits, which tends to reduce its administrative costs but may raise its overall spending relative to a more tightly managed approach," it noted (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf) on page 93.

In short, extending the Medicare model will further ruin--not improve--even the functioning aspects of private plans.

Lie Four: A public plan won't be a Trojan horse for a single-payer monopoly.

Obama has repeatedly claimed that forcing private plans to compete with a public plan will simply "keep them honest" and give patients more options--not lead to a full-blown, Canadian-style, single-payer monopoly. As I argued (http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/16/obama-health-care-reform-opinions-columnists-medicare-medicaid.html) in my previous column, this is wishful thinking given that government programs such as Medicare have a history of controlling costs by underpaying providers, who make up the losses by charging private plans more. Any public plan modeled after Medicare will greatly increase this forced subsidy, eventually driving private plans out of business, even if that weren't Obama's intention.

But, as it turns out, it very much is his intention. Before he decided to run for office--and even during the initial days of his campaign--Obama repeatedly said that he was in favor of a single-payer system. What's more, University of California (http://topics.forbes.com/University%20of%20California), Berkeley Professor Jacob Hacker, who is a key influence on the Obama administration, is on tape explicitly boasting (http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/15/whos-telling-the-truth-about-health-care/) that a public plan is a means for creating a single-payer system. "It's not a Trojan horse," he quips, "it's just right there."

But even if Obama wanted to, it is simply impossible to design a public plan that could compete with private insurers on a level playing field and without "feeding off the public trough (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/23/obama-private-insurers-shouldnt-fear-public-plan-playing-by-same-rules/)" as Obama claims.

At the very least, such a plan would always carry an implicit government guarantee that, should it go bust, no one in the plan would lose coverage. This guarantee would artificially lower the plan's capital reserve requirements, giving it an unfair edge over private plans. What's more, it is simply not plausible to expect that the plan wouldn't receive any start-up subsidies or use the government's muscle to negotiate lower rates with providers. If it eschewed all these things, there would be no reason for it to exist--because it would be just like any other private plan.

Lie Five: Patients don't have to fear rationing.

Obama has been insisting (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597492337757443.html), including during his ABC Town Hall event last week, that the rationing patients would face under a government-run system wouldn't be any more draconian than what they currently confront under private plans. This is complete nonsense.

The left has been trying to address fears of rationing by trotting out an old and tired trope (http://www.reason.com/news/show/134293.html), namely, that rationing is an inescapable fact of life because every system rations whether by price or fiat. But there is a big difference between the two. If I can't afford caviar and champagne every night, any rationing involved is metaphoric, not real. Genuine rationing occurs when someone else controls access--how much of a particular good I can consume.

By that token, Obama's stimulus bill has set in motion rationing on a scale unimaginable in the land of the free. Indeed, the bill commits over $1 billion to conduct comparative effectiveness research (http://health.usnews.com/blogs/heart-to-heart/2009/03/18/comparative-effectiveness-is-obama-really-calling-for-rationing.html) that will evaluate the relative merits of various treatments. That in itself wouldn't be so objectionable--if it weren't for the fact that a board will then "direct financing" toward approved, standardized treatments. In short, doctors will find it much harder to prescribe newer or non-standard treatments not yet deemed effective by health care bureaucrats. This is exactly along the lines of the British system, where breast cancer patients were denied Herceptin, a new miracle drug, until enraged women fought back. Even the much-vilified managed care plans would appear to be a paragon of generosity in comparison with this.

Obama has repeatedly asked for honesty in the health care debate. It is high time he started showing some.

Shikha Dalmia is a senior analyst at Reason Foundation and writes a biweekly column (http://search.forbes.com/search/colArchiveSearch?aname=Shikha+Dalmia&author=shikha+and+dalmia) for Forbes.

www.forbes.com/2009/06/30/obama-health-care-reform-opinions-columnists-public-option-medicare.html (http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/30/obama-health-care-reform-opinions-columnists-public-option-medicare.html)

[Snag]

There can be and are nuts on both sides of this debate. That doesn't mean there can't be some truth in a nugget.

[newtothegame]

Here..some more "truths".....

The truth about health care 'truths'


David Gratzer
The Dallas Morning News
March 27, 2009

The high cost of health care "causes a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds," we're told repeatedly by Barack Obama's administration. The president mentioned these exact words twice in recent weeks, before Congress and at the opening of his health care summit.

There's only one problem: It's completely false, drawing on four–year–old bankruptcy stats and a discredited paper co–written by an advocate of socialized medicine suggesting that half of bankruptcies are due to health expenses.

As Americans consider health care reform, it's important to get our basic facts right. So consider these bipartisan "truths":

American health care is an underperformer

Obama has said that we spend "50 percent more on health care than other industrialized nations. And yet, we don't have... better outcomes." By outcomes, the president meant measures like life expectancy. That's a theme repeated in the report accompanying the Democratic Party's convention platform. It claims: "We spend more on health care than any other country, but we're ranked 47th in life expectancy."

This much is true: Americans live fewer years than people in Canada, Britain and France. But how long a person lives isn't simply about access to health care but reflects various factors: tobacco and alcohol use, genetics, diet, crime rates. Economist Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider observe that deaths from accidents and homicides in America are much higher than in any other developed country. Exclude these unintentional deaths from the statistics, and Americans come out on top in life expectancy.

If we measure a health care system by how well patients are treated, American health care excels—besting the European systems in 13 of 16 cancers and boasting better survival post–transplantations.

Prevention saves money

Prevention is embraced by members of both parties. Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee explained that a focus on prevention "would save countless lives, pain and suffering by the victims of chronic conditions, and billions of dollars." Obama bemoaned the fact that "less than 4 cents of every health dollar is spent on prevention and public health" and pledged to do something about this.

Intuitively, prevention makes sense: Teach seventh- and eighth-grade students not to smoke, and the high costs of lung cancer care can be avoided. But in a review published in the New England Journal of Medicine, analyzing 599 papers, researchers found that most preventive care measures—like targeting adolescents with tobacco education—increase costs. In fact, less than one in five interventions save money; in some cases, costs can be increased and outcomes actually worsened.

Prescription drugs are a major driver of health-care costs

During the campaign, Sen. John McCain went so far as to describe them as the "bad guys." He wasn't talking about terrorists, though—he was referring to pharmaceutical companies. Obama has also bemoaned the high cost of prescription drugs, noting that they have driven up overall health spending. Both endorsed reimportation, a plan to bring in price–controlled medications from Canada and other countries.

But health care spending isn't quite so simple. Prescription drugs account for about 10 cents on every health care dollar. Pharmaceuticals have shown less growth (about 3.4 percent in 2008), by the way, than other areas, like hospitals (7.2 percent).

And reimportation is not a panacea: Even if all pharmaceutical-industry profits were eliminated, the savings would be small, equivalent to a one-time freeze in health care cost inflation of about three months.

Politicians are eager to take up health reform this year, and there are good reasons to do that: from rising costs to the uneven quality of American health care. But we need good medicine for an ailing system, not populist rhetoric.



David Gratzer is a physician and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He may be contacted through communications@manhattan-institute.org (communications@manhattan-institute.org).

[Tom]

OK, Sec, you played the Hawking card, I'll trump it with the card about the Canadian women featured on Fox who came here to pay for her own care and was told she wold have died before she ever got to see a doctor.

Anecdotal evidence is weak. It usually mean you have no real fact to offer.
Unless your motive to somehow say Hawking's life is more improtant than some one elses. Did you mean to say that? Did you mean to put in a personal judgement option to health care?

[newtothegame]

OK, Sec, you played the Hawking card, I'll trump it with the card about the Canadian women featured on Fox who came here to pay for her own care and was told she wold have died before she ever got to see a doctor.

Anecdotal evidence is weak. It usually mean you have no real fact to offer.
Unless your motive to somehow say Hawking's life is more improtant than some one elses. Did you mean to say that? Did you mean to put in a personal judgement option to health care?

Tom...they don't want to hear that the average wait time for appointments is almost 17 weeks in canada. Its obvious why patients needing specialty care come here. I know I wouldnt want to wait for 17 weeks if I needed health care!

Canada's Health System Informs U.S. Health Care Debate

When it comes to the health reform debate, Canada's single payer system is often held up as an example of success by supporters and a warning of the pitfalls by opponents.

When it comes to the health care reform debate, Canada's single-payer system often is held up as an example of success by supporters -- and by opponents as a warning of the pitfalls.

Answering questions at the Summit of the Americas on Monday, President Obama seemed ambivalent about Canadian health care.

"I don't find Canadians particularly scary, but I guess some of the opponents of reform think that they make a good bogeyman," he said.

Obama went on to say the Canadian system wouldn't work in the U.S., but many American doctors believe it does some things better.

"Our health care system delivers probably the highest specialty quality care in the world but our primary care infrastructure is not good," said Dr. Joseph Ross of the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine.

Canadians have a longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality rates and lower rates of obesity and diabetes than people in the United States. Canadians' primary care doctors get paid more and spend more time with their patients than doctors across the border to the south.

But Canadians also wait twice as long for non-emergency care and sometimes come to the U.S. for specialized treatment.

Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a resident fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, says the single-payer edifice is starting to crumble.

"What you're starting to see in Canada is that it is falling apart, and you're seeing the growth of a private market for a lot of essential services," he said.

That private market was born after a 2005 Canadian Supreme Court ruling ended the government's monopoly on some health care services.

But since people have to pay out of pocket for them, Canada's public system is still overloaded.

"The average wait time to get an appointment with a new primary care physician is 17 weeks and for specialty care it is even worse," he said.

Canada lacks America's high technology, with about a third of the MRI machines per capita and far fewer specialists. But Canada also spends 50 percent less than the U.S. on health care as a percentage of its economy.

Some doctors say Canada's long waits are the equivalent of our 47 million uninsured and are morally more defensible.

"We just have moved waiting lines to a different place," Ross said. "There's no perfect health care system. Every system has lines somewhere."

But the president wants to squeeze savings out of Medicare to cover part of the cost of insuring the uninsured, and some experts fear that will ultimately lead to Medicaid-like coverage limits.

"Medicaid in many parts of the country is hardly offering any insurance coverage at all to patients," Gottlieb said. "It is paying providers so little that patients who are on Medicaid have a very hard time getting access to services."

Gottlieb says the U.S. and Canada will both have a mix of public and private health insurance. The president's goal is finding the right balance, so the public plan doesn't crowd out employer provided insurance.

[ArlJim78]

here are some more truthes,
- we're running a deficit of $1.8 trillion this year.
- all current government programs are hopelessly in debt. (medicare, social security, etc)
- our economy is stalled and very weak. there is still an enormous amount of private debt to be worked out.
- the reform being proposed will be more expensive and require increasing taxes.
- regardless of whether this passes or not, you can bet your bottom dollar that tax increases on the middleclass are in the cards. they're already laying the groundwork for it.

the fact is we cannot AFFORD this health care reform period.

drunken sailors would do a better job of fiscal management. any program controlled by the US Federal government ends up a bottomless pit of red ink.

instead of taking over another large chunk of the private economy, the federal government should be cutting back on spending across the board.

[JustRalph]

The Top 5 Obama lies


hell, I don't have to list them

listen to the next five things he says...............

[Black Ruby]

Obama on Drugs: 98% Cheney?


by Greg Palast
Thursday, August 13, 2009

For The Huffington Post


Eighty billion dollars of WHAT?

I searched all over the newspapers and TV transcripts and no one asked the President what is probably the most important question of what passes for debate on the issue of health care reform: $80 billion of WHAT?

On June 22, President Obama said he'd reached agreement with big drug companies to cut the price of medicine by $80 billion. He extended his gratitude to Big Pharma for the deal that would, "reduce the punishing inflation in health care costs."

Hey, in my neighborhood, people think $80 billion is a lot of money. But is it?

I checked out the government's health stats (at HHS.gov), put fresh batteries in my calculator and toted up US spending on prescription drugs projected by the government for the next ten years. It added up to $3.6 trillion.

In other words, Obama's big deal with Big Pharma saves $80 billion out of a total $3.6 trillion. That's 2%.

Hey thanks, Barack! You really stuck it to the big boys. You saved America from these drug lords robbing us blind. Two percent. Cool!

For perspective: Imagine you are in a Wal-Mart and there's a sign over a flat screen TV, "BIG SAVINGS!" So, you break every promise you made never to buy from that union-busting big box - and snatch up the $500 television. And when you're caught by your spouse, you say, "But, honey, look at the deal I got! It was TWO-PERCENT OFF! I saved us $10!"

But 2% is better than nothing, I suppose. Or is it?

The Big Pharma kingpins did not actually agree to cut their prices. Their promise with Obama is something a little oilier: they apparently promised that, over ten years, they will reduce the amount at which they would otherwise raise drug prices. Got that? In other words, the Obama deal locks in a doubling of drug costs, projected to rise over the period of "savings" from a quarter trillion dollars a year to half a trillion dollars a year. Minus that 2%.

We'll still get the shaft from Big Pharma, but Obama will have circumcised the increase.

And what did Obama give up in return for $80 billion? Chief drug lobbyist Billy Tauzin crowed that Obama agreed to dump his campaign pledge to bargain down prices for Medicare purchases. Furthermore, Obama's promise that we could buy cheap drugs from Canada simply went pffft!

What did that cost us? The New England Journal of Medicine notes that 13 European nations successfully regulate the price of drugs, reducing the average cost of name-brand prescription medicines by 35% to 55%. Obama gave that up for his 2%.

The Veterans Administration is able to push down the price it pays for patent medicine by 40% through bargaining power. George Bush stopped Medicare from bargaining for similar discounts, an insane ban that Obama said he'd overturn. But, once within Tauzin's hypnotic gaze, Obama agreed to lock in Bush's crazy and costly no-bargaining ban for the next decade.

What else went down in Obama's drug deal? To find out, I called C-SPAN to get a copy of the videotape of the meeting with the drug companies. I was surprised to find they didn't have such a tape despite the President's campaign promise, right there on CNN in January 2008, "These negotiations will be on C-SPAN."

This puzzled me. When Dick Cheney was caught having secret meetings with oil companies to discuss Bush's Energy Bill, we denounced the hugger-muggers as a case of foxes in the henhouse.

Cheney's secret meetings with lobbyists and industry bigshots were creepy and nasty and evil.

But the Obama crew's secret meetings with lobbyists and industry bigshots were, the President assures us, in the public interest.

We know Cheney's secret confabs were shady and corrupt because Cheney scowled out the side of his mouth.

Obama grins in your face.

See the difference?

The difference is 2%.

*******

Palast studied healthcare economics at the Center for Hospital Administration Studies at the University of Chicago

[Tampa Russ]

I agree, like a lot of things, Health Care needs reform. I'm pleased that a substantial amount of citizens are making their voices heard. It might not be pretty, but it's a start in attempting to actually shine a light on things so that all of the problems can be identified. I felt like so called solutions were about to be rammed through congress, and that was absolutely a mistake. I get the feeling that the majority of Americans do not feel that this issue is/should be a Rep vs. Dem situation. They (I) want an honest assessment of what the problems truly are, and what the options are for making things better. If in the end, a consensus is reached and a single payer system(etc.) is identified as the best solution(s), so be it.

Personally, I want to hear much more from Doctors, Health Care Systems, and people in other countries that have first hand experience. What do people really think of their system in Canada, etc? How much do they spend per person per year, and where does the money go?

[Tom]

Unless it is a national security issue, there is no way OUR EMPLOYEES should be having secret meeting with anyone on any topic, Cheney included.

These mutton heads are supposed to working for us. :lol:
Back to reality.....

[prospector]

The Top 5 Obama lies


hell, I don't have to list them

listen to the next five things he says...............
lie...obama
lie...obama
yep, the words fit nicely

[Tom]

More on the Obama lies.
More on Obama lies.
The moron Obama lies.


Evolution! Woo HOO!

[dartman51]

In lieu of the RW propaganda machine:

Top Five Health Care Reform Lies—and How to Fight Back

Lie #1: President Obama wants to euthanize your grandma!!!

The truth: These accusations—of "death panels" and forced euthanasia—are, of course, flatly untrue. As an article from the Associated Press puts it: "No 'death panel' in health care bill."4 What's the real deal? Reform legislation includes a provision, supported by the AARP, to offer senior citizens access to a professional medical counselor who will provide them with information on preparing a living will and other issues facing older Americans.5


Lie #2: Democrats are going to outlaw private insurance and force you into a government plan!!!

The truth: With reform, choices will increase, not decrease. Obama's reform plans will create a health insurance exchange, a one-stop shopping marketplace for affordable, high-quality insurance options.6 Included in the exchange is the public health insurance option—a nationwide plan with a broad network of providers—that will operate alongside private insurance companies, injecting competition into the market to drive quality up and costs down.7

If you're happy with your coverage and doctors, you can keep them.8 But the new public plan will expand choices to millions of businesses or individuals who choose to opt into it, including many who simply can't afford health care now.


Lie #3: President Obama wants to implement Soviet-style rationing!!!


The truth: Health care reform will expand access to high-quality health insurance, and give individuals, families, and businesses more choices for coverage. Right now, big corporations decide whether to give you coverage, what doctors you get to see, and whether a particular procedure or medicine is covered—that is rationed care. And a big part of reform is to stop that.


Health care reform will do away with some of the most nefarious aspects of this rationing: discrimination for pre-existing conditions, insurers that cancel coverage when you get sick, gender discrimination, and lifetime and yearly limits on coverage.9 And outside of that, as noted above, reform will increase insurance options, not force anyone into a rationed situation.


Lie #4: Obama is secretly plotting to cut senior citizens' Medicare benefits!!!

The truth: Health care reform plans will not reduce Medicare benefits.10 Reform includes savings from Medicare that are unrelated to patient care—in fact, the savings comes from cutting billions of dollars in overpayments to insurance companies and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.11

Lie #5: Obama's health care plan will bankrupt America!!!

The truth: We need health care reform now in order to prevent bankruptcy—to control spiraling costs that affect individuals, families, small businesses, and the American economy.

Right now, we spend more than $2 trillion dollars a year on health care.12 The average family premium is projected to rise to over $22,000 in the next decade13—and each year, nearly a million people face bankruptcy because of medical expenses.14 Reform, with an affordable, high-quality public option that can spur competition, is necessary to bring down skyrocketing costs. Also, President Obama's reform plans would be fully paid for over 10 years and not add a penny to the deficit.15

. "Stop Distorting the Truth about End of Life Care," The Huffington Post, July 24, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51730&id=16789-3975589-dkxIsZx&t=6

6. "Reality Check FAQs," WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 11, 2009.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#i1

7. "Why We Need a Public Health-Care Plan," The Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51737&id=16789-3975589-dkxIsZx&t=7

8. "Obama: 'If You Like Your Doctor, You Can Keep Your Doctor,'" The Wall Street Journal, 15, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51736&id=16789-3975589-dkxIsZx&t=8

9. "Reality Check FAQs," WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 10, 2009.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#r1

10. "Obama: No reduced Medicare benefits in health care reform," CNN, July 28, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51748&id=16789-3975589-dkxIsZx&t=9

11. "Reality Check FAQs," WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 10, 2009.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#s1

12. "Reality Check FAQs," WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 10, 2009.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#c1

13. "Premiums Run Amok," Center for American Progress, July 24, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51667&id=16789-3975589-dkxIsZx&t=10

14. "Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies," CNN, June 5, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51735&id=16789-3975589-dkxIsZx&t=11

15. "Reality Check FAQs," WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 10, 2009.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#c1

So, by using the LEFT WING PROPAGANDA MACHINE, to dispute the RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA MACHINE, only proves 1 thing. You haven't read the bill. READ THE DAMN BILL, THEN YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO SPEAK INTELLIGENT ABOUT IT. Until then, it's just a he said, she said situation, and you come off looking VERY misinformed.

[jognlope]

Hopefully the "premium" consumers have to pay for the public option will be set so as not to totally knock out the private competition, but OMG I am excited that the privates will have to start trimming down and become reasonable.

[jonnielu]

In lieu of the RW propaganda machine:

Top Five Health Care Reform Lies—and How to Fight Back

Lie #1: President Obama wants to euthanize your grandma!!!

The truth: These accusations—of "death panels" and forced euthanasia—are, of course, flatly untrue. As an article from the Associated Press puts it: "No 'death panel' in health care bill."4 What's the real deal? Reform legislation includes a provision, supported by the AARP, to offer senior citizens access to a professional medical counselor who will provide them with information on preparing a living will and other issues facing older Americans.5


Lie #2: Democrats are going to outlaw private insurance and force you into a government plan!!!

The truth: With reform, choices will increase, not decrease. Obama's reform plans will create a health insurance exchange, a one-stop shopping marketplace for affordable, high-quality insurance options.6 Included in the exchange is the public health insurance option—a nationwide plan with a broad network of providers—that will operate alongside private insurance companies, injecting competition into the market to drive quality up and costs down.7

If you're happy with your coverage and doctors, you can keep them.8 But the new public plan will expand choices to millions of businesses or individuals who choose to opt into it, including many who simply can't afford health care now.


Lie #3: President Obama wants to implement Soviet-style rationing!!!


The truth: Health care reform will expand access to high-quality health insurance, and give individuals, families, and businesses more choices for coverage. Right now, big corporations decide whether to give you coverage, what doctors you get to see, and whether a particular procedure or medicine is covered—that is rationed care. And a big part of reform is to stop that.


Health care reform will do away with some of the most nefarious aspects of this rationing: discrimination for pre-existing conditions, insurers that cancel coverage when you get sick, gender discrimination, and lifetime and yearly limits on coverage.9 And outside of that, as noted above, reform will increase insurance options, not force anyone into a rationed situation.


Lie #4: Obama is secretly plotting to cut senior citizens' Medicare benefits!!!

The truth: Health care reform plans will not reduce Medicare benefits.10 Reform includes savings from Medicare that are unrelated to patient care—in fact, the savings comes from cutting billions of dollars in overpayments to insurance companies and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.11

Lie #5: Obama's health care plan will bankrupt America!!!

The truth: We need health care reform now in order to prevent bankruptcy—to control spiraling costs that affect individuals, families, small businesses, and the American economy.

Right now, we spend more than $2 trillion dollars a year on health care.12 The average family premium is projected to rise to over $22,000 in the next decade13—and each year, nearly a million people face bankruptcy because of medical expenses.14 Reform, with an affordable, high-quality public option that can spur competition, is necessary to bring down skyrocketing costs. Also, President Obama's reform plans would be fully paid for over 10 years and not add a penny to the deficit.15

. "Stop Distorting the Truth about End of Life Care," The Huffington Post, July 24, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51730&id=16789-3975589-dkxIsZx&t=6

6. "Reality Check FAQs," WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 11, 2009.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#i1

7. "Why We Need a Public Health-Care Plan," The Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51737&id=16789-3975589-dkxIsZx&t=7

8. "Obama: 'If You Like Your Doctor, You Can Keep Your Doctor,'" The Wall Street Journal, 15, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51736&id=16789-3975589-dkxIsZx&t=8

9. "Reality Check FAQs," WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 10, 2009.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#r1

10. "Obama: No reduced Medicare benefits in health care reform," CNN, July 28, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51748&id=16789-3975589-dkxIsZx&t=9

11. "Reality Check FAQs," WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 10, 2009.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#s1

12. "Reality Check FAQs," WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 10, 2009.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#c1

13. "Premiums Run Amok," Center for American Progress, July 24, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51667&id=16789-3975589-dkxIsZx&t=10

14. "Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies," CNN, June 5, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51735&id=16789-3975589-dkxIsZx&t=11

15. "Reality Check FAQs," WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 10, 2009.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#c1

Sure, politicians on both sides have been ushering in all of the bright and carefree tomorrows that Americans have enjoyed since they ushered in the sham of the federal income tax, and the FED in 1913.

Maybe the handwriting on the wall will be large enough for the people to read after Congress passes the sham of national health care.

Read Andrew Jackson's farewell speech, he may have explained it to your third great-grandfather too.

jdl

[Tom]

Hopefully the "premium" consumers have to pay for the public option will be set so as not to totally knock out the private competition, but OMG I am excited that the privates will have to start trimming down and become reasonable.

Yes, those evil bastards, paying for those billions of pills and tens of thousands of procedures all these years. We will put a stop to that!
Not one more crutch, not one more wheelchair......those scallywags!

[jonnielu]

Hopefully the "premium" consumers have to pay for the public option will be set so as not to totally knock out the private competition, but OMG I am excited that the privates will have to start trimming down and become reasonable.

Sure, that is why corporations spend millions lobbying Congress with all of the hookers, liquor, drugs, and cash that they can handle. So that they will write legislation in favor of the people that won't lift a finger to honor their foundation by being government.

Medical costs wouldn't be what they are today if it weren't for medicare and socialist security.

jdl

[rastajenk]

All they really deserve is a piece of leather to bite down on and a bottle of whiskey. Pussies.

[LottaKash]

My greatest fear is that once this legislation is passed, and things shake out, and we are left with fewer alternatives for our health care, and the many that we still enjoy now, THEN the "Gov't" will change "all" the "rules" and will take complete charge of "all" of our healthcare...Then we will have nothing of our former system to return to, and we will have the gov't in our face and deciding "EVERYTHING" for us...Big-time...:eek: ... Then, it will be quite difficult to get "Uncle Sam" out of our "Health-Faces"...

This is "THE" ulitimate plan, I think....

best,

[Tom]

It is in the bill that after a year, you cannot make changes. You have to go in to the govt option. The goal is to drive out all competition and then they have us. Obama has previously stated he is looking for that outcome, just not at first - it would take a while to get there. He has already admitted that is his ultimate goal.

[LottaKash]

It is in the bill that after a year, you cannot make changes. You have to go in to the govt option. The goal is to drive out all competition and then they have us. Obama has previously stated he is looking for that outcome, just not at first - it would take a while to get there. He has already admitted that is his ultimate goal.

Folks, that is it in a "Nutshell"....Is that what you want ?.....

Tell your representatives if that is (not) what you want....:jump:

best,

[mostpost]

Republican vested interest LIARS have messed up big time with their Stephen Hawking health fantasy. The unelectable GOP has hit rock bottom when it cannot come up with a single factual argument or offer any practical alternatives on a major political issue.

DOWNRIGHT LIES
"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."

Stephen Hawking actual experience of UK NHS Health system
"I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2009/08/12/stephen-hawking-defends-british-health-care-system-against-u-s-conservatives.aspx

Who to believe, the actual person receiving the treatment or some despicable blowhard defending a worthless viewpoint with ever more desperate fantasy?
Why should we believe Stephen Hawking? He thinks he's British. ;)

[mostpost]

OK, Sec, you played the Hawking card, I'll trump it with the card about the Canadian women featured on Fox who came here to pay for her own care and was told she wold have died before she ever got to see a doctor.

Anecdotal evidence is weak. It usually mean you have no real fact to offer.
Unless your motive to somehow say Hawking's life is more improtant than some one elses. Did you mean to say that? Did you mean to put in a personal judgement option to health care?

Once again you've missed the point. The anecdote was not presented to prove the relative merits of one health care system over another. It was to prove that the people who work at Investors Business Daily are either dumb or liars, or both. I vote C.

[Tom]

Buh-bye.

[lsbets]

IBD acknowledged their errors. If only Obama could acknowledge his outright lies.

Much has been made of this statement in one of our Aug. 3 editorials: "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K. where the National Health Service would say the quality of life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."

It was a bad example, and we have acknowledged that. To repeat the correction we ran shortly after the editorial ran: Hawking, who suffers from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), the progressive neurodegenerative disease often referred to as Lou Gehrig's Disease, is indeed a British subject.

We also say that not everyone suffering from a debilitating disease is Stephen Hawking, and we hope our critics would acknowledge that. Hawking is a renowned theoretical physicist, university professor and best-selling author. It is doubtful any National Health Service bureaucrat would cut him off.

Hawking, in response to a query from London's Guardian newspaper that was apparently prompted by our editorial, was quoted Tuesday as saying: "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."

We accept this testimony and good fortune. We will note, however, that in talking about his disability on his own Web site, Hawking makes no mention of NHS and instead says that since 1985, when he had a tracheotomy, he has had "24-hour nursing care ... made possible by several foundations."

Many other Britons may not be as fortunate, and we wonder how they might fare under similar circumstances in their later years. For example, many British women — whose breast cancer mortality rate is nearly twice that of American women — have been denied care in relative obscurity.

We suspect the concern in the U.K. (and the U.S.) over our editorial is similar to a diversionary tactic used here in the Colonies. When you don't want to talk about some of the realities of government-run medical care, you change the subject. You may call elderly town hall protestors a coached mob.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=503233

[boxcar]

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Please, please, PLEASE stop with all these mindless, stupid accusations from both sides about LIES. Lying is a fiction. Lying is now obsolete. Lying has gone the way of the dinosaur. Lying has been replaced with circumstances.

Don't you know that circumstances change (And this was what BO's campaign was all about wasn't it? CHANGE?) And wise politicians have to change with them (real or perceived, of course). And these politicians, who are wise enough to recognize when they have to change with the circumstances, should inspire HOPE in all of us! Therefore, I submit to you that BO is keeping all his campaign promises. We have right before our eyes: HOPE and CHANGE. BO is delivering on all his promises, and I promise you that he will continue to deliver.

Hail to King Obama! Hail to all Politicians of all stripes. Ye are all gods!

Boxcar
P.S. Life on the Plantation wouldn't be all that bad if they just removed the chains.

[NJ Stinks]

It is in the bill that after a year, you cannot make changes. You have to go in to the govt option. The goal is to drive out all competition and then they have us. Obama has previously stated he is looking for that outcome, just not at first - it would take a while to get there. He has already admitted that is his ultimate goal.

Can you quote the Division letter, Title number, Subtitle letter, and Section number in HR 3200 where it says after a year you can't make changes - you must go with the public option? How about just the page number in HR 3200?

I find this hard to believe. Hopefully, you didn't just hear it somewhere and repeat it here.

[Tom]

No, you do not have to go in the govt option after a year, only if you make changes. I think it might be 828-835? Not sure...maybe ArlJims post to links might have it. I would have to go look it up again. Give me some time.....I'll search it out.

[LottaKash]

Hail to King Obama! Hail to all Politicians of all stripes. Ye are all gods!Boxcar

Boxcar, are you sure you are not talking about the "Great Romans"....Nah, how could we possibly be trying to emulate the demise of such a great nation, one that, for it's time, was greater than ours......couldn't be, I guess you are talking about "US"...

That, couldn't possibly happen here...You don't know what your are talking about...:cool:

best,

[46zilzal]

Boxcar, are you sure you are not talking about the "Great Romans"....Nah, how could we possibly be trying to emulate the demise of such a great nation, one that, for it's time, was greater than ours......couldn't be, I guess you are talking about "US"...


It has been established by many studies that use of pewter dishware and the subsequent chronic LEAD poisoning of the patricians had a very lot to do with their demise. There is little comparison.

Gibbon mentions it repeatedly.

[Pell Mell]

It has been established by many studies that use of pewter dishware and the subsequent chronic LEAD poisoning of the patricians had a very lot to do with their demise. There is little comparison.

Gibbon mentions it repeatedly.

Evidently pewter dishware must be in use at the white house.

[toetoe]

that is rationed care. And a big part of reform is to stop that ... We need health care reform now in order to prevent bankruptcy


:lol: ... :lol: ... :lol: .

[46zilzal]

From ABC News: Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the health-policy adviser at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget -- who has been caricatured by conservatives as a “Dr. Death” seeking to pull the I.V.s out of your grandparents’ arms in the name of cost containment -- is not happy.

Asked by ABC News in an interview about the thoroughly discredited claim by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to paint his philosophical writings as evidence -- along with a provision providing optional end of life counseling in the House Democrats’ health care reform bill -- that President Obama wants to set up “death panels” to deny medical treatments to seniors and the disabled, including her son Trig, Emanuel, brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, does not hold back.

“It’s an absolute outrage that you would take first of all a provision written in the bill,” Emanuel says, a provision allowing for “doctors to talk to patients about end of life care, and turn it into the suggestion that we’re going to have euthanasia boards -- that’s a complete misreading of what’s there. It’s just trying to scare people.”

what else is new with these clowns? Killer Bees, more attacks.etc etc

[ArlJim78]

another top five lie of Obama, he claimed that surgeons are hacking off the feet of diabetics because of the $30,000 to $50,000 they receive.

the AMA corrected him, they get somewhere around $800 for that procedure.

nothing like a vindictive scaremongering president that will say anything and demonize any segment of the population to get his way.

he did the same thing a few weeks back regarding tonsilectomies. he is incompetent and has no shame.

[PaceAdvantage]

what else is new with these clowns? Killer Bees, more attacks.etc etc"Biggest economic crisis since the great depression."

Ooops...I forgot...the Democrats and Obama don't use scare tactics....:lol: :lol:

[cj's dad]

another top five lie of Obama, he claimed that surgeons are hacking off the feet of diabetics because of the $30,000 to $50,000 they receive.

the AMA corrected him, they get somewhere around $800 for that procedure.

nothing like a vindictive scaremongering president that will say anything and demonize any segment of the population to get his way.

he did the same thing a few weeks back regarding tonsilectomies. he is incompetent and has no shame.

Yeah, but he is one hell of a community organizer.

He sure didn't get that ability from his grandmother who was a "typical white woman". I guess she had no rhythm and couldn't jump.

What a phony b--tard thiis POS is.

[Saratoga_Mike]

"Biggest economic crisis since the great depression."

Ooops...I forgot...the Democrats and Obama don't use scare tactics....:lol: :lol:

O and his minions have certainly made that assertion, but it was first put forth by Hank Paulson, GWB's Treasury Sec, to help garner support for the passage of TARP last fall.

[jognlope]

Oh go run around the block, Tom, those scaliwages are in bed with the AMA and they live like the Roosevelts. My Dad accepted half a ham for doing surgery. And don't think of making fun of my Dad or I'll get your address. He was the real deal.

[pandy]

If Obama and the Dems were serious about reform and serious about lowering costs they would do something about tort reform. The fact that they refuse to do this (because they are lawyers), shows that they will not do what is best for us, only for whoever pays them the most. Without tort reform, health costs will continue to rise regardless of whether this bill gets passed or not.

[Saratoga_Mike]

If Obama and the Dems were serious about reform and serious about lowering costs they would do something about tort reform. The fact that they refuse to do this (because they are lawyers), shows that they will not do what is best for us, only for whoever pays them the most. Without tort reform, health costs will continue to rise regardless of whether this bill gets passed or not.

I strongly support tort reform, but frivolous lawsuits aren't the main culprit behind out-of-control healthcare spending--this is true even if one adjusts for defensive medicine that is practiced b/c of the potential for lawsuits.

[Secretariat]

OK, Sec, you played the Hawking card, I'll trump it with the card about the Canadian women featured on Fox who came here to pay for her own care and was told she wold have died before she ever got to see a doctor.

Anecdotal evidence is weak. It usually mean you have no real fact to offer.
Unless your motive to somehow say Hawking's life is more improtant than some one elses. Did you mean to say that? Did you mean to put in a personal judgement option to health care?

So you're saying she was unable to obtain insurance in this country due to having a pre-existing condition? What was the cost of her medical bill since she had to pay it herself?

[cj's dad]

For those who were vertical and thinking in the '60's, this ( health care) is the most devisive issue in our lifetime, along with Vietnam; IMO.

[NJ Stinks]

No, you do not have to go in the govt option after a year, only if you make changes. I think it might be 828-835? Not sure...maybe ArlJims post to links might have it. I would have to go look it up again. Give me some time.....I'll search it out.

All I can find so far is the following:

In Title II, Subsection B, Subtitle A, Section 202(a) on page 73 it says anyone can qualify for coverage in the Exchange - participating health benefits plan (which includes the public health insurance option) "unless such individuals are enrolled in another health benefits plan or other acceptable coverage." Other acceptable coverage includes Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, members of the Armed Forces, etc.

Also in Title II, Subtitle B starting on page 116, the public health insurance option is discussed. I could not find anything pertinent here.

That's all I could find using the search engine and using the words "public health insurance option".

My point in all this is that I find it hard to believe that Joe Blow:

1) keeps a job for two years and gets his health insurance through his employer

2) changes jobs after two years

3) and now Joe is required to enroll in the public health insurance option even though his new employer offers health insurance in a plan Joe prefers to enroll in.

[Valuist]

Does anyone really believe that if healthcare gets nationalized that the private sector insurance will still be around? Does anyone think that if we as a country find out we don't care for Obamacare that we can just change back? Once it switches, forget it. There will be no turning back. As for bankrupting America, Obamacare will do it. Deficit figures to top $10 trillion within 6 years if it and cap and trade pass. That would be about 80% of GDP......at that point, its game over.

Want reform? Start talking about tort reform. Attack the problem at its root.

[rastajenk]

"From ABC News: Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the health-policy adviser at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget -- who has been caricatured by conservatives as a “Dr. Death” seeking to pull the I.V.s out of your grandparents’ arms in the name of cost containment -- is not happy."

If Karl Rove had a brother (maybe he does, but no matter...it's a hypothetical) that was a nucular engineer, and if he said that nucular power plants were absolutely the cleanest, most efficient, most manageable paths towards energy indepedence, would you take anything he said at face value? Of course not.

Why should we believe this guy now? He may be an "expert," but he's got an agenda, and it does not jive with the American ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[chickenhead]

Want reform? Start talking about tort reform. Attack the problem at its root.

What percentage of total health care spending is on malpractice insurance? It must be, like what, 50 or 60%?

[dartman51]

All I can find so far is the following:

In Title II, Subsection B, Subtitle A, Section 202(a) on page 73 it says anyone can qualify for coverage in the Exchange - participating health benefits plan (which includes the public health insurance option) "unless such individuals are enrolled in another health benefits plan or other acceptable coverage." Other acceptable coverage includes Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, members of the Armed Forces, etc.

Also in Title II, Subtitle B starting on page 116, the public health insurance option is discussed. I could not find anything pertinent here.

That's all I could find using the search engine and using the words "public health insurance option".

My point in all this is that I find it hard to believe that Joe Blow:

1) keeps a job for two years and gets his health insurance through his employer

2) changes jobs after two years

3) and now Joe is required to enroll in the public health insurance option even though his new employer offers health insurance in a plan Joe prefers to enroll in.

ANY changes to your coverage, after the 1st year, and you automaticly go to the Govt. plan. The other side to this is that ALL employers MUST provide healthcare for their employees. Either they can keep the plan they have, and pay taxes on it, adding to the cost. OR, drop the coverage and pay a big fine, not very smart. OR, the can take the cheap way out, and opt for the Govt. plan. Now, my question to you is, as a business man, concerned about your bottom line, which way will you go. This is the way to get to a SINGLE PAYER PLAN through the back door. I, personally, am willing to accept any bill they put up , as long as CONGRESS, THE UNIONS, and OBAMA, agree that they will be on the SAME PLAN. NO EXCEPTIONS!!!

[NJ Stinks]

ANY changes to your coverage, after the 1st year, and you automaticly go to the Govt. plan.

Where does it say this in HR Resolution 3200?

[MikeH]

Well, I decided to do some research after seeing "allegations" both right and left about this bill.

It is a 1,017 page bill that can be interpreted a number of ways. To me, it is very confusing, but, IMHO, it allows, but does not require, the Feds to detail manage Health Care.

The bill can be found here:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf

For example, one post at a Tax Forum that I read, says:

Pg 58: Gov't will have real-time access to individual's finances & a National ID Health care card will be issued!

Well, paragraph (D) doesn't exactly say that, because it says "MAY include utilization of a machine-readable card," but it sure sounds like the Feds could force a national health care card if they wanted. So there's some truth to the words that both sides are broadcasting...

From what I've seen, it's very scary to me that a bunch of attorneys/politicians seem to be taking over health care from the M.D.s. I've known several lawyers that have a dislike for doctors, which I've never understood, but they look like a grammar school bully who has always wanted to beat up on the guy with brains because the bully is afraid of them...

Just my $0.02 worth...

[pandy]

I strongly support tort reform, but frivolous lawsuits aren't the main culprit behind out-of-control healthcare spending--this is true even if one adjusts for defensive medicine that is practiced b/c of the potential for lawsuits.

But my point is, tort reform is needed and they won't do it because they are heavily supported by lawyers. They don't care about us as much as they care about themselves.

[witchdoctor]

What percentage of total health care spending is on malpractice insurance? It must be, like what, 50 or 60%?

For our practice,it is about 6 % for insurance. The real cost of malpractice is defensive medicine no matter what Obama says. For example, I was sending a 82 year old for 4 vessel coranary bypass(CABG). The literature says that if they don't have a bruit(swishing sound in neck), then you should be able to undergo surgery with a low risk of periop stroke. Unfortunately, you may miss 1 in 200 signifcant carotid stenosis and result in a stroke. You can lower the risk to 1 in 500 by ruling out a blockage with a carotid doppler. Since 1 stroke with documenting the carotids preop would result in a large judgement against you, we always get a doppler.

[LottaKash]

It has been established by many studies that use of pewter dishware and the subsequent chronic LEAD poisoning of the patricians had a very lot to do with their demise. There is little comparison.

Gibbon mentions it repeatedly.

You don't get, it was "corruption", "greed" and "power for sale", that did the Romans in.....Just like "NOW", Here, Today, in the USA....get it...

Pewter, give me a break....Ok, the ones who survived screwed it all up then...

[boxcar]

Well, I decided to do some research after seeing "allegations" both right and left about this bill.

It is a 1,017 page bill that can be interpreted a number of ways. To me, it is very confusing, but, IMHO, it allows, but does not require, the Feds to detail manage Health Care.

Would you please elaborate on the phrase, "it allows, but does not require the Feds to detail manage Health care"? The bill allows them, I take it; but since you claim that it's not "required", just who specifically gets to demand that the Feds back off? Does the bill stipulate who has the authority to tell the Fed to shove its busybody nose up someone else's personal affairs? Is this anywhere in the bill?

Boxcar

[chickenhead]

For our practice,it is about 6 % for insurance. The real cost of malpractice is defensive medicine no matter what Obama says. For example, I was sending a 82 year old for 4 vessel coranary bypass(CABG). The literature says that if they don't have a bruit(swishing sound in neck), then you should be able to undergo surgery with a low risk of periop stroke. Unfortunately, you may miss 1 in 200 signifcant carotid stenosis and result in a stroke. You can lower the risk to 1 in 500 by ruling out a blockage with a carotid doppler. Since 1 stroke with documenting the carotids preop would result in a large judgement against you, we always get a doppler.

What would liability have to be capped at to keep you from doing a doppler? In other words, not giving a doppler is always going to present some risk to you -- what is your downside from giving one? So long as there exists any chance of a lawsuit, even with capped judgments -- wouldn't you still give it?

I ask because I've always thought that the real solution to that has nothing to do so much with tort reform, as it does with a system that puts more of the financial impact on the customer.

If you explained to me:

You can have this test.
It's gonna cost you $X
It reduces your risk of stroke from 1/200 to 1/500

Then I could decide. The only part where tort law comes in is that we need the waiver I sign saying I understand all of that to mean something.

Kind of like the guy at the JiffyLube that try to convince me I need to spend an extra $50 to do this or that. They're always pushing extra medicine, and I tell them no.

[exactaplayer]

You don't get, it was "corruption", "greed" and "power for sale", that did the Romans in.....Just like "NOW", Here, Today, in the USA....get it...

Pewter, give me a break....Ok, the ones who survived screwed it all up then...
I remember learning that the Roman Empire went down because they got fat and lazy. Hired others to fight their wars and such. (Blackwater?) They even paid others to clean their teeth. (?)

[JustRalph]

Yeah, but he is one hell of a community organizer.

He sure didn't get that ability from his grandmother who was a "typical white woman". I guess she had no rhythm and couldn't jump.

What a phony b--tard thiis POS is.

did she have a job?

Typical............

[LottaKash]

I remember learning that the Roman Empire went down because they got fat and lazy. Hired others to fight their wars and such. (Blackwater?) They even paid others to clean their teeth. (?)

So it wasn't "pewter", after all...?...:D :D :D

[46zilzal]

So it wasn't "pewter", after all...?...:D :D :D
well established whether you want to believe it or not.

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/03/17/us/roman-empire-s-fall-is-linked-with-gout-and-lead-poisoning.html

QUOTE:"''The coexistence of widespread plumbism and gout during the Roman Empire seems to have been an important feature of the aristocratic life style that has not been previously recognized,'' Dr. Nriagu wrote. ''This provides strong support for the hypothesis that lead poisoning contributed to the decline of the Roman Empire.''

[witchdoctor]

What would liability have to be capped at to keep you from doing a doppler? In other words, not giving a doppler is always going to present some risk to you -- what is your downside from giving one? So long as there exists any chance of a lawsuit, even with capped judgments -- wouldn't you still give it?

I ask because I've always thought that the real solution to that has nothing to do so much with tort reform, as it does with a system that puts more of the financial impact on the customer.

If you explained to me:

You can have this test.
It's gonna cost you $X
It reduces your risk of stroke from 1/200 to 1/500

Then I could decide. The only part where tort law comes in is that we need the waiver I sign saying I understand all of that to mean something.

Kind of like the guy at the JiffyLube that try to convince me I need to spend an extra $50 to do this or that. They're always pushing extra medicine, and I tell them no.

At this point, it has become a reflex for doctors. The other factor is that now there are people keeping score of your complications. Since stroke is one of the end points that is tracked, everyone wants to do everything to make their numbers better. Since the complication/death rate is low, a couple of bad outcome can skew your ratings. Also, you are crucified at Morbidity/Mortality conference if you have a "preventable" compication.


To change the subject somewhat, the question of rationing care to elderly has come up. As I understand, there will be guidelines that looks at what is appropriate. If you can't justify why you varied from guidelines, you don't get paid. In addition, very elderly patients are at higher risk for complications and with the upcoming report cards on outcomes doctors are going to be relucatant to do these patients.