Healthcare reform bill--misrepresentations continue

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by MaggieMae, Apr 20, 2010.

  1. MaggieMae
    Offline

    MaggieMae Reality bits

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    24,043
    Thanks Received:
    1,599
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,601
    It's one thing to present legitimate concerns over the cost of the recently passed health care reform bill, but it's time for the lies about its contents and how it will be implemented to stop.

    FactCheck Article:
    More Malarkey About Health Care
    The legislative debate is over, but the false and exaggerated claims just keep on coming.
    April 19, 2010

    Summary
    We’ve seldom seen a piece of legislation so widely misrepresented, and misunderstood, as the new health care law. We stopped counting the number of articles and items we turned out on the subject after the total reached 100.

    Some of that is understandable. The debate went on for more than a year, while the different House and Senate bills changed their shape constantly. The final law was the product of an awkward two-step legislative dance that first enacted the Senate’s version, then quickly amended it with a reconciliation "fix." No wonder people are confused.

    And even now the misrepresentations continue. The new law is no longer a moving target, but some opponents persist in making false or exaggerated claims about it. Our inboxes are filled with messages asking about assertions that the new law:

    * Requires patients to be implanted with microchips. (No, it doesn’t.)

    * Cuts benefits for military families and retirees. (No. The TRICARE program isn’t affected.)

    * Exempts Muslims from the requirement to obtain coverage. (Not specifically. It does have a religious exemption, but that is intended for Old Order Amish.)

    * Allows insurance companies to continue denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions. (Insurance companies have agreed not to exploit a loophole that might have allowed this.)

    * Will require 16,500 armed IRS agents to enforce. (No. Criminal penalties are waived.)

    * Gives President Obama a Nazi-like "private army." (No. It provides a reserve corps of doctors and other health workers for emergencies.)

    * "Exempts" House and Senate members. (No. Their coverage may not be as good as before, in fact.)

    * Covers erectile-dysfunction drugs for sex offenders. (Just as it was before the new law, those no longer in jail can buy any insurance plan they choose.)

    * Provides federal funding for abortions. (Not directly. But neither side in the abortion debate is happy with the law.)

    More Malarkey About Health Care | FactCheck.org

    For details on these claims about the new law, please read our Analysis section.
     
  2. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Seems CherryPickedFactCheck left out the biggest misrepresentation (i.e. outright lie) of all:

    Obunglercare will drive down costs.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  3. MaggieMae
    Offline

    MaggieMae Reality bits

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    24,043
    Thanks Received:
    1,599
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,601
    There are several other FactCheck analyses that discuss the cost. This one simply analyzes exactly what it says it does. Also, I SAID at the outset that there is legitimate concern over the cost. Sir.
     
  4. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Right...You did, but CherryPickedFactCheck didn't.

    I thought that was pretty clear, too.
     
  5. MaggieMae
    Offline

    MaggieMae Reality bits

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    24,043
    Thanks Received:
    1,599
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,601
    They have done hundreds of analyses on various aspects, to repeat, this being just one. What part of that can't you get?

    Here's a list of all the others, many of which are NOT favorable:

    Search Results | FactCheck.org
     
  6. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,318
    Ol' Dooodeeee...... is not going to accept anything favorable about any bill that President Obama has supported.
     
  7. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    15,607
    Thanks Received:
    1,876
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +4,296
    Dear MM:
    1. RE: Private army
    it DOES expand IRS jurisdiction to start policing whether individuals have purchased approved health insurance for themselves AND all dependents or else pay a fine up to 2.5% of their salary that is charged as a tax. Failure to pay taxes results in the same procedures the IRS already abuses, which amounts to harassment of lawabiding citizens.

    Wouldn't you rather the IRS and lawyers go after corporate crooks for repayment to taxpayers of billions of dollars to fund this, instead of penalizing citizens for not wanting to buy health insurance?

    2. RE: religious exemption and amendment for states to opt out
    A. religious groups must be a 501(c)(3) in existence since 1999 whose members share medical expenses because of their beliefs. What about free healing ministries that don't charge for medical expenses, but save their money to pay for housing and food for the needy? So all the taxpayers who used to donate to them have to pay for insurance instead? My point is the narrow exemptions discriminate by religious structure, and don't cover all people equally.

    B. As for the amendment for states to opt out
    Why are states required to prove how much coverage they provide "without adding to the federal deficit" while the federal plan does not have to prove it meets those standards? Would I have to medically prove that free spiritual healing medically is more effective and universal in coverage, before I have the right to fund that instead of federal plans? So supporters of this bill can establish and impose their beliefs by legislation, buth mine must be proven?

    3. RE: pre-existing conditions and unhealthy behavior
    Insurance companies have the right to charge up to 50% more for cases of unhealthy behavior. There is nothing to stop companies from increasing premiums to cover the new provisions; so in the end, the consumers and taxpayers must pay the difference (including the cost of covering services for people who can't pay)

    Would you agree to a law forcing you to buy car insurance at rates high enough to pay for the accidents and dangerous driving of people who can't afford their own insurance?

    4. RE: as for pro-choice and pro-life concerns
    A. Can you explain how anyone could justify passing this bill, in violation of the free choice and consent of strong opposition who defend individual freedom from federal mandates on private insurance, while rejecting pro-life arguments for legislation out of "defense of free choice." (Likewise, I hope pro-life advocates can understand why you don't pass legislation, even with the intent to protect lives deemed endangered, by overriding free choice and consent as a common Constitutional principle, regardless of political belief.)

    B. This flawed bill that violates the concept of free choice could used politically to discredit and remove all pro-choice Democrat supporters from office, replacing them with a majority of pro-life Republicans. If so, we could go through this SAME battle all over again with a majority pushing pro-life legislation with or without respect for free choice. How long can this nonsense go back and forth? Are we on a learning curve? Or roller coaster?

     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2010
  8. boedicca
    Offline

    boedicca Uppity Water Nymph Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    41,799
    Thanks Received:
    12,774
    Trophy Points:
    2,250
    Location:
    The Land of Funk
    Ratings:
    +22,794
    The Medicare Actuary says it will increase costs.
     
  9. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    15,607
    Thanks Received:
    1,876
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +4,296
    Dear MM: If you are supporting, accepting, justifying, or teaching this bill as constitutional, I hope you accept financial responsibility for its costs, and not pass the buck to others. I would not hold opponents responsible, but only people who support or enforce this bill. If you expect other people to pay for it, please make sure they consent first. Otherwise, you are potentially participating in political fraud, like teaching people it's okay for a policy to charge things onto someone's account without their consent. I think that makes you partly responsible for unfair charges or costs, if you teach or encourage such policy in any way.

    The only lawful, Constitutional and ethical way I know to interpret this bill, is it must be applied by consent and participation and funding must be voluntary, as a public option.
    Unless people agree to its provisions, it is unconstitutional to impose by federal authority, because it crosses lines of jurisidiction that belong with the state, church and people.

    Note: by economic considerations alone, it is in violation of the Code of Ethics for Government Service which calls federal officials to seek to employ the most efficient and economical means of getting tasks accomplished (http://www.ethics-commission.net) Clearly this bill misses the mark, in both its provisions, and the division over it which adds to the waste of time and resources better invested on solutions. The most cost-effective form of universal health care I know is free spiritual healing, which cannot be imposed or regulated by government, but only works on a voluntary basis.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2010
  10. saveliberty
    Offline

    saveliberty Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    42,061
    Thanks Received:
    6,121
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +19,987
    The most consistent misrepresentations on health care reform have come from the White House and the Democratic leadership. The plan would be affordable, available to all Americans and be quality care. In reality it is going to cost more, leave out millions of Americans and require rationing.
     

Share This Page