Re: Rightards Can't Handle REALITY - 26 Health Care LIES Debunked By FactCheck, PolitiFact
None4U
"Peter Principle" <petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote in message
news:aa8u95p6qd9u2jbc6...@4ax.com...
> 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.
> -----
age 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.
>
>
Give it up idiot, Its over. You apparently think people cant read. This
Socialist control plan sucks. Nobody wants it but you political
leftist Marxist, idiots who care less about the American people. Then
illegal immigrants.
NO ILLEGALS
or any foreigners get any free health care paid for by US taxes.
No American kids are paying for it. Or unborn American babies either.
You Socialist , home wrecking, family destroying ,idiots ruined it. You
are a bold faced liar too.
None4U
"Peter Principle" <petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote in message
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 22:05:01 -0400, "None4U" <nos...@nospam.none> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>Give it up idiot, Its over.
>
>
> Er, what major mental malfunction compelled your clueless luser stupid ass
> to quote SEVEN HUNDRED AND TWELVE FUCKING LINES OF TEXT, then not respond
> to
> ANY of it?
I posted it at the bottom , idiot, unlike to top poster like you. You just
are to lazy to look for it. Give it up idiot, Its over.
Here lazy ass , its copied / pasted.
You apparently think people cant read. This
Socialist control plan sucks. Nobody wants it but you political
leftist Marxist, idiots who care less about the American people. Then
illegal immigrants.
NO ILLEGALS
or any foreigners get any free health care paid for by US taxes.
No American kids are paying for it. Or unborn American babies either.
You Socialist , home wrecking, family destroying ,idiots ruined it. You
are a bold faced liar too.
>
> <boggle>
>
> Are you really THAT fucking stupid? Hard to believe. Talk about unable to
> handle REALITY, man, you're the new fucking poster boy, rightard.
>
> But hey, to be fair, let's make sure you really are THAT fucking stupid.
> Here, once again, are IRREFUTABLE FACTS that blow the hell out of ALL of
> your rightard Big Lies about health care. Now, riddle me this, Dip
> Thunker:
>
> Can you or can you not address ANY of the following FACTS?
They arent fact. just your Socialist agenda biased opinion.
Te plan as written gives the government a free hand to modify said document
at anytime , for any reason , in the future. FACT
And they will. FACT.
They will do as they please , and it will not be good for anyone. FACT.
Can you refute
> ANYTHING here? Anyting at all?
I refute that you are a naive idiot who has been duped by the government.
And you choose to ignore your Constitutional duty to defend America against
bankruptcy from within by politicians and a government inclined to do so.
Besides that people can read.
The government sold our jobs with insurance to China. They dont get to
give Healthcare back without the jobs returned too. FACT
We dont need too refute anything. Your opinion warrants no response.
FACT.
No illegals or foreigners are getting free healthcare on our watch. FACT.
We arent giving the government another way to destroy America from within
by bankrupting America. FACT
No national IDs. FACT
No nothing. FACT
You are simple minded to try and seperate this agenda from anything else the
government does.
FACT
Like bail out banks with taxes for instance. FACT
Or keep letting illegals walk in to Ameica for cheap labor.FACT
Or let a kenyan be elected. FACT
Or create a 10 trillion debt that Socialist would have unborn babies pay
back.FACT
They fucked up. The plans sucks as written. Americans are pissed off and
have spoken. FACT, FACT,
FACT
It aint happening. FACT
Nobody gives a shit about your opinion on points . FACT .
Its not about healthcare. FACT
Its about control FACT
This plan sucks. it still sucks, It always will suck. If you like it you
suck too. FACT
>
> Here, luser, try again...
> ------
>
>>. Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and
> ---
> 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 bot
Arizona Bushwhacker
on me? Why are you demanding that I pay taxes to
support your wars?
Pay for Iraq and Afghanistan yourselves! They're
your wars, you wanted them, you pay for them!
Fucking socialist republicans!
None4U
"Arizona Bushwhacker" <ArizonaBu...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:sDHnm.6701$UH2....@newsfe01.iad...
> Why are you idiot fucking republicans forcing socialism
> on me?
Why wont you Socialist go to France or Canada and sit on your ass and bitch
there??
Why are you demanding that I pay taxes to
> support your wars?
Im not . In fact Im against the war. BUT..... We are a warring empire
building nation. FACT.
Since about 1914 at least. FACT.
Enemies will be created. Real or not. FACT
> Pay for Iraq and Afghanistan yourselves!
Tel that to the government you wish to turn your healthcare over to. And
you and you will be imprisoned.
They're
> your wars,
They are yours too. Pay your taxes.
you wanted them, you pay for them!
YOU NEED THEM. oil makes the world go round. Its cheaper to take it then
bargain with criminals and terrorist over it.
All Americans will pay their share. Including you.
Or go to prison.
This fact will not be overlooked. you must accept ,
We are 5% of the worlds population , Producing 25% of the whole worlds
production of products. It requires 25 % of the worlds oil to do so.
Thats why we are in the middle east . DIMWIT.
>
> Fucking socialist republicans!
Fucking stupid retard clueless idiot . Who wants to chew granola in the
mountains, never get laid, and live in a shack with no power and have no
civilized life.
Your answer for not wanting to pay your American taxes for an American war
is to force me, my kids, and unborn babies, to pay American taxes for
health insurance for illegal immigrants and every foreign person in the
world who can get here.
Sounds to me like you hate America.
No, Im sure of it.
When you leaving???
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.
By Kate Devlin, Medical Correspondent
Published: 10:00PM BST 02 Sep 2009
Comments 101 | Comment on this article
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.
>>� 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,
>...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.
Rich
socialized system he would have been denied brain surgery because he was
too old and too far gone? FACT.
Or, unlike Michael (LEFTIST PIG) Moore's film that showed him interview
Canadian emergency room patients about wait times (they gleefully claimed
15-20 minute waits!!) the real wait times can be up to 8 hours? FACT.
Harold Burton
Pecker Principle <petes...@SNIPITgmail.com> whined:
> Did you think no one would notice, coward, that you can't back up ANY of
> your stupid asshole LIES?
that would make him a lot like you.
Snicker.