Town Square

Post a New Topic

Heath Care Bill Article link from AARP

Original post made by AARP on Aug 9, 2009

July 28, 2009
Deconstructing the Right Wing Lies on the Health Insurance Bill -- Pages 1-500

(Thanks to a reader, I found another source of right wing crap on the health care bill, so there is now a part II to this post. As you may have noted, the right wingers who came up with this piece crapped out at page 500; their ADD must have kicked in. But this new source, a group of right wing Christian lawyers, no less, have gone much farther. Part II can be found here... part III is coming very soon... )





The right's lies about the current health insurance proposals before Congress have rarely been compiled in such concise form before.



What follows is an article from the Right Wing blog ChronWatch:



Page After Page of Reasons to Hate ObamaCare

By Alan Caruba



The problem is, there's something missing, such as context. See, the writer is expecting the reader to take everything as gospel, and agree that it's bad, without any sort of explanation. It's a list of all of the things that are wrong with the current state of the health care reform bill before Congress. If you'd like to follow along, feel free to click here to go to the bill itself. In fact, I would encourage you to look at it for yourself; it's an easy way to learn what's actually in it, without having to read through all of the legalese.



We're not called Please Cut the Crap for no reason. Below each item the right wing assures readers we're supposed to hate, I've inserted context, and explained why you really shouldn't hate it. Unless you should. All of my responses are italicized and printed in red, so that you can tell whose words are whose.


I'll warn you, this is a long one, but it's an important one, so get a glass of tea, print this out, and read it to everyone who spews one of these talking points, because this really does touch on pretty much all of the right's talking points. And now you'll be able to refute them. Isn't that cool?




Now, let's continue with the article.



Here are just a few very good reasons to hate ObamaCare:




• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!



First of all, it starts on page 21, not 22, and it simply mandates a study of risk on the part of all companies that choose to provide self-insurance, to make sure they are capitalized properly. This is something that private insurance companies are required to do; it's to protect the consumer. Say you work at a company with their own health insurance system; how would you like to find out after you've received a $100,000 bill for a hospital stay, that the insurance pool can't pay the bill?



This is also important because when they can't pay the bills, then everyone else with insurance ends up picking up the slack. Got that? That's the reason health insurance premiums have more than doubled in the last ten years, and are scheduled to double again in the next ten, if nothing changes.



Anyway, why should companies acting as health insurance companies be allowed to operate under different rules than insurance companies? Isn't that unfair competition?



• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!



The section actually starts on page 26, and it's entitled:

SEC. 122. ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED.




There is absolutely NO section in there, from page 26 through page 30, that indicates rationing of any kind. Looking at Page 29 specifically, it contains a section called "Annual Limitation." A-HA! See? It's a LIMITATION! That's the same as rationing, right? Didn't they admit rationing?



Well, no. Because the limit is on the amount that people will have to pay out in cost-sharing, should the agency implementing the bill decide to use a version of cost-sharing. The limit is on how much a patient will have to pay, not a limit on the health care the patient receives.Watch how many times these tools bring up the "rationing" canard. It's almost as often as they mention ACORN. (I kid you not. Just wait.)



See what I mean when I say we have to watch these people, and check their "facts?"



• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)



The section on Page 30 establishes an advisory committee, and yes; they will decide which treatments and benefits you get. I'm unsure as to why this is a bad thing. I don't want my health insurance premiums going to Britney's boob job, even if I have private insurance. Which reminds me; does this bozo actually think private insurance companies don't have a list of acceptable treatments and benefits?



There is one difference here, though. The committee's recommendations will be published and the public will have access to them. Which means they will be able to offer input to the process.



Oh, and there is nothing here about "no appeals process." The Committee will simply recommend processes for implementation. Not only that, but varying appeals processes are laid out in detail throughout the bill. So, he lied about that...



• Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.



See above. The Commissioner will simply oversee implementation of the rules that are decided upon by the Commission. He or she will be responsible for making sure that everyone is held accountable up and down the line. Nothing in the bill gives power to a "czar," who will make health benefits decisions. The commission and the Secretary will make decisions on benefits as changes become necessary. Again; I'm not sure why this is a bad thing, except that right wingers don't seem fond of accountability.Well, unless we're talking about unskilled poor people who get welfare money.



• Page 50: All non-U.S. citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.



Now, when you read something like this, you half expect to see something mandating that non-US citizens be given "free health care."



The funny thing is, the word FREE only appears one time in the entire bill, and it is not coupled with the term "health care." People will be provided with a new health care choice, based on their income, to a certain extent. So we can toss that little red herring off the boat right away. NO ONE will receive free health care. I mean, unless they win some sort of sweepstakes or something.I guess that's possible.



No, the section the wingnut refers to is entitled:

SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.

What is says is:

"… [A]ll 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."

The word "free" isn't in there. It just means that no one can be denied insurance coverage or health care because of their looks, or because they're wearing robes or a burqa. But nothing in there says undocumented immigrants will be able to scam "free" health care. In other words, you can only call that a lie.



• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.



No, it says everyone who opts into the public insurance system MAY be issued a health identification card, if the commission thinks that's a good idea. But the bill doesn't mandate it. It's quite possible the insurance commission will recommend that states implement the public health insurance option, and some states may put the information on your driver's license or state ID card. And again; the only people who will need a card are those with public insurance.



And what's wrong with this idea, anyway? I've never had health insurance from a private company from which I didn't receive an identification card.



• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.



Wow. Is that scary, or what? Only one problem; it's a lie. And I don't mean he's mistaken; I mean, he's lying. Here's what it says:
''The standards under this section shall be developed, adopted and enforced so as to… (C) enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice;"

It clearly refers to payment for the health care, not payment of the premium. Most health care companies love this, and will adopt it. But it is still their choice, just as it could be your choice to pay your health insurance premiums by direct transfer, check or payroll deduction. As is the case now.



• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)



Once more, it doesn't say that. What it does say is:

SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES.

13 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish a temporary reinsurance program (in this section referred to as the ''reinsurance program'') to provide reimbursement to assist participating employment-based plans with the cost of providing health benefits to retirees and to eligible spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees.



Okay, you'll note the word PARTICIPATING in the above. To anyone who would bother to slide down a couple of paragraphs, past the definitions, all of which define the terms in the above, and do not include the word "mandatory" anywhere, to Page 67, we find:

(b) PARTICIPATION.—To be eligible to participate in the reinsurance program, an eligible employment-based plan shall submit to the Secretary an application for participation in the program, at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary shall require.

So, it's all voluntary. Not only that, but it's REINSURANCE, which means the participating plan will be providing their capital to the federal government to fund the plan. I would also point out that members of unions such as SEIU and UAW are also taxpayers, and they currently purchase private insurance for retired members. And if ACORN isn't a red herring, I don't know what is. I'm not aware that ACORN provides health insurance to anyone. But hey; it's not true racist wingnuttery until you invoke ACORN, eh? This isn't the last time you'll see it.



• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.



This is a phenomenally stupid complaint from a right wing ideological perspective, and it lays bare the moral bankruptcy in their arguments against universal health care. These are the same people who are always touting competition and choice as the most important aspects of capitalism. The point of the insurance exchange is to give people an obvious and transparent choice of health insurance options. A private insurance company can participate and offer their wares alongside the public option, if they so choose. If they don't want to participate, they're free to conduct business as usual, and they won't have to conform to any government rules. Well, except for the ones they must already conform with, whenever the Bush Administration's not in office. They've always had to conform to government rules to participate in Medicare, and I don't see any of them dropping out of business for that.



• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)



Again, this is a lie. There are requirements for those choosing to participating in the Health Exchange, but there is absolutely no mandate to join. And if there is going to be competition, it should be on a level playing field, which is what the Exchange creates. It creates an easy-to-read set of options, which insurance companies are free to enhance, and all companies who participate are instructed to offer several levels of plans. If you really think about it rationally, and not the right wing way, the Exchange actually enhances the private insurance companies' chances of survival. But these idiots want to kill it. If there's a public option available at a competitive price per month, insurance companies can offer two other tiers of service, with whatever enhancements they want to include, for a higher price. So, rather than offering "total government control," it actually allows insurance companies an opportunity to offer several tiers of "enhanced" service, to enhance their profitability.



• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens



There's that perpetual racist component again. My great-grandmother couldn't read English well enough to follow medical instructions when I was a kid in the 1960s, and she had been in this country since she fled the Nazis in the 1930s. I know this, because she used to have me read stuff to her when I was 6. By the way, she was from Poland, and she was very, very white. Hundreds of thousands of people come here legally from all over the world, without knowing English sufficiently, and they occasionally get sick. Hell, half the right wingers in this country legally can't speak English well enough to read a Congressional bill, let alone a doctor's instructions. Obviously.



• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.



Once more, they invoke ACORN. The above is too silly to even bother with, except to say that informing people of their options and helping them sign up seems remarkably similar to the teams of people the private insurance companies send out to workplaces during "open enrollment." Just saying...



• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.



Those eligible for Medicaid already have public health insurance. The reason they qualify for Medicaid is because they are poor and have no choices. What sense does it make to have two separate public health plans; Medicaid and this new plan. I mean, this is purely stupid, folks. Page 102 makes clear that Medicaid will be folded into this new plan when it passes. It's a no-brainer.


But I will say this; people on Medicaid will actually have just as much choice as they've always had; probably more.



• 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.



This is also extremely inaccurate, if not an outright lie. There is no "price-fixing." First of all, the bill refers to the same rate-setting statutes the government has always followed with Medicare and Medicaid. It has to do with the rates they pay for procedures, and the process includes medical providers and follows them very closely. The doctors and medical corporations still set the prices in that system, and private insurers will be free to negotiate higher or lower payment prices if they wish. They don't pay the same as Medicare and Medicaid for procedures now, and no one's complaining about "price fixing."



You know what? This isn't just inaccurate, it's dishonest.



• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.



Once again, the bill doesn't say that. In fact, the language is almost exactly the same as the language in Medicare, and it says absolutely nothing about anyone's "wages." The entire section is about rates for procedures and treatment, and physicians are free to apply in any category they choose, just as they are now with Medicare.



The level of dishonesty in this one is astounding. Every single private health insurance company in the market negotiates rates for procedures with participating physicians, and physicians are not allowed to charge any more than that amount. In other words, they do the same thing Medicare does. The only difference is, Medicare pays every claim short of fraud, while insurance companies routinely deny claims, and try every trick they can think of to not pay at all. And they wonder why we're gunning for them...



• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.



This one is pure crap. There's no other way to put it. Here's what it actually says:



SEC. 312. EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT COVERAGE.

21 (a) IN GENERAL.—An employer meets the requirements of this section with respect to an employee if the following requirements are met:

(1) OFFERING OF COVERAGE.—The employer offers the coverage described in section 311(1) either

through an Exchange-participating health benefits plan or other than through such a plan.

(2) EMPLOYER REQUIRED CONTRIBUTION.— The employer timely pays to the issuer of such coverage an amount not less than the employer required contribution specified in subsection (b) for such coverage.8 (3) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.—The employer provides the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable, with such information as the Commissioner may require to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this section.

(4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES.—The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection (c).



In other words, IF the employer opts into the public insurance system, THEN he must provide for the autoenrollment of employees… again a choice. But here's the really dishonest part. Just a few paragraphs later, there is this little section (Page 148):



(2) OPT-OUT.—In no case may an employer automatically enroll an employee in a plan under paragraph (1) if such employee makes an affirmative election to opt out of such plan or to elect coverage under an employment-based health benefits plan offered by such employer. An employer shall provide an employee with a 30-day period to make such an affirmative election before the employer may automatically enroll the employee in such a plan.



Remember; this lying wingnut said "no alternatives." Strange, but I see an employer being able to choose not to participate in the public insurance system. And every employee has the choice to opt-out; it says so right in the bill. Those seem like alternatives. Even if you're not the best at math, you have to know that two is greater than zero, right?



• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.



Again, an absolute lie. The page number is 146, not 126, which is a quibble. But employers are not required to pay healthcare bills for anyone. IF they CHOOSE to participate in the public insurance system, they are required to autoenroll employees in the insurance, unless the employee chooses to opt out. But the INSURANCE pays the bills, not the employers. Employers will not be required to pay for the procedures themselves, unless they opt to self-insure. But that's hardly a mandate, is it?



• 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.



More lies. The section ONLY refers to any employer who doesn't offer ANY insurance to his employees. If they offer either private insurance or the public insurance, they do not have to pay the 8%, regardless of the size of their payroll. The purpose of the public insurance system is to cover as many people as possible. An employee of such an employer who wants to buy the public insurance will have to pay an amount indexed to the probably meager pay the cheapskate employer is paying. (Think fast food franchise where everyone works for $8 an hour or less.) The fund created by this tax will subsidize the purchase of health insurance for these people.



An employer with a tiny payroll will pay considerably less, but again; ONLY if he doesn't participate in the public insurance system. Here's the table.



If the annual payroll of such employer for the preceding calendar year:

The applicable percentage is:

Does not exceed $250,000 ..................................... 0 percent

Exceeds $250,000, but does not exceed $300,000 2 percent

Exceeds $300,000, but does not exceed $350,000 4 percent

Exceeds $350,000, but does not exceed $400,000 6 percent



So, if they have a really small business, say 10 employees making $24,000 each, and don't offer insurance, they get off scot-free. In fact, if they have 20 employees making $15,000 per year, they only pay $6,000 into the fund.


If you ask me, there's a gap here. Really small cheapskate business owners are going to get off light, and all other taxpayers will have to foot more of the bill as a result.



• Page 167: Any individual who doesn't have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.



Yay! Finally, they got one right. Well, partially right, anyway.



Anyone without health insurance -- specifically those who choose to run around without health insurance because they're too cheap and stupid -- will now have to pay something into a system that is required to take care of them when they contract a serious illness or get hit by a bus. Let's see… if the guy makes $100,000 per year, the total tax is $2,500, which is far less than he would pay for health insurance now. And for those who think this is especially unfair to rich people who choose not to carry insurance because of their immense wealth, don't worry; the amount is capped at the size of the average health insurance premium. In return, the rest of us won't have to pick up the tab when the uninsured numb nuts is wheeled into the emergency room for a trauma because he was riding his dirt bike and slammed into a tree while not wearing a helmet. .



In other words, this is something to applaud, not to hate. It should encourage people to opt into the insurance system, which saves everyone money.



• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).



This wingnut sure does have an obsession with immigrants. By the way, NON-RESIDENT ALIEN means someone who doesn't LIVE here. In almost all other countries, there is a national health insurance system, and their government will pay for their health care. Why would we tax them for something they won't use in most cases?



• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.



And we get back to the lies.


The agency will have extremely limited access to SOME information contained in IRS TAX records for those individuals choosing to participate in the public health insurance system, in order to determine eligibility for certain premium discounts. There are strict limits on the info they will have access to, and there is a strict prohibition on passing the information anywhere else.It is most certainly NOT "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.



No, actually, it doesn't. What is it about wingnuts that makes them think they can put a period anywhere they want, and change the meaning of something, and no one will notice? Here's what it REALLY says:

''(4) NOT TREATED AS TAX IMPOSED BY THIS CHAPTER FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.—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.'''

I can't explain what this means. I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't "really say" what they say it says...


•Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected."



This is also a lie. The entire section has to do with reducing the number of physician services used to compute health care growth rates from 2011 on. There is absolutely no provision to reduce services for Medicaid. In fact, Medicaid will be folded into the public insurance system, which makes the above assertion just insane.



• Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)



See above. Another lie. It's another part of the section dealing with predicting costs. Specifically, it deals with "conversion factors. There is nothing in there mandating what anyone gets paid for anything.



• 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.



These are just insane. The first one doesn't set values for anything. It simply adjusts the method for coming up with values later on. Which makes sense, because covering everyone will drop the health care inflation rate tremendously, especially after the first few years. The second evaluates productivity and offer incentives to increase efficiency and productivity. As for the last one, why wouldn't the government regulate the rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs they intend to buy? You think private insurance companies just go to Wal-Mart? And read it carefully; all it does is extend Medicare regulations to the public insurance system. Why is it suddenly not good enough?



• Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!



They love that word "rationing." If only they knew what it meant.





Essentially, there is no rationing anywhere in this bill. And anyone who doesn't think private insurance rations health care has never encountered a denied claim. But not only does the section they point to NOT impose anything close to "rationing," it promises to pay EXTRA to hospitals that specialize in cancer treatment. EXTRA!





Since when does "rationing" constitute EXTRA anything? Bet our grandparents are pissed to know that gas rationing during World War II meant they could get extra.




• 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.



Okay, the first one's not entirely a lie, although it doesn't say "preventable readmissions;" it says "EXCESSIVE readmissions," and there is a significant difference. It merely extends a policy that's been standard under Medicare for years. It encourages doctors to make sure they aren't treating the hospital as an assembly line and making sure people are treated properly the first time. It also goes a long way to keeping hypochondriacs out of the hospital to a significant degree, and keeping costs down.



The second one, on the other hand, is completely made up. First of all, the page number is wrong. But it rewards efficiency. Think about it this way. Suppose you take your car in to have the air conditioning repaired, and the shop charges you $200. If you have to take it in two more times for the same problem, are you going to accept them charging you $200 more each time? Of course not. Well, why shouldn't doctors be encouraged to do everything possible to fix a problem the first time? Not only that, but imagine a medical office scamming the insurance company/government by purposely not treating everything the first time, so that they can get more money for more readmissions? This measure actually increases efficiency.



Imagine that; these wingnuts actually have a problem with the government encouraging efficiency and waste, and keeping the cost of health care down.



• 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.



Surprise; more lies The bill prohibits doctors from referring patients to hospitals in which they have a significant ownership interest in, without disclosing to the patient that he indeed has an ownership stake in the hospital. The government also prohibits "self-referral" under most circumstances. That's actually fair to all of the other hospitals. There is absolutely zero prohibition on doctors having ownership of hospitals. What this tool is citing has to do with rural areas. It's to prevent one physician from effectively controlling all aspects of health care in a region, where possible.



But once more; doctors are not prohibited from doing anything, except creating a monopoly and locking others out of a market. And the "community input" provision is just common sense. Note, another ACORN reference, and there is no way it applies here at all. I'm not aware of ACORN being involved in hospital expansion in rural areas.



• Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.



I don't even have to look this one up, but I did anyway. Another joke/lie.



Outcome-based healthcare is common sense. And it has nothing to do with "rationing." In fact, rationing is the exact OPPOSITE of "outcome-based" care. By emphasizing quality care, you reduce the number of ER and urgent care admissions, and you reduce the number of readmissions, as well. Again; it's the opposite of rationing. Rationing is what private insurance companies do. I'm reminded of that guy at the beginning of Michael Moore's film, "Sicko," in which some poor guy had a choice of which finger he would like to have reattached. "Outcome based" care would have repaired both fingers and made the guy a productive citizen again. Health care "rationing" forced him to choose the cheapest finger to reattach.



• Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.



They already have the ability to regulate and disqualify Medicare Advantage plans.. In other words, this maintains the status quo . Oh, and it says absolutely nothing about "HMOS, etc."



• Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.



No. That's not what it says. What it says is, it will begin to phase such special needs individuals into the public health insurance system. IOW, those people who qualify for Medicaid and people under 65 who qualify for Medicare will be eligible for this system instead. Seriously, can wingnuts read at all?



• 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: Government 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.



More bureaucracy than the private insurer's tendency to automatically deny claims over $1500, and force you to call them in order to get the bill paid? Have you ever been to a hospital's administrative offices? There is no more bureaucracy than in the private health insurance industry.



That said, Telehealth has been around for years, and has saved Medicare countless dollars by directing seniors to services. This merely expands the concept to people covered under the public insurance system. Imagine; more service; what a concept, right?



The rest are pure paranoia. The Advance Care Planning Consultation system has also been around for years, and I'm unaware of a spate of senior suicides or euthanasia as a result. It simply encourages people to consult with their doctors, and get all of the options available for either planning for the end, or working to create a higher quality of life. I'm sure almost everyone knows someone with a debilitating disease, such as multiple sclerosis or diabetes; advance care planning reduces the likelihood that these people will constantly show up at urgent care or the ER for minor problems that they themselves can take care of.



• Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.

• Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.



Two more gratuitous mentions of ACORN. And what's wrong with either of the above?



• Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.



This one is silly, of course. Unless the government starts mandating marriage and family therapy, and then conducts the therapy themselves, the "intervention" isn't happening. I mean, many health insurance plans cover psychiatric services under some conditions, but no one is suggesting that Blue Cross or CIGNA is trying to control your mind.



• Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.



Of course, it merely adds them to the Medicare mix. There is nothing to define, create or ration them in this bill.



I guess they became tired, because they got tired of lying about halfway through the bill. There are over 500 more pages to this thing.



A tip of my hat to my friend, Ben Cerruti, for providing this look at the Obamanation called ObamaCare.



Yes, thank him for lying his ass off, and giving me a chance to cut the crap, big time. I'd been working on a piece about right wing health care lies, and this gave me a chance to dispel most of them in one fell swoop. I mean, all of these lies in one piece. How do these people sleep at night?



Write, e-mail, fax, or call your senators and your representative and tell them to vote NO!


If you tell them that, you're a fool. The CBO estimates that, with no changes to the health care system, premiums will increase by $1800 per year for the next ten years. That means an family will pay an average annual premium of more than $32,000 by then. And that's assuming that the 47 million people without insurance doesn't increase tremendously. This offers everyone a chance at affordable health insurance, and stops the health care inflation that has crippled our economy for decades. But more than that, it will make us a proud nation, that cares about its people once again.



Stop letting these wingnut idiots lie their asses off. Read what I wrote above, and compare it to what's actually in the bill. It's really not as long as it sounds, by the way; if the bill was written single spaced, with normal margins, it would probably be a couple of hundred pages at best. But look through it, and what you'll find is a plan that is very thoughtful and measured, and provides access to everyone.



Call your Congressperson and Senators, and ask them one simple question;



Do you REALLY want to be on record as having voted against health insurance for all this year?



This is going to happen. If not this year, then we throw out the assholes who vote against it, and put in someone who will. Our country is becoming second-rate right before our eyes, and one reason is the money we're flushing away on health care for no one, while thousands of people die and thousands of others are pushed to financial ruin.



The fact that the opposition can do nothing but lie to get their point across means that even they believe universal health insurance is necessary. Either that, or they like seeing their rates double every decade...

Comments (3)

Posted by AARP, a resident of another community
on Aug 9, 2009 at 9:13 am

Post to Topic Print Deconstructing the Rightwing Lies about Healthcare Reform
Web Link
cat2009 said: on July 30, 2009 07:55 AM ET One of our posters, Marion, has linked to a site that most people would not take seriously because it makes such outrageous claims about a single proposal--H.R. 3200--and it makes the mistake of trying to be specific. She calls the site's claims "chilling", so I thought someone should take the time to debunk this nonsense for her. Fortunately, someone has already done an excellent job of this--here's the link: Web Link


Posted by concerned grandma, a resident of West of Foothill
on Aug 10, 2009 at 1:20 pm

Thanks for the clarifying article, "Please, Cut the Crap!" Great!
Everyone needs healthcare--I already have it, but have family members who don't despite working full-time. I'm all for Obama's plan.


Posted by Citizen 2, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 10, 2009 at 1:28 pm

Thank you... this is really helpful to see point-by-point the parts of the proposed health reform bill that some of the self-termed Conservative media has (to put it in the nicest of terms) clearly "misunderstood". VERY helpful!


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

” … and my friend here will have the kibble."
By Tom Cushing | 12 comments | 1,313 views

Sentinels of Freedom Newsletter
By Roz Rogoff | 0 comments | 795 views

Harvest time in the vineyards
By Tim Hunt | 0 comments | 396 views

Understanding Early Decision in College Admissions
By Elizabeth LaScala | 0 comments | 358 views

When those covering the news become the news
By Gina Channell-Allen | 0 comments | 300 views