Obama Slams Health Care Critics For Spreading "Outlandish Rumors"

[Bo D]

Since when does the President of the United States have to pander to the lowest common denominator?

There IS a precedent for that.

The previous administration ... 

[Locutus]

There IS a precedent for that.

The previous administration ... 

[LOsborne]

Can I figure out what these particular passages mean? Yes, if I had the time ...

What's the problem? The first excerpt defines how risk would be distributed among the various Qualified Health Benefit Plans, if an inordinate number of high-risk individuals opt for any particular plan.

The second excerpt was cut off before we got to the verb, but the existing phrase tells us seventy-two and a half percent of the premium is the bottom line for something (presumably specified in the verbage the poster did not include,) for those choosing individual coverage.

The third excerpt tells us anyone not meeting the requirements of subsection (d) -- which the poster again did not include -- is subject to two and half percent tax on any AGI over the amount the amount specified in section 6012(a)(1).

It ain't rocket surgery, boys and girls. Failing to include necessary phrases does not make it brain science, either.

[Exterminator]

So in other words you don't understand what it is saying either you're just taking the word of congress for what it means.  Don't you think it's just a little bit important to know for sure what we're getting in for rather than find out after it's too late?

In other words, I do understand what it is saying.  That your ilk can't doesn't make it bad policy by default.  The bottom line is this...something has to be done and there are no perfect systems.  We can sit around and talk about reforming health care forever and nothing will ever get done or we can admit that our current plan is not a perfect one and that adjustments will need to be made after it is implemented and we can accomplish something now.

[Exterminator]

There IS a precedent for that.

The previous administration ... 

Yes, but the previous administration was the lowest common denominator.

[followsthewolf]

Hell, the last administration was simply Dick Cheney.

What a DICK.

[Palehorse]

Maybe so against a bill, not a person. . . .

Said bill provides the means for those without insurance to obtain it, and keep their homes they worked 20-40 years to pay for. Your opposition to this is a denial of this care by proxy; just as effective as you slamming the door shut on them yourself.

Most of those in opposition to this bill are parroting the propaganda against it that was bought and paid for by the very industry it is meant to rein in, the insurance industry. They want the American people (sheeple) to herd up against it because it threatens the profiteering they have been engaging in for almost twenty years or more. And what better way to do this than create a bunch of false propaganda with the PR firm you have on retainer, and let them provide it to those public shills (IE Rush et AL), and let them scare the crap out of the sheep! Then all they have to do is sit back and listen to them bleat!

Think that isn't what is going on? Read the story from a man who spent almost twenty years doing this very thing for a major player in the insurance industry: CIGNA!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/potter.health.insurance/index.html

He could no longer be party to this fleecing of Americans and quit because of it!

The POTUS knows this crap is going on and wants it stopped. We need a reform of healthcare and the sooner we get it, the sooner we can all get back to our lives!

[Y]

Refutation of e-mail spam on Health Bill:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/30/e-mail-analysis-health-bill-needs-check-/

[Y]

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090811/NEWS05/908110364

The facts about the proposed health-care bill

Star news services

Don't believe everything you read. Or hear. Or are told about health care. There's a lot of suspect information out there. "There's been a lot of noise, and it's certainly made people wonder about what is being proposed because so much false information has been put out," said Brooks Jackson, director of FactCheck.org, a Web site dedicated to debunking (or backing up) political claims. Answers to questions are based on the Democrats' current House bill.

Question: Does the legislation include provisions to encourage euthanasia for senior citizens?

Answer: No. This has become one of the most misleading claims made in the health-care debate, advanced by conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh. The House bill would give seniors on Medicare the option -- it's not mandatory -- to sit down with a doctor for an "advance care planning consultation" every five years to discuss options should they become seriously ill. Topics could include development of a living will. AARP endorses the provision.

Q: Will the government start paying for abortions?

A: That's unclear. Neither House nor Senate versions of the legislation contains any requirement that federal funding be made available for abortions. Claims that tax dollars will be used for abortions, as a television ad from the Family Research Council contends, are premature and somewhat misleading. But the legislation is short on many details. Depending on how regulations are written, it's possible that some women who get federally subsidized insurance could buy plans that cover abortions.

Q: Will illegal immigrants receive free health care?

A: Provisions in the House and Senate bills explicitly prohibit people who are "not lawfully present in the United States" from receiving federal aid to help them buy health insurance. Democrats have resisted GOP efforts to put tougher documentation requirements on those applying for aid, arguing that could discourage many poor people from signing up. No matter what happens with the bills, illegal immigrants will almost certainly still be able to obtain care in emergency rooms.

Q: Can I keep my current insurance like President Barack Obama has said?

A: Maybe. If you have insurance through your employer like most people, and your employer decides to keep offering it (and it already meets federal minimum standards that will be set), then sure. But those standards aren't set, so it's hard to say what they will require -- and it's tough to know how many employers are going to keep offering health care if a public plan is available.

Q: I have an individual insurance plan, not through my employer. Can I keep it?

A: It could be grandfathered in, yes. But if the insurers make any change -- like in benefits or premiums -- they would have to meet the federal standards.

Q: Do I have to have health insurance?

A: Yes. Otherwise you would face a tax penalty.

Q: Do I have to enroll in the new public insurance plan?

A: No. In fact, if your company offers health insurance, you couldn't. The new plan would be for individuals and small businesses that can't afford coverage. Big companies can provide insurance or pay 8 percent of payroll and let employees find their own insurance as individuals on the health-care exchange, which would include the public plan and other providers. Small businesses would participate in the exchange, offer their own insurance or pay 2 to 6 percent of payroll to let workers find their own insurance as individuals.

Q: What if I can't afford the premium of the new public plan?

A: The legislation provides what it calls "affordability credits," which help people with incomes of up to four times the federal poverty limit -- or about $88,000 for a family of four.

Q: What would the effect be on private insurance?

A: The Lewin Group, a health-care consulting firm, says the number of people without insurance would be reduced by 33 million. If all employers are eligible for the exchange, the number of people with private insurance would drop by 83 million; if only small employers were eligible for the exchange, private coverage would drop by 35 million.

Q: How much would the change cost?

A: The Congressional Budget Office estimates government costs would increase by more than $1 trillion over 10 years, but additional revenues and cost-savings measures bring the impact on the federal deficit down to $239 billion over 10 years.

Q: Will there be new taxes to pay for it?

A: There could be a sliding surcharge on the income of the top 1.2 percent of earners. It would apply to families with income of more than $350,000 a year and individuals making at least $280,000. The surcharge would be only on income over the thresholds. It would range from 1 percent to 5.4 percent (for families making more than $1 million).

Q: How would the legislation control costs?

A: It calls for applying cost-containment formulas intended to protect against overpayment to various services, including hospitals and hospice and home health care. It also calls for cutting payment rates for Medicare Advantage plans, saving $156 billion over 10 years.

Q: Will the government ration care?

A: This is almost impossible to say. The bill would prohibit insurers from denying coverage to anyone with a pre-existing condition, thus eliminating one form of rationing in the current system. The legislation would also give the federal government the authority to set minimum benefits levels that insurers would have to offer in order to sell policies in the new exchanges. That could mean more coverage for millions of individuals and many small businesses that currently are shut out of the health-care system.

Most controversially, the bills would fund more research into the comparative effectiveness of various drugs and medical procedures. The legislation does not dictate that the research be used to limit coverage of any procedures. And many doctors and other health-care experts see this kind of research as critical to improving the quality of care. Nonetheless, some critics say the provisions someday could allow the government to use this research to limit what Medicare or other government insurance programs would cover.

Q: Does the bill advocate assisted suicide?

A: No. It would block funds for counseling that presents suicide or assisted suicide as an option.

[Y]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32412764/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/

False 'death panel' rumor has familiar roots

Assertion was not born of anonymous e-mailers or partisan bloggers

WASHINGTON - The stubborn yet false rumor that President Obama's health care proposals would create government-sponsored "death panels" to decide which patients were worthy of living seemed to arise from nowhere in recent weeks.

Advanced even this week by Republican stalwarts including the party's last vice-presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, and Charles E. Grassley, the veteran Iowa senator, the nature of the assertion nonetheless seemed reminiscent of the modern-day viral Internet campaigns that dogged Mr. Obama last year, falsely calling him a Muslim and questioning his nationality.

But the rumor — which has come up at Congressional town-hall-style meetings this week in spite of an avalanche of reports laying out why it was false — was not born of anonymous e-mailers, partisan bloggers or stealthy cyberconspiracy theorists.

Rather, it has a far more mainstream provenance, openly emanating months ago from many of the same pundits and conservative media outlets that were central in defeating President Bill Clinton's health care proposals 16 years ago, including the editorial board of The Washington Times, the American Spectator magazine and Betsy McCaughey, whose 1994 health care critique made her a star of the conservative movement (and ultimately, New York's lieutenant governor).

There is nothing in any of the legislative proposals that would call for the creation of death panels or any other governmental body that would cut off care for the critically ill as a cost-cutting measure. But over the course of the past few months, early, stated fears from anti-abortion conservatives that Mr. Obama would pursue a pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia agenda, combined with twisted accounts of actual legislative proposals that would provide financing for optional consultations with doctors about hospice care and other "end of life" services, fed the rumor to the point where it overcame the debate.

On Thursday, Mr. Grassley said in a statement that he and others in the small group of senators that was trying to negotiate a health care plan had dropped any "end of life" proposals from consideration.

A pending House bill has language authorizing Medicare to finance beneficiaries' consultations with professionals on whether to authorize aggressive and potentially life-saving interventions later in life. Though the consultations would be voluntary, and a similar provision passed in Congress last year without such a furor, Mr. Grassley said it was being dropped in the Senate "because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly."

'Opportunity to weaken the president'
The extent to which it and other provisions have been misinterpreted in recent days, notably by angry speakers at recent town hall meetings but also by Ms. Palin — who popularized the "death panel" phrase — has surprised longtime advocates of changes to the health care system.

"I guess what surprised me is the ferocity, it's much stronger than I expected," said John Rother, the executive vice president of AARP, which is supportive of the health care proposals and has repeatedly declared the "death panel" rumors false. "It's people who are ideologically opposed to Mr. Obama, and this is the opportunity to weaken the president."

The specter of government-sponsored, forced euthanasia was raised as early as Nov. 23, just weeks after the election and long before any legislation had been drafted, by an outlet decidedly opposed to Mr. Obama, The Washington Times.

Palin stands by 'death panel' claim
No 'death panel' in health care bill

In an editorial, the newspaper reminded its readers of the Aktion T4 program of Nazi Germany in which "children and adults with disabilities, and anyone anywhere in the Third Reich was subject to execution who was blind, deaf, senile, retarded, or had any significant neurological condition."

Noting the "administrative predilections" of the new team at the White House, it urged "anyone who sees the current climate as a budding T4 program to win the hearts and minds of deniers."

The editorial captured broader concerns about Mr. Obama's abortion rights philosophy held among socially conservative Americans who did not vote for him. But it did not directly tie forced euthanasia to health care plans of Mr. Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress.

When the Democrats included money for family planning in a proposed version of the stimulus bill in January, the socially conservative George Neumayr wrote for the American Spectator: "Euthanasia is another shovel ready job for Pelosi to assign to the states. Reducing health care costs under Obama's plan, after all, counts as economic stimulus, too — controlling life, controlling death, controlling costs."

Ms. McCaughey, whose 1994 critique of Mr. Clinton's plan was hotly disputed after its publication in The New Republic, weighed in around the same time.

She warned that a provision in the stimulus bill would create a bureaucracy to "monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost-effective," was carried in a commentary she wrote for Bloomberg News that gained resonance throughout the conservative media, most notably with Rush Limbaugh and the Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck.

The legislation did not direct the coordinator to dictate doctors' treatments. A separate part of the law — regarding a council set up to coordinate research comparing the effectiveness of treatments — states that the council's recommendations cannot "be construed as mandates or clinical guidelines for payment, coverage or treatment."

But Ms. McCaughey's article provided another opportunity for others to raise the specter of forced euthanasia. "Sometimes for the common good, you just have to say, 'Hey, Grandpa, you've had a good life,' " Mr. Beck said.

The syndicated conservative columnist Cal Thomas wrote, "No one should be surprised at the coming embrace of euthanasia." The Washington Times editorial page reprised its reference to the Nazis, quoting the Aktion T4 program: "It must be made clear to anyone suffering from an incurable disease that the useless dissipation of costly medications drawn from the public store cannot be justified."

The notion was picked up by various conservative groups, but still, as Mr. Obama and Congress remained focused on other matters, it did not gain wide attention. Former Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, an advocate for the health care proposals, said he was occasionally confronted with the "forced euthanasia" accusation at forums on the plans, but came to see it as an advantage. "Almost automatically you have most of the audience on your side," Mr. Daschle said. "Any rational normal person isn't going to believe that assertion."

But as Congress developed its legislation this summer, critics seized on provisions requiring Medicare financing for "end of life" consultations, bringing the debate to a peak. To David Brock, a former conservative journalist who once impugned the Clintons but now runs a group that monitors and defends against attacks on liberals, the uproar is a reminder of what has changed — the creation of groups like his — and what has not.

"In the 90s, every misrepresentation under the sun was made about the Clinton plan and there was no real capacity to push back," he said. "Now, there is that capacity."

Still, one proponent of the euthanasia theory, Mr. Neumayr, said he saw no reason to stop making the claim.

"I think a government-run plan that is administered by politicians and bureaucrats who support euthanasia is inevitably going to reflect that view," he said, "and I don't think that's a crazy leap."

Robert Pear contributed reporting.

This story, "False 'Death Panel' Rumor Has Some Familiar Roots," originally appeared in The New York Times.

[Exterminator]

Y,

While I certainly appreciate your having taken the time to post this information, you're forgetting that our forum members for whom this is not already known are functionally illiterate and are thus only capable of considering what they hear on the radio.  Could we perhaps work together to rpovide a radio broadcast for them?  Of course, it will have to be passionate and vehement, vis-a-vis, a flamboyant preacher or a faith healer for them to believe it but given enough emoting, perhaps even they would listen.

[LOsborne]

Hell, the last administration was simply Dick Cheney.

Remember when W was asked what he thought of Edwards as the running mate for Kerry? He said, "Dick Cheney could be president." And I thought, Someone needs to tell him -- Dick Cheney is president.

[me]

Y,

While I certainly appreciate your having taken the time to post this information, you're forgetting that our forum members for whom this is not already known are functionally illiterate and are thus only capable of considering what they hear on the radio.  Could we perhaps work together to rpovide a radio broadcast for them?  Of course, it will have to be passionate and vehement, vis-a-vis, a flamboyant preacher or a faith healer for them to believe it but given enough emoting, perhaps even they would listen.

Us functionally illiterate folk don't believe the government is responsible for us from cradle to grave.  We believe you should work for what you get not have it handed to you.  Some will do better than others and if you're one of the ones who happen not to have it so well it is not up to someone else to pay your way.  If this health care thing is going to be so great why won't congress go on it too?  I mean gee why should they have it better than us?  Yes, someone needs to get the insurance companies in line but to put it in the government's hands....... Maybe they won't pull the plug on grandma....kind of hard to do if it don't get plugged in in the first place.  It will be HMO, or what ever that was with the insurance companies, on a bigger scale.  A bunch of people with no medical knowledge making decisions about treatments and hospital stays. 

[LOsborne]

Y, I posted the links to the bills themselves. If the health care reform detractors can't be bothered to read the actual proposed legislation, why do you think they will read and understand you post discussing the actual bills?

[me]

My problem is too much of it is left open for interpretation which, yes, it could be what you all are saying but on the other hand it could be what the others are saying just as easily.  Why take a chance and let them rush it though?  Work on it and get it right don't let this be another stimulus thing.  If these things are not intended to happen take the wording out that makes it look bad.  Where's the problem in that?  It is worded so those things can happen just them saying, "no that's not what that means", don't prove a thing.  It's written in such a way that if they chose it can and will happen.  "Cost effective"