Re: Top 5 Rightard Big Lies About Health Care Reform
Obama Nation Is An Abomination
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>Rightards lie. It's what they do. That, and fear mongering. It's all they
>have. They are the Party of No working for the Audacity of Nope. They have
>no ideas, no power, no influence and no prospects. So they lie.
'Cruel and neglectful' care of one million NHS patients exposed
One million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling care in
hospitals across Britain, according to a major report released today.
By Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor
Published: 12:01AM BST 27 Aug 2009
Comments 115 | Comment on this article
One million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling care in
hospitals across Britain, according to a major report released today
Photo: CLARE KENDALL
In the last six years, the Patients Association claims hundreds of
thousands have suffered from poor standards of nursing, often with
'neglectful, demeaning, painful and sometimes downright cruel'
treatment.
Related Articles
Hospital care: Colin Purkiss Smith's wife forced to bring him blankets
Hospital care: Ann McNeill was called a drama queen
Hospital care: Florence Weston was left without food or drink
Hospital care: Pamela Goddard's bed sores were inadequately treated
'Appalling care' cost up to 1200 lives in Staffordshire
Patients 'being hurried though casualty departments' The charity has
disclosed a horrifying catalogue of elderly people left in pain, in
soiled bed clothes, denied adequate food and drink, and suffering from
repeatedly cancelled operations, missed diagnoses and dismissive
staff.
The Patients Association said the dossier proves that while the scale
of the scandal at Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust - where up to
1,200 people died through failings in urgent care - was a one off,
there are repeated examples they have uncovered of the same appalling
standards throughout the NHS.
While the criticisms cover all aspects of hospital care, the treatment
and attitude of nurses stands out as a repeated theme across almost
all of the cases.
They have called on Government and the Care Quality Commission to
conduct an urgent review of standards of basic hospital care and to
enforce stricter supervision and regulation.
Claire Rayner, President of the Patients Association and a former
nurse, said:�For far too long now, the Patients Association has been
receiving calls on our helpline from people wanting to talk about the
dreadful, neglectful, demeaning, painful and sometimes downright cruel
treatment their elderly relatives had experienced at the hands of NHS
nurses.
�I am sickened by what has happened to some part of my profession of
which I was so proud.
"These bad, cruel nurses may be - probably are - a tiny proportion of
the nursing work force, but even if they are only one or two percent
of the whole they should be identified and struck off the Register.�
The charity has published a selection of personal accounts from
hundreds of relatives of patients, most of whom died, following their
care in NHS hospitals.
They cite patient surveys which show the vast majority of patients
highly rate their NHS care - but, with some ten million treated a
year, even a small percentage means hundreds of thousands have
suffered.
Ms Rayner said it was by "sad coincidence" that she trained as a nurse
with one of the patients who had "suffered so much".
She went on: "I know that she, like me, was horrified by the appalling
care she had before she died.
"We both came from a generation of nurses who were trained at the
bedside and in whom the core values of nursing were deeply
inculcated."
Katherine Murphy, Director of the Patients Association, said �Whilst
Mid Staffordshire may have been an anomaly in terms of scale the PA
knew the kinds of appalling treatment given there could be found
across the NHS. This report removes any doubt and makes this clear to
all. Two of the accounts come from Stafford, and they sadly fail to
stand out from the others.
�These accounts tell the story of the two percent of patients that
consistently rate their care as poor (in NHS patient surveys).
"If this was extrapolated to the whole of the NHS from 2002 to 2008 it
would equate to over one million patients. Very often these are the
most vulnerable elderly and terminally ill patients. It�s a sad
indictment of the care they receive.�
The Patients Association said one hospital had threatened it with
legal action if it chose to publish the material.
Pamela Goddard, a piano teacher from Bletchingley, in Surrey, was 82
and suffering with cancer but was left in her own excrement and her
condition deteriorated due to her bed sores.
Florence Weston, from Sedgley in the West Midlands, died aged 85 and
had to remain without food or water for several days as her hip
operation was repeated cancelled.
The charity released the dossier to highlight the poor care which a
minority of patients in the NHS are subjected to.
Ms Murphy said the numbers rating care as poor came despite investment
in the NHS doubling and the number of frontline nurses increasing by
more than a quarter since 1996.
The personal stories were revealed to prevent their cases being
ignored as only representing a small portion of patients.
The report said: "These are patients, not numbers. These are people,
not statistics."
Dr Peter Carter, Chief Executive of the Royal College of Nursing, said
he was concerned that public confidence in the NHS could be undermined
by the examples cited and it would affect morale in hardworking staff.
He said: �The level of care described by these families is completely
unacceptable, and we will not condone nurses who behave in ways that
are contrary to the principles and ethics of the profession.
"However we believe that the vast majority of nurses are decent,
highly skilled individuals.
�This report is based on the two per cent of patients who feel that
their care was unacceptable. Two per cent is too many but we are
concerned that this might undermine the public�s confidence in the
world-class care they can expect to receive from the NHS."
Barbara Young, Chairman of the Care Quality Commission, the
super-regulator, said: �It is absolutely right to highlight that
standards of hospital care can vary from very good to poor.
�Many people are happy with the care they receive, but we also know
that there are problems.
�I am in no doubt that many hospitals need to raise their game in this
area.
�Where NHS trusts fail to meet the mark, we have tough new enforcement
powers, ranging from warnings and fines to closure in extreme cases.
We will not hesitate to use these powers when necessary to bring
improvement.
"We will be asking NHS trusts and primary care trusts how they are
ensuring that the needs of patients and their safety and dignity are
kept at the heart of care.�
Chris Beasley, Chief Nursing Officer at the Department of Health said
the care in the cases highlighted by the PA was �simply unacceptable�.
She added: "It is important to note this is not representative of the
picture across the NHS.
"The NHS treats millions of people every day and the vast majority of
patients experience good quality, safe and effective care - the Care
Quality Commission's recent patient experience survey shows that 93
percent of patients rate their overall care as good or excellent.
"We will shortly be publishing complaints data on the NHS Choices
website and expect trusts to publish the number of complaints they
receive, setting out how these are successfully resolved."
>But even by filthy rightard liar standards, the huge piles of fear mongering
>bullshit the GOPhools have been shoveling out in a desperate bid to derail
>badly needed health care reform reaches a new low in rightard mendacity.
>
>But rightards are nothing if not persistent. Every time one rightard Big Lie
>is shot all to hell, another rightard Big Lie pops up to take its place.
>It's a game of rightard Big Lie whack-a-mole.
>
>Here are the current Top 5 rightard Big Lies about health care reform. When
>you see one of the rightard Big Liars here fart out asinine FUD, fight back
>with facts.
>
>------
>http://www.newsweek.com/id/214254/page/1
>
>The Five Biggest Lies in the Health Care Debate
>
>By Sharon Begley | NEWSWEEK
>Published Aug 29, 2009
>From the magazine issue dated Sep 7, 2009
>
>You'll have no choice in what health benefits you receive.
>
>The myth that a "health choices commissioner" will decide what benefits you
>get seems to have originated in a july 19 post at blog.flecksoflife.com,
>whose homepage features an image of Obama looking like heath ledger's joker.
>In fact, the house bill sets up a health-care exchange�essentially a list of
>private insurers and one government plan�where people who do not have health
>insurance through their employer or some other source (including small
>businesses) can shop for a plan, much as seniors shop for a drug plan under
>medicare part d.
>
>
>No chemo for older medicare patients.
>
>The threat that medicare will give cancer patients over 70 only end-of-life
>counseling and not chemotherapy�as a nurse at a hospital told a roomful of
>chemo patients, including the uncle of a NEWSWEEK reporter�has zero basis in
>fact. It's just a vicious form of the rationing scare. The house bill does
>not use the word "ration." Nor does it call for cost-effectiveness research,
>much less implementation�the idea that "it isn't cost-effective to give a
>90-year-old a hip replacement."
>
>
>Illegal immigrants will get free health insurance
>
>The house bill doesn't give anyone free health care (though under a 1986 law
>illegals who can't pay do get free emergency care now, courtesy of all us
>premiumpaying customers or of hospitals that have to eat the cost). Will
>they be eligible for subsidies to buy health insurance? The house bill says
>that "individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States" will
>not be allowed to receive subsidies.
>
>
>Death panels will decide who lives.
>
>On July 16 Betsy Mccaughey, a former lieutenant governor of New York and
>darling of the right, said on Fred Thompson's radio show that "on page 425,"
>"congress would make it mandatory � That every five years, people in
>medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end
>their life sooner, how to decline nutrition." Sarah Palin coined "death
>panels" in an Aug. 7 facebook post.
>
>This lie springs from a provision in the house bill to have medicare cover
>optional counseling on end-of-life care for any senior who requests it. This
>means that any patient, terminally ill or not, can request a special
>consultation with his or her physician about ventilators, feeding tubes, and
>other measures. Thus the house bill expands medicare coverage, but without
>forcing anyone into end-of-life counseling.
>
>
>The government will set doctors' wages.
>
>This, too, seems to have originated on the Flecksoflife blog on July 19. But
>while page 127 of the House bill says that physicians who choose to accept
>patients in the public insurance plan would receive 5 percent more than
>Medicare pays for a given service, doctors can refuse to accept such
>patients, and, even if they participate in a public plan, they are not
>salaried employees of it any more than your doctor today is an employee of,
>say, Aetna. "Nobody is saying we want the doctors working for the
>government; that's completely false," says Amitabh Chandra, professor of
>public policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
>
><more at URL>
>------
>
>Check back often to see the next batch of rightard whack-a-mole Big Lies
>shot all to hell with facts...
>
>---
>Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
>------
>Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
>
>http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
>� 1999 by the American Psychological Association
>December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
>
>Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
>Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
>
>Justin Kruger and David Dunning
>Department of Psychology
>Cornell University
>
>ABSTRACT:
>...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
>on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
>performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
>12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
Obama Nation Is An Abomination
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>And you think an article about a handful of bad nurses in a system with a
>NINETY-FUCKING-EIGHT PERCENT CUSTOMER SATISFACTION RATING germane to the
>stupid asshole Big Lies shot all to hell by FACTS how, precisely, cowardly
>rightard maroon?
Man collapses with ruptured appendix... three weeks after NHS doctors
'took it out'
By Daniel Bates
Last updated at 12:15 AM on 26th August 2009
After weeks of excruciating pain, Mark Wattson was understandably
relieved to have his appendix taken out.
Doctors told him the operation was a success and he was sent home.
But only a month later the 35-year-old collapsed in agony and had to
be taken back to Great Western Hospital in Swindon by ambulance.
Enlarge Mark Wattson, 35, from Swindon may have been the victim of
botched surgery after he had to have his appendix removed twice
To his shock, surgeons from the same team told him that not only was
his appendix still inside him, but it had ruptured - a potentially
fatal complication.
In a second operation it was finally removed, leaving Mr Wattson
fearing another organ might have been taken out during the first
procedure.
The blunder has left Mr Wattson jobless, as bosses at the shop where
he worked did not believe his story and sacked him.
Mr Wattson told of the moment he realised there had been a serious
mistake.
'I was lying on a stretcher in terrible pain and a doctor came up to
me and said that my appendix had burst,' he said.
'I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I told these people I had my
appendix out just four weeks earlier but there it was on the scanner
screen for all to see.
'I thought, "What the hell did they slice me open for in the first
place?"
'I feel that if the surgery had been done correctly in the first place
I wouldn't be in the mess I am today. I'm disgusted by the whole
experience.'
Mr Wattson first went under the knife on July 7 after experiencing
severe abdominal pain for several weeks. He was discharged but exactly
a month later he had to dial 999 after collapsing in agony.
Mr Wattson was readmitted to the Great Western Hospital in Swindon
after his appendix ruptured
Following the second operation his incision became infected and he was
admitted to hospital for a third time for treatment.
He said: 'I had a temporary job at a sports shop but when I took in
two medical certificates saying I had my appendix out twice they
didn't believe me.
'Now I'm helpless. I can't go out and find a job, I can't go to
interviews, I can barely walk and am in constant pain. Before the
first operation they told me I had to have my appendix removed and
when I woke up afterwards they said it had been a complete success.
'But then I keeled over in agony one month later and when they did
some tests at the hospital we could see the appendix was still there
on the scans.
'As far as I was aware they took my appendix out and no one told me
any different.
'I have no idea what they did take out, but I want to find out what
went wrong.'
A spokesman for Great Western Hospital confirmed that a representative
had met Mr Wattson and that an investigation had been started.
He was unable to confirm what, if anything, was removed in the first
operation.
Paul Gearing, deputy general manager for general surgery at Great
Western Hospital NHS Trust, said: 'We are unable to comment on
individual cases.
'However, we would like to apologise if Mr Wattson felt dissatisfied
with the care he received at Great Western Hospital.'
Compensation payments to NHS patients have risen by 20 per cent in the
past year to a record high of �769million. At this rate more than
�2million a day is being paid over claims against the Health Service.
Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208970/Man-collapses-
ruptured-appendix--weeks-NHS-doctors-took-out.html#ixzz0PHxtcGNS
________
The babies born in hospital corridors: Bed shortage forces 4,000
mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilets
By Jenny Hope and Nick Mcdermott
Last updated at 8:36 AM on 26th August 2009
Maternity crisis: Women are giving birth in lifts and even toilets
Thousands of women are having to give birth outside maternity wards
because of a lack of midwives and hospital beds.
The lives of mothers and babies are being put at risk as births in
locations ranging from lifts to toilets - even a caravan - went up 15
per cent last year to almost 4,000.
Health chiefs admit a lack of maternity beds is partly to blame for
the crisis, with hundreds of women in labour being turned away from
hospitals because they are full.
Latest figures show that over the past two years there were at least:
63 births in ambulances and 608 in transit to hospitals;
117 births in A&E departments, four in minor injury units and two in
medical assessment areas;
115 births on other hospital wards and 36 in other unspecified areas
including corridors;
399 in parts of maternity units other than labour beds, including
postnatal and antenatal wards and reception areas.
Additionally, overstretched maternity units shut their doors to any
more women in labour on 553 occasions last year.
Babies were born in offices, lifts, toilets and a caravan, according
to the Freedom of Information data for 2007 and 2008 from 117 out of
147 trusts which provide maternity services.
One woman gave birth in a lift while being transferred to a labour
ward from A&E while another gave birth in a corridor, said East
Cheshire NHS Trust.
Others said women had to give birth on the wards - rather than in
their own maternity room - because the delivery suites were full.
Tory health spokesman Andrew Lansley, who obtained the figures, said
Labour had cut maternity beds by 2,340, or 22 per cent, since 1997. At
the same time birth rates have been rising sharply - up 20 per cent in
some areas.
Mr Lansley said: 'New mothers should not be being put through the
trauma of having to give birth in such inappropriate places.
More...Woman gives birth on pavement 'after being refused ambulance
and told to walk'
Father turned away from hospital with pregnant wife delivers baby on
bathroom floor - and saves his daughter's life
'While some will be unavoidable emergencies, it is extremely
distressing for them and their families to be denied a labour bed
because their maternity unit is full.
'It shows the incredible waste that has taken place that mothers are
getting this sort of sub-standard treatment despite Gordon Brown's
tripling of spending on the NHS.
'Labour have let down mothers by cutting the number of maternity beds
and by shutting down maternity units.'
The NHS employs the equivalent of around 25,000 full-time midwives in
England, but the Government has promised to recruit 3,400 more.
However, the Royal College of Midwives estimates at least 5,000 more
are needed to provide the quality of service pledged in the
Government's blueprint for maternity services, Maternity Matters.
At the same time almost half of all midwives are set to retire in the
next decade.
Jon Skewes, a director at the Royal College of Midwives, said: 'The
rise in the number of births in other than a designated labour bed is
a concern. We would want to see the detail behind these figures to
look at why this is happening.
'There is no doubt that maternity services are stretched, and that
midwives are working harder and harder to provide good quality care.
However, we know the Government is putting more money into the
service.
'The key now is to make sure this money is spent by the people
controlling the purse strings at a local level.'
Care services minister Phil Hope said: 'The number of maternity beds
in the NHS reflects the number of women wanting to give birth in
hospital. Giving birth can be unpredictableand it is difficult to plan
for the exact time and place of every birth.
'Local health services have plans to ensure high quality, personal
care with greater choice over place of birth and care provided by a
named midwife.
'We recognise that some parts of the country face particular
challenges due to the rising birth rate and that is why last year we
pledged to increase funding for maternity by �330million over three
years.
'We now have more maternity staff than ever before and we have already
met our target to recruit 1,000 extra midwives by September.'
Case study: I gave birth in a car
Pregnant Linda Corbett, 33, was turned away from one hospital and gave
birth in a car as she dashed to another.
Her husband Chris, 39, delivered their daughter Iona in the back seat
while her father raced to the hospital at 70mph.
'I was really scared but I had to hold it together as I was the only
one who knew the way to the hospital,' she said.
Fighting start: Linda and Chris Corbett with daughter Iona who was
born in the back of a car
'The baby was born just as we entered the car park.' Mrs Corbett,
pictured, was due to give birth at her Brighton home in June last year
but when she phoned the Royal Sussex County Hospital after her
contractions started she was told the maternity unit was too busy to
send a midwife to her.
When she phoned back later, she was told the unit was full and she
would have to go to another hospital. Fifteen minutes later she gave
birth.
She said: 'We had such a happy ending but it could have been a
disaster.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209034/The-babies-
born-hospital-corridors-Bed-shortage-forces-4-000-mothers-
birth-lifts-offices-hospital-toilets.html#ixzz0PHxUz2OB
Obama Nation Is An Abomination
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 02:55:52 GMT, nos...@here.org (Obama Nation Is An
>Abomination) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 21:55:04 -0500, Peter Principle
>><petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And you think an article about a handful of bad nurses in a system with a
>>>NINETY-FUCKING-EIGHT PERCENT CUSTOMER SATISFACTION RATING germane to the
>>>stupid asshole Big Lies shot all to hell by FACTS how, precisely, cowardly
>>>rightard maroon?
>>Man collapses with ruptured appendix... three weeks after NHS doctors
>>'took it out'
>>By Daniel Bates
>>Last updated at 12:15 AM on 26th August 2009
>
>Can't face the FACTS, eh, cowardly stupid asshole rightard. All you can do
>is cite anecdotal SINGLE examples of bad outcomes in a system that treats
>TENS OF MILLIONS OR PATIENTS A YEAR, NINETY-FUCKING-EIGHT PERCENT OF WHO ARE
>SATISFIED?
Canadians Flooding Into Michigan For Health Care
http://freep.com/article/20090820/BUSINESS06/908200420/1319/
______
Canadian Health Officials: Our Universal Health Care Is 'Sick,'
Private Insurance Should Be Welcomed
Monday, August 17, 2009
Dr. Anne Doig, the incoming president of the Canadian Medical
Association, said her country�s health care system is �sick� and
�imploding,� the Canadian Press reported.
�We know there must be change,� Doig said in a recent interview.
�We�re all running flat out, we�re all just trying to stay ahead of
the immediate day-to-day demands.�
Canada�s universal health care system is not giving patients optimal
care, Doig added. When her colleagues from across the country gather
at the CMA conference in Saskatoon Sunday, they will discuss changes
that need to be made, she said.
�We all agree the system is imploding, we all agree that things are
more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize,� she said.
Current president of the CMA, Dr. Robert Ouellet, will make a
presentation at the conference about his findings when he toured
Europe in January, and met with health groups in several countries.
Ouellet has said that �competition should be welcomed, not feared,�
meaning private health insurance should have a role in the public
health system.
Doig said she isn�t sure what kind of changes will be proposed when
the conference wraps up, but she does know that changes have to come �
and fast. She said she understands that universal health care, while
good in some ways, has not always been helpful for sick people or
their families.
"(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now
� if it keeps on going without change � is not sustainable," Doig
said.
squirltop
Obama Nation Is An Abomination wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 21:29:33 -0500, Peter Principle
> <petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Rightards lie. It's what they do. That, and fear mongering. It's all they
> >have. They are the Party of No working for the Audacity of Nope. They have
> >no ideas, no power, no influence and no prospects. So they lie.
>
> 'Cruel and neglectful' care of one million NHS patients exposed
> One million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling care in
> hospitals across Britain, according to a major report released today.
>
> By Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor
> Published: 12:01AM BST 27 Aug 2009
>
> Comments 115 | Comment on this article
>
>
> One million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling care in
> hospitals across Britain, according to a major report released today
> Photo: CLARE KENDALL
> In the last six years, the Patients Association claims hundreds of
> thousands have suffered from poor standards of nursing, often with
> 'neglectful, demeaning, painful and sometimes downright cruel'
> treatment.
>
This is America chester, we have our own scumbag healthcare issues to
deal with.
Obama Nation Is An Abomination
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Gee, I can't wait for Obamacare and Socialized Medicine
Check out some of the recent headlines from the U.K. and its "National
Health Service" (NHS). This is the type of system that Obama and the
Statists intend to implement. Feel better yet?
NHS 'failings' over elderly falls: 3/25/2009 [BBC]
Learning disabled 'failed by NHS': 3/24/2009 [BBC]
Cancer survivor confronts the health secretary on 62-day wait:
3/21/2009 [The Scotsman]
Culture of targets prevents nurses from tending to patients: Patients
Association, 3/21/2009 [Telegraph UK]
Children being failed by health system, says head of watchdog: Sarah
Boseley, 3/21/2009 [Guardian Unlimited]
Our cancer shame: Survival rates still lag behind EU despite spending
billions: 3/20/2009 [Daily Mail(UK)]
Failing hospital 'caused deaths': 3/17/2009 [BBC]
Health gap drive 'wasted money': 3/14/2009 [BBC]
Longer GP opening hours branded wasteful 'PR exercise' by doctors:
3/13/2009 [The Scotsman]
"Political meddling" threatens general practice, warns GP leader:
3/13/2009 [Management in Practice (UK)]
Children at risk through lack of training for doctors and nurses,
report warns: 3/13/2009 [Telegraph UK]
Chocolate should be taxed to control obesity epidemic, doctors are
told: 3/13/2009 [Telegraph UK]
1,000 wait for a dentist after just one NHS practice opens: 3/10/2009
[Daily Mail(UK)]
Study proves the folly of NHS Alzheimer's drug ban: 3/7/2009 [Daily
Mail(UK)]
NHS charges to rise in England: 3/5/2009 [BBC]
Disabled children wait up to two years for wheelchairs: 3/4/2009
[Guardian Unlimited]
NHS under fire over waiting times: 2/25/2009 [The Scotsman]
Specialist nurses 'vastly overworked': 2/20/2009 [Harwich &
Manningtree Standard]
Hundreds of operations cancelled at Lothian hospitals: 2/19/2009 [The
Scotsman]
Stop asking for antibiotics to cure coughs and colds, Government tells
patients: 2/17/2009 [Daily Mail(UK)]
Stroke services are 'UK's worst' : 2/17/2009 [BBC]
Hospitals curb caesarean births: 2/15/2009 [The Times]
Only five out of 51 hospital trusts pass hygiene test, say inspectors:
11/24/2008 [Guardian Unlimited]
Top doctors slam NHS drug rationing: 8/24/2008 [The Times]
Heart patients dying due to poor hospital care, says report: Sarah
Boseley, June 8/2008 [Guardian Unlimited]
NHS dentistry loses almost a million patients after new dentists'
contract: David Rose, 6/6/2008 [The Times]
Private healthcare managers could be sent to turn round failing NHS
hospitals: 6/4/2008 [The Times]
Cancer patients �ｿｽbetrayed�ｿｽ by NHS: Sarah-Kate Templeton, 6/1/2008 [The
Times]
NHS scandal: dying cancer victim was forced to pay: Sarah-Kate
Templeton, June 1/2008 [The Times]
Pensioner, 76, forced to pull out own teeth after 12 NHS dentists
refuse to treat her: 3/26/2008 [Daily Mail(UK)]
Dental patients face care lottery: 3/26/2008 [Metro(UK)]
Lung patients 'condemned to death as NHS withdraws their too expensive
drugs': 3/24/2008 [Daily Mail(UK)]
Women in labour turned away by maternity units: 3/21/2008 [Guardian
Unlimited]
Health inequality has got worse under Labour, says government report:
3/13/2008 [Guardian Unlimited]
Angry GPs reluctantly accept plan for weekend and evening surgeries:
John Carvel, 3/7/2008 [Guardian Unlimited]
NHS chiefs tell grandmother, 61, she's 'too old' for �ｿｽ5,000
life-saving heart surgery: 2/28/2008 [Daily Mail(UK)]
Patient 'removed' from waiting list to meet target: 1/31/2008 [The
Scotsman]
NHS patients told to treat themselves: James Kirkup, 1/4/2008
[Telegraph UK]
NHS is 'failing patients' despite record funding: 10/4/2007 [Telegraph
UK]
NHS rationing rife, say doctors: 9/24/2007 [BBC]
One in eight patients waiting over a year for treatment, admits
minister: 6/8/2007 [Guardian Unlimited]
Audit Office asked to investigate record �ｿｽ500m NHS underspend: John
Carvel, 5/30/2007 [Guardian Unlimited]
The drugs the NHS won't give you: 5/11/2007 [Telegraph UK]
UK lagging behind on cancer drug access, study finds: 5/10/2007
[Guardian Unlimited]
One in six trusts is still putting patients on mixed-sex wards: Daniel
Martin, 5/10/2007 [Daily Mail(UK)]
Specialist stroke care 'lottery': 5/9/2007 [BBC News]
Smokers and the obese banned from UK hospitals: 5/2/2007 [Healthcare
News]
Cancer patients told life-prolonging treatment is too expensive for
NHS: Lyndsay Moss, 2/13/2007 [The Scotsman]
UK health service "harms 10 percent of patients": 7/7/2006 [Reuters]
5,000 elderly 'killed each year' by lack of care beds: 6/26/2006
[Telegraph UK]
Pay for nurses and surgeons doubles NHS overspend: 4/23/2006
[Telegraph UK]
The money addicts: it's your cash they are gambling with: 4/23/2006
[Telegraph UK]
NHS chiefs get luxury car deals: 4/9/2006 [The Times]
Secret NHS plan to ration patient care: 4/7/2006 [The Times]
British Healthcare To Be Rationed: 4/7/2006 [UPI]
British body rejects EPO drugs for cancer patients: 3/17/2006
[Reuters]
National Health Service - Grappling with Deficits: 3/9/2006
[Economist.com]
Hundreds wait to register as another dentist quits the NHS: 9/23/2005
[The Herald (Scotland)]
Life-saving cancer drugs 'kept from NHS patients by red tape':
9/20/2005 [The Times]
NHS slides into the red despite record increases in health care
spending: 9/20/2005 [Telegraph UK]
Alzheimer's sufferers hit by further delay in NHS approval for vital
drugs: 9/18/2005 [Telegraph UK]
We all pay a price for our 'free' NHS: John Smith, 8/19/2005 [The
Scotsman]
2,000 British doctors out of work: 8/14/2005 [The Washington Times]
UK health 'unsustainable': 8/14/2005 [Finance24]
NHS faces rising bill for negligence claims: 8/8/2005 [Financial
Times]
British boy to go to India for operation: 8/5/2005 [United Press
International]
NHS failed to stop doctor raping scores of women: 7/31/2005 [The
Times]
Top crimewriter funds drugs for cancer victim refused by NHS: 7/8/2005
[Telegraph UK]
Report says NHS is mired in huge debts: David Simms, 6/25/2005 [ABC
Money (UK)]
U.K. set to restrict smoking: 6/21/2005 [The Associated Press]
NHS �ｿｽfund bias�ｿｽ against men cost 2,500 lives a year: 6/19/2005 [The
Times]
Doubts on funding NHS 'monuments': Nicholas Timmins, 6/10/2005
[Financial Times]
17 million reasons why we must improve hospital meals: 6/7/2005
[Cambridge Evening News]
Figures show more patients waiting for operations: 6/3/2005 [Guardian
UK]
Scarcity of NHS dental treatment is revealed: Celia Hall, 5/19/2005
[telegraph.co.uk]
Why NHS Opposes 'Treatment by Demand' for the Dying: 5/18/2005
[Scotsman]
800 queue for NHS dentists: 5/5/2005 [telegraph.co.uk]
Hundreds more heroin addicts to be given a fix on the NHS: Nic
Fleming, 4/25/2005 [telegraph.co.uk]
British health service facing nurse exodus: 4/25/2005 [United Press
International]
About 400 patients a year in Scotland succumb to MRSA: 4/25/2005
[Scotsman]
NHS debts soar to over �ｿｽ1bn: Karyn Miller, 4/24/2005 [telegraph.co.uk]
British taxpayers foot $26.5 million bill for abortion tourists:
4/18/2005 [Catholic World News]
U.K. Liberal Democrats Would Raise Taxes to Pay for Health Care: Reed
Landberg, 4/14/2005 [Bloomberg]
Number of NHS Bureaucrats 'Rising Faster Than Health Staff': 3/22/2005
[Scotsman]
'�ｿｽ500m hole' in hospital budgets: 3/21/2005 [telegraph.co.uk]
1,000 Scots desert NHS every week: 3/5/2005 [Scotsman]
British NHS facing financial crisis: 3/3/2005 [Washington Times]
NHS drugs regulator to withdraw approval of Alzheimer's treatment:
Nicholas Timmins, 3/2/2005 [FT.com]
NHS waiting list rises: 2/11/2005 [Guardian UK]
Tumour patients hit by NHS shortages: 2/6/2005 [Guardian UK]
NHS financial crises set to outlast winter: 2/4/2005 [Yorkshire Post]
NHS 24 'priority' callers wait four hours for advice: 1/14/2005
[Evening Times (UK)]
'No strategy' on NHS waiting time: 1/14/2005 [BBC]
Output figures show NHS decline: John Carvel, 10/19/2004 [Guardian UK]
Heart patients die on waiting lists: 10/18/2004 [Manchester Online]
�ｿｽ25bn overspend feared for NHS computer network: 10/12/2004
[telegraph.co.uk]
Gaps in care cost �ｿｽ7bn, says charity: 10/4/2004 [Guardian UK]
NHS excluding poor people, UK: 9/15/2004 [Medical News Today]
Smokers 'should not get NHS care': 9/6/2004 [BBC News]
Waiting list row blights Brighton: 9/4/2004 [Guardian UK]
Patients are denied the last rites under data protection law:
7/25/2004 [telegraph.co.uk]
Shortage of dentists to double by 2011: 7/24/2004 [Guardian UK]
Britain's stiff upper lip gives way to a snarl: Sarah Lyall, 7/18/2004
[The New York Times]
Hospital Overcrowding A Cause of Superbug Infections: John von
Radowitz, 7/1/2004 [Scotsman.com]
Hospital Crisis: Fallen Angels: Lindsay Mcgarvie, 5/23/2004 [Glasgow
Sunday Mail]
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:25:05 -0500, Peter Principle
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 03:05:21 GMT, nos...@here.org (Obama Nation Is An
>Abomination) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:05:36 -0500, Peter Principle
>><petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 02:55:52 GMT, nos...@here.org (Obama Nation Is An
>>>Abomination) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 21:55:04 -0500, Peter Principle
>>>><petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And you think an article about a handful of bad nurses in a system with a
>>>>>NINETY-FUCKING-EIGHT PERCENT CUSTOMER SATISFACTION RATING germane to the
>>>>>stupid asshole Big Lies shot all to hell by FACTS how, precisely, cowardly
>>>>>rightard maroon?
>>>>Man collapses with ruptured appendix... three weeks after NHS doctors
>>>>'took it out'
>>>>By Daniel Bates
>>>>Last updated at 12:15 AM on 26th August 2009
>>>
>>>Can't face the FACTS, eh, cowardly stupid asshole rightard. All you can do
>>>is cite anecdotal SINGLE examples of bad outcomes in a system that treats
>>>TENS OF MILLIONS OR PATIENTS A YEAR, NINETY-FUCKING-EIGHT PERCENT OF WHO ARE
>>>SATISFIED?
>>
>>Canadians Flooding Into Michigan For Health Care
>
>And what major mental malfunction causes you to stupidly think that in any
>way relevant, considering the ABSOLUTE FACT that no one - nobody, not
>anyone, not one fucking person - has put forth a single payer bill in any
>way even REMOTELY similar to Canada?
>
>Not to mention, you stupid fuck, once again your own citation makes a giant
>hairy lying ass out of you. It's the CANADIAN health care system that's
>providing those visits, as your own citation makes crystal clear, you stupid
>fuck...
>
>------
>Agreements between Detroit hospitals and the Ontario Ministry of Health and
>Long-Term Care for heart, imaging tests, bariatric and other services
>provide access to some services not immediately available in the province,
>said ministry spokesman David Jensen.
>
>The agreements show how a country with a national care system -- a proposal
>not part of the health care changes under discussion in Congress -- copes
>with demand for care with U.S. partnerships, rather than building new
>facilities.
>
>Michael Vujovich, 61, of Windsor was taken to Detroit's Henry Ford Hospital
>for an angioplasty procedure after he went to a Windsor hospital in April.
>Vujovich said the U.S. backup doesn't show a gap in Canada's system, but
>shows how it works.
>
>"I go to the hospital in Windsor and two hours later, I'm done having
>angioplasty in Detroit," he said. His $38,000 bill was covered by the
>Ontario health ministry.
>------
>
>OOPS! One more stupid rightard Big Lie about health care shot all to hell by
>REALITY...
>
>Not to mention, you stupid fuck, as usual, REALITY has completely eluded
>your desiccated rat turd of a brain. Canadians, like the British, are VERY
>happy with their health care system. It's Americans, you stupid fuck, who
>are not.
>
>Witness, you stupid fuck, yet another dose of REALITY your 're too much of a
>WATB chicken-shit moron to face, much less refute. Here, you stupid fuck,
>from your own rightard nooz droids...
>
>------
>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136990,00.html
>
>Americans are more dissatisfied than citizens of other nations with their
>basic health care (search) even while paying more of their own money for
>treatment, a five-nation survey released Thursday notes.
>
>The study shows that people in the U.S. face longer wait times to see
>doctors and have more trouble getting care on evenings or weekends than do
>people in other industrialized countries. At the same time, Americans were
>more likely to receive advice on disease prevention and self-care than
>others.
>
>One-third of Americans told pollsters that the U.S. health care system
>should be completely rebuilt, far more than residents of Australia, Canada,
>New Zealand, or the U.K. Just 16 percent of Americans said that the U.S.
>health care system needs only minor changes, the lowest number expressing
>approval among the countries surveyed.
>------
>
>OOPS! One more stupid asshole rightard Big Lie about health care shot all to
>shit with REALITY. But health care is really about RESULTS. And guess what,
>foam duck. Canada sees BETTER results than we do. Witness...
>-----
>http://ihea2009.abstractbook.org/presentation/1689/
>
>The Canadians tend to be healthier than the Americans, more likely to smoke,
>be white, and lead a sedentary lifestyle. They are less likely to suffer
>from hypertension, arthritis, and less likely to have a college degree.
>Significant differences between Canadians and Americans occur in several of
>the access and quality variables. These include having a regular doctor (90%
>Canada, 83% US), needing medicines but not being able to afford them (7%
>Canada, 12% US), having a dental visit last year (53% Canada, 63% US)
>
>Authors: Stephan Gohmann, University of Louisville
>------
>
>Next stupid asshole rightard Big Lie, please...
>
>---
>Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
>------
>Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
>
>http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
>�ｿｽ 1999 by the American Psychological Association
Patriot Games
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
From: Peter Perfect <petes...@gSNIPTHISPARTmail.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.188.230.193
From: Hans Metterling <hans.me...@SNIPITgmail.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.188.230.193
"Hans Metterling" is the PEDOPHILE alter-ego "Peter Perfect" tries to
hide:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 01:28:08 -0500, Hans Metterling
<hans.me...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>...the age of consent in Hawaii is 14.
Handjob Metterling caught LYING, again.
The age of consent in Hawaii is 16.
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
>there is NOWHERE in the ENTIRE
>UNITED STATES where the age of consent if higher than 16.
Handjob Metterling caught LYING, again.
If you're a "Traveling Citizen" its always 18.
If you're a "Military personnel" its always 17.
Arizona 18
California 18
Illinois 17
Nebraska 17
New Mexico 17
North Dakota 18
Oregon 18
Tennessee 18
Virginia 18
Wisconsin 18
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
Obama Nation = Abomination
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:44:38 -0500, Peter Principle
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 11:58:09 GMT, nos...@here.org (Obama Nation Is An
>Abomination) wrote:
>
>>
>>Wednesday, April 01, 2009
>>Gee, I can't wait for Obamacare and Socialized Medicine
>>
>>Check out some of the recent headlines from the U.K. and its "National
>>Health Service" (NHS). This is the type of system that Obama and the
>>Statists intend to implement. Feel better yet?
>
><yawn>
>
>So, you STILL can't face the FACTS, eh, cowardly stupid asshole rightard?
>All you can do is copy & paste anecdotal SINGLE examples of bad outcomes in
>a system that treats TENS OF MILLIONS OR PATIENTS A YEAR,
>NINETY-FUCKING-EIGHT PERCENT OF WHO ARE SATISFIED? Can you not even form a
>cogent argument of your own, moron?
>
>Worry not, moron. That's a purely *rhetorical* question. Nobody here really
>expects an imbecile like to be able to form a cogent argument.
>
>Once again, you stupid motherfucker, it's an ABSOLUTE FACT that NINETY-EIGHT
>PERCENT of Brits are satisfied with NHS. It's also an ABSOLUTE FACT that
>only 53% of Americans are satisfied with our health care system. So, your,
>em, "point" is heaven forfend *we* have a health care system that 98% of us
>are satisfied with?
>
>BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, whew! Brill-yent, iz yoo!
>
>You keep bringing up NHS, Dip Thunker. Not only is NO ONE talking about
>implementing a NHS style plan here, moron, but the SPECTACULAR SUCCESS of
>the NHS completely undermines every single one of your own points, save the
>one on top of your head. Boy, howdy, but don't that make you look klever!
>
>Gee, rightard maroon, ya thunk dere maght jess be sum zamples o' bad
>outcomes HERE, too, duz ya, ya frickin IDJUT?
>
><snort>
>
>Try again, lying POS, this time maybe try something NOT intensely STUPID.
>Once again, here are the FACTS your cowardly stupid ass can't face, much
>less even try to refute in any way. Enjoy!
>
>Rightards lie. It's what they do. That, and fear mongering. It's all they
>have. They are the Party of No working for the Audacity of Nope. They have
>no ideas, no power, no influence and no prospects.
>
>Check back often to see the next batch of rightard whack-a-mole Big Lies
>shot all to hell with facts...
>
>---
>Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
>------
>Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
>
>http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
>� 1999 by the American Psychological Association
Harold Burton
Pecker Principle <petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> ranted:
> BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, whew!
>
> Kook-koo, koo-koo, koo-koo...
>
> But hey, master of strategery, thanks ever so much for helping me keep the
> important subject of debunking RIGHTARD LIES about health care front and
> center.
>
> Anchoo da klever bunnee!
>
> So, you STILL can't face the FACTS, eh, cowardly stupid asshole rightard?
> All you can do is copy & paste anecdotal SINGLE examples of bad outcomes in
> a system that treats TENS OF MILLIONS OR PATIENTS A YEAR,
> NINETY-FUCKING-EIGHT PERCENT OF WHO ARE SATISFIED? Can you not even form a
> cogent argument of your own, moron?
>
> Worry not, moron. That's a purely *rhetorical* question. Nobody here really
> expects an imbecile like to be able to form a cogent argument.
>
> Once again, you stupid motherfucker, it's an ABSOLUTE FACT that NINETY-EIGHT
> PERCENT of Brits are satisfied with NHS. It's also an ABSOLUTE FACT that
> only 53% of Americans are satisfied with our health care system. So, your,
> em, "point" is heaven forfend *we* have a health care system that 98% of us
> are satisfied with?
>
> BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, whew! Brill-yent, iz yoo!
>
> You keep bringing up NHS, Dip Thunker. Not only is NO ONE talking about
> implementing a NHS style plan here, moron, but the SPECTACULAR SUCCESS of
> the NHS completely undermines every single one of your own points, save the
> one on top of your head. Boy, howdy, but don't that make you look klever!
>
> Gee, rightard maroon, ya thunk dere maght jess be sum zamples o' bad
> outcomes HERE, too, duz ya, ya frickin IDJUT?
>
> <snort>
>
> Try again, lying POS, this time maybe try something NOT intensely STUPID.
> Once again, here are the FACTS your cowardly stupid ass can't face, much
> less even try to refute in any way. Enjoy!
>
> But even by filthy rightard liar standards, the huge piles of fear mongering
> bullshit the GOPhools have been shoveling out in a desperate bid to derail
> badly needed health care reform reaches a new low in rightard mendacity.
typical inane pecker principle rant.....like this one:
"That so, is it, lying sack of conservadolt shit? Then your stupid,
lying ass should have no trouble whatsoever finding a citation to [Molly
Ivins] EVER being employed by the NYT in any capacity whatsoever.
Begin, lying piece of rightard shit, if you're not just another
impotent, cowardly, stupid, insignificant little asshole furiously
farting asinine FUD you can't begin to back up, that is..."
Getting it totally wrong is pecker principle's stock in trade.
Snicker.
Obama Nation = Abomination
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/manufactured_healthcare_crisis.html
Manufactured Healthcare Crisis
By James Simpson
These are perilous times. Last November's election of Barack Obama and
a filibuster-proof majority of Democrats in both houses allowed a
virulent cabal to capture our nation's seat of power. As with the
Democrat takeover of Congress in 2006, it was a disaster of epic
proportions. With one shocking, enormous, blatantly partisan,
self-serving and destructive proposal following on the heels of
another, the sheer enormity of their power grab defies description.
But as each new proposal moves forward, the hand of the Crisis
Strategy becomes clear.
If there were ever any doubt that Barack Obama personifies the Crisis
Strategy, it should long since have been removed for anyone with a
mind. Since so many Americans seem to have lost theirs, I address this
to the rest of you. For with God's help, it is you and I, not our
gutless, hapless, corrupt politicians, nor our sleeping populus that
will save this country or allow it to fall.
For those of you who aren't familiar with it, the Crisis Strategy was
the brainchild of two radical socialist college professors, Richard
Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. The idea was to overwhelm government
with demands for services to the point where the system would collapse
and provide an opening for the socialists to take over. Their strategy
was behind creation of the National Welfare Rights Organization in the
1960s and 1970s which dramatically increased the welfare roles and
caused the near bankruptcy of New York City in 1975; creation of the
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), prime
instigators of the mortgage meltdown; the national Motor Voter law
signed by President Clinton in 1993, which opened the floodgates to
vote fraud by ACORN and similar groups; and the illegal immigrant
amnesty movement. As we all should know by now, Barack Obama worked
with and trained ACORN workers for many years, and is known and
supported by all the major players in this movement.
Healthcare nationalization is a major component of this strategy. The
Left has agitated almost since the turn of the last century for some
kind of socialized healthcare system. In fact, from 1939 forward,
practically every Congressional session proposed national healthcare
legislation. As aptly described in an incisive analysis of Medicare by
the Cato Institute:
For more than 50 years before the 1965 enactment of Medicare, the
American people repeatedly rejected the idea of government-mandated
health insurance. Yet advocates of such federal power inside and
outside of government did not take no for an answer. Year after year
they kept coming back--pursuing incremental strategies,
misrepresenting their proposals, even distributing propaganda paid for
with government money in apparent violation of existing law.
Their dream was partially realized with creation of Medicare and
Medicaid in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson's "Great
Society." The stated goal of these programs was to provide
comprehensive healthcare for seniors and the poor. As the programs
grew, the Left clamored for ever more benefits to these groups and
ever expanding definitions of covered individuals. Illegal
immigration, also encouraged by the Left, contributed to a rapidly
growing pool of beneficiaries.
Like any free good, demand for services under these programs has
skyrocketed. Spending levels were insignificant in the early years,
but today Medicare and Medicaid today comprise 36 percent of total US
healthcare spending.
Medicare was originally to be funded with "Hospital Insurance" (HI)
premiums tacked onto the Social Security FICA tax. No one seriously
believed the HI tax would cover all costs. And despite more than
quadrupling the HI tax rate from 0.7 percent to 2.9 percent, it
hasn't. Today HI taxes cover a mere 40 percent of Medicare spending.
About 21 percent comes from premiums paid by beneficiaries and other
sources. Fully 39 percent comes from general revenues (i.e. you and
me, pal.) Citation here.
Medicaid is funded roughly 50/50 by federal and state governments. As
an essentially free benefit to the poor, Medicaid has no tax
associated with it, so it is covered by state and federal income tax
revenues -- that's you and me again, sucker. In 2006, Medicaid
spending alone totaled $314 billion. For perspective, this is roughly
equivalent to the baseline defense budget (i.e. excluding war spending
like for Iraq/Afghanistan). State Medicaid programs are the largest
single recipient of all federal grants, comprising 43 percent of the
total.
In 2008, federal Medicaid and Medicare spending totaled $676 billion.
Comprising only 2 percent of the federal budget in 1967, these two
programs today consume 23 percent of total federal spending. This is
the largest component of the federal budget, even exceeding total
wartime outlays for national defense.
Corrected for inflation, total federal and state government spending
on healthcare has increased by 2,735 percent since Medicaid and
Medicare funding began in 1967. That is a real annual growth rate of
8.5 percent, almost three times the annual rate of economic growth for
the same period![1]
All these effects were predicted by economists, and we were repeatedly
warned. The Left knew.
These spiraling costs have to be covered somehow. The Left knew this
too. Besides raiding the General Fund, the federal government has used
its monopsony power to strong arm ever greater price concessions from
the healthcare industry. Medicare and Medicaid reimburse doctors a
small and shrinking portion of the fees they charge. Private insurance
on the other hand, provides a larger reimbursement, and uninsured
individuals who do not qualify for the government programs pay full
price. These prices are much higher than they would be in absence of
the government programs because medical providers have to recoup their
costs somehow. And because the pool of Medicare and Medicaid
recipients continues to grow, prices keep going up.
For example, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons recently
responded to President Obama's wildly false claim that Surgeons charge
"$30,000, $40,000 [or] $50,000" for a foot amputation. Instead they
say, "Medicare reimbursements to physicians for foot amputations range
from approximately $700 to $1200 which includes the follow up care the
surgeon provides to the patient up to 90 days after the operation."
That is simply outrageous!
Private insurance on the other hand, provides a larger reimbursement,
and uninsured individuals who do not qualify for the government
programs pay full price. These prices are much higher than they would
be in absence of the government programs because medical providers
have to recoup their costs somehow. And because the pool of Medicare
and Medicaid recipients continues to grow, prices keep going up.
So while private citizens pay the lion's share of taxes to fund
Medicare and Medicaid, we are also cross-subsidizing these government
programs through higher insurance premiums than we would otherwise
pay. This is a primary reason medical care has become more expensive.
The left has attacked the private healthcare system from another angle
as well: malpractice lawsuits. It has gone largely unreported in the
mass media, but the dramatic expansion of all forms of liability
lawsuits since the 1960s is the result of a deliberate, organized
effort by leftist law professors to turn civil courts into agents of
income redistribution. By undermining contract law and expanding the
definition of liability - ideas advocated at leading law schools --
legal precedents have allowed trial lawyers to pick the pockets of
American business as never before. Liability costs have skyrocketed as
a result.
We see the consequences of their handiwork directly in the increased
cost of products, liability insurance of all kinds, and the decline or
in some cases elimination of domestic industries. According to a study
performed by the Pacific Research Institute (PRI), the United States
pays out $589 billion per year in excessive tort litigation. That is
approximately 5 percent of GDP and costs a family of four on average
about $8,000 per year.
Glorified ambulance chaser and Democratic Presidential Candidate John
Edwards made his millions suing doctors for procedures that are
inherently risky, and greatly increased jury awards with a new
innovation: suing nurses, anesthesiologists, hospitals and anyone else
in his path. The following words are from one doctor:
"The John Edwards we know crushed [obstetrics, gynecology] and
neurosurgery in North Carolina," said Dr. Craig VanDerVeer, a
Charlotte neurosurgeon. "As a result, thousands of patients lost their
health care."
Following are some statistics on medical malpractice liability from
the PRI report:
�Approximately $124 billion dollars is spent annually by the health
care profession to avoid medical liability.
�About $30 billion more is spent on direct liability lawsuit costs.
�Malpractice liability cost is 1 percent of GDP and increases the cost
of healthcare by approximately 7 percent.
�These added costs deny health insurance coverage to between 2.4 and
4.3 million people, according to the Department of Health and Human
Services.
The increasing costs of medical care resulting from Medicare, Medicaid
and the dramatic growth of malpractice lawsuits have provided
activists with the rationale they need to agitate for socialized
medicine.
This has been their strategy all along.
Medicare and Medicaid were designed to undermine private healthcare,
making it ever more expensive and unmanageable, until enough interest
could be generated for systemic change. Similarly, changes in tort law
aimed at turning our courts into vehicles for income redistribution
have overburdened our legal system with massive caseloads and the
highest liability costs in the world.
While doubtless many thought they were doing good, the ultimate goal,
as elucidated by the Left, has everywhere and always been Socialism.
Furthermore, they grossly overstate the problem. We hear constantly
about the "47 million uninsured." These figures include 10 to 25
million illegal immigrants, 14 million people who are already eligible
for medical benefits but haven't availed themselves, and 10 million
people earning $75,000 or more who could presumably afford their own
insurance if they chose to. Even assuming the lowest estimate for
illegal immigrants, the true number of uninsured would be only 13
million. Yet the Democrats want to nationalize the entire industry,
currently 17 percent of GDP, to provide benefits to 4 percent of the
U.S. population.
And while medical costs increase due largely to government
manufactured problems, shrinking returns in the healthcare industry
put doctors and hospitals out of business. Meanwhile, the astronomical
cost of medical school plus this increasingly hostile atmosphere
toward the private medical market is turning more and more qualified
people away from the medical field entirely. Costs increase while
supply decreases, the classic consequence of government intervention.
Yet Obama and the brain-dead Democrat Congress want to give us a
government-run system that will guarantee magnitudes more of the same.
Can you see the Left laughing at you?
However, their true motives have finally been exposed. For seniors
ObamaCare essentially advocates euthanasia. Benefits will be
drastically cut, and in some cases will become completely unavailable.
As Obama said publicly: "Maybe you're better off not having the
surgery, but taking the painkiller." In other words, if you think you
are going to die anyway, why don't you just save us the money and go
ahead...
For others it will mean a dramatic reduction in both the availability
and quality of care. Obama's health policy advisor Ezekiel Emmanuel
(brother of Rahm Emmanuel) admits as much. He even wants doctors to
reconsider the Hippocratic Oath:
Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to
blame for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and
post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Physicians
take the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the
sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do
everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on
others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.)
Of course that is what patients hope their doctors will do. But Dr.
Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their own patient
and consider social justice (emphasis mine.) They should think about
whether the money being spent on their patient could be better spent
elsewhere.
Who are these people?
The Left has relentlessly insisted for decades that we pay every penny
for care of indigents, the poor, illegals and elderly to the point
where hospitals are closing their doors because they can no longer
afford it. But once given the opportunity to transfer this
responsibility to the government, their message to the elderly and the
rest of us is essentially: drop dead!
Let me put this as bluntly as possible. The Left has never cared about
the elderly or the poor, but ruthlessly uses them as part of their
long-term strategy to overburden private healthcare until it
ultimately collapses. The same Leftists who so passionately demanded
free healthcare for all now want euthanasia for seniors and
dramatically lower services for the rest of us. It is a power grab,
pure and simple. There is nothing more to it.
The Dems won't cut benefits to the poor just yet though, because they
still need their votes. Later on they will need them as hired muscle.
But once they secure unchallengeable power, do you think they'll care?
They have willfully worked to destroy every beneficial thing in our
society. These are vicious, selfish, utterly corrupt parasites. They
have spent a lifetime abandoned to a philosophy that makes excuses for
everything and anything in the service of one ultimate goal: absolute
power.
These people have to be stopped.
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 20:44:10 -0500, Peter Principle
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:46:35 GMT, he...@home.org (Obama Nation = Abomination)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>The babies born in hospital corridors: Bed shortage forces 4,000
>>mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilets
>>By Jenny Hope and Nick Mcdermott
>>Last updated at 8:36 AM on 26th August 2009
>>
>> Maternity crisis: Women are giving birth in lifts and even toilets
>>
>>
>>Thousands of women are having to give birth outside maternity wards
>>because of a lack of midwives and hospital beds.
>
>Hee hee hee hee hee hee, hoo, hoo, hoo, hoo, hoo, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ha,
>ha, ha, ha, ha...
>
>You actually *believe* that absurd nonsense, do you, rightard!?
>
>BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, whew!
>
>Kook-koo, koo-koo, koo-koo...
>
>But hey, master of strategery, thanks ever so much for helping me keep the
>important subject of debunking RIGHTARD LIES about health care front and
>center.
>
>Anchoo da klever bunnee!
>
Obama Nation = Abomination
THE ONE WORD TO DESCRIBE OBAMACARE
Written by Dr. Dave Janda
Thursday, 23 July 2009
As a physician who has authored books on preventative health care, I
was given the opportunity to be the keynote speaker at a Congressional
Dinner at The Capitol Building in Washington last Friday (7/17).
The presentation was entitled Health Care Reform, The Power & Profit
of Prevention, and I was gratified that it was well received.
In preparation for the presentation, I read the latest version of
"reform" as authored by The Obama Administration and supported by
Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid. Here is the link to the 1,018 page
document:
http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
Let me summarize just a few salient points of the above plan. First,
however, it should be clear that the same warning notice must be
placed on The ObamaCare Plan as on a pack of cigarettes: Consuming
this product will be hazardous to your health.
The underlying method of cutting costs throughout the plan is based on
rationing and denying care. There is no focus on preventing health
care need whatever. The plan's method is the most inhumane and
unethical approach to cutting costs I can imagine as a physician.
The rationing of care is implemented through The National Health Care
Board, according to the plan. This illustrious Board "will approve or
reject treatment for patients based on the cost per treatment divided
by the number of years the patient will benefit from the treatment."
Translation.....if you are over 65 or have been recently diagnosed as
having an advanced form of cardiac disease or aggressive
cancer.....dream on if you think you will get treated.....pick out
your coffin.
Oh, you say this could never happen? Sorry.... this is the same model
they use in Britain.
The plan mandates that there will be little or no advanced treatments
to be available in the future. It creates The Federal Coordinating
Council For Comparative Effectiveness Research, the purpose of which
is "to slow the development of new medications and technologies in
order to reduce costs." Yes, this is to be the law.
The plan also outlines that doctors and hospitals will be overseen and
reviewed by The National Coordinator For Health Information and
Technology.
This " coordinator" will "monitor treatments being delivered to make
sure doctors and hospitals are strictly following government
guidelines that are deemed appropriate." It goes on to
say....."Doctors and hospitals not adhering to guidelines will face
penalties."
According to those in Congress, penalties could include large six
figure financial fines and possible imprisonment.
So according to The ObamaCare Plan....if your doctor saves your life
you might have to go to the prison to see your doctor for follow -up
appointments. I believe this is the same model Stalin used in the
former Soviet Union.
Section 102 has the Orwellian title, "Protecting the Choice to Keep
Current Coverage." What this section really mandates is that it is
illegal to keep your private insurance if your status changes - e.g.,
if you lose or change your job, retire from your job and become a
senior, graduate from college and get your first job. Yes, illegal.
When Mr. Obama hosted a conference call with bloggers urging them to
pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible, a
blogger from Maine referenced an Investors Business Daily article that
claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw
private insurance.
He asked: "Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance
and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200
is passed?" Mr. Obama replied: "You know, I have to say that I am not
familiar with the provision you are talking about."
Then there is Section 1233 of The ObamaCare Plan, devoted to "Advanced
Care Planning." After each American turns 65 years of age they have to
go to a mandated counseling program that is designed to end life
sooner.
This session is to occur every 5 years unless the person has developed
a chronic illness then it must be done every year. The topics in this
session will include, "how to decline hydration, nutrition and how to
initiate hospice care." It is no wonder The Obama Administration does
not like my emphasis on Prevention. For Mr. Obama, prevention is the
"enemy" as people would live longer.
I rest my case. The ObamaCare Plan is hazardous to the health of every
American.
After I finished my Capitol Hill presentation, I was asked by a
Congressman in the question-answer session: "I'll be doing a number
of network interviews on the Obama Health Care Plan. If I am asked
what is the one word to describe the plan what should I answer."
The answer is simple, honest, direct, analytical, sad but truthful. I
told him that one word is FASCIST.
Then I added, "I hope you'll have the courage to use that word,
Congressman. No other word is more appropriate."
Dr. Dave Janda, MD, is an orthopedic surgeon, and a world-recognized
expert on the prevention of sports injuries, particularly in children.
His website is noinjury.com.
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:34:32 -0500, Peter Principle
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:46:21 GMT, nos...@here.org (Obama Nation =
>Abomination) wrote:
>
>>
>>http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/manufactured_healthcare_crisis.html
>>
>>
>>Manufactured Healthcare Crisis
>
><yawn>
>
>Manufactured opinion bullshit from a rightard shill...
>
>Here, rightard, try actually addressing some FACTS, instead of just farting
>out absurd, health industry paid for bullshit.
>
>Oh, BTW, thanks ever so much for keeping MY point about rightard Big Lies
>front and center. Well done! Keep up the good work! Ainchoo a master of
>strategery!
>In fact, the house bill sets up a health-care exchange�ｿｽessentially a list of
>private insurers and one government plan�ｿｽwhere people who do not have health
>insurance through their employer or some other source (including small
>businesses) can shop for a plan, much as seniors shop for a drug plan under
>medicare part d.
>
>
>No chemo for older medicare patients.
>
>The threat that medicare will give cancer patients over 70 only end-of-life
>counseling and not chemotherapy�ｿｽas a nurse at a hospital told a roomful of
>chemo patients, including the uncle of a NEWSWEEK reporter�ｿｽhas zero basis in
>fact. It's just a vicious form of the rationing scare. The house bill does
>not use the word "ration." Nor does it call for cost-effectiveness research,
>much less implementation�ｿｽthe idea that "it isn't cost-effective to give a
>90-year-old a hip replacement."
>
>
>Illegal immigrants will get free health insurance
>
>The house bill doesn't give anyone free health care (though under a 1986 law
>illegals who can't pay do get free emergency care now, courtesy of all us
>premiumpaying customers or of hospitals that have to eat the cost). Will
>they be eligible for subsidies to buy health insurance? The house bill says
>that "individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States" will
>not be allowed to receive subsidies.
>
>
>Death panels will decide who lives.
>
>On July 16 Betsy Mccaughey, a former lieutenant governor of New York and
>darling of the right, said on Fred Thompson's radio show that "on page 425,"
>"congress would make it mandatory �ｿｽ That every five years, people in
>�ｿｽ 1999 by the American Psychological Association
Major Debacle
Peter Principle <petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:46:21 GMT, nos...@here.org (Obama Nation =
> Abomination) wrote:
>
> >
> >http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/manufactured_healthcare_crisis.html
> >
> >
> >Manufactured Healthcare Crisis
>
>
You said it.
Obama Nation = Abomination
Obamacare for Illegal Aliens
Big Nanny Democrats want to ration health care for everyone in America
--
except those who break our immigration laws. Last week, the House Ways
and
Means Committee defeated an amendment that would have prevented
illegal
aliens from using the so-called "public health insurance option."
Every
Democrat on the panel voted against the measure.
Nevada GOP Rep. Dean Heller's measure would have enforced income,
eligibility and immigration verification screening on all Obamacare
patients. Unlike most everything else stuffed into the House
Democrats'
plan, the citizenship vetting process would not have required building
a new
bureaucracy. Heller proposed using existing state and federal
databases
created years ago to root out entitlement fraud.
If the congressional majority are truly committed to President Obama's
quest
to wring cost savings from the system, why won't they adopt the same
anti-fraud checks imposed on other government health and welfare
beneficiaries? Maybe an intrepid reporter could ask the president at
his
next Obamacare show to explain.
The Democratic leadership denies that an estimated 12 million to 20
million
illegal immigrants will receive taxpayer-subsidized health insurance
coverage. Senate Finance Committee Chair Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.,
calls the
proposition "too politically explosive."
But Obama lit the fuse in February when he signed the massive
expansion of
the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That law loosened
eligibility
requirements for legal immigrants and their children by watering down
document and evidentiary standards -- making it easy for individuals
to use
fake Social Security cards to apply for benefits with little to no
chance of
getting caught. In addition, Obama's S-CHIP expansion revoked Medicaid
application time limits that were part of the 1996 welfare reform law.
Immigration activists see the provisions as first steps toward
universal
coverage for illegals.
"Explosive"? The applause certainly was. Obama's praise of the
weakened
immigrant eligibility rules drew the strongest claps and cheers from
members
of Congress at the S-CHIP signing event.
Immigration analyst James R. Edwards Jr. reported last week in
National
Review that "no health legislation on the table requires federal,
state or
local agencies -- or private institutions receiving federal funds --
to
check the immigration status of health-program applicants, so some of
the
money distributed via Medicaid and tax credits inevitably would go to
illegal aliens." Moreover, the Senate Finance Committee plan creates a
new
preference for illegal aliens by exempting them from the mandate to
buy
insurance.
That's right. Law-abiding, uninsured Americans would be fined if they
didn't
submit to the Obamacare prescription. Law-breaking border-crossers,
visa-overstayers and deportation fugitives would be spared.
The solution is not to give them health insurance, but to turn off the
magnets that draw them to enter illegally in the first place.
For years, advocates of uncontrolled immigration have argued that
illegal
aliens are not getting free health care, and that even if they were,
they
would not be not draining government budgets. The fiscal crisis in
California gives lie to those talking points. In March, the Associated
Press
reported that Sacramento and Contra Costa counties were slashing staff
and
closing clinics due to the prohibitive costs of providing
non-emergency
health services for illegal immigrants.
"The general situation there is being faced by nearly every health
department across the country, and if not right now, shortly," Robert
M.
Pestronk, executive director of the National Association of County and
City
Health Officials, told the AP. The Texas state comptroller put the
price tag
for illegal alien hospital care at $1.3 billion in 2006. USA Today
reported
that from 2001 to 2004, spending for emergency Medicaid for illegal
immigrants rose by 28 percent in North Carolina alone. Clinics across
the
Midwest have also been shuttered under the weight of illegal immigrant
care
costs.
At a time when Democratic leaders are pushing rationed care in a world
of
limited resources, Americans might wonder where the call for shared
sacrifice is from illegal immigrant patients like those in Los Angeles
getting free liver and kidney transplants at UCLA Medical Center. "I'm
just
mad," illegal alien Jose Lopez told the Los Angeles Times last year
after
receiving two taxpayer-subsidized liver transplants while impatiently
awaiting approval for state health insurance.
Now, multiply that sense of entitlement by 12 million to 20 million
illegal
immigrants. Welcome to the open-borders Obamacare nightmare.
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 18:10:08 -0500, Peter Principle
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:40:25 GMT, nos...@here.org (Obama Nation =
>Abomination) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>THE ONE WORD TO DESCRIBE OBAMACARE
>>Written by Dr. Dave Janda
>>Paid Health Industry Shill
>
><snort>
Obama Nation = Abomination
Obamacare for Illegal Aliens
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 18:10:08 -0500, Peter Principle
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:40:25 GMT, nos...@here.org (Obama Nation =
>Abomination) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>THE ONE WORD TO DESCRIBE OBAMACARE
>>Written by Dr. Dave Janda
>>Paid Health Industry Shill
>
><snort>
>
Obama Nation = Abomination
President Obama's healthcare plan will hurt the 85 percent of
American
who already have health insurance in an effort to help the other 15
percent,
says Harvard economist Martin Feldstein.
The chairman of President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers
argues
in a Washington Post opinion piece that there must be a better way to
aid
the uninsured.
"Doing so the Obama way would cost more than $1 trillion over
the next
10 years," he writes.
Obama has proposed raising taxes on the wealthy to pay for his
program. But "tax experts know that this won't work," Feldstein says.
The tax increase for healthcare along with the decision to let
Bush
era tax cuts expire will drive the top tax rate to 45 percent from 35
percent today, he argues.
That in turn "would change the behavior of high-income
individuals in
ways that would shrink their taxable incomes and therefore produce
less
revenue."
Feldstein also takes issue with Obama's claim that his
healthcare plan
will slow spending growth.
"Although the reduced spending would result from fewer services
rather
than lower payments to providers, we are told that this can be done
without
lowering the quality of care or diminishing our health," Feldstein
writes.
"I don't believe it."
Administration officials say it will be easy to cut healthcare
spending because patients in the last year of their life account for
about
half of hospital costs.
"I don't find that persuasive," Feldstein says.
"Do doctors really know which of their very ill patients will
benefit
from expensive care and which will die regardless of the care they
receive?
In a world of uncertainty, many of us will want to hope that care will
help."
Feldstein doesn't deny that healthcare reform is necessary. One
change
he recommends is "fixing the COBRA system so that middle-income
households
that lose their insurance because of early retirement or a permanent
layoff
are not deterred by the cost of continuing their previous coverage."
But Feldstein recommends that Obama focus on the economy for
now.
"The president should look beyond health policy and turn his
attention
to the problems that are impeding our economic recovery."
A bi-partisan group of six senators that is putting together a
healthcare bill already has adopted two of Feldstein's proposals. They
have
dumped the idea of a healthcare tax on the wealthy and the idea of a
government-run insurance plan that would compete with the private
sector,
The New York Times reports.
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:13:05 -0500, Peter Principle
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 01:03:09 GMT, nos...@here.org (Obama Nation =
>Abomination) wrote:
>
>>
>>Obamacare for Illegal Aliens
>
><yawn>
>
>------
>http://www.newsweek.com/id/214254/page/1
>
>The Five Biggest Lies in the Health Care Debate
>
>By Sharon Begley | NEWSWEEK
>Published Aug 29, 2009
>From the magazine issue dated Sep 7, 2009
>
>Illegal immigrants will get free health insurance
>
>The house bill doesn't give anyone free health care (though under a 1986 law
>illegals who can't pay do get free emergency care now, courtesy of all us
>premiumpaying customers or of hospitals that have to eat the cost). Will
>they be eligible for subsidies to buy health insurance? The house bill says
>that "individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States" will
>not be allowed to receive subsidies.
>------
>
>Next stupid asshole rightard Big Lie, please...
>
>---
>Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
>------
>Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
>
>http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
>� 1999 by the American Psychological Association
Obama Nation = Abomination
help."
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:12:36 -0500, Peter Principle
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 01:00:25 GMT, nos...@here.org (Obama Nation =
>Abomination) wrote:
>
>>
>>Obamacare for Illegal Aliens
>
><snip>
>
>------
>http://www.newsweek.com/id/214254/page/1
>
>The Five Biggest Lies in the Health Care Debate
>
>By Sharon Begley | NEWSWEEK
>Published Aug 29, 2009
>From the magazine issue dated Sep 7, 2009
>
>Illegal immigrants will get free health insurance
>
>The house bill doesn't give anyone free health care (though under a 1986 law
>illegals who can't pay do get free emergency care now, courtesy of all us
>premium paying customers or of hospitals that have to eat the cost). Will
>they be eligible for subsidies to buy health insurance? The house bill says
>that "individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States" will
>not be allowed to receive subsidies.
>------
>
>OOPS! One more stupid asshole rightard Big Lie shot all to hell by REALITY.
>Next stupid asshole rightard Big Lie, please...
>
>---
>Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
>------
>Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
>
>http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
>� 1999 by the American Psychological Association
Obama Nation = Abomination
According to left wing CNN Five Freedoms You Lose With Obamacare:
Here's number one, the five freedoms that you would lose, according to
CNNMoney.com. Number one: "Freedom to choose what's in your plan.
The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance
through 'qualified' plans offered by health-care 'exchanges' that
would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really
compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal government
will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan is required to
offer. � Connecticut, for example, requires reimbursement for hair
transplants, hearing aids, and in vitro fertilization." Many states
require these "standard benefits packages" and they're a major cause
for the rise in health care costs along with tort reform.
The number two freedom you would lose, they say, "Freedom to be
rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs. As with the
previous example, the Obama plan enshrines into federal law one of the
worst features of state legislation: community rating. Eleven states,
ranging from New York to Oregon, have some form of community rating.
In its purest form, community rating requires that all patients pay
the same rates for their level of coverage regardless of their age or
medical condition. Americans with pre-existing conditions need
subsidies under any plan, but community rating is a dubious way to
bring fairness to health care. The reason is twofold: First, it forces
young people, who typically have lower incomes than older workers, to
pay far more than their actual cost, and gives older workers, who can
afford to pay more, a big discount. � Second, the bills would ban
insurers from charging differing premiums based on the health of their
customers."
That's like having a good driving record getting you no break on your
auto insurance premium. So all this talk about we're going to live
healthier and we're going to mandate this and mandate that to lower
costs, which, by the way, we've cut smoking in half and where are the
savings? They don't exist. The third freedom: "Freedom to choose
high-deductible coverage." You're going to lose that. "The bills
threaten to eliminate the one part of the market truly driven by
consumers spending their own money. That's what makes a market, and
health care needs more of it, not less." So if you want a high
deductible coverage, you're not going to be able to do that. That
would lower your premium, by the way. Number four: "Freedom to keep
your existing plan. This is the freedom that the President keeps
emphasizing. Yet the bills appear to say otherwise. It's worth diving
into the weeds -- the territory where most pundits and politicians
don't seem to have ventured." You will lose your health care plan
under his plan.
And five: "Freedom to choose your doctors. The Senate bill requires
that Americans buying through the exchanges -- and as we've seen, that
will soon be most Americans -- must get their care through something
called 'medical home.' Medical home is similar to an HMO. You're
assigned a primary care doctor, and the doctor controls your access to
specialists." And the last couple sentences of this piece: "For now,
we suffer with a flawed health-care system, but we still have our Five
Freedoms. Call them the Five Endangered Freedoms."
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:27:21 -0500, Peter Principle
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 01:14:24 GMT, nos...@here.org (Obama Nation =
>Abomination) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> President Obama's healthcare plan will hurt the 85 percent of
>>American
>>who already have health insurance in an effort to help the other 15
>>percent
>
><yawn>
>
>------
>http://www.newsweek.com/id/211981/page/2
>
>False: Private Insurance Will Be Illegal
>In July, Investor's Business Daily published an editorial in which it
>claimed that H.R. 3200 would make private insurance illegal. But IBD was
>mistaken. It was citing the part of the bill that ensures people with
>individually purchased coverage don't have to give up that coverage unless
>they want to.
>------
>
>OOPS! One more stupid asshole rightard Big Lie shot all to hell. Next stupid
Obama Nation = Abomination
1. President Barack Obama repeatedly tells us that one reason
national health
care is needed is that we can no longer afford to pay for Medicare and
Medicaid. But if Medicare and Medicaid are fiscally insolvent and
gradually
bankrupting our society, why is a government takeover of medical care
for the
rest of society a good idea? What large-scale government program has
not
eventually spiraled out of control, let alone stayed within its
projected
budget? Why should anyone believe that nationalizing health care would
create
the first major government program to "pay for itself," let alone get
smaller
rather than larger over time? Why not simply see how the Democrats can
reform
Medicare and Medicaid before nationalizing much of the rest of health
care?
2. President Obama reiterated this past week that "no insurance
company will
be allowed to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing medical
condition."
This is an oft-repeated goal of the president's and the Democrats'
health care
plan. But if any individual can buy health insurance at any time, why
would
anyone buy health insurance while healthy? Why would I not simply wait
until I
got sick or injured to buy the insurance? If auto insurance were
purchasable
once one got into an accident, why would anyone purchase auto
insurance before
an accident? Will the Democrats next demand that life insurance
companies sell
life insurance to the terminally ill? The whole point of insurance is
that the
healthy buy it and thereby provide the funds to pay for the sick.
Demanding
that insurance companies provide insurance to everyone at any time
spells the
end of the concept of insurance. And if the answer is that the
government will
now make it illegal not to buy insurance, how will that be enforced?
How will
the government check on 300 million people?
3. Why do supporters of nationalized medicine so often substitute the
word
"care" for the word "insurance?" it is patently untrue that millions
of
Americans do not receive health care. Millions of Americans do not
have health
insurance but virtually every American (and non-American on American
soil)
receives health care.
4. No one denies that in order to come close to staying within its
budget
health care will be rationed. But what is the moral justification of
having
the state decide what medical care to ration?
5. According to Dr. David Gratzer, health care specialist at the
Manhattan
Institute, "While 20 years ago pharmaceuticals were largely developed
in
Europe, European price controls made drug development an American
enterprise.
Fifteen of the 20 top-selling drugs worldwide this year were birthed
in the
United States." Given how many lives -- in America and throughout the
world �
American pharmaceutical companies save, and given how expensive it is
to
develop any new drug, will the price controls on drugs envisaged in
the
Democrats' bill improve or impair Americans' health?
6. Do you really believe that private insurance could survive a
"public
option"? Or is this really a cover for the ideal of single-payer
medical care?
How could a private insurance company survive a "public option" given
that
private companies have to show a profit and government agencies do not
have to
� and given that a private enterprise must raise its own money to be
solvent
and a government option has access to others' money -- i.e., taxes?
7. Why will hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies do nearly
as
superb a job as they now do if their reimbursement from the government
will be
severely cut? Haven't the laws of human behavior and common sense been
repealed here in arguing that while doctors, hospitals and drug
companies will
make significantly less money they will continue to provide the same
level of
uniquely excellent care?
8. Given how many needless procedures are ordered to avoid medical
lawsuits
and how much money doctors spend on medical malpractice insurance,
shouldn't
any meaningful "reform" of health care provide some remedy for
frivolous
malpractice lawsuits?
9. Given how weak the U.S. economy is, given how weak the U.S. dollar
is, and
given how much in debt the U.S. is in, why would anyone seek to have
the U.S.
spend another trillion dollars? Even if all the other questions here
had
legitimate answers, wouldn't the state of the U.S. economy alone argue
against
national health care at this time?
10. Contrary to the assertion of President Obama -- "we spend much
more on
health care than any other nation but aren't any healthier for it" --
we are
healthier. We wait far less time for procedures and surgeries. Our
life
expectancy with virtually any major disease is longer. And if you do
not count
deaths from violent crime and automobile accidents, we also have the
longest
life expectancy. Do you think a government takeover of American
medicine will
enable this medical excellence to continue?
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:25:18 -0500, Peter Principle
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 02:01:18 GMT, nos...@here.org (Obama Nation =
>Abomination) wrote:
>
>>According to left wing CNN Five Freedoms You Lose With Obamacare:
>>
>>Here's number one, the five freedoms that you would lose, according to
>>CNNMoney.com. Number one: "Freedom to choose what's in your plan.
>
><yawn>
>
>------
>http://www.newsweek.com/id/214254/page/1
>
>The Five Biggest Lies in the Health Care Debate
>
>By Sharon Begley | NEWSWEEK
>Published Aug 29, 2009
>From the magazine issue dated Sep 7, 2009
>
>You'll have no choice in what health benefits you receive.
>
>The myth that a "health choices commissioner" will decide what benefits you
>get seems to have originated in a july 19 post at blog.flecksoflife.com,
>whose homepage features an image of Obama looking like heath ledger's joker.
>In fact, the house bill sets up a health-care exchange�essentially a list of
>private insurers and one government plan�where people who do not have health
>insurance through their employer or some other source (including small
>businesses) can shop for a plan, much as seniors shop for a drug plan under
>medicare part d.
>------
>
>One more prefectly good rightard Big Lie about health care shot all to hell
>by REALITY. Next stupid rightard Big Lie, please...
Obama Nation = Abomination
� Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
� Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
� Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and
benefits you
get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
� Page 42: The �Health Choices Commissioner� will decide health
benefits for
you. You will have no choice. None.
� Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with
free
healthcare services.
� Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
� Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access
to all
individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
� Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community
organizer
health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
� Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government
rules to
participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
� Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the
Healthcare
Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
� Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services;
translation: illegal aliens
� Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up
individuals
for Government-run Health Care plan.
� Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically
enrolled: you
have no choice in the matter.
� Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No
�judicial
review� is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply,
private
insurers will be crushed.
� Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
� Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the
government-run
public plan. No alternatives.
� Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time
employees AND
their families.
� Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not
offer
the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll
� Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who
does not
offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll
� Page 167: Any individual who doesnt� have acceptable healthcare
(according
to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
� Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes
(Americans
will pay for them).
� Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare
Bureaucracy will
have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
� Page 203: �The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated
as tax.�
Yes, it really says that.� Page 239: Bill will reduce physician
services for
Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected.�
� Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you�ll all be
paid
the same (thanks, AMA!)
� Page 253: Government sets value of doctors� time, their professional
judgment, etc.
� Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private
healthcare industries.
� Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven
wheelchairs.
� Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of
rationing!
� Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems
preventable re-admissions.
� Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial
admission that
results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government
� Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing
in
healthcare companies!
� Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand
without
government approval.
� Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on �community� input: in other
words,
yet another payoff for ACORN.
� Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based
measures: i.e.,
rationing.
� Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage
Plans,
HMOs, etc.
� Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS
individuals.
� Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee
(healthcare by
phone).
� Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior
Citizens,
assisted suicide, euthanasia?
� Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living
wills,
durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate
taxes
ahead of time.
� Page 425: Goverment provides approved list of end-of-life resources,
guiding
you in death.
� Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life
treatment;
government dictates how your life ends.
� Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate
treatment as
patient�s health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for
end-of-life
plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
� Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may
have at
end-of-life.
� Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for
ACORN.
� Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs
for ACORN.
� Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy.
Government
intervenes in your marriage.
� Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining,
creating
and rationing those services.
A tip of my hat to my friend, Ben Cerruti, for providing this look at
the
Obamanation called Obamacare. Write, email, fax or call your Senators
and your
Representative and tell them to vote NO!
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:12:09 -0500, Peter Principle
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 02:49:19 GMT, nos...@here.org (Obama Nation =
>Abomination) wrote:
>
>Before I blow yet more rightard Big Lies about health care to bits with
>FACTS, I want to take a minute to apologize to you and to thank you.
>Obviously I've misjudged you. I apologize. Obviously you are actually a
>liberal, as you keep serving up big, fat, beach ball pitches that my 8 yo
>daughter could knock out of the park.
>
>I particularly like how you intentionally screw up something as dead simple
>easy as copy & paste. Nice touch! It looks totally ree-dicky-less with the
>formatting all screwed up like that. Really highlights that fact that you -
>or, more correctly, the rightard maroon you play here - can't originate and
>communicate so much as a single thought of your own, too.
>
>Obviously nobody is THAT fucking stupid. Not possible. At least not among
>upright ambulators. Ergo logic dictates that you must really be a liberal
>5th columnist.
>
>Well, that or anencephalic...
>
>Well done! Keep up the good work!
>
>Now, on to the latest batch of stupid rightard Big Lies...
>
>> 1. President Barack Obama repeatedly tells us that one reason
>>national health
>>care is needed is that we can no longer afford to pay for Medicare and
>>Medicaid. But if Medicare and Medicaid are fiscally insolvent
>
><yawn>
>
>------
>http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/
>
>False: Medicare Benefits Will Be Slashed
>
>The claim that Obama and Congress are cutting seniors� Medicare benefits to
>pay for the health care overhaul is outright false, though that doesn�t keep
>it from being repeated ad infinitum.
>
>The truth is that the pending House bill extracts $500 billion from
>projected Medicare spending over 10 years, as scored by the Congressional
>Budget Office, by doing such things as trimming projected increases in the
>program�s payments for medical services, not including physicians. Increases
>in other areas, such as payments to doctors, bring the net savings down to
>less than half that amount. But none of the predicted savings � or cuts,
>depending on one�s perspective � come from reducing current or future
>benefits for seniors.
>
>The president has promised repeatedly that benefit levels won�t be reduced
>------
>
>>2. President Obama reiterated this past week that "no insurance
>>company will
>>be allowed to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing medical
>>condition."
>>This is an oft-repeated goal of the president's and the Democrats'
>>health care
>>plan. But if any individual can buy health insurance at any time, why
>>would
>>anyone buy health insurance while healthy?
><snip>
>
>For the same reason childless people and old people pay taxes to support
>public schools, dummy. EVERYONE shares the costs of those things obviously
>IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
>
>What kills me is these idiots apparently miss the entire POINT of insurance,
>which is to SPREAD THE RISK. Duh fucking duh, duh, duh...
>
>>3. Why do supporters of nationalized medicine so often substitute the
>>word
>>"care" for the word "insurance?" it is patently untrue that millions
>>of
>>Americans do not receive health care. Millions of Americans do not
>>have health
>>insurance but virtually every American (and non-American on American
>>soil)
>>receives health care.
>
>Only a truly stupid person would advocate emergency room care, THE single
>most expensive possible option with an average cost of close to $700 per
>visit and the ONLY option available to most of the uninsured, as a viable
>health care option. Congratulations!
>
>Besides, Dip Thunker, who do you thinks pays for all of those unpaid
>emergency room visits? Oh, go ahead, guess...
>
>>4. No one denies that in order to come close to staying within its
>>budget
>>health care will be rationed. But what is the moral justification of
>>having
>>the state decide what medical care to ration?
>
>Ah, yes, why, I see your point! It's MUCH better to have a an insurance
>company - who answers ONLY to stock holders and who's ONLY legal
>responsibility is to make money - ration health care! Why, that's
>BRILL-YENT!
>
>>5. According to Dr. David Gratzer, health care specialist at the
>>Manhattan
>>Institute,
>
><snip>
>
>David Gratzer is NOT a practicing medical doctor. He is a Canadian
>CONSERVATIVE COLUMNIST with a degree in psychiatry. He doesn't practice
>psychiatry, either. His opinions have absolutely no merit, which is why only
>a handful of uninformed idjuts pay any attention whatsoever to his
>boob.babble.
>
>And the "Manhattan Institute" is a loonytoonian conservadolt "think tank"
>funded in whole by the health care industry. IOW they're purely a SHILL
>organization. So far out of the mainstream are they that they couldn't even
>find a real doctor to serve as their "health care specialist." Nice source!
>
>"That aside, how did you enjoy the ply, Mrs. Lincoln?"
>
>>6. Do you really believe that private insurance could survive a
>>"public
>>option"?
>
>Er, don't look, now, Dip Thunker, but there is, indeed, private insurance in
>every other industrialized nation in the world, every single one of which
>has universal health care in some form, ALL of which go FAR beyond the
>proposed public option. But hey, why let something as silly as FACTS get in
>the way of a perfectly good LIE, eh?
>
>>7. Why will hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies do nearly
>>as
>>superb a job as they now do if their reimbursement from the government
>>will be
>>severely cut? Haven't the laws of human behavior and common sense been
>>repealed here in arguing that while doctors, hospitals and drug
>>companies will
>>make significantly less money they will continue to provide the same
>>level of
>>uniquely excellent care?
>
><yawn>
>
>------
>http://www.newsweek.com/id/214254/page/3
>
>The Five Biggest Lies in the Health Care Debate
>
>The government will set doctors' wages.
>
>This, too, seems to have originated on the Flecksoflife blog on July 19. But
>while page 127 of the House bill says that physicians who choose to accept
>patients in the public insurance plan would receive 5 percent more than
>Medicare pays for a given service, doctors can refuse to accept such
>patients, and, even if they participate in a public plan, they are not
>salaried employees of it any more than your doctor today is an employee of,
>say, Aetna. "Nobody is saying we want the doctors working for the
>government; that's completely false," says Amitabh Chandra, professor of
>public policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
>------
>
>>8. Given how many needless procedures are ordered to avoid medical
>>lawsuits
>>and how much money doctors spend on medical malpractice insurance,
>>shouldn't
>>any meaningful "reform" of health care provide some remedy for
>>frivolous
>>malpractice lawsuits?
>
>We're talking about HEALTH CARE, not conservadolt wet dream ideological
>horse shit. One is a MEDICAL issue. One is a POLITICAL issue. Gosh, what a
>surprise that the conservadolts go the 2nd route.
>
>You idiots LOST. Big time. Your political agenda is DEAD. Get over it. When
>and if you ever rise from the grave, you may feel free to pursue whatever
>political nonsense you wish. But right now is OUR time.
>
>As Bill Maher said, "Dude, face reality. Your country left you and she never
>wants to see you again. In fact, she's shacked up with a young black guy
>right now."
>
>>9. Given how weak the U.S. economy is, given how weak the U.S. dollar
>>is, and
>>given how much in debt the U.S. is in, why would anyone seek to have
>>the U.S.
>>spend another trillion dollars? Even if all the other questions here
>>had
>>legitimate answers, wouldn't the state of the U.S. economy alone argue
>>against
>>national health care at this time?
>
>So, your point is trillions for Bushco's insane war is just peachy, and
>we'll find a way to pay whatever it takes, but a few billion for health care
>is UNSUSTAINABLE! Yeah, that's gonna fly...
>
><snort>
>
>>10. Contrary to the assertion of President Obama -- "we spend much
>>more on
>>health care than any other nation but aren't any healthier for it" --
>>we are
>>healthier.
>
>Actually, he's 100% correct. Health care success is measured by OUTCOME.
>It's RESULTS that count. And, in point of fact, in almost every single
>measure of health from life expectancy......
>
>------
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
>
>(US ranks 50th)
>------
>
>...to infant mortality...
>
>------
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
>
>(US ranks 33rd)
>------
>
>..the US ranks FAR behind other developed nations with universal health
>care.
>
>The two most significant measure of the overall health of a given population
>are life expectancy and infant mortality.
>
>FORTY-NINE countries rank ahead of the US in life expectancy.
>
>THIRTY-TWO countries rank ahead of the US in infant mortality.
>
>IOW, it's a stone cold FACT that, measured by RESULTS, our system is FAR
>from the best. It's not even middle of the pack. Almost every other
>industrialized nation on the face of the planet - all of whom have universal
>coverage - has a BETTER health care system than do we when measured by
>RESULTS.
>
>This is the main reason that in overall quality of life the wealthiest
>nation on Earth ranks...
>
>------
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index
>
>(US ranks 13th)
>------
>
>...behind 12 other countries, EVERY SINGLE ONE of which has universal
>coverage.
>
>We're number 13! We're number 13! We're number 13! We're number 13...
>
>OK, next stupid rightard Big Lie, please...
Harold Burton
Pecker Principle <petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
> Before I blow yet more rightard....
Always suspected you were a bit queer.
snicker.
Sid9
"Obama Nation = Abomination" <nos...@here.org> wrote in
message news:4a9f04d2...@news.datemas.de...
>
>
> � Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that
> self-insure!
Good idea...some employers might cheat and do less then the
law requires
>
> � Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
Lie.
>
> � Page 30: A government committee will decide what
> treatments and
> benefits you
> get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals
> process)
>
Lie. That's not the function
> � Page 42: The �Health Choices Commissioner� will decide
> health
> benefits for
> you. You will have no choice. None.
Lie. That�s not the function.
The function is the same as what remedied a defect in
Medicare supplementary policies that the insurance industry
fucked up.
>
> � Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be
> provided with
> free
> healthcare services.
>
Lie
I weary.
> � Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID
> Healthcard.
Stops ringers....probably same as you drivers license
>
> � Page 59: The federal government will have direct,
> real-time access
> to all
> individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
They do now.....for tax refunds and SS
So what?
I'm wearier then before
>
> � Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and
> community
> organizer
> health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
>
> � Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to
> government
> rules to
> participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
Only new ones...You have no requirement to change.
If you like your shit plan you need not change.
Harold Burton
Peckierr Principle <petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> lied:
> Rightards lie. It's what they do. That, and fear mongering.
And their biggest "fear monger" so far? Pointing out that
congresspersons aren't signing up for obamacare. Wonder why? If it's
such a great deal why don't congresspersons prove it by by making
themselves subject to it?
Snicker.
Obama Nation = Abomination
President George W. Bush concocted the connection between al-Qaida and
Saddam Hussein to justify the Iraq invasion. Now President Barack
Obama is concocting an equally fantastical theory to justify a de
facto government takeover of health care.
He is claiming that the way to slash health care costs and achieve
universal coverage is by creating a Medicare-style government
insurance plan that is open to everyone. In the world that Obama and
other universal health care advocates inhabit, Medicare allegedly has
done a far superior job than private plans of keeping a lid on rising
medical costs. Forcing these plans to compete with a plan modeled
after it will�in Obama's words�"keep them honest and keep prices
down."
But before demanding honesty from others, Obama will have to show some
himself, especially concerning the performance of Medicare.
That Medicare is in serious, serious trouble no one can dispute. Its
projected unfunded liabilities over 75 years, from 2007 to 2082, are
about $36 trillion, according to the latest Medicare Trustees report.
If current trends persist, by the end of that time Medicare will be
devouring 19% of gross domestic product�or $3 trillion, an amount
equal to the entire U.S. budget right now. It will take a
heartburn-inducing 135% increase in payroll taxes to bring it into
actuarial balance.
Despite Medicare's dismal record, Obama and his comrades hold Medicare
up as an example for the private sector. Why? Because between 1997 and
2006, Medicare's health spending per enrollee grew 4.6% annually while
that of private plans grew 7.3%. By tapping this 2.7% difference, they
argue that they can perform the triple miracle of reining in
escalating health care costs, and at the same time extending health
insurance to the 46 million uninsured without imposing any extra cost
on the economy.
But this is 21st century snake oil.
Medicare hasn't controlled costs by discovering some wonder drug to
deliver new efficiencies that the private sector doesn't have. In
fact, the Government Accountability Office lists Medicare as a
"high-risk" program, thanks to its long-term financial problems and
its vulnerability to fraud. Rather, Medicare has cut costs by
deploying the economic equivalent of leech-therapy: slashing payments
to providers. The only reason providers haven't been bled out of
existence is because they have offset these cuts by raising prices
charged to private insurance plans. In effect, then, the good
performance of Medicare that Obama and Co. tout has been purchased by
beggaring the private plans that they deride.
There is a rich literature testifying to this phenomenon. A study last
December by Milliman Inc., an independent consulting firm,
commissioned by America's Health Insurance Plans, found that
underpayment by Medicare and Medicaid accounted for nearly an 11%
increase in the health care costs of private plans. This means that on
average a privately insured family is forced to pick up about $1,800
extra every year of the government's slack. Private plans, all in all,
are subsidizing government programs to the tune of $90 billion
annually.
Milliman's findings are far from ground-breaking. They merely confirm
previous research, including a 2006 study by Jack Zwanziger and Anil
Bamezai in Health Affairs, which found a clear correlation over the
years between decreasing government payments and rising insurance
premiums in California. They calculated that a 1% relative decrease in
the average Medicare price is associated with a 0.17% increase in the
corresponding price paid by privately insured patients.
"Policymakers, in considering the implications of decreasing Medicare
and Medicaid payment rates to health care providers, must include the
likelihood that some of this reduction will result in higher payment
rates by private payers," they concluded. "In turn, higher hospital
payments will tend to increase health insurance premiums and reduce
private insurance coverage."
In making his case for universal coverage, Obama disregards this
reality and emphasizes a different cause for the rise of premiums,
namely that private plans are being forced to absorb the cost of
uncompensated care for the uninsured, who land in the emergency rooms
because they can't get timely treatment. Cover the uninsured through
universal health care, he says, and things will be dandy again.
But the fact of the matter is that uncompensated care costs only $40
billion�or about 2% of the $2.26 trillion that the U.S. spends on
health care. This is less than what department stores lose to
shoplifting every year. "Underpayment by the public programs dwarfs
any problem created by the uninsured," says Greg Scandlen, director of
the Heartland Institute's Consumers for Health Care Choices program.
Indeed, the problem for private plans is not so much that they are
being forced to subsidize the uninsured as the publicly insured.
Obama told the American Medical Association in a major health care
speech Monday that doctors shouldn't regard a public insurance option
as their enemy, but as their friend. He is lying. He has already
proposed slashing $200 billion in reimbursements to hospitals to pay
for universal coverage. And, if past is prelude, this trend will only
accelerate if a government-run insurance plan becomes available.
But ultimately this public option will not be sustainable because it
will set in motion a downward spiral in which the more it grows, the
more it will raise the costs of private plans. This will drive
patients out of these plans and into the public plan, which, in turn,
will grow more and eventually drive the private plans out of business.
How will the public plan sustain itself once it has killed the very
host it is feeding off? Essentially, by embracing a taxpayer funded,
government-run, single payer system. Obama pooh-poohs those who
suggest that the public plan is a Trojan horse for socialized
medicine. But then Bush too pooh-poohed those who suggested that Iraq
would become a quagmire
Sid9
industry trying to defend their obscene industry
"Obama Nation = Abomination" <nos...@here.org> wrote in
message news:4a9f1378...@news.datemas.de...
Obama Nation = Abomination
'Cruel and neglectful' care of one million NHS patients exposed
One million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling care in
hospitals across Britain, according to a major report released today.
By Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor
Published: 12:01AM BST 27 Aug 2009
Comments 115 | Comment on this article
One million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling care in
hospitals across Britain, according to a major report released today
Photo: CLARE KENDALL
In the last six years, the Patients Association claims hundreds of
thousands have suffered from poor standards of nursing, often with
'neglectful, demeaning, painful and sometimes downright cruel'
treatment.
Related Articles
Hospital care: Colin Purkiss Smith's wife forced to bring him blankets
Hospital care: Ann McNeill was called a drama queen
Hospital care: Florence Weston was left without food or drink
Hospital care: Pamela Goddard's bed sores were inadequately treated
'Appalling care' cost up to 1200 lives in Staffordshire
Patients 'being hurried though casualty departments' The charity has
disclosed a horrifying catalogue of elderly people left in pain, in
soiled bed clothes, denied adequate food and drink, and suffering from
repeatedly cancelled operations, missed diagnoses and dismissive
staff.
The Patients Association said the dossier proves that while the scale
of the scandal at Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust - where up to
1,200 people died through failings in urgent care - was a one off,
there are repeated examples they have uncovered of the same appalling
standards throughout the NHS.
While the criticisms cover all aspects of hospital care, the treatment
and attitude of nurses stands out as a repeated theme across almost
all of the cases.
They have called on Government and the Care Quality Commission to
conduct an urgent review of standards of basic hospital care and to
enforce stricter supervision and regulation.
Claire Rayner, President of the Patients Association and a former
nurse, said:�For far too long now, the Patients Association has been
receiving calls on our helpline from people wanting to talk about the
dreadful, neglectful, demeaning, painful and sometimes downright cruel
treatment their elderly relatives had experienced at the hands of NHS
nurses.
�I am sickened by what has happened to some part of my profession of
which I was so proud.
"These bad, cruel nurses may be - probably are - a tiny proportion of
the nursing work force, but even if they are only one or two percent
of the whole they should be identified and struck off the Register.�
The charity has published a selection of personal accounts from
hundreds of relatives of patients, most of whom died, following their
care in NHS hospitals.
They cite patient surveys which show the vast majority of patients
highly rate their NHS care - but, with some ten million treated a
year, even a small percentage means hundreds of thousands have
suffered.
Ms Rayner said it was by "sad coincidence" that she trained as a nurse
with one of the patients who had "suffered so much".
She went on: "I know that she, like me, was horrified by the appalling
care she had before she died.
"We both came from a generation of nurses who were trained at the
bedside and in whom the core values of nursing were deeply
inculcated."
Katherine Murphy, Director of the Patients Association, said �Whilst
Mid Staffordshire may have been an anomaly in terms of scale the PA
knew the kinds of appalling treatment given there could be found
across the NHS. This report removes any doubt and makes this clear to
all. Two of the accounts come from Stafford, and they sadly fail to
stand out from the others.
�These accounts tell the story of the two percent of patients that
consistently rate their care as poor (in NHS patient surveys).
"If this was extrapolated to the whole of the NHS from 2002 to 2008 it
would equate to over one million patients. Very often these are the
most vulnerable elderly and terminally ill patients. It�s a sad
indictment of the care they receive.�
The Patients Association said one hospital had threatened it with
legal action if it chose to publish the material.
Pamela Goddard, a piano teacher from Bletchingley, in Surrey, was 82
and suffering with cancer but was left in her own excrement and her
condition deteriorated due to her bed sores.
Florence Weston, from Sedgley in the West Midlands, died aged 85 and
had to remain without food or water for several days as her hip
operation was repeated cancelled.
The charity released the dossier to highlight the poor care which a
minority of patients in the NHS are subjected to.
Ms Murphy said the numbers rating care as poor came despite investment
in the NHS doubling and the number of frontline nurses increasing by
more than a quarter since 1996.
The personal stories were revealed to prevent their cases being
ignored as only representing a small portion of patients.
The report said: "These are patients, not numbers. These are people,
not statistics."
Dr Peter Carter, Chief Executive of the Royal College of Nursing, said
he was concerned that public confidence in the NHS could be undermined
by the examples cited and it would affect morale in hardworking staff.
He said: �The level of care described by these families is completely
unacceptable, and we will not condone nurses who behave in ways that
are contrary to the principles and ethics of the profession.
"However we believe that the vast majority of nurses are decent,
highly skilled individuals.
�This report is based on the two per cent of patients who feel that
their care was unacceptable. Two per cent is too many but we are
concerned that this might undermine the public�s confidence in the
world-class care they can expect to receive from the NHS."
Barbara Young, Chairman of the Care Quality Commission, the
super-regulator, said: �It is absolutely right to highlight that
standards of hospital care can vary from very good to poor.
�Many people are happy with the care they receive, but we also know
that there are problems.
�I am in no doubt that many hospitals need to raise their game in this
area.
�Where NHS trusts fail to meet the mark, we have tough new enforcement
powers, ranging from warnings and fines to closure in extreme cases.
We will not hesitate to use these powers when necessary to bring
improvement.
"We will be asking NHS trusts and primary care trusts how they are
ensuring that the needs of patients and their safety and dignity are
kept at the heart of care.�
Chris Beasley, Chief Nursing Officer at the Department of Health said
the care in the cases highlighted by the PA was �simply unacceptable�.
She added: "It is important to note this is not representative of the
picture across the NHS.
"The NHS treats millions of people every day and the vast majority of
patients experience good quality, safe and effective care - the Care
Quality Commission's recent patient experience survey shows that 93
percent of patients rate their overall care as good or excellent.
"We will shortly be publishing complaints data on the NHS Choices
website and expect trusts to publish the number of complaints they
receive, setting out how these are successfully resolved."
Obama Nation = Abomination
Way Back Jack
Sid9
So what?
We have NO proposal for anything resembling the British
NHS...a universal health care system they've had since 1948.
You post is irrelevant.
....as usual,
Obama Nation = Abomination
Congressional Democrats will soon put forward their legislative
proposals for reforming health care. Should they succeed, tens of
millions of Americans will potentially be joining a new public
insurance program and the federal government will increasingly be
involved in treatment decisions.
Not long ago, I would have applauded this type of government
expansion. Born and raised in Canada, I once believed that government
health care is compassionate and equitable. It is neither.
My views changed in medical school. Yes, everyone in Canada is covered
by a "single payer" -- the government. But Canadians wait for
practically any procedure or diagnostic test or specialist
consultation in the public system.
Martin Kozlowski
.The problems were brought home when a relative had difficulty
walking. He was in chronic pain. His doctor suggested a referral to a
neurologist; an MRI would need to be done, then possibly a referral to
another specialist. The wait would have stretched to roughly a year.
If surgery was needed, the wait would be months more. Not wanting to
stay confined to his house, he had the surgery done in the U.S., at
the Mayo Clinic, and paid for it himself.
Such stories are common. For example, Sylvia de Vries, an Ontario
woman, had a 40-pound fluid-filled tumor removed from her abdomen by
an American surgeon in 2006. Her Michigan doctor estimated that she
was within weeks of dying, but she was still on a wait list for a
Canadian specialist.
Indeed, Canada's provincial governments themselves rely on American
medicine. Between 2006 and 2008, Ontario sent more than 160 patients
to New York and Michigan for emergency neurosurgery -- described by
the Globe and Mail newspaper as "broken necks, burst aneurysms and
other types of bleeding in or around the brain."
Only half of ER patients are treated in a timely manner by national
and international standards, according to a government study. The
physician shortage is so severe that some towns hold lotteries, with
the winners gaining access to the local doc.
Overall, according to a study published in Lancet Oncology last year,
five-year cancer survival rates are higher in the U.S. than those in
Canada. Based on data from the Joint Canada/U.S. Survey of Health
(done by Statistics Canada and the U.S. National Center for Health
Statistics), Americans have greater access to preventive screening
tests and have higher treatment rates for chronic illnesses. No
wonder: To limit the growth in health spending, governments restrict
the supply of health care by rationing it through waiting. The same
survey data show, as June and Paul O'Neill note in a paper published
in 2007 in the Forum for Health Economics & Policy, that the poor
under socialized medicine seem to be less healthy relative to the
nonpoor than their American counterparts.
Ironically, as the U.S. is on the verge of rushing toward government
health care, Canada is reforming its system in the opposite direction.
In 2005, Canada's supreme court struck down key laws in Quebec that
established a government monopoly of health services. Claude
Castonguay, who headed the Quebec government commission that
recommended the creation of its public health-care system in the
1960s, also has second thoughts. Last year, after completing another
review, he declared the system in "crisis" and suggested a massive
expansion of private services -- even advocating that public hospitals
rent facilities to physicians in off-hours.
And the medical establishment? Dr. Brian Day, an orthopedic surgeon,
grew increasingly frustrated by government cutbacks that reduced his
access to an operating room and increased the number of patients on
his hospital waiting list. He built a private hospital in Vancouver in
the 1990s. Last year, he completed a term as the president of the
Canadian Medical Association and was succeeded by a Quebec radiologist
who owns several private clinics.
In Canada, private-sector health care is growing. Dr. Day estimates
that 50,000 people are seen at private clinics every year in British
Columbia. According to the New York Times, a private clinic opens at a
rate of about one a week across the country. Public-private
partnerships, once a taboo topic, are embraced by provincial
governments.
In the United Kingdom, where socialized medicine was established after
World War II through the National Health Service, the present Labour
government has introduced a choice in surgeries by allowing patients
to choose among facilities, often including private ones. Even in
Sweden, the government has turned over services to the private sector.
Americans need to ask a basic question: Why are they rushing into a
system of government-dominated health care when the very countries
that have experienced it for so long are backing away?
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 20:40:59 -0500, Peter Principle
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 01:00:11 GMT, nos...@here.org (Obama Nation =
>Abomination) wrote:
>
><not one fucking word>
>
>Hey, rightard, did you not notice I just shredded EVERY SINGLE ONE of your
>stupid rightard Big Lies about health care?
>
>Every...
>
>Single...
>
>One.
>
>And with independent, non partisan fact checking sources, no less.
>
>And you can't even address ANY of it? All you can do is furiously tap dance
>and scream about not paying attention to the man behind the curtain?
>Pathetic...
>
>Oh, BTW, you really SUCK at dancing, too.
>
>Here, try again:
>
>No doubt you've heard endless whining from rightards about the supposed
>evils of universal health care. No doubt you'll be shocked, shocked, I tell
>you, to find out it's all just a pack of lies.
>
>And where are the rightards getting these asinine, absurd lies? From Capitol
>Hill to Gooberville, rightards are quoting a chain email constructed from a
>series of "Tweets" that is nothing more than one Big Lie after another.
>
>Yet more proof you can't have Twitter without twits...
>
> 26 of the rightard claims are outright Big Lies. The rest are misleading,
>at best. NOTHING they claim is true.
>
>Now, on to the debunking! Both FactCheck...
>
>http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/
>
>...and PolitiFact...
>
>http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/30/e-mail-analysis-health-bill-needs-check-/
>
>...have debunked ALL of these moronic claims, as has every other independent
>fact checking and/or news organization on the face of the planet.
>
>In case you're wondering where this idiot is getting the huge, steaming
>piles of absurd happy horse shit he gobbles down like a puppy on fresh puke,
>expecting us to do the same, every single one of the following LONG DEBUNKED
>LIES comes from the same LONG DEBUNKED KOOK CHAIN LETTER. I shit you not.
>He's THAT fucking stupid, and then some...
>
>Now, before I use FACTS to contradict this boob.babble bullshit point by
>point, since it's ALL bullshit, we'll just take the whole at one gulp.
>
>------
>http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/
>
>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.
>
>August 28, 2009
>
>Summary
>Our inbox has been overrun with messages asking us to weigh in on a mammoth
>list of claims about the House health care bill. The chain e-mail purports
>to give "a few highlights" from the first half of the bill, but the list of
>48 assertions is filled with falsehoods, exaggerations and
>misinterpretations. We examined each of the e-mail�s claims, finding 26 of
>them to be false and 18 to be misleading, only partly true or half true.
>...
>This chain e-mail claims to give a run-down of what�s in the House health
>care bill, H.R. 3200. Instead, it shows evidence of a reading comprehension
>problem on the part of the author. Some of our more enterprising readers
>have even taken it upon themselves to debunk a few of the assertions,
>sending us their notes and encouraging us to write about it. We applaud your
>fact-checking skills and your skepticism. And skepticism is warranted.
>------
>
>And from PolitiFact...
>
>------
>E-mail 'analysis' of health bill needs a check-up
>By Angie Drobnic Holan
>Published on Thursday, July 30th, 2009 at 5:08 p.m.
>
>Most of what the e-mail says is wrong. In fact, it's a clearinghouse of bad
>information circulating around the Web about proposed health care changes,
>so we thought it would be helpful to address a bunch of its claims.
>------
>
>Point by point refutation of the following rightard kook chain email Big
>Lies direct from FactCheck...
>
>>� Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
>
>------
>Claim: Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
>
>False: This section merely requires a study of �the large group insured and
>self-insured employer health care markets.� There�s no mention of auditing
>employers, only of studying �markets.� The purpose of the study is to
>produce �recommendations� to make sure the new law �does not provide
>incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure.�
>------
>
>>� Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
>
>------
>Claim: Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
>
>False: This section says nothing whatsoever about �rationing� or anything of
>the sort. Actually, it�s favorable to families and individuals, placing an
>annual cap on what they could pay out of pocket if covered by a basic,
>�essential benefits package.� The limits would be $5,000 for an individual,
>$10,000 for a family.
>------
>
>>� Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and
>>benefits you
>>get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
>
>Claim: Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and
>benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
>
>False: Actually, the section starting on page 30 sets up a �private-public
>advisory committee� headed by the U.S. surgeon general and made up of mostly
>private sector �medical and other experts� selected by the president and the
>comptroller general. The advisory committee would have only the power �to
>recommend� what benefits are included in basic, enhanced and premium
>insurance plans. It would have no power to decide what treatments anybody
>will get. Its recommendations on benefits might or might not be adopted.
>
>>� Page 42: The �Health Choices Commissioner� will decide health
>>benefits for
>>you. You will have no choice. None.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 42: The �Health Choices Commissioner� will decide health
>benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
>
>False: The new Health Choices Commissioner will oversee a variety of choices
>to be offered through new insurance exchanges. The bill itself specifies the
>�minimum services to be covered� in a basic plan, including prescription
>drugs, mental health services, maternity and well-baby care and certain
>vaccines and preventive services (pages 27-28). We find nothing in the bill
>that prevents insurance companies from offering benefits that exceed the
>minimums. In fact, the legislation allows (page 84) any company that offers
>an approved basic plan to offer also an �enhanced� plan, a �premium� plan
>and even a �premium plus� plan that could include vision and dental
>benefits.
>------
>
>>� Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with
>>free
>>healthcare services.
>
>
>------
>Claim: Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with
>free healthcare services.
>
>False. That�s simply not what the bill says at all. This page includes "SEC.
>152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE," which says that "[e]xcept
>as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations
>consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including
>insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall
>be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the
>provision of high quality health care or related services." However, the
>bill does explicitly say that illegal immigrants can�t get any government
>money to pay for health care. Page 143 states: "Nothing in this subtitle
>shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of
>individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." And as we�ve
>said before, current law prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in
>government health care programs.
>------
>
>>� Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
>
>False. There is no mention of any �National ID Healthcard� anywhere in the
>bill. Page 58 says that government standards for electronic medical
>transactions "may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan
>beneficiary identification card,� to show eligibility for services.
>Insurance companies typically issue such cards already, but if such a
>standard were issued the cards would need to be in a standard form readable
>by computers. The word �may� is used to permit such a standard, but it does
>not require one.
>------
>
>>� Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access
>>to all
>>individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to
>all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
>
>False. This section aims to simplify electronic payments for health
>services, the same sort of electronic payments that already are common for
>such things as utility bills or mortgage payments. The bill calls for the
>secretary of Health and Human Services to set standards for electronic
>administrative transactions that would "enable electronic funds transfers,
>in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care
>payment and remittance advice." There is no mention of "individual bank
>accounts" nor of any new government authority over them. Also, the section
>does not say that electronic payments from consumers is required.
>------
>
>>� Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community
>>organizer
>>health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
>
>------
>Claim: Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community
>organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
>
>Misleading. Page 65 is the start of a section (SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM
>FOR RETIREES) that would set up a new federal reinsurance plan to benefit
>retirees and spouses covered by any employer plan, not just those run by
>labor unions or nonprofit groups.
>------
>
>>� Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the
>>Healthcare
>>Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
>
>------
>Claim: Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Health
>care Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
>
>Partly true. Nothing like this appears on page 84. No insurance company is
>required to sell plans through the exchange if it doesn�t want to. Any
>employer may choose to buy coverage elsewhere. In fact, the vast majority of
>employers will still be buying private plans through the normal marketplace,
>because only employers with 10 or fewer employees are even allowed to buy
>through the exchange in the first year.
>------
>
>>� Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services;
>>translation: illegal aliens
>
>------
>Claim: Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services;
>translation: illegal aliens
>
>Misleading. It�s true that page 91 says that insurance companies selling
>plans through the new exchange �shall provide for culturally and
>linguistically appropriate communication and health services.� The author�s
>�translation,� however, assumes that anyone speaking a foreign language or
>from another culture is an illegal immigrant, which is false.
>------
>
>>� Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up
>>individuals
>>for Government-run Health Care plan.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up
>individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
>
>False: This page is the start of �SEC. 205. OUTREACH AND ENROLLMENT OF
>EXCHANGE-ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS AND EMPLOYERS IN EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING HEALTH
>BENEFITS PLAN.� It says a newly established Health Choices Commissioner
>�shall conduct outreach activities� to get people covered by private or
>government health insurance plans. The section says on page 97 that the
>Commissioner �may work with other appropriate entities to facilitate �
>provision of information.� But there is no authorization anywhere in the
>entire section for the Commissioner to pay money to any group to engage in
>outreach.
>------
>
>>� Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically
>>enrolled: you
>>have no choice in the matter.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled:
>you have no choice in the matter.
>
>Partly true. Page 102 says certain Medicaid-eligible persons will be
>�automatically enrolled� in Medicaid (which is the state-federal program to
>provide insurance to low-income workers and families) IF they are not
>already covered by private insurance. That would happen only if they had
>�not elected to enroll� in one of the private plans offered through the new
>insurance exchanges, however.
>------
>
>>� Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No
>>�judicial
>>review� is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply,
>>private
>>insurers will be crushed.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No
>�judicial review� is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply,
>private insurers will be crushed.
>
>Half true. It�s true that page 124 forbids any review by the courts of rates
>the government would pay to doctors and hospitals under the new �public
>option� insurance plan. But there�s no mention of �price fixing� in the bill
>------
>
>>� Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
>
>Misleading. Nothing in the bill would �set wages� for doctors
>------
>
>>� Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the
>>government-run
>>public plan. No alternatives.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the
>government-run public plan. No alternatives.
>
>False. It�s true that employers would be required to sign up their workers
>for coverage automatically, but it doesn�t have to be the �public plan.� It
>would be the employer-offered plan �with the lowest applicable employee
>premium� (pages 147- 148). This would only be the "public option" if the
>employer was eligible to buy coverage through the Health Insurance Exchange
>(not likely, at least during the first two years when only small businesses
>would have access), and the "public option" was the cheapest plan (which
>would be likely). Furthermore, while the employer isn�t given an
>alternative, the workers are. They may reject auto-enrollment under an
>opt-out provision (page 148).
>------
>
>>� Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time
>>employees AND
>>their families.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 146: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees
>AND their families.
>
>Half true. There�s nothing in this section about part-time employees�
>families, but this provision does call for employers to contribute toward
>part-time employees� health insurance. The bill says that �for an employee
>who is not a full-time employee � the amount of the minimum employer
>contribution� will be a proportion of the minimum contribution for full-time
>employees.
>------
>
>>� Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not
>>offer
>>the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll
>>
>>� Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who
>>does not
>>offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll
>
>------
>Claim: Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not
>offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll Claim: Page 150: Any
>employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public
>option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll.
>
>Both Partly True. The bill requires employers either to offer private health
>insurance coverage or pay a percentage of their payroll expenses to help
>finance a public plan. The 8 percent payment would indeed apply to employers
>with payrolls over $400,000 in the previous year, and lesser amounts would
>apply to smaller firms. Those with payrolls of $250,000 or less would pay
>nothing. But the penalty isn�t incurred if an employer "does not offer the
>public option," as the e-mail claims. Rather, it�s a penalty for not
>offering health insurance to employees.
>------
>
>>� Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes
>>(Americans
>>will pay for them).
>
>------
>Claim: Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes
>(Americans will pay for them).
>
>False. �Non-resident aliens� are generally those who have spent less than 31
>days in the U.S. during the year. The claim that �Americans will pay for
>them� assumes that such visitors would somehow be getting federal benefits
>that would cost taxpayers money. In any case, they are not �exempt from
>individual taxes� at all.
>------
>
>>� Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare
>>Bureaucracy will
>>have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Health care
>Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
>
>False. This section of the bill discusses �Disclosures To Carry Out Health
>Insurance Exchange Subsidies.� It says that government employees of the
>health insurance exchange will have access to federal tax information for
>purposes of determining eligibility for affordability credits available for
>low- and moderate-income Americans. In other words, in order to qualify for
>a government subsidy to purchase health insurance, the government needs to
>confirm your income. And, no surprise, the government already has access to
>your federal tax information.
>------
>
>>� Page 203: �The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated
>>as tax.�
>>Yes, it really says that.� Page 239: Bill will reduce physician
>>services for
>>Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected.�
>
>------
>Claim: Page 203: �The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as
>tax.� Yes, it really says that.
>
>Misleading. What this actually says is: �The tax imposed under this section
>shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of
>determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of
>section 55,� which deals with the Alternative Minimum Tax. It would limit
>the ripple effects of the new taxes the bill would impose on individuals
>making over $350,000 a year.
>------
>
>>� Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you�ll all be
>>paid
>>the same (thanks, AMA!)
>
>------
>Claim: Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors
>and the poor most affected. Claim: Page 241: Doctors: no matter what
>specialty you have, you�ll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)
>
>Both False. Both of these claims pertain to Section 1121, which updates the
>physician fee schedule for 2010 for Medicare. It doesn�t "reduce physician
>services for Medicaid" (which wouldn�t pertain to seniors anyway)
>------
>
>>� Page 253: Government sets value of doctors� time, their professional
>>judgment, etc.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 253: Government sets value of doctors� time, their professional
>judgment, etc.
>
>Misleading. It�s true that page 253 refers to �relative value units� to be
>used when determining payment rates for doctor�s services, and that such
>RVUs would weigh factors �such as time, mental effort and professional
>judgment, technical skill and physical effort, and stress due to risk.� But
>this is nothing new; the government already uses RVUs when setting rates it
>will pay under Medicare.
>------
>
>>� Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private
>>healthcare industries.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private
>healthcare industries.
>
>Misleading. This claim doesn�t even make sense. How can anyone "mandate�
>that somebody else be productive, or �control� how productive they are? The
>author has simply misunderstood what this controversial item would do.
>------
>
>>� Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven
>>wheelchairs.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven
>wheelchairs.
>
>Misleading. What page 268 does is to stop Medicare for paying for �mobility
>scooters,� which have been widely marketed as a Medicare-financed benefit,
>leading to ballooning costs to the program. They would no longer qualify as
>a �power-driven wheelchair.� Only a "complex rehabilitative power-driven
>wheel chair recognized by the Secretary� would be covered. The Congressional
>Budget Office estimates this will save the government $800 million over 10
>years
>------
>
>>� Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of
>>rationing!
>
>------
>Claim: Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of
>rationing!
>
>False. This page merely calls for a study of whether a certain class of
>hospitals incur higher costs than some others for the cancer care they
>deliver. It also says the secretary of HHS �shall provide for an appropriate
>adjustment� in payments �to reflect those higher costs.� It�s hardly
>�rationing� to pay hospitals more to compensate for higher costs.
>------
>
>>� Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial
>>admission that
>>results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government
>
>------
>Claim: Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission
>that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.
>
>False. That section is part of a list of potential physician-centered
>approaches to reducing excess hospital readmissions.
>------
>
>>� Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing
>>in
>>healthcare companies!
>
>------
>Claim: Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in
>healthcare companies!
>
>False. It�s already illegal, with certain exceptions, for doctors to refer
>Medicare patients to hospitals, labs, medical imaging facilities or other
>such medical businesses in which they hold a financial interest.
>------
>
>>� Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand
>>without
>>government approval.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand
>without government approval.
>
>False. Expansion is forbidden only for rural, doctor-owned hospitals that
>have been given a waiver from the general prohibition on self-referral. It
>does not apply to hospitals in general. The bill provides for exceptions to
>even this limited expansion ban (page 321).
>------
>
>>� Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on �community� input: in other
>>words,
>>yet another payoff for ACORN.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on �community� input: in other
>words, yet another payoff for ACORN.
>
>False. Page 321 says rural, doctor-owned hospitals that are exempt from the
>Medicaid self-referral prohibition can ask to be allowed to expand under
>rules that must allow �input� from �persons or entities in the community.�
>Under that language, anybody in the community could offer their opinion, but
>nobody � not ACORN or anybody else � would be paid for it.
>------
>
>>� Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based
>>measures: i.e.,
>>rationing.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based
>measures: i.e., rationing.
>
>Misleading. This section does deal with establishing quality measures for
>Medicare. It does not make any recommendations for treatment, or empower
>anyone to make treatment recommendations based on those measures.
>------
>
>>� Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS
>>individuals.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS
>individuals.
>
>Misleading. Insurance companies already restrict enrollment in so-called
>�special needs� plans, a special category of Medicare Advantage plans that
>were created in 2003. Page 354 merely extends the authority to do that
>beyond the end of next year, when it was set to expire. Furthermore, what�s
>being restricted isn�t the number of patients, but the type of patients.
>Plans can be restricted to accepting only those patients who fall into in
>one or more special categories. These include those who are
>institutionalized (think, nursing homes), those who qualify both for
>Medicare and Medicaid (think, both low-income and over age 65) and those
>with severe or disabling chronic conditions such as diabetes, emphysema,
>chronic heart failure or dementia. And of course, this has nothing to do
>with children with learning problems.
>------
>
>>� Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee
>>(healthcare by
>>phone).
>
>------
>Claim: Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare
>by phone).
>
>Misleading. The advisory committee would not be a �bureaucracy� or have any
>administrative functions, but instead would bring together experts from the
>private sector to give advice on how Medicare and Medicaid should treat the
>practice of medicine via telecommunication, something used in rural
>hospitals and such places as cruise ships, battlefield settings and even on
>NASA space missions.
>------
>
>>� Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior
>>Citizens,
>>assisted suicide, euthanasia?
>>
>>� Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living
>>wills,
>>durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate
>>taxes
>>ahead of time.
>>
>>� Page 425: Goverment provides approved list of end-of-life resources,
>>guiding
>>you in death.
>>
>>� Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life
>>treatment;
>>government dictates how your life ends.
>>
>>� Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate
>>treatment as
>>patient�s health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for
>>end-of-life
>>plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
>>
>>� Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may
>>have at
>>end-of-life.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior
>Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia? Claim: Page 425: Government will
>instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney,
>etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time. Claim: Page
>425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you
>in death Claim: Page 427: Government mandates program that orders
>end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends. Claim: Page
>429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as
>patient�s health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life
>plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT. Claim: Page 430: Government will decide
>what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
>
>All False. These six claims are a twisted interpretation of a provision in
>the bill that says Medicare will cover voluntary counseling sessions between
>seniors and their doctors to discuss end-of-life care. Medicare doesn�t pay
>for such sessions now; it would under the bill.
>------
>
>>� Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for
>>ACORN.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for
>ACORN.
>
>False. This section defines the term "community-based medical home" as a
>"nonprofit community-based or State-based organization" that "provides
>beneficiaries with medical home services." ACORN does not provide medical
>home services.
>------
>
>>� Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs
>>for ACORN.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for
>ACORN.
>
>False. This section is referring to community-based medical homes.
>------
>
>>� Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy.
>>Government
>>intervenes in your marriage.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy.
>Government intervenes in your marriage.
>
>Half true. It�s true that pages 489 and 490 make state-licensed �marriage
>and family therapist� services a covered expense �for the diagnosis and
>treatment of mental illnesses.� But the therapists wouldn�t be employed by
>the government, and there�s no requirement for anybody to receive their
>help. So the claim that this would mean that �government intervenes in your
>marriage� is false.
>------
>
>>� Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining,
>>creating
>>and rationing those services.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining,
>creating and rationing those services.
>
>Misleading. The provision amends Section 1861 of the Social Security Act
>laying out what services Medicare will cover. It expands coverage for mental
>health services, stipulating that a "mental health counselor" who can
>perform mental health counseling is someone with a master�s or doctorate
>degree, a state license, and two years of practice as a counselor.
>------
>
>There you have it, folks. The rightards all all wrong on every single point.
>Every...
>
>Single...
>
>One.
>
>It's all just a pack of stupid, easily debunked lies. Know you now. Debunk
>the lies. Spread the word.
Obama Nation = Abomination
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 20:40:59 -0500, Peter Principle
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>>� Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
>
>------
>Claim: Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
>
>False: This section merely requires a study of �the large group insured and
>self-insured employer health care markets.� There�s no mention of auditing
>employers, only of studying �markets.� The purpose of the study is to
>produce �recommendations� to make sure the new law �does not provide
>incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure.�
>------
>
>>� Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
>
>------
>Claim: Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
>
>False: This section says nothing whatsoever about �rationing� or anything of
>the sort. Actually, it�s favorable to families and individuals, placing an
>annual cap on what they could pay out of pocket if covered by a basic,
>�essential benefits package.� The limits would be $5,000 for an individual,
>$10,000 for a family.
>------
>
>>� Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and
>>benefits you
>>get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
>
>Claim: Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and
>benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
>
>False: Actually, the section starting on page 30 sets up a �private-public
>advisory committee� headed by the U.S. surgeon general and made up of mostly
>private sector �medical and other experts� selected by the president and the
>comptroller general. The advisory committee would have only the power �to
>recommend� what benefits are included in basic, enhanced and premium
>insurance plans. It would have no power to decide what treatments anybody
>will get. Its recommendations on benefits might or might not be adopted.
>
>>� Page 42: The �Health Choices Commissioner� will decide health
>>benefits for
>>you. You will have no choice. None.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 42: The �Health Choices Commissioner� will decide health
>benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
>
>False: The new Health Choices Commissioner will oversee a variety of choices
>to be offered through new insurance exchanges. The bill itself specifies the
>�minimum services to be covered� in a basic plan, including prescription
>drugs, mental health services, maternity and well-baby care and certain
>vaccines and preventive services (pages 27-28). We find nothing in the bill
>that prevents insurance companies from offering benefits that exceed the
>minimums. In fact, the legislation allows (page 84) any company that offers
>an approved basic plan to offer also an �enhanced� plan, a �premium� plan
>and even a �premium plus� plan that could include vision and dental
>benefits.
>------
>
>>� Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with
>>free
>>healthcare services.
>
>
>------
>Claim: Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with
>free healthcare services.
>
>False. That�s simply not what the bill says at all. This page includes "SEC.
>152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE," which says that "[e]xcept
>as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations
>consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including
>insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall
>be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the
>provision of high quality health care or related services." However, the
>bill does explicitly say that illegal immigrants can�t get any government
>money to pay for health care. Page 143 states: "Nothing in this subtitle
>shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of
>individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." And as we�ve
>said before, current law prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in
>government health care programs.
>------
>
>>� Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
>
>False. There is no mention of any �National ID Healthcard� anywhere in the
>bill. Page 58 says that government standards for electronic medical
>transactions "may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan
>beneficiary identification card,� to show eligibility for services.
>Insurance companies typically issue such cards already, but if such a
>standard were issued the cards would need to be in a standard form readable
>by computers. The word �may� is used to permit such a standard, but it does
>not require one.
>------
>
>>� Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access
>>to all
>>individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to
>all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
>
>False. This section aims to simplify electronic payments for health
>services, the same sort of electronic payments that already are common for
>such things as utility bills or mortgage payments. The bill calls for the
>secretary of Health and Human Services to set standards for electronic
>administrative transactions that would "enable electronic funds transfers,
>in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care
>payment and remittance advice." There is no mention of "individual bank
>accounts" nor of any new government authority over them. Also, the section
>does not say that electronic payments from consumers is required.
>------
>
>>� Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community
>>organizer
>>health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
>
>------
>Claim: Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community
>organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
>
>Misleading. Page 65 is the start of a section (SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM
>FOR RETIREES) that would set up a new federal reinsurance plan to benefit
>retirees and spouses covered by any employer plan, not just those run by
>labor unions or nonprofit groups.
>------
>
>>� Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the
>>Healthcare
>>Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
>
>------
>Claim: Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Health
>care Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
>
>Partly true. Nothing like this appears on page 84. No insurance company is
>required to sell plans through the exchange if it doesn�t want to. Any
>employer may choose to buy coverage elsewhere. In fact, the vast majority of
>employers will still be buying private plans through the normal marketplace,
>because only employers with 10 or fewer employees are even allowed to buy
>through the exchange in the first year.
>------
>
>>� Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services;
>>translation: illegal aliens
>
>------
>Claim: Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services;
>translation: illegal aliens
>
>Misleading. It�s true that page 91 says that insurance companies selling
>plans through the new exchange �shall provide for culturally and
>linguistically appropriate communication and health services.� The author�s
>�translation,� however, assumes that anyone speaking a foreign language or
>from another culture is an illegal immigrant, which is false.
>------
>
>>� Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up
>>individuals
>>for Government-run Health Care plan.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up
>individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
>
>False: This page is the start of �SEC. 205. OUTREACH AND ENROLLMENT OF
>EXCHANGE-ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS AND EMPLOYERS IN EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING HEALTH
>BENEFITS PLAN.� It says a newly established Health Choices Commissioner
>�shall conduct outreach activities� to get people covered by private or
>government health insurance plans. The section says on page 97 that the
>Commissioner �may work with other appropriate entities to facilitate �
>provision of information.� But there is no authorization anywhere in the
>entire section for the Commissioner to pay money to any group to engage in
>outreach.
>------
>
>>� Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically
>>enrolled: you
>>have no choice in the matter.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled:
>you have no choice in the matter.
>
>Partly true. Page 102 says certain Medicaid-eligible persons will be
>�automatically enrolled� in Medicaid (which is the state-federal program to
>provide insurance to low-income workers and families) IF they are not
>already covered by private insurance. That would happen only if they had
>�not elected to enroll� in one of the private plans offered through the new
>insurance exchanges, however.
>------
>
>>� Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No
>>�judicial
>>review� is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply,
>>private
>>insurers will be crushed.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No
>�judicial review� is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply,
>private insurers will be crushed.
>
>Half true. It�s true that page 124 forbids any review by the courts of rates
>the government would pay to doctors and hospitals under the new �public
>option� insurance plan. But there�s no mention of �price fixing� in the bill
>------
>
>>� Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
>
>Misleading. Nothing in the bill would �set wages� for doctors
>------
>
>>� Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the
>>government-run
>>public plan. No alternatives.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the
>government-run public plan. No alternatives.
>
>False. It�s true that employers would be required to sign up their workers
>for coverage automatically, but it doesn�t have to be the �public plan.� It
>would be the employer-offered plan �with the lowest applicable employee
>premium� (pages 147- 148). This would only be the "public option" if the
>employer was eligible to buy coverage through the Health Insurance Exchange
>(not likely, at least during the first two years when only small businesses
>would have access), and the "public option" was the cheapest plan (which
>would be likely). Furthermore, while the employer isn�t given an
>alternative, the workers are. They may reject auto-enrollment under an
>opt-out provision (page 148).
>------
>
>>� Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time
>>employees AND
>>their families.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 146: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees
>AND their families.
>
>Half true. There�s nothing in this section about part-time employees�
>families, but this provision does call for employers to contribute toward
>part-time employees� health insurance. The bill says that �for an employee
>who is not a full-time employee � the amount of the minimum employer
>contribution� will be a proportion of the minimum contribution for full-time
>employees.
>------
>
>>� Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not
>>offer
>>the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll
>>
>>� Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who
>>does not
>>offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll
>
>------
>Claim: Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not
>offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll Claim: Page 150: Any
>employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public
>option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll.
>
>Both Partly True. The bill requires employers either to offer private health
>insurance coverage or pay a percentage of their payroll expenses to help
>finance a public plan. The 8 percent payment would indeed apply to employers
>with payrolls over $400,000 in the previous year, and lesser amounts would
>apply to smaller firms. Those with payrolls of $250,000 or less would pay
>nothing. But the penalty isn�t incurred if an employer "does not offer the
>public option," as the e-mail claims. Rather, it�s a penalty for not
>offering health insurance to employees.
>------
>
>>� Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes
>>(Americans
>>will pay for them).
>
>------
>Claim: Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes
>(Americans will pay for them).
>
>False. �Non-resident aliens� are generally those who have spent less than 31
>days in the U.S. during the year. The claim that �Americans will pay for
>them� assumes that such visitors would somehow be getting federal benefits
>that would cost taxpayers money. In any case, they are not �exempt from
>individual taxes� at all.
>------
>
>>� Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare
>>Bureaucracy will
>>have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Health care
>Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
>
>False. This section of the bill discusses �Disclosures To Carry Out Health
>Insurance Exchange Subsidies.� It says that government employees of the
>health insurance exchange will have access to federal tax information for
>purposes of determining eligibility for affordability credits available for
>low- and moderate-income Americans. In other words, in order to qualify for
>a government subsidy to purchase health insurance, the government needs to
>confirm your income. And, no surprise, the government already has access to
>your federal tax information.
>------
>
>>� Page 203: �The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated
>>as tax.�
>>Yes, it really says that.� Page 239: Bill will reduce physician
>>services for
>>Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected.�
>
>------
>Claim: Page 203: �The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as
>tax.� Yes, it really says that.
>
>Misleading. What this actually says is: �The tax imposed under this section
>shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of
>determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of
>section 55,� which deals with the Alternative Minimum Tax. It would limit
>the ripple effects of the new taxes the bill would impose on individuals
>making over $350,000 a year.
>------
>
>>� Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you�ll all be
>>paid
>>the same (thanks, AMA!)
>
>------
>Claim: Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors
>and the poor most affected. Claim: Page 241: Doctors: no matter what
>specialty you have, you�ll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)
>
>Both False. Both of these claims pertain to Section 1121, which updates the
>physician fee schedule for 2010 for Medicare. It doesn�t "reduce physician
>services for Medicaid" (which wouldn�t pertain to seniors anyway)
>------
>
>>� Page 253: Government sets value of doctors� time, their professional
>>judgment, etc.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 253: Government sets value of doctors� time, their professional
>judgment, etc.
>
>Misleading. It�s true that page 253 refers to �relative value units� to be
>used when determining payment rates for doctor�s services, and that such
>RVUs would weigh factors �such as time, mental effort and professional
>judgment, technical skill and physical effort, and stress due to risk.� But
>this is nothing new; the government already uses RVUs when setting rates it
>will pay under Medicare.
>------
>
>>� Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private
>>healthcare industries.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private
>healthcare industries.
>
>Misleading. This claim doesn�t even make sense. How can anyone "mandate�
>that somebody else be productive, or �control� how productive they are? The
>author has simply misunderstood what this controversial item would do.
>------
>
>>� Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven
>>wheelchairs.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven
>wheelchairs.
>
>Misleading. What page 268 does is to stop Medicare for paying for �mobility
>scooters,� which have been widely marketed as a Medicare-financed benefit,
>leading to ballooning costs to the program. They would no longer qualify as
>a �power-driven wheelchair.� Only a "complex rehabilitative power-driven
>wheel chair recognized by the Secretary� would be covered. The Congressional
>Budget Office estimates this will save the government $800 million over 10
>years
>------
>
>>� Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of
>>rationing!
>
>------
>Claim: Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of
>rationing!
>
>False. This page merely calls for a study of whether a certain class of
>hospitals incur higher costs than some others for the cancer care they
>deliver. It also says the secretary of HHS �shall provide for an appropriate
>adjustment� in payments �to reflect those higher costs.� It�s hardly
>�rationing� to pay hospitals more to compensate for higher costs.
>------
>
>>� Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial
>>admission that
>>results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government
>
>------
>Claim: Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission
>that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.
>
>False. That section is part of a list of potential physician-centered
>approaches to reducing excess hospital readmissions.
>------
>
>>� Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing
>>in
>>healthcare companies!
>
>------
>Claim: Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in
>healthcare companies!
>
>False. It�s already illegal, with certain exceptions, for doctors to refer
>Medicare patients to hospitals, labs, medical imaging facilities or other
>such medical businesses in which they hold a financial interest.
>------
>
>>� Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand
>>without
>>government approval.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand
>without government approval.
>
>False. Expansion is forbidden only for rural, doctor-owned hospitals that
>have been given a waiver from the general prohibition on self-referral. It
>does not apply to hospitals in general. The bill provides for exceptions to
>even this limited expansion ban (page 321).
>------
>
>>� Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on �community� input: in other
>>words,
>>yet another payoff for ACORN.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on �community� input: in other
>words, yet another payoff for ACORN.
>
>False. Page 321 says rural, doctor-owned hospitals that are exempt from the
>Medicaid self-referral prohibition can ask to be allowed to expand under
>rules that must allow �input� from �persons or entities in the community.�
>Under that language, anybody in the community could offer their opinion, but
>nobody � not ACORN or anybody else � would be paid for it.
>------
>
>>� Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based
>>measures: i.e.,
>>rationing.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based
>measures: i.e., rationing.
>
>Misleading. This section does deal with establishing quality measures for
>Medicare. It does not make any recommendations for treatment, or empower
>anyone to make treatment recommendations based on those measures.
>------
>
>>� Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS
>>individuals.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS
>individuals.
>
>Misleading. Insurance companies already restrict enrollment in so-called
>�special needs� plans, a special category of Medicare Advantage plans that
>were created in 2003. Page 354 merely extends the authority to do that
>beyond the end of next year, when it was set to expire. Furthermore, what�s
>being restricted isn�t the number of patients, but the type of patients.
>Plans can be restricted to accepting only those patients who fall into in
>one or more special categories. These include those who are
>institutionalized (think, nursing homes), those who qualify both for
>Medicare and Medicaid (think, both low-income and over age 65) and those
>with severe or disabling chronic conditions such as diabetes, emphysema,
>chronic heart failure or dementia. And of course, this has nothing to do
>with children with learning problems.
>------
>
>>� Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee
>>(healthcare by
>>phone).
>
>------
>Claim: Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare
>by phone).
>
>Misleading. The advisory committee would not be a �bureaucracy� or have any
>administrative functions, but instead would bring together experts from the
>private sector to give advice on how Medicare and Medicaid should treat the
>practice of medicine via telecommunication, something used in rural
>hospitals and such places as cruise ships, battlefield settings and even on
>NASA space missions.
>------
>
>>� Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior
>>Citizens,
>>assisted suicide, euthanasia?
>>
>>� Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living
>>wills,
>>durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate
>>taxes
>>ahead of time.
>>
>>� Page 425: Goverment provides approved list of end-of-life resources,
>>guiding
>>you in death.
>>
>>� Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life
>>treatment;
>>government dictates how your life ends.
>>
>>� Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate
>>treatment as
>>patient�s health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for
>>end-of-life
>>plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
>>
>>� Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may
>>have at
>>end-of-life.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior
>Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia? Claim: Page 425: Government will
>instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney,
>etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time. Claim: Page
>425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you
>in death Claim: Page 427: Government mandates program that orders
>end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends. Claim: Page
>429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as
>patient�s health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life
>plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT. Claim: Page 430: Government will decide
>what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
>
>All False. These six claims are a twisted interpretation of a provision in
>the bill that says Medicare will cover voluntary counseling sessions between
>seniors and their doctors to discuss end-of-life care. Medicare doesn�t pay
>for such sessions now; it would under the bill.
>------
>
>>� Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for
>>ACORN.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for
>ACORN.
>
>False. This section defines the term "community-based medical home" as a
>"nonprofit community-based or State-based organization" that "provides
>beneficiaries with medical home services." ACORN does not provide medical
>home services.
>------
>
>>� Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs
>>for ACORN.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for
>ACORN.
>
>False. This section is referring to community-based medical homes.
>------
>
>>� Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy.
>>Government
>>intervenes in your marriage.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy.
>Government intervenes in your marriage.
>
>Half true. It�s true that pages 489 and 490 make state-licensed �marriage
>and family therapist� services a covered expense �for the diagnosis and
>treatment of mental illnesses.� But the therapists wouldn�t be employed by
>the government, and there�s no requirement for anybody to receive their
>help. So the claim that this would mean that �government intervenes in your
>marriage� is false.
>------
>
>>� Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining,
>>creating
>>and rationing those services.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining,
>creating and rationing those services.
>
>Misleading. The provision amends Section 1861 of the Social Security Act
>laying out what services Medicare will cover. It expands coverage for mental
>health services, stipulating that a "mental health counselor" who can
>perform mental health counseling is someone with a master�s or doctorate
>degree, a state license, and two years of practice as a counselor.
>------
>
>There you have it, folks. The rightards all all wrong on every single point.
>Every...
>
>Single...
>
>One.
>
>It's all just a pack of stupid, easily debunked lies. Know you now. Debunk
>the lies. Spread the word.
>
Obama Nation = Abomination
With a projected $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009, several trillions
more in deficits projected over the next decade, and with both
Medicare and Social Security entitlement spending about to ratchet up
several notches over the next 15 years as Baby Boomers become eligible
for both, we are rapidly running out of other people's money. These
deficits are simply not sustainable. They are either going to result
in unprecedented new taxes and inflation, or they will bankrupt us.
While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country
needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create
hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us
much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system.
Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the
opposite direction�toward less government control and more individual
empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost
of health care for everyone:
View Full Image
Chad Crowe
.�?Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of
high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts
(HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs
is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For
example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team
members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team
members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also
provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars
through deposits into employees' Personal Wellness Accounts to spend
as they choose on their own health and wellness.
Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over
time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars
until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the
insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first
$2,500 more carefully. Our plan's costs are much lower than typical
health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker
satisfaction.
�?Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and
individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now
employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but
individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.
�?Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from
competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to
purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and
we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health
insurance should be portable.
�?Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must
cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by
billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be
determined by individual customer preferences and not through
special-interest lobbying.
�?Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to
pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for
health care.
�?Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care
treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last
doctor's visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or
services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?
�?Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that
Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create
greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.
�?Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make
a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people
who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the
State Children's Health Insurance Program.
Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an
intrinsic ethical right to health care�to equal access to doctors,
medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are
sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right
to health care than they have to food or shelter?
Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and
shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial
market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right
to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This
"right" has never existed in America
Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic
right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by
government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible
to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with
socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to
wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.
Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000
Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get
treatment, according to a report last month in Investor's Business
Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million.
At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they
most want the company to fund. Our Canadian and British employees
express their benefit preferences very clearly�they want supplemental
health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without
permission from their governments. Why would they want such additional
health-care benefit dollars if they already have an "intrinsic right
to health care"? The answer is clear�no such right truly exists in
either Canada or the U.K.�or in any other country.
Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to
address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the
realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her
own health.
Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted:
two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese.
Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all
health-care spending�heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and
obesity�are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not
smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle
choices.
Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of
foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help
prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and
are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free
lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age.
Health-care reform is very important. Whatever reforms are enacted it
is essential that they be financially responsible, and that we have
the freedom to choose doctors and the health-care services that best
suit our own unique set of lifestyle choices. We are all responsible
for our own lives and our own health. We should take that
responsibility very seriously and use our freedom to make wise
lifestyle choices that will protect our health. Doing so will enrich
our lives and will help create a vibrant and sustainable American
society.
Obama Nation = Abomination
By James Simpson
These are perilous times. Last November's election of Barack Obama and
a filibuster-proof majority of Democrats in both houses allowed a
virulent cabal to capture our nation's seat of power. As with the
Democrat takeover of Congress in 2006, it was a disaster of epic
proportions. With one shocking, enormous, blatantly partisan,
self-serving and destructive proposal following on the heels of
another, the sheer enormity of their power grab defies description.
But as each new proposal moves forward, the hand of the Crisis
Strategy becomes clear.
If there were ever any doubt that Barack Obama personifies the Crisis
Strategy, it should long since have been removed for anyone with a
mind. Since so many Americans seem to have lost theirs, I address this
to the rest of you. For with God's help, it is you and I, not our
gutless, hapless, corrupt politicians, nor our sleeping populus that
will save this country or allow it to fall.
For those of you who aren't familiar with it, the Crisis Strategy was
the brainchild of two radical socialist college professors, Richard
Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. The idea was to overwhelm government
with demands for services to the point where the system would collapse
and provide an opening for the socialists to take over. Their strategy
was behind creation of the National Welfare Rights Organization in the
1960s and 1970s which dramatically increased the welfare roles and
caused the near bankruptcy of New York City in 1975; creation of the
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), prime
instigators of the mortgage meltdown; the national Motor Voter law
signed by President Clinton in 1993, which opened the floodgates to
vote fraud by ACORN and similar groups; and the illegal immigrant
amnesty movement. As we all should know by now, Barack Obama worked
with and trained ACORN workers for many years, and is known and
supported by all the major players in this movement.
Healthcare nationalization is a major component of this strategy. The
Left has agitated almost since the turn of the last century for some
kind of socialized healthcare system. In fact, from 1939 forward,
practically every Congressional session proposed national healthcare
legislation. As aptly described in an incisive analysis of Medicare by
the Cato Institute:
For more than 50 years before the 1965 enactment of Medicare, the
American people repeatedly rejected the idea of government-mandated
health insurance. Yet advocates of such federal power inside and
outside of government did not take no for an answer. Year after year
they kept coming back--pursuing incremental strategies,
misrepresenting their proposals, even distributing propaganda paid for
with government money in apparent violation of existing law.
Their dream was partially realized with creation of Medicare and
Medicaid in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson's "Great
Society." The stated goal of these programs was to provide
comprehensive healthcare for seniors and the poor. As the programs
grew, the Left clamored for ever more benefits to these groups and
ever expanding definitions of covered individuals. Illegal
immigration, also encouraged by the Left, contributed to a rapidly
growing pool of beneficiaries.
Like any free good, demand for services under these programs has
skyrocketed. Spending levels were insignificant in the early years,
but today Medicare and Medicaid today comprise 36 percent of total US
healthcare spending.
Medicare was originally to be funded with "Hospital Insurance" (HI)
premiums tacked onto the Social Security FICA tax. No one seriously
believed the HI tax would cover all costs. And despite more than
quadrupling the HI tax rate from 0.7 percent to 2.9 percent, it
hasn't. Today HI taxes cover a mere 40 percent of Medicare spending.
About 21 percent comes from premiums paid by beneficiaries and other
sources. Fully 39 percent comes from general revenues (i.e. you and
me, pal.) Citation here.
Medicaid is funded roughly 50/50 by federal and state governments. As
an essentially free benefit to the poor, Medicaid has no tax
associated with it, so it is covered by state and federal income tax
revenues -- that's you and me again, sucker. In 2006, Medicaid
spending alone totaled $314 billion. For perspective, this is roughly
equivalent to the baseline defense budget (i.e. excluding war spending
like for Iraq/Afghanistan). State Medicaid programs are the largest
single recipient of all federal grants, comprising 43 percent of the
total.
In 2008, federal Medicaid and Medicare spending totaled $676 billion.
Comprising only 2 percent of the federal budget in 1967, these two
programs today consume 23 percent of total federal spending. This is
the largest component of the federal budget, even exceeding total
wartime outlays for national defense.
Corrected for inflation, total federal and state government spending
on healthcare has increased by 2,735 percent since Medicaid and
Medicare funding began in 1967. That is a real annual growth rate of
8.5 percent, almost three times the annual rate of economic growth for
the same period![1]
All these effects were predicted by economists, and we were repeatedly
warned. The Left knew.
These spiraling costs have to be covered somehow. The Left knew this
too. Besides raiding the General Fund, the federal government has used
its monopsony power to strong arm ever greater price concessions from
the healthcare industry. Medicare and Medicaid reimburse doctors a
small and shrinking portion of the fees they charge. Private insurance
on the other hand, provides a larger reimbursement, and uninsured
individuals who do not qualify for the government programs pay full
price. These prices are much higher than they would be in absence of
the government programs because medical providers have to recoup their
costs somehow. And because the pool of Medicare and Medicaid
recipients continues to grow, prices keep going up.
For example, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons recently
responded to President Obama's wildly false claim that Surgeons charge
"$30,000, $40,000 [or] $50,000" for a foot amputation. Instead they
say, "Medicare reimbursements to physicians for foot amputations range
from approximately $700 to $1200 which includes the follow up care the
surgeon provides to the patient up to 90 days after the operation."
That is simply outrageous!
Private insurance on the other hand, provides a larger reimbursement,
and uninsured individuals who do not qualify for the government
programs pay full price. These prices are much higher than they would
be in absence of the government programs because medical providers
have to recoup their costs somehow. And because the pool of Medicare
and Medicaid recipients continues to grow, prices keep going up.
So while private citizens pay the lion's share of taxes to fund
Medicare and Medicaid, we are also cross-subsidizing these government
programs through higher insurance premiums than we would otherwise
pay. This is a primary reason medical care has become more expensive.
The left has attacked the private healthcare system from another angle
as well: malpractice lawsuits. It has gone largely unreported in the
mass media, but the dramatic expansion of all forms of liability
lawsuits since the 1960s is the result of a deliberate, organized
effort by leftist law professors to turn civil courts into agents of
income redistribution. By undermining contract law and expanding the
definition of liability - ideas advocated at leading law schools --
legal precedents have allowed trial lawyers to pick the pockets of
American business as never before. Liability costs have skyrocketed as
a result.
We see the consequences of their handiwork directly in the increased
cost of products, liability insurance of all kinds, and the decline or
in some cases elimination of domestic industries. According to a study
performed by the Pacific Research Institute (PRI), the United States
pays out $589 billion per year in excessive tort litigation. That is
approximately 5 percent of GDP and costs a family of four on average
about $8,000 per year.
Glorified ambulance chaser and Democratic Presidential Candidate John
Edwards made his millions suing doctors for procedures that are
inherently risky, and greatly increased jury awards with a new
innovation: suing nurses, anesthesiologists, hospitals and anyone else
in his path. The following words are from one doctor:
"The John Edwards we know crushed [obstetrics, gynecology] and
neurosurgery in North Carolina," said Dr. Craig VanDerVeer, a
Charlotte neurosurgeon. "As a result, thousands of patients lost their
health care."
Following are some statistics on medical malpractice liability from
the PRI report:
�Approximately $124 billion dollars is spent annually by the health
care profession to avoid medical liability.
�About $30 billion more is spent on direct liability lawsuit costs.
�Malpractice liability cost is 1 percent of GDP and increases the cost
of healthcare by approximately 7 percent.
�These added costs deny health insurance coverage to between 2.4 and
4.3 million people, according to the Department of Health and Human
Services.
The increasing costs of medical care resulting from Medicare, Medicaid
and the dramatic growth of malpractice lawsuits have provided
activists with the rationale they need to agitate for socialized
medicine.
This has been their strategy all along.
Medicare and Medicaid were designed to undermine private healthcare,
making it ever more expensive and unmanageable, until enough interest
could be generated for systemic change. Similarly, changes in tort law
aimed at turning our courts into vehicles for income redistribution
have overburdened our legal system with massive caseloads and the
highest liability costs in the world.
While doubtless many thought they were doing good, the ultimate goal,
as elucidated by the Left, has everywhere and always been Socialism.
Furthermore, they grossly overstate the problem. We hear constantly
about the "47 million uninsured." These figures include 10 to 25
million illegal immigrants, 14 million people who are already eligible
for medical benefits but haven't availed themselves, and 10 million
people earning $75,000 or more who could presumably afford their own
insurance if they chose to. Even assuming the lowest estimate for
illegal immigrants, the true number of uninsured would be only 13
million. Yet the Democrats want to nationalize the entire industry,
currently 17 percent of GDP, to provide benefits to 4 percent of the
U.S. population.
And while medical costs increase due largely to government
manufactured problems, shrinking returns in the healthcare industry
put doctors and hospitals out of business. Meanwhile, the astronomical
cost of medical school plus this increasingly hostile atmosphere
toward the private medical market is turning more and more qualified
people away from the medical field entirely. Costs increase while
supply decreases, the classic consequence of government intervention.
Yet Obama and the brain-dead Democrat Congress want to give us a
government-run system that will guarantee magnitudes more of the same.
Can you see the Left laughing at you?
However, their true motives have finally been exposed. For seniors
ObamaCare essentially advocates euthanasia. Benefits will be
drastically cut, and in some cases will become completely unavailable.
As Obama said publicly: "Maybe you're better off not having the
surgery, but taking the painkiller." In other words, if you think you
are going to die anyway, why don't you just save us the money and go
ahead...
For others it will mean a dramatic reduction in both the availability
and quality of care. Obama's health policy advisor Ezekiel Emmanuel
(brother of Rahm Emmanuel) admits as much. He even wants doctors to
reconsider the Hippocratic Oath:
Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to
blame for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and
post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Physicians
take the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the
sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do
everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on
others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.)
Of course that is what patients hope their doctors will do. But Dr.
Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their own patient
and consider social justice (emphasis mine.) They should think about
whether the money being spent on their patient could be better spent
elsewhere.
Who are these people?
The Left has relentlessly insisted for decades that we pay every penny
for care of indigents, the poor, illegals and elderly to the point
where hospitals are closing their doors because they can no longer
afford it. But once given the opportunity to transfer this
responsibility to the government, their message to the elderly and the
rest of us is essentially: drop dead!
Let me put this as bluntly as possible. The Left has never cared about
the elderly or the poor, but ruthlessly uses them as part of their
long-term strategy to overburden private healthcare until it
ultimately collapses. The same Leftists who so passionately demanded
free healthcare for all now want euthanasia for seniors and
dramatically lower services for the rest of us. It is a power grab,
pure and simple. There is nothing more to it.
The Dems won't cut benefits to the poor just yet though, because they
still need their votes. Later on they will need them as hired muscle.
But once they secure unchallengeable power, do you think they'll care?
They have willfully worked to destroy every beneficial thing in our
society. These are vicious, selfish, utterly corrupt parasites. They
have spent a lifetime abandoned to a philosophy that makes excuses for
everything and anything in the service of one ultimate goal: absolute
power.
These people have to be stopped.
I went to Senator Ben Cardin's town hall meeting last Monday and came
across a woman who had worked as a nurse in Britain's public health
system. She provided a personal anecdote that is little peek into what
is to come should we adopt the Democrats' plan. Catherine Midkiff, RN
RSN, has been a nurse since 1979 and lived in the UK in 1991 and 1992.
She earned $10 per hour there, compared to the $22 per hour then being
earned by nurses in the US. As an agency night-shift nurse she earned
more than staff nurses. Those women had to live in a dormitory on site
as their pay would not afford them private residences. She said at St.
George's Hospital she worked on a seniors ward where 23 elderly men
and women shared the same room. When she asked where the code cart
was, her British counterparts laughed, saying, "Oh you must be from
America..." For non-seniors, most British hospitals put six people in
a room. Wait lists are extremely long. An elderly British citizen she
knew came to the US to get heart surgery after waiting a full year in
the UK system. Others weren't so lucky. She said for many years,
British hospitals had no trauma centers and thousands died as a
result.
For his part, Cardin simply perpetuated the smear against Obamacare
protesters, claiming they were Republican stooges spreading
disinformation. However, there were over 2,000 of us and only a
handful of ACORN, union and party thugs. That we are no longer being
fooled is becoming more and more apparent. The Dems control both
houses of Congress so this remains an uphill battle, but if enough get
the message that their careers are on the line, these utterly
self-serving pols may actually come around to our point of view,
simply for sheer survival purposes.
We cannot let up. Not for a minute.
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 20:19:46 -0500, Peter Principle
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:50:48 GMT, nos...@here.org (Obama Nation =
>Abomination) wrote:
>
>
>Oh, well done! What better way to totally DEMOLISH the rightard Big Lies on
>health care than to cite a long debunked kook chain letter chock full of
>long debunked asinine lies?
>>� Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
>
>------
>Claim: Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
>
>False: This section merely requires a study of �the large group insured and
>self-insured employer health care markets.� There�s no mention of auditing
>employers, only of studying �markets.� The purpose of the study is to
>produce �recommendations� to make sure the new law �does not provide
>incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure.�
>------
>
>>� Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
>
>------
>Claim: Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
>
>False: This section says nothing whatsoever about �rationing� or anything of
>the sort. Actually, it�s favorable to families and individuals, placing an
>annual cap on what they could pay out of pocket if covered by a basic,
>�essential benefits package.� The limits would be $5,000 for an individual,
>$10,000 for a family.
>------
>
>>� Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and
>>benefits you
>>get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
>
>Claim: Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and
>benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
>
>False: Actually, the section starting on page 30 sets up a �private-public
>advisory committee� headed by the U.S. surgeon general and made up of mostly
>private sector �medical and other experts� selected by the president and the
>comptroller general. The advisory committee would have only the power �to
>recommend� what benefits are included in basic, enhanced and premium
>insurance plans. It would have no power to decide what treatments anybody
>will get. Its recommendations on benefits might or might not be adopted.
>
>>� Page 42: The �Health Choices Commissioner� will decide health
>>benefits for
>>you. You will have no choice. None.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 42: The �Health Choices Commissioner� will decide health
>benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
>
>False: The new Health Choices Commissioner will oversee a variety of choices
>to be offered through new insurance exchanges. The bill itself specifies the
>�minimum services to be covered� in a basic plan, including prescription
>drugs, mental health services, maternity and well-baby care and certain
>vaccines and preventive services (pages 27-28). We find nothing in the bill
>that prevents insurance companies from offering benefits that exceed the
>minimums. In fact, the legislation allows (page 84) any company that offers
>an approved basic plan to offer also an �enhanced� plan, a �premium� plan
>and even a �premium plus� plan that could include vision and dental
>benefits.
>------
>
>>� Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with
>>free
>>healthcare services.
>
>
>------
>Claim: Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with
>free healthcare services.
>
>False. That�s simply not what the bill says at all. This page includes "SEC.
>152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE," which says that "[e]xcept
>as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations
>consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including
>insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall
>be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the
>provision of high quality health care or related services." However, the
>bill does explicitly say that illegal immigrants can�t get any government
>money to pay for health care. Page 143 states: "Nothing in this subtitle
>shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of
>individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." And as we�ve
>said before, current law prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in
>government health care programs.
>------
>
>>� Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
>
>False. There is no mention of any �National ID Healthcard� anywhere in the
>bill. Page 58 says that government standards for electronic medical
>transactions "may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan
>beneficiary identification card,� to show eligibility for services.
>Insurance companies typically issue such cards already, but if such a
>standard were issued the cards would need to be in a standard form readable
>by computers. The word �may� is used to permit such a standard, but it does
>not require one.
>------
>
>>� Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access
>>to all
>>individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to
>all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
>
>False. This section aims to simplify electronic payments for health
>services, the same sort of electronic payments that already are common for
>such things as utility bills or mortgage payments. The bill calls for the
>secretary of Health and Human Services to set standards for electronic
>administrative transactions that would "enable electronic funds transfers,
>in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care
>payment and remittance advice." There is no mention of "individual bank
>accounts" nor of any new government authority over them. Also, the section
>does not say that electronic payments from consumers is required.
>------
>
>>� Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community
>>organizer
>>health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
>
>------
>Claim: Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community
>organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
>
>Misleading. Page 65 is the start of a section (SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM
>FOR RETIREES) that would set up a new federal reinsurance plan to benefit
>retirees and spouses covered by any employer plan, not just those run by
>labor unions or nonprofit groups.
>------
>
>>� Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the
>>Healthcare
>>Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
>
>------
>Claim: Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Health
>care Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
>
>Partly true. Nothing like this appears on page 84. No insurance company is
>required to sell plans through the exchange if it doesn�t want to. Any
>employer may choose to buy coverage elsewhere. In fact, the vast majority of
>employers will still be buying private plans through the normal marketplace,
>because only employers with 10 or fewer employees are even allowed to buy
>through the exchange in the first year.
>------
>
>>� Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services;
>>translation: illegal aliens
>
>------
>Claim: Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services;
>translation: illegal aliens
>
>Misleading. It�s true that page 91 says that insurance companies selling
>plans through the new exchange �shall provide for culturally and
>linguistically appropriate communication and health services.� The author�s
>�translation,� however, assumes that anyone speaking a foreign language or
>from another culture is an illegal immigrant, which is false.
>------
>
>>� Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up
>>individuals
>>for Government-run Health Care plan.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up
>individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
>
>False: This page is the start of �SEC. 205. OUTREACH AND ENROLLMENT OF
>EXCHANGE-ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS AND EMPLOYERS IN EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING HEALTH
>BENEFITS PLAN.� It says a newly established Health Choices Commissioner
>�shall conduct outreach activities� to get people covered by private or
>government health insurance plans. The section says on page 97 that the
>Commissioner �may work with other appropriate entities to facilitate �
>provision of information.� But there is no authorization anywhere in the
>entire section for the Commissioner to pay money to any group to engage in
>outreach.
>------
>
>>� Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically
>>enrolled: you
>>have no choice in the matter.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled:
>you have no choice in the matter.
>
>Partly true. Page 102 says certain Medicaid-eligible persons will be
>�automatically enrolled� in Medicaid (which is the state-federal program to
>provide insurance to low-income workers and families) IF they are not
>already covered by private insurance. That would happen only if they had
>�not elected to enroll� in one of the private plans offered through the new
>insurance exchanges, however.
>------
>
>>� Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No
>>�judicial
>>review� is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply,
>>private
>>insurers will be crushed.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No
>�judicial review� is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply,
>private insurers will be crushed.
>
>Half true. It�s true that page 124 forbids any review by the courts of rates
>the government would pay to doctors and hospitals under the new �public
>option� insurance plan. But there�s no mention of �price fixing� in the bill
>------
>
>>� Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
>
>Misleading. Nothing in the bill would �set wages� for doctors
>------
>
>>� Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the
>>government-run
>>public plan. No alternatives.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the
>government-run public plan. No alternatives.
>
>False. It�s true that employers would be required to sign up their workers
>for coverage automatically, but it doesn�t have to be the �public plan.� It
>would be the employer-offered plan �with the lowest applicable employee
>premium� (pages 147- 148). This would only be the "public option" if the
>employer was eligible to buy coverage through the Health Insurance Exchange
>(not likely, at least during the first two years when only small businesses
>would have access), and the "public option" was the cheapest plan (which
>would be likely). Furthermore, while the employer isn�t given an
>alternative, the workers are. They may reject auto-enrollment under an
>opt-out provision (page 148).
>------
>
>>� Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time
>>employees AND
>>their families.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 146: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees
>AND their families.
>
>Half true. There�s nothing in this section about part-time employees�
>families, but this provision does call for employers to contribute toward
>part-time employees� health insurance. The bill says that �for an employee
>who is not a full-time employee � the amount of the minimum employer
>contribution� will be a proportion of the minimum contribution for full-time
>employees.
>------
>
>>� Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not
>>offer
>>the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll
>>
>>� Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who
>>does not
>>offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll
>
>------
>Claim: Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not
>offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll Claim: Page 150: Any
>employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public
>option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll.
>
>Both Partly True. The bill requires employers either to offer private health
>insurance coverage or pay a percentage of their payroll expenses to help
>finance a public plan. The 8 percent payment would indeed apply to employers
>with payrolls over $400,000 in the previous year, and lesser amounts would
>apply to smaller firms. Those with payrolls of $250,000 or less would pay
>nothing. But the penalty isn�t incurred if an employer "does not offer the
>public option," as the e-mail claims. Rather, it�s a penalty for not
>offering health insurance to employees.
>------
>
>>� Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes
>>(Americans
>>will pay for them).
>
>------
>Claim: Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes
>(Americans will pay for them).
>
>False. �Non-resident aliens� are generally those who have spent less than 31
>days in the U.S. during the year. The claim that �Americans will pay for
>them� assumes that such visitors would somehow be getting federal benefits
>that would cost taxpayers money. In any case, they are not �exempt from
>individual taxes� at all.
>------
>
>>� Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare
>>Bureaucracy will
>>have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Health care
>Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
>
>False. This section of the bill discusses �Disclosures To Carry Out Health
>Insurance Exchange Subsidies.� It says that government employees of the
>health insurance exchange will have access to federal tax information for
>purposes of determining eligibility for affordability credits available for
>low- and moderate-income Americans. In other words, in order to qualify for
>a government subsidy to purchase health insurance, the government needs to
>confirm your income. And, no surprise, the government already has access to
>your federal tax information.
>------
>
>>� Page 203: �The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated
>>as tax.�
>>Yes, it really says that.� Page 239: Bill will reduce physician
>>services for
>>Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected.�
>
>------
>Claim: Page 203: �The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as
>tax.� Yes, it really says that.
>
>Misleading. What this actually says is: �The tax imposed under this section
>shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of
>determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of
>section 55,� which deals with the Alternative Minimum Tax. It would limit
>the ripple effects of the new taxes the bill would impose on individuals
>making over $350,000 a year.
>------
>
>>� Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you�ll all be
>>paid
>>the same (thanks, AMA!)
>
>------
>Claim: Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors
>and the poor most affected. Claim: Page 241: Doctors: no matter what
>specialty you have, you�ll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)
>
>Both False. Both of these claims pertain to Section 1121, which updates the
>physician fee schedule for 2010 for Medicare. It doesn�t "reduce physician
>services for Medicaid" (which wouldn�t pertain to seniors anyway)
>------
>
>>� Page 253: Government sets value of doctors� time, their professional
>>judgment, etc.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 253: Government sets value of doctors� time, their professional
>judgment, etc.
>
>Misleading. It�s true that page 253 refers to �relative value units� to be
>used when determining payment rates for doctor�s services, and that such
>RVUs would weigh factors �such as time, mental effort and professional
>judgment, technical skill and physical effort, and stress due to risk.� But
>this is nothing new; the government already uses RVUs when setting rates it
>will pay under Medicare.
>------
>
>>� Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private
>>healthcare industries.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private
>healthcare industries.
>
>Misleading. This claim doesn�t even make sense. How can anyone "mandate�
>that somebody else be productive, or �control� how productive they are? The
>author has simply misunderstood what this controversial item would do.
>------
>
>>� Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven
>>wheelchairs.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven
>wheelchairs.
>
>Misleading. What page 268 does is to stop Medicare for paying for �mobility
>scooters,� which have been widely marketed as a Medicare-financed benefit,
>leading to ballooning costs to the program. They would no longer qualify as
>a �power-driven wheelchair.� Only a "complex rehabilitative power-driven
>wheel chair recognized by the Secretary� would be covered. The Congressional
>Budget Office estimates this will save the government $800 million over 10
>years
>------
>
>>� Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of
>>rationing!
>
>------
>Claim: Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of
>rationing!
>
>False. This page merely calls for a study of whether a certain class of
>hospitals incur higher costs than some others for the cancer care they
>deliver. It also says the secretary of HHS �shall provide for an appropriate
>adjustment� in payments �to reflect those higher costs.� It�s hardly
>�rationing� to pay hospitals more to compensate for higher costs.
>------
>
>>� Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial
>>admission that
>>results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government
>
>------
>Claim: Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission
>that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.
>
>False. That section is part of a list of potential physician-centered
>approaches to reducing excess hospital readmissions.
>------
>
>>� Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing
>>in
>>healthcare companies!
>
>------
>Claim: Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in
>healthcare companies!
>
>False. It�s already illegal, with certain exceptions, for doctors to refer
>Medicare patients to hospitals, labs, medical imaging facilities or other
>such medical businesses in which they hold a financial interest.
>------
>
>>� Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand
>>without
>>government approval.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand
>without government approval.
>
>False. Expansion is forbidden only for rural, doctor-owned hospitals that
>have been given a waiver from the general prohibition on self-referral. It
>does not apply to hospitals in general. The bill provides for exceptions to
>even this limited expansion ban (page 321).
>------
>
>>� Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on �community� input: in other
>>words,
>>yet another payoff for ACORN.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on �community� input: in other
>words, yet another payoff for ACORN.
>
>False. Page 321 says rural, doctor-owned hospitals that are exempt from the
>Medicaid self-referral prohibition can ask to be allowed to expand under
>rules that must allow �input� from �persons or entities in the community.�
>Under that language, anybody in the community could offer their opinion, but
>nobody � not ACORN or anybody else � would be paid for it.
>------
>
>>� Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based
>>measures: i.e.,
>>rationing.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based
>measures: i.e., rationing.
>
>Misleading. This section does deal with establishing quality measures for
>Medicare. It does not make any recommendations for treatment, or empower
>anyone to make treatment recommendations based on those measures.
>------
>
>>� Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS
>>individuals.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS
>individuals.
>
>Misleading. Insurance companies already restrict enrollment in so-called
>�special needs� plans, a special category of Medicare Advantage plans that
>were created in 2003. Page 354 merely extends the authority to do that
>beyond the end of next year, when it was set to expire. Furthermore, what�s
>being restricted isn�t the number of patients, but the type of patients.
>Plans can be restricted to accepting only those patients who fall into in
>one or more special categories. These include those who are
>institutionalized (think, nursing homes), those who qualify both for
>Medicare and Medicaid (think, both low-income and over age 65) and those
>with severe or disabling chronic conditions such as diabetes, emphysema,
>chronic heart failure or dementia. And of course, this has nothing to do
>with children with learning problems.
>------
>
>>� Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee
>>(healthcare by
>>phone).
>
>------
>Claim: Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare
>by phone).
>
>Misleading. The advisory committee would not be a �bureaucracy� or have any
>administrative functions, but instead would bring together experts from the
>private sector to give advice on how Medicare and Medicaid should treat the
>practice of medicine via telecommunication, something used in rural
>hospitals and such places as cruise ships, battlefield settings and even on
>NASA space missions.
>------
>
>>� Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior
>>Citizens,
>>assisted suicide, euthanasia?
>>
>>� Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living
>>wills,
>>durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate
>>taxes
>>ahead of time.
>>
>>� Page 425: Goverment provides approved list of end-of-life resources,
>>guiding
>>you in death.
>>
>>� Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life
>>treatment;
>>government dictates how your life ends.
>>
>>� Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate
>>treatment as
>>patient�s health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for
>>end-of-life
>>plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
>>
>>� Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may
>>have at
>>end-of-life.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior
>Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia? Claim: Page 425: Government will
>instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney,
>etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time. Claim: Page
>425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you
>in death Claim: Page 427: Government mandates program that orders
>end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends. Claim: Page
>429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as
>patient�s health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life
>plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT. Claim: Page 430: Government will decide
>what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
>
>All False. These six claims are a twisted interpretation of a provision in
>the bill that says Medicare will cover voluntary counseling sessions between
>seniors and their doctors to discuss end-of-life care. Medicare doesn�t pay
>for such sessions now; it would under the bill.
>------
>
>>� Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for
>>ACORN.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for
>ACORN.
>
>False. This section defines the term "community-based medical home" as a
>"nonprofit community-based or State-based organization" that "provides
>beneficiaries with medical home services." ACORN does not provide medical
>home services.
>------
>
>>� Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs
>>for ACORN.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for
>ACORN.
>
>False. This section is referring to community-based medical homes.
>------
>
>>� Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy.
>>Government
>>intervenes in your marriage.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy.
>Government intervenes in your marriage.
>
>Half true. It�s true that pages 489 and 490 make state-licensed �marriage
>and family therapist� services a covered expense �for the diagnosis and
>treatment of mental illnesses.� But the therapists wouldn�t be employed by
>the government, and there�s no requirement for anybody to receive their
>help. So the claim that this would mean that �government intervenes in your
>marriage� is false.
>------
>
>>� Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining,
>>creating
>>and rationing those services.
>
>------
>Claim: Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining,
>creating and rationing those services.
>
>Misleading. The provision amends Section 1861 of the Social Security Act
>laying out what services Medicare will cover. It expands coverage for mental
>health services, stipulating that a "mental health counselor" who can
>perform mental health counseling is someone with a master�s or doctorate
>degree, a state license, and two years of practice as a counselor.
>------
>
>There you have it, folks. The rightards all all wrong on every single point.
>Every...
>
>Single...
>
>One.
>
>It's all just a pack of stupid, easily debunked lies. Know you now. Debunk
>the lies. Spread the word.
>
Sid9
More fear mongering sponsored by greedy insurance companies.
.
.
.
.message news:4a9fbdbf...@news.datemas.de...
Sid9
committee is revenue neutral.
You post is the kind of fear mongering put forth by the
insurance industry that is spending upwards of $1.4 million
daily to block reform
"Obama Nation = Abomination" <nos...@here.org> wrote in
message news:4a9fbdca...@news.datemas.de...
Obama Nation = Abomination
Who are these people?
Tom Sr.
> Handjob Metterling caught LYING, again.
Why aren't you SHRIEKING, Games, at "Obama Nation Is An Abomination/
Obama=Abomination"?!
His ISP is in DEMARK!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/c3df2a908db2a718?hl=en&dmode=source
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/6a8808b590e26ea4?hl=en&dmode=source
Since you have repeatedly claimed that an ISP's national origin is
always where a person must be posting from, Games, that must mean
"Obama Nation Is An Abomination/Obama=Abomination" is NOT an American!
*GASP*
He must be one of those foreign "faggots" you are always ranting and
raving at to stay out of discussions on our American's politics,
because, goshdarnit! -- they *cannot* be an American!!! And he's
posted about half of the meesages in this subject!!!
The ultraconservative, far-far-right k00k "Obama Nation Is An
Abomination/Obama=Abomination" -(who does NOT want *all* our American
people to receive they good health care they should) posting from
Demark is talking about *our* United States of America's political
issues, Junior, -- that according to so many of your other posts is
something NO * foreigner has the right to do!!! Now dare they, when
"it's none of their business"; that's what you always *claim*, Bob
Milby Jr.
Yet you have *not* said anything about this to "Abomination",
hypocritical goat!
Why is that? Uh??
I know it is because YOU, Games, are also an ultraconservative, far-
far-right k00k who does NOT want *all* our American people to receive
they good health care they should, *exactly* like Demark's
"Abomination" is, you fucking, hypocitical, shithead loser.
-Tom Sr.
Sid9
that has medical bankruptcies
The United States is the ONLY modern industrialized nation
without universal health care for all its citizens
.
.
.
.
.
message news:4a9fc4e1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Obama Nation = Abomination
On Obamacare's rationing
Topics: Political News and commentaries
From a reader (links and edits mine):
Read "Principles of allocation of scarce medical interventions"(pdf.)
in The Lancet, Jan. 31, 2009 to see how they will ration treatment and
with hold life sustaining drugs. Authored by Dr. Death himself Dr.
Ezekial Emanual proponent of passive Euthanasia to the elderly, sick
children, and those he finds less desirable in society. He is on the
comparative effectiveness council and the office of management and
budget (see NY Post: DEADLY DOCTORS - O ADVISERS WANT TO RATION CARE).
He will be the one killing your parents and grandparents.
From the same NY Post article at the above link we learn that Dr.
Ezekiel Emanuel is the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm
Emanuel and has indeed already been appointed to two key positions in
the Obama administration: health-policy adviser at the Office of
Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative
Effectiveness Research. Then the Post provides a few very frightening
details:
[...] Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free.
"Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention
and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving
quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public
relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs
Feb. 27, 2008).
Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about
their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as
an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost
or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association,
June 18, 2008).
Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants
doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social
justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody
else.
Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a
doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.
Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide
decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved
for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly
prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An
obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with
dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).
Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or
a child with cerebral palsy.
He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike
allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious
discrimination; every person lives through different life stages
rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority
over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25
years"
As if Emanuel isn't bad enough, there's yet another "Deadly Doctor":
Dr. David Blumenthal, another key Obama adviser:
[...] He recommends slowing medical innovation to control health
spending.
Blumenthal has long advocated government health-spending controls,
though he concedes they're "associated with longer waits" and "reduced
availability of new and expensive treatments and devices" (New England
Journal of Medicine, March 8, 2001). But he calls it "debatable"
whether the timely care Americans get is worth the cost. (Ask a cancer
patient, and you'll get a different answer. Delay lowers your chances
of survival.)
Obama appointed Blumenthal as national coordinator of
health-information technology, a job that involves making sure doctors
obey electronically deivered guidelines about what care the government
deems appropriate and cost effective.
In the April 9 New England Journal of Medicine, Blumenthal predicted
that many doctors would resist "embedded clinical decision support" --
a euphemism for computers telling doctors what to do.
As the article points out, Americans need to know what the president
and his health advisers have in mind for them. And if rationing (and
even euthanasia) isn't on Obama's agenda for our lives, he would not
have placed "Death Doctors" in the key positions of "health-policy
adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal
Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research" (scary stuff - see
Nationalizing Life and Death) and "National coordinator of
health-information technology."
Obama Nation = Abomination
There's been a lot of discussion about the new and powerful federal
agencies that would be created by the passage of a national health
care
bill. The Health Choices Administration, the Health Benefits Advisory
Committee, the Health Insurance Exchange — there are dozens in all.
But if the plan envisioned by President Barack Obama and Congressional
Democrats is enacted, the primary federal bureaucracy responsible for
implementing and enforcing national health care will be an old and
familiar one: the Internal Revenue Service. Under the Democrats'
health
care proposals, the already powerful — and already feared — IRS
would
wield even more power and extend its reach even farther into the lives
of ordinary Americans, and the presidentially-appointed head of the
new
health care bureaucracy would have access to confidential IRS
information about millions of individual taxpayers.
In short, health care reform, as currently envisioned by Democratic
leaders, would be built on the foundation of an expanded and more
intrusive IRS.
Under the various proposals now on the table, the IRS would become the
main agency for determining who has an "acceptable" health insurance
plan; for finding and punishing those who don't have such a plan; for
subsidizing individual health insurance costs through the issuance of
a
tax credits; and for enforcing the rules on those who attempt to opt
out, abuse, or game the system. A substantial portion of H.R. 3200,
the
House health care bill, is devoted to amending the Internal Revenue
Code
of 1986 in order to give the IRS the authority to perform these new
duties.
The Democrats' plan would require all Americans to have "acceptable"
insurance coverage (the legislation includes long and complex
definitions of "acceptable") and would designate the IRS as the agency
charged with enforcing that requirement. On your yearly 1040 tax
return,
you would be required to attest that you have "acceptable" coverage.
Of
course, you might be lying, or simply confused about whether or not
you
are covered, so the IRS would need a way to check your claim for
accuracy. Under current plans, insurers would be required to submit to
the IRS something like the 1099 form in which taxpayers report outside
income. The IRS would then check the information it receives from the
insurers against what you have submitted on your tax form.
If it all matches up, you're fine. If it doesn't, you will hear from
the
IRS. And if you don't have "acceptable" coverage, you will be subject
to
substantial fines — fines that will be administered by the IRS.
Under some versions of health reform now circulating on Capitol Hill,
the IRS would also be intimately involved in how you pay for
insurance.
Everyone would be required to buy coverage. The millions of Americans
who can't afford it would receive a subsidy to pay for it. Under the
version of the plan currently under negotiation in the Senate Finance
Committee, that subsidy would come through the IRS in the form of a
refundable tax credit. Under the House plan, the subsidy would come
directly from the Health Choices Administration.
In either scenario, the IRS would be the key to making the system
work.
Before you could receive any subsidy, whether through the IRS or not,
the Health Choices Administration would have to determine whether you
are eligible for it. To do so, the bills under consideration would
give
the Health Choices Commissioner the authority to demand sensitive,
confidential information from the IRS about individual taxpayers. The
IRS would have to provide it.
Under current law, it is a felony for a government official to release
taxpayer information in all but the most limited of circumstances. One
such exception is for law enforcement; the IRS is allowed to give
taxpayer information to prosecutors in criminal cases. The information
can also, in some instances, be released to the Social Security
Administration and the Veterans' Administration for the determination
of
benefits. The health care bills would change the Internal Revenue Code
to permit the IRS to give similar information to the vast, new health
care bureaucracy.
That means the personal tax information of millions of Americans would
enter the system whether they want it to or not. "There's a mandate to
buy insurance," says one Republican House aide. "You have to buy it.
You
have millions of people who can't buy it without a subsidy, so they
will
have no choice but to accept the subsidy in order to buy insurance,
and
then the Health Choices Commissioner will have access to their tax
records."
"How many hands would this information go through?" asks a GOP source
in
the Senate. "What are the quality controls? This increases the risk of
misusing this information."
Some versions of the bill even permit the release of confidential
taxpayer information for decidedly less pressing reasons. In H.R.
3200,
the IRS would be required to provide taxpayer information to the
Social
Security Administration for the purpose of helping Social Security
officials find qualifying seniors who can then be encouraged to enroll
in the prescription drug program. "There is no precedent for using
taxpayer information for the purpose of identifying people to go out
and
advertise to them," says the House expert.
So far, there has been little substantive public debate about the
integral role of the IRS in nearly every aspect of the various
national
health care proposals. But people who are closely involved with the
process are deeply concerned about what they view as a massive, and in
some senses unprecedented, expansion of the Internal Revenue Service.
First, they wonder whether the IRS can handle the new demands. "There
is
a sense at the IRS that their purpose is to collect revenue and not to
implement all sorts of other programs," says a second Senate GOP aide.
"Also, the IRS isn't necessarily great at doing what it does already.
How is it going to determine whether 300 million people have health
insurance?"
Second, they are concerned about anticipated abuse of the system.
"You're going to have lots of fraud," says the House source. "People
claiming lots of affordability credits or refundable tax credits. The
IRS is not going to have the resources and expertise to police this
stuff."
Finally, there is a third concern, more fundamental than questions of
whether the IRS can handle the job: Should the IRS be involved in
health
care enforcement in the first place? As seen in the town halls across
the country in August, many Americans are concerned about the coercive
nature of the proposed national health care system. Handing the IRS
the
power to monitor every American's place in the system worries them
even
more.
Backers of the Democratic bills are betting that the handouts involved
—
giving people money to buy health insurance — will outweigh concerns
about privacy and coercive government. Perhaps. But before Congress
makes any decision on national health care, voters should know just
what
it will involve.
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:58:33 -0500, Peter Principle
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 12:59:44 GMT, A Nazi sock puppet calling his racist
>lying ass "ObamaNation" wrote:
>
><not one frucking word>
Obama Nation = Abomination
When a patient shows up at a doctor's office with a bruise after
falling and bumping his head, the physician might order a CT
scan even if she believes the injury is superficial.
Worries about a malpractice lawsuit might prompt her to take
steps that aren't medically necessary. "If I don't get a CAT
scan, this is that one case where I'll end up in court," the
doctor might think, says Cecil Wilson, a physician who is
president-elect of the American Medical Association.
This is defensive medicine -- a careful, fretful approach to
treating patients, in which doctors authorize tests in part to
reduce the risk that they will be sued. In the national debate
over health care, doctors and policy makers often point to
spending on defensive medicine as a key driver of soaring costs.
Calculating how much defensive medicine actually costs is
extremely difficult, because medical professionals often have
many motivations for ordering tests and other procedures. The
U.S. spends a higher percentage of its gross domestic product on
health care than any other nation in the industrialized world.
Legal expenses contribute to the bill.
Even so, health-care experts say the direct costs of medical
malpractice -- the insurance premiums, claims paid and legal
fees -- amount to a very small portion of overall health-care
spending.
Total spending on medical malpractice, including legal-defense
costs and claims payments, was $30.41 billion in 2007, according
to an estimate from consulting firm Towers Perrin. That is a
significant figure, but it still amounts to a little more than
1% of total U.S. health-care spending, which the federal
government estimates at $2.241 trillion for 2007.
Indirect costs that stem in part from medical professionals
looking for legal protection play a far larger role in health-
care spending, doctors and some analysts say. And they are one
reason medical liability is bubbling as an issue as Congress
reviews whether to pass a health-care overhaul. Sen. John Kerry,
a Democrat, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Republican, both said
earlier this week that Congress needs to find a way to eliminate
frivolous malpractice cases.
"There are significant savings that can be achieved in our
health-care systems if we have prudent medical malpractice
reform in place," said Sen. Hatch in a statement.
Art Ushijima, president and chief executive of the Queen's
Medical Center, based in Honolulu, says legal concerns have
become a bigger burden. He recalls that when he first came to
the hospital -- Hawaii's largest -- about 20 years ago, there
was one staff attorney. Now there are six. Salaries for staff,
with the costs to support them, are "well into the seven
figures," he says.
At the University of Miami School of Medicine's patient
practice, 14 cents out of every dollar collected in fees for
services to patients goes toward buying medical malpractice
insurance, says William Donelan, the university's vice president
for medical administration. That figure doesn't include costs of
defensive medicine, which are difficult to quantify, he says.
"Our system is really irrational and out of control," he says.
Some advocates argue that the costs of liability aren't central
to the overall health-care picture. Just how much medical
malpractice suits drive up the cost of health care is "one of
the most blown-out-of-proportion numbers in American public
policy discourse," says Taylor Lincoln, a research director at
consumer- advocacy group Public Citizen. He calls the broader
concern about spending on defensive medicine "fear-mongering"
about an exaggerated risk of lawsuits.
In a 2003 report that called for medical liability reform, the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimated that
limits on malpractice awards could save between $70 billion and
$126 billion a year. But that estimate was based on a study
published in 1996 that analyzed data on elderly heart-disease
patients from 1984 to 1990. That study, published in the
Quarterly Journal of Economics, found that malpractice liability
reforms lowered health costs by between 5% and 9%.
"Regardless of anyone's numbers, no reasonable person would
suggest the cost [of malpractice expenses] is insignificant,"
says Darren McKinney, a spokesman for the American Tort Reform
Association in Washington. "There is no reason in the world why
we shouldn't look to contain that cost."
To that end, many states have passed laws in recent years aimed
at curbing liability claims. An aggressive law passed in Texas
in 2003 caps liability awards at $250,000 for noneconomic
damages such as pain and suffering, a move that has led to fewer
malpractice suits being filed, according to several prominent
plaintiffs' attorneys there. According to Texans for Lawsuit
Reform, a lobbying group that supports the caps, medical-
liability-insurance rates have declined an average of 21% in the
state since the law change, with almost a quarter of doctors
seeing a 50% decrease.
But even some defense lawyers think the Texas laws are too
severe. "I believe a $250,000 cap for someone who is seriously
hurt or for the death of a parent who has left a spouse and
three kids is too low," says Larry Thompson, a Houston-based
lawyer who defends doctors and hospitals in malpractice suits.
Moreover, it isn't clear that capping malpractice payouts would
rein in health-care spending motivated by fear of lawsuits.
In a 2008 report, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office
said that capping malpractice awards would lead to lower
insurance premiums, which could have "a very modest impact on
doctors' fees and health-care spending." Award caps could have a
bigger impact on health-care spending if they led doctors to
order fewer unnecessary tests, but the CBO said it "has not
found consistent evidence of such broader effects."
In a survey of Pennsylvania doctors in high-liability
specialties such as obstetrics, 59% of respondents said they
often ordered more tests than were medically necessary. The
survey, conducted in 2003 when malpractice premiums were rising
sharply in the state, was published in the Journal of the
American Medical Association.
Doctors say it is often difficult to say how much of any given
decision is driven by liability concerns. When ordering a test,
the doctor may be mixing fears of being sued with a desire to
provide the patient with the best exam possible and to please
the patient, who wants to feel that treatment is comprehensive.
And in many cases doctors increase their income by ordering more
tests.
"Legal ramifications are one of the many factors that go into a
medical decision," says Kevin Pho, a primary-care doctor based
in Nashua, N.H., who writes a medical blog that often touches on
defensive medicine.
Still, Dr. Pho says, "Doctors get sued for failure to diagnose
and not ordering tests ... It's something that I do think about
and in some cases it does influence my decision."
The American Medical Association argues that the cost of
defensive medicine could be curbed by offering doctors a so-
called "safe harbor." If a doctor follows established medical
guidelines that say a given test is unnecessary, the doctor
cannot be sued for failing to order the test.
A measure approved this summer by the House Committee on Energy
and Commerce would provide incentives for states to adopt
changes that some say could reduce the costs of defensive
medicine. One change would require lawyers who represent
patients to get a "certificate of merit" from a medical
professional who certifies that procedures in a case failed to
meet certain minimum standards.
Lawyers who represent patients say one way to slash the
exorbitant cost of health care would be to cut down on errors
doctors make so that fewer cases wind up in the legal system.
The American Association of Justice, an advocacy group for
plaintiffs' lawyers, suggests that hospitals should more
aggressively report mistakes and state medical boards should
impose stiffer penalties on doctors who make them.
As a matter of public policy, it might make sense to spend less
money as a society on unnecessary tests. But Jack McGehee, a
Houston-based plaintiffs' lawyer, says it is difficult to
convince ailing patients that their doctor should order fewer
tests.
"If I'm a patient," says Mr. McGehee, "I want you to practice
defensive medicine."
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:55:48 -0500, Peter Principle
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 12:59:44 GMT, A Nazi sock puppet calling his racist
>lying ass "ObamaNation" wrote:
>
><not one frucking word>
>
Obama Nation = Abomination
Although administration officials are eager to deny it, rationing
health care is central to President Barack Obama�s health plan. The
Obama strategy is to reduce health costs by rationing the services
that we and future generations of patients will receive.
The White House Council of Economic Advisers issued a report in June
explaining the Obama administration�s goal of reducing projected
health spending by 30% over the next two decades. That reduction would
be achieved by eliminating �high cost, low-value treatments,� by
�implementing a set of performance measures that all providers would
adopt,� and by �directly targeting individual providers . . . (and
other) high-end outliers.�
The president has emphasized the importance of limiting services to
�health care that works.� To identify such care, he provided more than
$1 billion in the fiscal stimulus package to jump-start Comparative
Effectiveness Research (CER) and to finance a federal CER advisory
council to implement that idea. That could morph over time into a
cost-control mechanism of the sort proposed by former Sen. Tom
Daschle, Mr. Obama�s original choice for White House health czar.
Comparative effectiveness could become the vehicle for deciding
whether each method of treatment provides enough of an improvement in
health care to justify its cost.
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:27:31 -0500, Peter Principle
Obama Nation = Abomination
With all of the tall tales being told by Democrats these days about
the proposed "new" healthcare system, I guess it's time to again
explain why Obama-care is actually a single-payer system, also known
as, socialized medicine.
President Obama likes to paint this rosy picture in which he declares
that "If you like the coverage you already have, you can keep it."
What he doesn't say is the conclusion of that statement, "If you can
afford it."
The problem with Obama-care is that it will inevitably cause the
demise of the private health insurance system that a vast majority of
Americans have and which allows them, within the constraints of their
insurance policy, access to whatever doctor, procedure, and facility
they choose.
This comes about for two reasons. First, the folks who run businesses
and corporations are not stupid. They pay a great deal of money for
those insurance packages they offer their employees; usually the cost
to the company is two to three times what the employee pays each
month. Faced with the choice of cutting overhead and shifting that
considerable burden to the taxpayer and off of the company's books,
some of those companies will begin to terminate their employees
healthcare benefits because they know the federal government will take
up the slack.
The price we who are covered by private insurance policies pay is
based on the size of the risk-pool of those being covered by such
policies. The idea is that with a large enough group of people, the
risk and expense of a covered member getting ill is balanced by the
premiums being paid by those who remain healthy. The larger the pool
of people, the lower the risk to the profitability of the insurance
company and therefore the lower the individual's premium.
With government offering an alternative for business, every time a
private business drops coverage for its employees, the number of
people in the risk-pool shrinks. As that risk-pool shrinks, the
insurance company is forced to raise their premiums on those they
still cover to maintain their viability as a company.
Now I know you Liberals out there hate private enterprise and the
whole profit loss model that our economic system offers, but for the
sane folks out there what this means is that eventually, you will lose
your private insurance coverage and be forced into the government
(taxpayer funded) system.
As companies see their competitors gain an advantage by shifting the
cost of providing their employees healthcare benefits to the
government and thereby decreasing their overhead, they will have no
choice but to follow suit and force their own employees into the
governmental system just to remain competitive.
Every time this happens, the risk-pool for those with private
healthcare insurance shrinks and the cost goes up to the company and
the individual. Eventually only those who can afford to pay the full
cost of their coverage will be able to access the superior medical
care offered by private insurance and the private healthcare industry.
The end result, and here's the kicker folks, is a two-tiered system of
medical care. We will have one huge impersonal government run system
for the "masses" and another much smaller system for the wealthy
elite.
That's right. We will still have private healthcare for a few of the
"elite" of our society, but most of us will be forced to deal with an
inferior, uncaring, bureaucratic nightmare system like that of the
Canadians and Europeans, in which medical procedures are rationed and
the elderly get short shrift.
You may need that transplant or very expensive procedure and with our
current private healthcare system, you would probably get it. Under
Obama-care you will be told that you are too old to qualify, or that
the heart surgery you need is an "elective" procedure and that you
will have to wait 8 months to have it done because there are several
thousand people ahead of you in the queue.
You may not consider a life-saving procedure "elective," but under the
government run single-payer system it very probably is unless it is an
emergency. This is not a paranoid Conservative fantasy, this very
thing goes on everyday in Canada, Britain and the rest of Europe to
thousands of patients.
Oh yeah, and while you are waiting that 6, 8, or 12 months for your
elective procedure you may rest peacefully secure in the knowledge
that President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid will get that
procedure because, after all, they are more important that you. You
will also rest assured that Lance Armstrong (who recently argued
before congress that all Americans should be treated equally in
battling cancer), Elizabeth Edwards (who made an impassioned appeal
for universal healthcare coverage before congress), and all of the
rest of the wealthy elite celebrities who are so outspoken in favor of
"universal healthcare" will get that same procedure on
demand...because they can afford it and the very expensive private
healthcare insurance they will continue to be able to afford.
In the end, it will be the little guy, you and I who will be made to
suffer. If you don't believe me, just look at what they are
contemplating today. They want to add your company paid health
insurance premium to your taxable income. For most of us that will
mean an increase in taxable income of $8,000-$15,000. It will almost
certainly force a majority of Americans into a higher tax bracket and
it will add 20%or more to the taxes you already pay.
You want socialized medicine? Well if Obama, Ted Kennedy, and the rest
of the Democrats get their way, you'll get it...while they enjoy the
best healthcare money can buy...on your dime.
Obama Nation = Abomination
Medical care doesn't grow on trees. It must be produced by human and
physical capital, and those resources are limited. Therefore, if
demand for health care services increases -- which is Obama's point in
extending health insurance -- prices must go up. But somehow Obama
also promises, "I won't sign a bill that doesn't reduce health care
inflation".
This is magical thinking. Obama, talented as he is, can't repeal the
laws of supply and demand. Costs are real. If they are incurred,
someone has to pay them. But as economist Thomas Sowell points out,
politicians can control costs -- by refusing to pay for the services.
It's called rationing.
Advocates of nationalization hate that word because it forces them to
face an ugly truth. If government pays for more people's health care
and wants to control costs, it must limit what we buy.
So much for Obama's promise not to interfere with our freedom of
choice.
This brings us back to end-of-life consultation. As the government's
health care budget becomes strained, as it must -- and, as Obama
admits, already is under Medicare -- the government will have to cut
back on what it lets people have.
So it is not a leap to foresee government limiting health care,
especially to people nearing the end of life. Medical "ethicists" have
long lamented that too much money is spent futilely in the last
several months of life. Are we supposed to believe that the social
engineers haven't read their writings?
And given the premise that it's government's job to pay for our heath
care, concluding that 80-year-olds should get no hip replacements
makes sense. The problem is the premise: that taxpayers should pay.
Once you accept that, bad things follow.
In the end, perhaps the biggest objection to nationalized health care
is the "principal-agent problem." For whom does the doctor work?
Ordinarily, the doctor is the agent of the patient. But when
government signs the checks and orders doctors to reduce spending, it
is not crazy to think that this won't influence their "advance care
planning consultation".
Freedom is about self-determination. Obama's health care scheme would
undermine both.
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:39:58 -0500, Peter Principle
<petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 12:59:44 GMT, A Nazi sock puppet calling his racist
>lying ass "ObamaNation" wrote:
>
><not one frucking word>
>
Obama Nation = Abomination
rDue to vociferous opposition to many features of ObamaCare, the
political wrangling continues.
The end-of-life care provisions have been downplayed and there is a
possibility of altering or eliminating the public option. Much of this
is political games and politico speak.
There are at least three main areas of major problems with ObamaCare.
The first problem is that the whole plan revolves around political
control of the healthcare system.
The Obama Administration has been pushing to have total control of
Medicare, as well as the public option, under the Executive Branch,
not the Legislative Branch.
Under political pressure, the Obama bill has backed away from the
mandated end-of-life, death-with-dignity counseling.
However, the desire remains.
In July, the Obama Administration reinstituted end-of-life planning at
the Veterans� Administration using the guide, �Your Life, Your
Choices.�
The primary author of this is Dr. Robert Perlman, who has strongly
advocated physician-assisted suicide and is a strong healthcare
rationing supporter. The primary resource for this manual is the
Hemlock Society, an organization advocating euthanasia, according to
Mr. Jim Towey in The Wall Street Journal on August 19, 2009.
Obviously, the Administration is strongly supportive of this concept.
An additional problem with ObamaCare is the trillions of dollars it
will cost.
The governmental debt has enormous ramifications economically.
Probably the most disturbing problem with ObamaCare is the continued
desire for slashing Medicare.
There is a plan for a $500 billion reduction in Medicare over the next
10 years.
There will be 30 percent increase in Medicare beneficiaries during the
same timeframe.
Obviously, this will result in extreme rationing of Medicare services.
A little known fact is that the assault against Medicare recipients
and senior citizens actually started with the stimulus package.
Funding for �comparative effectiveness research� is in the stimulus
package.
This is a system based on a formula where the cost of the treatment is
divided by the number of years the individual is likely to live.
In essence, older patients deserve less care because they will benefit
for fewer years.
This is a form of rationing that is common in the British system and
has been strongly advocated by Obama advisers here.
ObamaCare, in whatever form, produces White House control, increasing
debt and government rationing with denial of care and possible
euthanasia, be it active or passive.
Those who are Medicare eligible or expect to be in the next few years
need to be acutely aware that their ability to obtain medical care and
control their own healthcare is still at risk under the present
administration and its plans.
You may keep your own health insurance if you like, but probably not
for long.
The public option, whether it is a cooperative or otherwise, will
ultimately eliminate private insurance and ration medical care.
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:41:11 -0500, Peter Principle
Sid9
Not one iota of truth.
"Obama Nation = Abomination" <nos...@here.org> wrote in
message news:4aa01612...@news.datemas.de...
Sid9
Op-Ed Columnist
Health Care That Works
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Here�s a paradox.
Health care reform may be defeated this year in part because
so many Americans believe the government can�t do anything
right and fear that a doctor will come to resemble an I.R.S.
agent with a scalpel. Yet the part of America�s health care
system that consumers like best is the government-run part.
Fifty-six to 60 percent of people in government-run Medicare
rate it a 9 or 10 on a 10-point scale. In contrast, only 40
percent of those enrolled in private insurance rank their
plans that high.
Multiple surveys back that up. For example, 68 percent of
those in Medicare feel that their own interests are the
priority, compared with only 48 percent of those enrolled in
private insurance.
In truth, despite the deeply ingrained American conviction
that government is bumbling when it is not evil, government
intervention has been a step up in some areas from the
private sector.
Until the mid-19th century, firefighting was left mostly to
a mishmash of volunteer crews and private fire insurance
companies. In New York City, according to accounts in The
New York Times in the 1850s and 1860s, firefighting often
descended into chaos, with drunkenness and looting.
So almost every country moved to what today�s health
insurance lobbyists might label �socialized firefighting.�
In effect, we have a single-payer system of public fire
departments.
We have the same for policing. If the security guard
business were as powerful as the health insurance industry,
then it would be denouncing �government takeovers� and
�socialized police work.�
Throughout the industrialized world, there are a handful of
these areas where governments fill needs better than free
markets: fire protection, police work, education, postal
service, libraries, health care. The United States goes
along with this international trend in every area but one:
health care.
The truth is that government, for all its flaws, manages to
do some things right, so that today few people doubt the
wisdom of public police or firefighters. And the government
has a particularly good record in medical care.
Take the hospital system run by the Department of Veterans
Affairs, the largest integrated health system in the United
States. It is fully government run, much more �socialized
medicine� than is Canadian health care with its private
doctors and hospitals. And the system for veterans is by all
accounts one of the best-performing and most cost-effective
elements in the American medical establishment.
A study by the Rand Corporation concluded that compared with
a national sample, Americans treated in veterans hospitals
�received consistently better care across the board,
including screening, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.�
The difference was particularly large in preventive
medicine: veterans were nearly 50 percent more likely to
receive recommended care than Americans as a whole.
�If other health care providers followed the V.A.�s lead, it
would be a major step toward improving the quality of care
across the U.S. health care system,� Rand reported.
As for the other big government-run health care system in
the United States, Medicare spends perhaps one-sixth as much
on administration as private health insurers, although the
comparison is imperfect and controversial.
But the biggest weakness of private industry is not
inefficiency but unfairness. The business model of private
insurance has become, in part, to collect premiums from
healthy people and reject those likely to get sick � or, if
they start out healthy and then get sick, to find a way to
cancel their coverage.
A reader wrote in this week to tell me about a colleague of
hers who had health insurance through her company. The woman
received a cancer diagnosis a few weeks ago, and she now
faces chemotherapy co-payments that she cannot afford.
Worse, because she is now unable to work and has to focus on
treatment, she has been shifted to short-term disability for
90 days � and after that, she will lose her employer health
insurance.
She can keep her insurance if she makes Cobra payments on
her own, but she can�t afford this. In her case, her company
will voluntarily help her � but I just don�t understand why
we may be about to reject health reform and stick with a
dysfunctional system that takes away the health coverage of
hard-working Americans when they become too sick with cancer
to work.
On my blog, foreigners regularly express bewilderment that
America may reject reform and stick with a system that
drives families into bankruptcy when they get sick. That�s
what they expect from the Central African Republic, not the
United States.
Let�s hope we won�t miss this chance. A public role in
health care shouldn�t be any scarier or more repugnant than
a public fire department.
"Obama Nation = Abomination" <nos...@here.org> wrote in
message news:4aa01a8b...@news.datemas.de...
Sid9
Here�s a paradox.
"Obama Nation = Abomination" <nos...@here.org> wrote in
message news:4aa01b44...@news.datemas.de...
Obama Nation = Abomination
Behind the facade of reform, Obama and leading Democrats ruled
universal, single-payer coverage off the table before debate even
began. Instead they've focused on taxing more, rationing care, placing
profits above human need, disdaining vital change, shifting the cost
burden to individuals and requiring everyone to be insured; imposing
fines up to $1000 for non-compliance, and making a broken system even
worse.
On June 10, Physicians for a National Health Program advisor Walter
Tsou told the House Education and Labor Committee:
"Attempting to reconcile the dual imperatives of universal coverage
and cost control through alternative methods besides single payer is
an exercise in futility. When some congressional leaders declare that
single payer is off the table, they are in effect saying that insurers
will be protected, leaving the pain to patients, taxpayers and health
care providers."
At the same hearing, the California Nurses Association and National
Nurses Organizing Committee co-president Geri Jenkins said:
"The current system rations care based on an ability to pay. Right now
we are the only nation on earth that barters human life for money."
The administration and lawmakers have been unresponsive in moving
ahead with House and Senate legislation to enrich health insurers, Big
Pharma, and large hospital chains. It will ration care, curb expensive
treatments and surgeries for those who can't afford them, leave
millions in the country uncovered, deny it altogether to undocumented
immigrants even though they pay income, payroll and other taxes, and
claim it's real reform like they always do.
On May 20, S. 1099: Patients' Choice Act was introduced "to provide
comprehensive solutions for the health care system of the United
States, and for other purposes." It was referred to the Senate Finance
and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committees (HELP) for
consideration.
The Senate Finance Committee may craft its own version. On July 15
along party lines, HELP voted 13 - 10 to approve a $615 billion
Democrat-sponsored bill that's substantially similar to House
legislation with provisions that Obama wants.
On July 14, HR 3200: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009
was introduced "To provide affordable, quality health care for all
Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other
purposes." It was referred to the following House committees for
consideration: Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, Education and
Labor, Oversight and Government Reform, and Budget.
House and Senate bills stress cost-containing "evidence-based"
solutions with Obama appearing on a June 24 ABC News "Questions for
the President: Prescription for America" infomercial touting his plan
to carefully selected reporters and others invited to the White House
East Room for a scripted Q & A.
Cutting costs and free-market solutions were emphasized, not real
reform stressing human need with Obama saying "If we don't drive down
costs, then we're not going to be able to achieve all of those other
things." Which ones he didn't say before stressing the need for
"evidence-based care," meaning less is better for those unable to pay
so that millions will be sacrificed on the alter of cost containment
while enriching private insurers, Big Pharma, and large hospital
chains that will flourish as community and public ones shut down for
lack of enough resources.
Obama was callous in saying "Loading up on additional tests or
additional drugs" must be curbed. "Maybe (some would be) better off
not having....surgery, but taking (a) painkiller" instead. He showed
disdain and indifference in stating that "the chronically ill and
those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80%
of the total health care bill out there" - the inference being ration
their care and let 'em die to cut costs.
At the same time, he favored big insurers by saying that "One of the
incentives for (them) to get involved in this process is that
potentially they're going to have a whole bunch of new customers,
paying customers....insurance companies will thrive" under this plan.
As for a "public option" to fill holes, Obama was receptive to
alternatives but adamantly against universal single-payer coverage in
saying: "For us to completely change our system, root and branch,
would be hugely disruptive." Only market-based solutions will be
considered along with huge cost-containment measures, mostly affecting
millions of working Americans, the poor, elderly, and chronically ill.
Over the next decade, Medicare and Medicaid may lose over $600 billion
in funding with recipients, of course, making up the difference or
foregoing care. About $317 billion is proposed for "efficiencies" with
another $313 billion in cuts for hospitals that treat the poor and
uninsured. Many of them are already severely strapped as unemployment
soars, charitable donations are down, expenses rise, vital services
and staffs have to be cut to stay afloat, and growing numbers won't
make it as economic conditions worsen.
Instead of helping to fill budget gaps, Obama plans less aid to shut
them down. It will leave some areas dependent on more distant ones for
treatment, and let large chains consolidate for greater dominance.
Accessible quality care will be less available and affordable so, of
course, patients will lose out - mostly the elderly, chronically ill,
those on society's lower rungs, and all working Americans because an
uncaring administration and Congress threw them overboard for profit
and "efficiencies."
If "Obamacare" passes, most working people, the disadvantaged, and
those singled out as less important will experience large rollbacks in
quality, readily accessible coverage. For them, future health problems
will be more hazardous than ever because a callous nation doesn't
care.
On July 17 as expected, two of three key House committees passed HR
3200. Largely along party lines, Ways and Means voted 23 - 18.
Education and Labor approved 26 - 22 with a Kucinich amendment that
may not survive a floor vote or make it to the Senate.
It leaves HR 3200 intact but lets states create single-payer plans.
Eight are now considering them - California, Colorado, Illinois,
Maine, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Missouri, and Washington with perhaps
more to follow.
On June 11 in Pennsylvania, HealthCare4ALLPA organized over 400 people
for a state capital rally, and its Executive Director Chuck Pennachio
predicts pending legislation passage later in the year because
bipartisan support backs it. So do most Pennsylvanians, and Governor
Ed Rendell said he'll sign what comes to his desk.
Kucinich hailed its importance in saying:
"There are many models of health care reform from which to choose
around the world - the vast majority of which perform far better than
ours. The one that has been the most tested here and abroad is
single-payer. Under (it) everyone in the US would get a card that
would allow access to any doctor at virtually any hospital. Doctors
and hospitals would continue to be privately run, but the insurance
payments would be in public hands. By getting rid of the for-profit
insurance companies, we can save $400 billion per year and provide
coverage for all medically necessary services for everyone in the US."
Tens of billions could be saved annually if the government negotiated
drug prices like it does for the Veterans Administration and Medicaid.
So why aren't they doing it?Tens of billions more annually could be
saved if the government negotiated drug prices like it does for the
Veterans Administration and Medicaid. The Congressional Budget Office
estimated it would be $110 billion over 10 years for Medicare
recipients alone, comprising about 15% of Americans. For the entire
population, it would be much greater even though over-aged 65 people
use more prescription drugs than any other age group.
A Fly in Obamacare's Ointment
One emerged on July 16 when Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director
Douglas Elmendorf told the Senate Budget Committee that health care
bills under consideration will raise, not cut costs. "We do not see
the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the
trajectory of federal health spending. On the contrary, the
legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for
health care costs" even though much of it is shifted to individuals.
Reversing its earlier opposition, the influential American Medical
Association (AMA) endorsed the House bill after a new payments
provision was added to halt scheduled 2010 cuts to doctors under
Medicare.
AMA's president, Dr. James Rohack, said:
"We pledge to work with the House committees and leadership to build
support for passage of health reform legislation to expand access to
high quality affordable health care for all Americans." The AMA calls
it "an important step, but one of many steps in the process,"
including income-increasing measures for their members and "individual
responsibility for health insurance, including premium assistance for
those who need it."
Opposing Obamacare are advocates for universal single-payer coverage
like Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP). On July 16, it
said the House health reform bill is a "proven failure" and called for
an amendment to overturn it and implement a Medicare-for-all system.
PNHP's Dr. Quentin Young said similar state efforts repeatedly
foundered. Citing Massachusetts' experience, he explained that "The
state is dumping 30,000 legal residents off insurance, and the largest
safety-net hospital is suing the state for decimating the hospital's
budget to shore up reform. Meanwhile 1 in 6 (state) residents (can't)
pay their medical bills, and 18% (of them) with insurance skipped care
last year because they couldn't afford it. The Massachusetts model is
no solution." Neither are House and Senate bills that will make a
broken system worse. It will backtrack from real reform and make it
harder than ever to implement. The time to do it right is now.
That's what Single Payer Action believes - "1,000,000 Strong for
Single Payer, everybody in, nobody out." They're activists for
"Medicare for all in our lifetimes." They're "sick that 22,000
Americans die every year from lack of health insurance; (that) health
insurance companies (jack) up premiums while their....CEO's make out
like bandits." They deplore pre-existing condition exclusions, "high
deductibles, co-pays, and in-network, out-of-network Rube Goldberg"
shenanigans in today's system. They'll keep confronting government and
corporate officials until single-payer is the law of the land and
America treats health care coverage like all other Western nations.
Democrats on Damage Control
After CBO Director Elmendorf's cost alert, Rep. Mike Ross (D. Ark.)
said "There's no way they can pass this bill (as is) on the House
floor. Not even close." Other House and Senate Democrats also
expressed unease. Damage control followed.
Speaker Pelosi said a bill is on track for a floor vote before the
House and Senate August 10 through Labor Day weekend recess. "We're in
excellent shape," she told reporters in response to questions about
growing breaks in the ranks.
Obama was just as positive in saying "Those who are betting against
this happening this year are badly mistaken." In a lengthy prepared
statement, he cited "unprecedented progress" so far "that will finally
lower costs, guarantee coverage, and provide more choice....Let me
repeat: Health insurance reform cannot add to our deficit over the
next decade and I mean it....eventually this is going to happen."
Perhaps so with New York Times backing. A March 7 editorial said
"President Obama has shown both courage and sound judgment pressing
for quick action on comprehensive health care reform, even in the
midst of the country's deep economic crisis. He has rightly stressed
the urgency of reining in skyrocketing health care costs that are
straining the budgets of families, businesses, and federal and state
governments." Unmentioned was that insurance and drug company
profiteers cause the problem or that universal single-payer coverage
is the obvious, fairest, and only solution.
In a July 6 editorial, The Times referred to the "bloated, inefficient
health care system," but stressed cost control on the backs of
recipients, not providers, and perhaps raising taxes.
"The first task is to find savings. Some respected analysts suggest
that as much as 30 percent of all health care spending in this country
- some $700 billion a year - may be wasted on tests and treatments
that do not improve the health of the recipients."
Unconsidered was the right of doctors and patients to assess problems
and choose treatments, not elected officials, bureaucrats, unnamed
analysts, or Times editorial writers. Yet the paper stressed the
importance of "reallocating hundreds of billions of dollars from
projected spending on Medicare and Medicaid (and) impos(ing)
additional cuts after a few years if savings are less than projected."
Again, The Times and other media sources stress market-based solutions
and are mindless to the harm that Obama's plan will cause.
Possible Intrusive Provisions in Obamacare
On July 16, CNSNews.com's Editor-in-Chief Terence Jeffrey covered
another concern that needs watching. He cited the "official summary"
of the approved Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Committee's version of S. 1099 that:
"Authorizes a demonstration program to improve immunization coverage.
Under this program, CDC will provide grants to states to improve
immunization coverage of children, adolescents, and adults through the
use of evidence-based interventions." The word "interventions" causes
concern. "States may use funds to implement interventions that are
recommended (or perhaps mandated) by the Community Preventive Services
Task Force, such as reminders or recalls for patients or providers, or
home visits." Including "home visits" suggests that perhaps
immunization teams will intervene at personal residences to assure
everyone is vaccinated if federal mandates order it.
S. 1099's Title III is also worrisome: "Improving the Health of the
American People." Under Subtitle C: "Creating Healthier Communities,"
the Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary may "establish a
demonstration program to award grants to states to improve the
provision of recommended immunizations for children, adolescents, and
adults through the use of evidence-based, population-based
interventions for high-risk populations."
Under one of Title III's provisions, grant money may be used for home
visit immunization "interventions." Specifically:
"Funds received under a grant under this subsection (Title III, Method
E) shall be used to implement interventions that are recommended by
the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (as established by the
secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention) or other evidence-based interventions,
including:"
"(A) providing immunization reminders or recalls for target
populations of clients, patients, and consumers; (B) educating target
populations and health care providers concerning immunizations in
combination with one or more other interventions; (C) reducing
out-of-pocket costs for families for vaccines and their
administration; (D) carrying out immunization-promoting strategies for
participants or clients of public programs, including assessments of
immunization status, referrals to health care providers, education,
provision of on-site immunizations, or incentives for immunization;
(E) providing for home visits that promote (or perhaps mandate)
immunization through education, assessments of need, referrals,
provision of immunizations, or other services; (F) providing reminders
or recalls for immunization providers; (G) conducting assessments of,
and providing feedback to, immunization providers; or (H) any
combination of one or more interventions described in this paragraph."
All Vaccines Are Hazardous
In three recent articles, this writer cited scientific evidence of
hidden dangers in all vaccines. They contain squalene-based adjuvants
that cause a host of annoying to life-threatening autoimmune diseases
and must be avoided, even if mandated. It's also known that vaccines
don't protect against diseases they're designed to prevent and often
cause them.
Currently at issue is concern over Swine Flu and WHO's June 11
declaration of a global pandemic even though no forensic evidence
links any deaths to H1N1. Yet experimental, untested, toxic and
extremely dangerous vaccines are being rushed to market for
potentially mandated immunizations globally as the fall flu season
approaches. If enacted in time, Obamacare may provide cover, and if
not, other US laws empower the HHS and Defense secretaries to declare
a national emergency and compel everyone in the country to be
vaccinated, even though submitting risks serious health consequences.
Staying alert is essential as Obamacare's passage will shift more of
the health care burden on those who can least afford it and prepare
Americans for hazardous mandatory Swine Flu vaccinations in the fall.
Grassroots opposition to both schemes is vital to the health and
well-being of everyone.
Obama Nation = Abomination
I have been sitting quietly on the sidelines watching all of this
national debate on healthcare. It is time for me to bring some clarity
to the table by explaining many of the problems from the perspective
of a doctor.
First off, the government has involved very few of us physicians in
the healthcare debate. While the American Medical Association has
come out in favor of the plan, it is vital to remember that the AMA
only represents 17% of the American physician workforce.
I have taken care of Medicaid patients for 35 years while representing
the only pediatric ophthalmology group left in Atlanta, Georgia that
accepts Medicaid. For example, in the past 6 months I have cared for
three young children on Medicaid who had corneal ulcers. This is a
potentially blinding situation because if the cornea perforates from
the infection, almost surely blindness will occur. In all three cases
the antibiotic needed for the eradication of the infection was not on
the approved Medicaid list.
Each time I was told to fax Medicaid for the approval forms, which I
did. Within 48 hours the form came back to me which was sent in
immediately via fax, and I was told that I would have my answer in 10
days. Of course by then each child would have been blind in the eye.
Each time the request came back denied. All three times I personally
provided the antibiotic for each patient which was not on the
Medicaid approved list. Get the point -- rationing of care.
Over the past 35 years I have cared for over 1000 children born with
congenital cataracts. In older children and in adults the vision is
rehabilitated with an intraocular lens. In newborns we use contact
lenses which are very expensive. It takes Medicaid over one year to
approve a contact lens post cataract surgery. By that time a
successful anatomical operation is wasted as the child will be close
to blind from a lack of focusing for so long a period of time.
Again, extreme rationing. Solution: I have a foundation here in
Atlanta supported 100% by private funds which supplies all of these
contact lenses for my Medicaid and illegal immigrants children for
free. Again, waiting for the government would be disastrous.
Last week I had a lady bring her child to me. They are Americans but
live in Sweden, as the father has a job with a big corporation. The
child had the onset of double vision 3 months ago and has been unable
to function normally because of this. They are people of means but are
waiting 8 months to see the ophthalmologist in Sweden. Then if the
child needed surgery they would be put on a 6 month waiting list. She
called me and I saw her that day. It turned out that the child had
accommodative esotropia (crossing of the eyes treated with glasses
that correct for farsightedness) and responded to glasses within 4
days, so no surgery was needed. Again, rationing of care.
Last month I operated on a 70 year old lady with double vision present
for 3 years. She responded quite nicely to her surgery and now is
symptom free. I also operated on a 69 year old judge with vertical
double vision. His surgery went very well and now he is happy as a
lark. I have been told -- but of course there is no healthcare bill
that has been passed yet -- that these 2 people because of their age
would have been denied surgery and just told to wear a patch over
one eye to alleviate the symptoms of double vision. Obviously cheaper
than surgery.
I spent two year in the US Navy during the Viet Nam war and was
well treated by the military. There was tremendous rationing of care
and we were told specifically what things the military personnel and
their dependents could have and which things they could not have.
While I was in Viet Nam, my wife Nancy got sick and got essentially
no care at the Naval Hospital in Oakland, California. She went home
and went to her family's private internist in Beverly Hills. While it
was expensive, she received an immediate work up. Again rationing of
care.
For those of you who are over 65, this bill in its present form
might be lethal for you. People in Britain face rationing of care in
that there is an eight month wait for cataract surgery, 11 for hernia
and the same for disc and total hip The government wants to mimic the
British plan. For those of you younger, it will still mean
restriction of the care that you and your children receive.
While 99% of physicians went into medicine because of the love of
medicine and the challenge of helping our fellow man, economics are
still important. My rent goes up 2% each year and the salaries of my
employees go up 2% each year. Twenty years ago, ophthalmologists were
paid $1800 for a cataract surgery and today $500. This is a 73%
decrease in our fees. I do not know of many jobs in America that have
seen this sort of lowering of fees.
But there is more to the story than just the lower fees. When I came
to Atlanta, there was a well known ophthalmologist that charged $2500
for a cataract surgery as he felt the was the best. He had a terrific
reputation and in fact I had my mother's bilateral cataracts
operated on by him with a wonderful result. She is now 94 and has
20/20 vision in both eyes. People would pay his $2500 fee.
However, then the government came in and said that any doctor that
does Medicare work cannot accept more than the going rate ( now
$500) or he or she would be severely fined. This put an end to his
charging $2500. The government said it was illegal to accept more
than the government-allowed rate. What I am driving at is that those
of you well off will not be able to go to the head of the line under
this new healthcare plan, just because you have money, as no
physician will be willing to go against the law to treat you.
I am a pediatric ophthalmologist and trained for 10 years
post-college to become a pediatric ophthalmologist (add two years of
my service in the Navy and that comes to 12 years).A neurosurgeon
spends 14 years post -college, and if he or she has to do the
military that would be 16 years. I am not entitled to make what a
neurosurgeon makes, but the new plan calls for all physicians to make
the same amount of payment. I assure you that medical students will
not go into neurosurgery and we will have a tremendous shortage of
neurosurgeons. Already, the top neurosurgeon at my hospital who is in
good health and only 52 years old has just quit because he can't stand
working with the government anymore. Forty-nine percent of children
under the age of 16 in the state of Georgia are on Medicaid, so he
felt he just could not stand working with the bureaucracy anymore.
We are being lied to about the uninsured. They are getting care. I
operate at least 2 illegal immigrants each month who pay me nothing,
and the children's hospital at which I operate charges them nothing
also.This is true not only on Atlanta, but of every community in
America.
The bottom line is that I urge all of you to contact your
congresswomen and congressmen and senators to defeat this bill. I
promise you that you will not like rationing of your own health.
Furthermore, how can you trust a physician that works under these
conditions knowing that he is controlled by the state. I certainly
could not trust any doctor that would work under these draconian
conditions.
One last thing: with this new healthcare plan there will be a
tremendous shortage of physicians. It has been estimated that
approximately 5% of the current physician work force will quit under
this new system. Also it is estimated that another 5% shortage will
occur because of the decreased number of men and women wanting to go
into medicine. At the present time the US government has mandated
gender equity in admissions to medical schools .That means that for
the past 15 years that somewhere between 49 and 51% of each
entering class are females. This is true of private schools also,
because all private schools receive federal funding.
The average career of a woman in medicine now is only 8-10 years and
the average work week for a female in medicine is only 3-4 days. I
have now trained 35 fellows in pediatric ophthalmology. Hands down
the best was a female that I trained 4 years ago -- she was head
and heels above all others I have trained. She now practices only
3 days a week.
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:51:56 -0500, Peter Principle
Obama Nation = Abomination
HomeHealthHealth NewsSentenced to death on the NHS
Patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely
under an NHS scheme to help end their lives, leading doctors have
warned.
Under the guidelines the decision to diagnose that a patient is close
to death is made by the entire medical team treating them, including a
senior doctor Photo: GETTY In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group
of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients
are being wrongly judged as close to death.
Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and
medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and
drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they
pass away.
Related Articles
Warning over NHS 'tick-box medicine'
Number of NHS patients given wrong medicine doubles
Third of patients 'being treated by nurses'
1 in 10 NHS jobs need to be cut
Are we killing our elderly?
What is the Liverpool Care Pathway? But this approach can also mask
the signs that their condition is improving, the experts warn.
As a result the scheme is causing a �national crisis� in patient care,
the letter states. It has been signed palliative care experts
including Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics,
University of London, Dr Peter Hargreaves, a consultant in Palliative
Medicine at St Luke�s cancer centre in Guildford, and four others.
�Forecasting death is an inexact science,�they say. Patients are being
diagnosed as being close to death �without regard to the fact that the
diagnosis could be wrong.
�As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family
and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients."
The warning comes just a week after a report by the Patients
Association estimated that up to one million patients had received
poor or cruel care on the NHS.
The scheme, called the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), was designed to
reduce patient suffering in their final hours.
Developed by Marie Curie, the cancer charity, in a Liverpool hospice
it was initially developed for cancer patients but now includes other
life threatening conditions.
It was recommended as a model by the National Institute for Health and
Clinical Excellence (Nice), the Government�s health scrutiny body, in
2004.
It has been gradually adopted nationwide and more than 300 hospitals,
130 hospices and 560 care homes in England currently use the system.
Under the guidelines the decision to diagnose that a patient is close
to death is made by the entire medical team treating them, including a
senior doctor.
They look for signs that a patient is approaching their final hours,
which can include if patients have lost consciousness or whether they
are having difficulty swallowing medication.
However, doctors warn that these signs can point to other medical
problems.
Patients can become semi-conscious and confused as a side effect of
pain-killing drugs such as morphine if they are also dehydrated, for
instance.
When a decision has been made to place a patient on the pathway
doctors are then recommended to consider removing medication or
invasive procedures, such as intravenous drips, which are no longer of
benefit.
If a patient is judged to still be able to eat or drink food and water
will still be offered to them, as this is considered nursing care
rather than medical intervention.
Dr Hargreaves said that this depended, however, on constant assessment
of a patient�s condition.
He added that some patients were being �wrongly� put on the pathway,
which created a �self-fulfilling prophecy� that they would die.
He said: �I have been practising palliative medicine for more than 20
years and I am getting more concerned about this �death pathway� that
is coming in.
�It is supposed to let people die with dignity but it can become a
self-fulfilling prophecy.
�Patients who are allowed to become dehydrated and then become
confused can be wrongly put on this pathway.�
He added: �What they are trying to do is stop people being overtreated
as they are dying.
�It is a very laudable idea. But the concern is that it is tick box
medicine that stops people thinking.�
He said that he had personally taken patients off the pathway who went
on to live for �significant� amounts of time and warned that many
doctors were not checking the progress of patients enough to notice
improvement in their condition.
Prof Millard said that it was �worrying� that patients were being
�terminally� sedated, using syringe drivers, which continually empty
their contents into a patient over the course of 24 hours.
Sid9
Why did this 70 year old lady on Medicare have to wait three
years for corrective surgery?
Medicare has no "rationing" nor is any rationing proposed.
Sid9
This is simply a fear tactic by the insurance companies to
protect their turf.
Rationing of health care is regularly done by insurance
companies...not by our government.
"Obama Nation = Abomination" <nos...@here.org> wrote in
message news:4aa0223b...@news.datemas.de...
Obama Nation = Abomination
Let's get right to the main question everyone has about the new
ObamaCare health scheme: does House Bill 3200, entitled Affordable
Health Choices Act of 2009, ration medical care. The answer: yes, and
quite severely.
No amount of euphemism, circumlocution, or verbal prestidigitaion,
even by the Master Prevaricator himself, (that's Obama, not Bill
Clinton) can change the reality that medical care will be rationed.
Rationing will not be accomplished in a direct manner, and it is not
telegraphed clearly in the House Bill. It is couched in language that
hides the overall intent, but it is clear nonetheless. It will also be
incremental over many years, in order to avoid public outcry, whether
a so-called "public option" is in the bill at first or not.
By means of a number of different schemes peppered throughout the
bill, availability of care will be incrementally choked, until the
government assumes full control of the entire business. There are
sections addressing Medicaid, Medicare, private plans, military plans,
and other variations.
After eventually implementing all of the measures in the bill,
availability of medical care will have shrunken and the cost will have
increased exponentially. Getting needed treatment will be more like a
competition of musical chairs, or a visit to the Post Office, to use
the president's analogy.
The scheme set forth in the law has no other end but severe rationing.
These conclusions are based on facts supplied by the government
itself, not upon speculation.
Rationing Committees
One key passage in the House Bill that fortells rationing is found
starting on page 26, where it defines "essential benefits," and
restricts the amount of money that a person may spend on his or her
healthcare. Whenever the goverenment establishes a baseline, that is
what it will hew to. Other medical problems and conditions other than
those that are "approved" or "clinically appropriate" as defined in
section 121, or problems which exceed the approved budget, will simply
be denied by the bureaucrats.
The essential treatment benefits, i.e., the parameters of rationing,
will be determined by an unaccountable "Health Benefits Advisory
Committee," which is established on page 30 of the House Bill.
Behind this Health Benefits Advisory Committee, is an even higher
level 15-member oligarchy that was set up under the previous Obama
stimulus bill passed earlier this year. The group is called the
"Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research,"
The House medical take-over bill establishes a corresponding "Center
for Comparative Effectiveness Research," (Section 1401) and funds it
with a billion (!) dollars.
Apart from medical public policy wonks, few of us know what
"effectiveness research" means. That term is a chilling new-speak word
for providing "information on the relative strengths and weakness of
various medical interventions." Translation: we'll allow you to have
the care that we decide is good for you. This group will likely serve
as the guiding light for the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, as it
determines what will be covered by the new government medical care
plans.
Enforcement muscle for the medical rationing empire will be provided
by a new "Health Choices Commissioner," and plenty of henchmen. They
will have authority to audit any medical care provider, suspend
enrollment of citizens in plans, bring lawsuits against dissenters or
wrongdoers, and will serve as the data collector for the healthcare
regime. This commissioner is also entrusted to enforce "efficiency in
administration" of this whole freakish healthcare monstrosity, a
concept so ludicrous that it leaves one speechless.
How Rationing Will Start
How will rationing actually work? It will start with the restrictions
placed on the availability of medical care by the committees and the
enforcement commisioner just mentioned above. Here are some other
specific parts of the bill that would limit the delivery of medical
services to various segments of the population, and portend the demise
of our medical system as we know it:
�One of the most important structural rationing schemes in the bill is
the so-called insurance "exchanges," which they call "gateways"
through which comrade citizens will be allowed to obtain government
medical insurance. (Section 201, page 72ff) These are simply state-run
insurance plans, subsidized by the taxpayers, for families whose
household income is up to six times the poverty level. Nothing is
being exchanged, except lots of money from the taxpayers on behalf of
an ever-larger dependent class.
�The number and availability of private plans will also be contained
and eventually eliminated. Section 102 of the House bill
"grandfathers" existing private plans but does not allow any more
independent ones to be started. Thus, all plans not tied into the
government scheme will eventually die a natural death over time. All
new policies must hew to the strict government requirements to insure
everyone, to structure the coverage per the new law, and to not
exclude preexisting conditions.
�Another reason why private plans will go the way of the kindly old
family doctor: the new bill provides for amending the IRS code to
impose a new tax specially directed to only private and individual
health plans. (Section 1802, found on page 829) Employers who do not
buy in will pay up to an eight percent tax on payroll.
Chilling Honesty � Who Won't Get Care
Maybe the most chilling honesty about rationing was propounded by Dr.
Ezekiel Emanuel, the president's ethical adviser, identified in a
previous article. In a Hastings Review article in 1996, he explained
who should not get care under the socialist regime which he envisioned
at that time: "Services provided to individuals who are irreversibly
prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic
and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing
services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example is
guaranteeing neuro-psychological services to ensure children with
learning disabilities can learn to reason."
What about children whose "participating" won't be improved by
neuro-psychological services? What about grandma, as her faculties
decline? If it is your child or your grandmother, will we surrender
their lives dociley, and watch them die before our eyes?
Do you have a special-needs child who needs to enroll in a government
plan? Don't bother. (Page 354) Not happy with the treatment options
recommended by your friendly bureaucrat? Too bad. They have to be
"clinically appropriate," as determined by the faceless system.
(Section 121) How about mental-health services? Rationed under Section
1308, on pages 496-97.
Want to live longer than your government doctor decrees? Really,
really too bad. They can "limit some or all of specified
interventions." (See pages 429-430) Are you poor, but don't want to
enjoy the rationed care and rigid structure of Medicaid? Too bad �
you're in. (Page 399) Same with Medicare if you are old. (Section
1701-2) And if your friendly Medicare bureaucrat doesn't like the
medical problem you have, you should just go die and quit being a
pest. (Section 1751)
In sum, the rationing of medical care will become required across the
entire spectrum of every demographic group in America. There appears
to be no escape clause in the House bill that would allow you to get
care for yourself or a stricken relative when it is denied by the
government. Only the elite will now have that privilege, as they
survey with satisfaction the carnage they have created.
___________
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:52:24 -0500, Peter Principle
Obama Nation = Abomination
The health reform debate has heated up mainly over rationing. On
August 6, Mike Sola of Michigan confronted Rep. John Dingell. As
Sola�s son watched from a wheelchair, Sola charged, "Under the Obama
health care plan which you support, this man would be given no care
whatsoever because he is a cerebral palsy handicapped person."
That same day in Longmont, a cancer survivor told a crowd, "I've had a
total of 11 surgeries. Do you think that Obama's health care would
have paid for that?� When the crowd answered "no," he said, �Exactly.
But I�m still alive today."
A July 29 rally in Colorado Springs featured a sign calling Obamacare
"a death sentence for seniors."
Obama glibly brushes off criticism as "misinformation" as his
supporters attack critics as un-American thugs and mobs. Yet rationing
under Obama's proposal is inevitable. The only question is how
rationing would play out...
(Read the full text of "Rationing Inherent In Obamacare".)
Because of government policies, the British and Canadians currently
endure long waits for advanced medical care (such as MRI scans) that
most Americans would find outrageous.
Americans are starting to wake up to the fact that ObamaCare would be
dangerous to their health. Let's hope the politicians start realizing
that as well...
________
Obamacare: A Health Care Rationing Scheme to Enrich Insurers, Drug
Companies and Large Hospital Chains - by Stephen Lendman
On February 24, Barack Obama told a joint session of Congress that "we
must....address the crushing cost of health care....caus(ing) a
bankruptcy in America every thirty seconds. By the end of the year, it
could cause 1.5 million Americans to lose their homes. In (each of)
the last eight years....one million....Americans have lost their
health insurance....Given these facts, we can no longer afford to put
health care reform on hold....health care reform cannot wait, it must
not wait, and it will not wait another year."
___________
Obama Nation = Abomination
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:36:44 -0500, Peter Principle
Obama Nation = Abomination
___________
Sid9
More lies from the protectors of insurance company profits!
"Obama Nation = Abomination" <nos...@here.org> wrote in
message news:4aa02f56...@news.datemas.de...
Sid9
Mores lies!
More lies from the protectors of insurance company profits!
Nothing like NHS is proposed
"Obama Nation = Abomination" <nos...@here.org> wrote in
message news:4aa02f5d...@news.datemas.de...
Sid9
They spend $1,4 million daily to spread their lies
"Obama Nation = Abomination" <nos...@here.org> wrote in
message news:4aa02f62...@news.datemas.de...
Obama Nation = Abomination
As for a "public option" to fill holes, Obama was receptive to
alternatives but adamantly against universal single-payer coverage in
saying: "For us to completely change our system, root and branch,
would be hugely disruptive." Only market-based solutions will be
considered along with huge cost-containment measures, mostly affecting
millions of working Americans, the poor, elderly, and chronically ill.
Over the next decade, Medicare and Medicaid may lose over $600 billion
Tens of billions more annually could be saved if the government