The New Communism: Healthcare

[PoliticalChic]

Once upon a time the cognoscenti were proud to tell all that they were communists! Proud to be on the cutting edge of societal thought, clearly ahead of everyone else. But once the horrendous nature of the ideology became apparent, it was no longer possible to wear that badge.

Then, they were liberals, then progressives…whatever incarnation served, until its predilections became known.

Now, the rebirth of the thinking that we, the proletariat, the bourgeois, must be deprived of our lives and our liberties.
The new title is Communitarian, and the new bumper sticker is ‘social justice,’ and nowhere is it more evident than in the healthcare debate.

Read their own self-description, and recognize the political babble of the 1950’s American Communists:

“Communitarianism emerged in the 1980s as a response to the limits of liberal theory and practice. Its dominant themes are that individual rights need to be balanced with social responsibilities, and that autonomous selves do not exist in isolation, but are shaped by the values and culture of communities…The critique of one-sided emphasis on rights has been key to defining communitarianism…"Rights talk" thus corrupts our political discourse, and is used to trump genuine conversation, public deliberation, and practical compromise…rights need to be seen in a more balanced framework, and that the U.S. would benefit by a temporary moratorium on the manufacture of new rights.
While a few communitarians have developed refined institutional analyses to match their critiques—one thinks of liberal-communitarian Ezekiel Emanuel's very interesting proposals on health care…”
CPN - Tools

“Another key administration figure… is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor in the Office of Management and Budget and brother of Rahm Emanuel, self-described 'communitarian, the president's chief of staff…”is one of those responsible for inserting into the “healthcare bill” the ideas that we no longer should have rights, such as determining what care we can buy, or how long we should live, and doctors should no longer look to the Hippocratic Oath, and the particular patient, but neglect the patient in the interests of ‘social justice,’ and the society as a whole.

The shocking element is that, in the words of Democat former Colorodo Governor Dick Lamb, "the elderly have a patriotic duty to die."

Where's a Senator Joseph McCarthy when you need him? There are [pick a number] of Communists in Congress. He denounced the whole Democratic party as traitors. Now, he's a joke.

I note that you are following the (apocryphal) “Liberal Protocols”, as ratified by Saul Alinsky, and have obeyed the directions of rule six:
"6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke."

Although not full credit, you deserve at least partial credit as per rule Nine:
"9. Remember, as a liberal, you never have to apologize, be accurate, nor have any knowledge. No matter how many times your talking points are shown to be wrong, continue to repeat them. "

But I was wondering, other than abject ignorance, was there some other reason that you did not comment in any substantive way on the points made in the posts?

Allow me to play Mycroft Holmes, and hypothesize that you received what is referred to as a public school 'education' and internalized the knee-jerk response to the work "communism.'

Prior to today, were you familiar with "Communitarianism"?

Do you agree with Democrat former-governor Dick Lamb?

Have you made yourself familiar with the various authors and the aspects of the Waxman-Markey bills or the Kennedy bills?

Do you realize that if unfamiliar with all of the above, you opinion is worth less than nothing?

If I have embarrassed you, you need not respond to this post.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting the following: (1) An individual from purchasing any health care services."

It's Not An Option
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.
The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.
So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs.
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- It's Not An Option

 

[Bfgrn]

"Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting the following: (1) An individual from purchasing any health care services."

It's Not An Option
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.
The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.
So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs.
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- It's Not An Option

Conservative media run with false IBD claim that health bill outlaws private coverage

July 17, 2009 9:32 am ET



SUMMARY: Sean Hannity and David Asman echoed false claims from an Investor's Business Daily editorial, which stated that the House health care reform bill includes "a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal."

Following conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh and the Media Research Center, Fox News host Sean Hannity and Fox Business' David Asman echoed false claims in a July 15 editorial by Investor's Business Daily, which stated that the House health care reform bill includes "a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal" and that the "provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage." In fact, the bill does no such thing.

On the July 16 edition of his Fox News show, Hannity stated:

HANNITY: The one thing that we do know in the health care bill is that it's gonna literally -- the bill says -- Investor's Business Daily had an article today -- and the bill says that if you don't have your insurance the year this legislation is implemented, you can't have a private insurance company. So that will end -- hang on -- that will end private insurance.

And on the July 16 edition of Fox Business' America's Nightly Scoreboard, during an interview with Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Asman stated:

ASMAN: There's a little paragraph that was found by the Investor's Business Daily today in there that says the individual -- and I'm quoting from the document -- "The individual health insurance issuer does not enroll any individual in coverage on or after the first day of the year this legislation becomes law."

Now that has suggested to some that this document wants to outlaw private insurance after the new government insurance company comes into existence. Do you agree?

Cassidy responded: "Yes, I do agree. And there's also some ways that it does it more subtly."

In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, the provision to which the editorial referred establishes the conditions under which existing private plans would be exempted from the requirement that they participate in the Health Insurance Exchange. Individual health insurance plans that do not meet the "grandfather" conditions would still be available for purchase, but only through the Exchange and subject to those regulations.

In its editorial, Investor's Business Daily claimed:

When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised -- with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

In fact, the paragraph in question states in context [emphasis added]:

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED. -- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ''grandfathered health insurance coverage'' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 [2013] if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT. --

(A) IN GENERAL. -- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED. -- Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.

Sec. 102 subsection (c) states that "Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan."

According to the House Ways and Means Committee's summary of the bill, the Health Insurance Exchange "creates a transparent and functional marketplace for individuals and small employers to comparison shop among private and public insurers."

From the July 16 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

HANNITY: There were actually, if you look at the bill -- Investor's Business Daily had a great piece today -- and under the Orwellian headline, "Protecting the choices to keep current coverage," they actually go into very specific detail, and what they -- they put in here: "If an individual, for example, a health insurer, if you don't enroll the individual in such coverage in the first effective date of coverage" -- if it's on or after the first day of the year this legislation becomes law, you cannot go into a private plan. Does that eliminate private insurance and competition?

[...]

HANNITY: The one thing that we do know in the health care bill is that it's gonna literally -- the bill says -- Investor's Business Daily had an article today -- and the bill says that if you don't have your insurance the year this legislation is implemented, you can't have a private insurance company. So that will end -- hang on -- that will end private insurance.

From the July 16 edition of Fox Business' America's Nightly Scoreboard:

ASMAN: Now, let me ask about this 1,000-page document that Democrats came out with earlier in the week that include all these tax measures and everything. There's a little paragraph that was found by the Investor's Business Daily today in there that says the individual -- and I'm quoting from the document -- "The individual health insurance issuer does not enroll any individual in coverage on or after the first day of the year this legislation becomes law."

Now that has suggested to some that this document wants to outlaw private insurance after the new government insurance company comes into existence. Do you agree?

REP. BILL CASSIDY (R-LA): Yes, I do agree. And there's also some ways that it does it more subtly.

http://mediamatters.org/print/research/200907170005

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting the following: (1) An individual from purchasing any health care services."

Conservative media run with false IBD claim that health bill outlaws private coverage

July 17, 2009 9:32 am ET






SUMMARY: Sean Hannity and David Asman echoed false claims from an Investor's Business Daily editorial, which stated that the House health care reform bill includes "a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal."

Following conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh and the Media Research Center, Fox News host Sean Hannity and Fox Business' David Asman echoed false claims in a July 15 editorial by Investor's Business Daily, which stated that the House health care reform bill includes "a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal" and that the "provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage." In fact, the bill does no such thing.

On the July 16 edition of his Fox News show, Hannity stated:

HANNITY: The one thing that we do know in the health care bill is that it's gonna literally -- the bill says -- Investor's Business Daily had an article today -- and the bill says that if you don't have your insurance the year this legislation is implemented, you can't have a private insurance company. So that will end -- hang on -- that will end private insurance.

And on the July 16 edition of Fox Business' America's Nightly Scoreboard, during an interview with Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Asman stated:

ASMAN: There's a little paragraph that was found by the Investor's Business Daily today in there that says the individual -- and I'm quoting from the document -- "The individual health insurance issuer does not enroll any individual in coverage on or after the first day of the year this legislation becomes law."

Now that has suggested to some that this document wants to outlaw private insurance after the new government insurance company comes into existence. Do you agree?

Cassidy responded: "Yes, I do agree. And there's also some ways that it does it more subtly."

In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, the provision to which the editorial referred establishes the conditions under which existing private plans would be exempted from the requirement that they participate in the Health Insurance Exchange. Individual health insurance plans that do not meet the "grandfather" conditions would still be available for purchase, but only through the Exchange and subject to those regulations.

In its editorial, Investor's Business Daily claimed:

When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised -- with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

In fact, the paragraph in question states in context [emphasis added]:

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED. -- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ''grandfathered health insurance coverage'' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 [2013] if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT. --

(A) IN GENERAL. -- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED. -- Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.

Sec. 102 subsection (c) states that "Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan."

According to the House Ways and Means Committee's summary of the bill, the Health Insurance Exchange "creates a transparent and functional marketplace for individuals and small employers to comparison shop among private and public insurers."

From the July 16 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

HANNITY: There were actually, if you look at the bill -- Investor's Business Daily had a great piece today -- and under the Orwellian headline, "Protecting the choices to keep current coverage," they actually go into very specific detail, and what they -- they put in here: "If an individual, for example, a health insurer, if you don't enroll the individual in such coverage in the first effective date of coverage" -- if it's on or after the first day of the year this legislation becomes law, you cannot go into a private plan. Does that eliminate private insurance and competition?

[...]

HANNITY: The one thing that we do know in the health care bill is that it's gonna literally -- the bill says -- Investor's Business Daily had an article today -- and the bill says that if you don't have your insurance the year this legislation is implemented, you can't have a private insurance company. So that will end -- hang on -- that will end private insurance.

From the July 16 edition of Fox Business' America's Nightly Scoreboard:

ASMAN: Now, let me ask about this 1,000-page document that Democrats came out with earlier in the week that include all these tax measures and everything. There's a little paragraph that was found by the Investor's Business Daily today in there that says the individual -- and I'm quoting from the document -- "The individual health insurance issuer does not enroll any individual in coverage on or after the first day of the year this legislation becomes law."

Now that has suggested to some that this document wants to outlaw private insurance after the new government insurance company comes into existence. Do you agree?

REP. BILL CASSIDY (R-LA): Yes, I do agree. And there's also some ways that it does it more subtly.

http://mediamatters.org/print/research/200907170005

I commend the volume of work in your post, unfortunately, the context is the following: exemptions would occur only if the plan conformed to the qualifications of the law that comes out of conference. And if you changed the policy, or job, you would be shunted into the government plan which contains the un-American concepts as per the original post.

Remember
1. The only way to reduce costs, as with Social Security, is to force everyone to join so as to spread risk.
2. Communitarian viewpoints view equallity of treatment (think the government plan) as more essential than efficacy of treatment.
3. Contratry to the promise "You'll get the same plan as Joe and I have," the Kennedy Senate plan specifically exempts members of Congress (along with federal employees; the exemptions are in section 3116 , p. 114).
4. Since plans determine costs of a policy depending on what is covered, take a close look at the provisions outlined below, and you will see that costs will be forced to increase to the point that you will have to go to the government plan (the subsidy plan is a sliding plan up to $88K)

- President Obama promises that "if you like your health plan, you can keep it," even after he reforms our health-care system. That's untrue. The bills now before Congress would force you to switch to a managed-care plan with limits on your access to specialists and tests.
And as soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year -- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17).

The House bill outline would “prohibit insurers from excluding pre-existing conditions or engaging in other discriminatory practices.”

“Caps total out-of-pocket spending in all new policies to prevent bankruptcies from medical expenses.” This would raise premiums for new policies.

The House bill outline says it would “prohibit plans [from] rating (charging higher premiums) based on gender, health status, or occupation and strictly limits premium variation based on age.”

.The House bill outline appears to parallel the Kennedy-Dodd draft: “Phases-in requirements to benefit and quality standards for employer plans.” This means that new plans will be more expensive than old plans. It also means they’re creating a bifurcated system with all sorts of perverse unintended consequences for employment flexibility.
Understanding the House Democrats’ health care bill*|*KeithHennessey.com

For a health plan to count as "qualified," it has to meet all the restrictions listed in the legislation and whatever criteria the Secretary of Health and Human Services imposes after the bill becomes law. You may think you're in a "qualified" plan, but the language suggests that only plans with managed-care controls such as the "medical home" will meet the definition (sections 3101 and 2707).

All health insurance would be required to have guaranteed issue and renewal, modified community rating, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, no lifetime or annual limits on benefits, and family policies would have to cover “children” up to age 26.

A qualified plan would have to cover “essential health benefits,” as defined by a new Medical Advisory Council (MAC), appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The MAC would determine what items and services are “essential benefits.” The MAC would have to include items and services in at least the following categories: ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and new born care, medical and surgical, mental health, prescription drugs, rehab and lab services, preventive/wellness services, pediatric services, and anything else the MAC thought appropriate.
Understanding the Kennedy health care bill*|*KeithHennessey.com

Other than one who will only see the 'company line' the above should convince you that Media Matters is parsing the language in such a way as to manipulate you into believing that you will be free to keep and window-shop for a policy, but read between the lines and you will see that you will be funnelled into the government policy.

 

[Political Junky]

Once upon a time the cognoscenti were proud to tell all that they were communists! Proud to be on the cutting edge of societal thought, clearly ahead of everyone else. But once the horrendous nature of the ideology became apparent, it was no longer possible to wear that badge.

Then, they were liberals, then progressives…whatever incarnation served, until its predilections became known.

Now, the rebirth of the thinking that we, the proletariat, the bourgeois, must be deprived of our lives and our liberties.
The new title is Communitarian, and the new bumper sticker is ‘social justice,’ and nowhere is it more evident than in the healthcare debate.

Read their own self-description, and recognize the political babble of the 1950’s American Communists:

“Communitarianism emerged in the 1980s as a response to the limits of liberal theory and practice. Its dominant themes are that individual rights need to be balanced with social responsibilities, and that autonomous selves do not exist in isolation, but are shaped by the values and culture of communities…The critique of one-sided emphasis on rights has been key to defining communitarianism…"Rights talk" thus corrupts our political discourse, and is used to trump genuine conversation, public deliberation, and practical compromise…rights need to be seen in a more balanced framework, and that the U.S. would benefit by a temporary moratorium on the manufacture of new rights.
While a few communitarians have developed refined institutional analyses to match their critiques—one thinks of liberal-communitarian Ezekiel Emanuel's very interesting proposals on health care…”
CPN - Tools

“Another key administration figure… is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor in the Office of Management and Budget and brother of Rahm Emanuel, self-described 'communitarian, the president's chief of staff…”is one of those responsible for inserting into the “healthcare bill” the ideas that we no longer should have rights, such as determining what care we can buy, or how long we should live, and doctors should no longer look to the Hippocratic Oath, and the particular patient, but neglect the patient in the interests of ‘social justice,’ and the society as a whole.

The shocking element is that, in the words of Democat former Colorodo Governor Dick Lamb, "the elderly have a patriotic duty to die."

Where's a Senator Joseph McCarthy when you need him? There are [pick a number] of Communists in Congress. He denounced the whole Democratic party as traitors. Now, he's a joke.

I note that you are following the (apocryphal) “Liberal Protocols”, as ratified by Saul Alinsky, and have obeyed the directions of rule six:
"6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke."

Although not full credit, you deserve at least partial credit as per rule Nine:
"9. Remember, as a liberal, you never have to apologize, be accurate, nor have any knowledge. No matter how many times your talking points are shown to be wrong, continue to repeat them. "

But I was wondering, other than abject ignorance, was there some other reason that you did not comment in any substantive way on the points made in the posts?

Allow me to play Mycroft Holmes, and hypothesize that you received what is referred to as a public school 'education' and internalized the knee-jerk response to the work "communism.'

Prior to today, were you familiar with "Communitarianism"?

Do you agree with Democrat former-governor Dick Lamb?

Have you made yourself familiar with the various authors and the aspects of the Waxman-Markey bills or the Kennedy bills?

Do you realize that if unfamiliar with all of the above, you opinion is worth less than nothing?

If I have embarrassed you, you need not respond to this post.

Sounds more like your tactics.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Where's a Senator Joseph McCarthy when you need him? There are [pick a number] of Communists in Congress. He denounced the whole Democratic party as traitors. Now, he's a joke.

I note that you are following the (apocryphal) “Liberal Protocols”, as ratified by Saul Alinsky, and have obeyed the directions of rule six:
"6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke."

Although not full credit, you deserve at least partial credit as per rule Nine:
"9. Remember, as a liberal, you never have to apologize, be accurate, nor have any knowledge. No matter how many times your talking points are shown to be wrong, continue to repeat them. "

But I was wondering, other than abject ignorance, was there some other reason that you did not comment in any substantive way on the points made in the posts?

Allow me to play Mycroft Holmes, and hypothesize that you received what is referred to as a public school 'education' and internalized the knee-jerk response to the work "communism.'

Prior to today, were you familiar with "Communitarianism"?

Do you agree with Democrat former-governor Dick Lamb?

Have you made yourself familiar with the various authors and the aspects of the Waxman-Markey bills or the Kennedy bills?

Do you realize that if unfamiliar with all of the above, you opinion is worth less than nothing?

If I have embarrassed you, you need not respond to this post.

Sounds more like you tactics.

"Sounds more like you tactics."???

"Sounds more like you tactics."???

Your. Your.

Sounds more like YOUR tactics.

Public school education.

Oh, you are referring to rule #9?

I asked you four questions, and you responded to none.

I would consider it a priori evidence of ignorance.

I understand that you would like to appear that you have an opinion based on thought or knowledge, or both, but don't you have any self respect?

You post, but have no understanding of the topic being discussed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Where's a Senator Joseph McCarthy when you need him? There are [pick a number] of Communists in Congress. He denounced the whole Democratic party as traitors. Now, he's a joke.

I note that you are following the (apocryphal) “Liberal Protocols”, as ratified by Saul Alinsky, and have obeyed the directions of rule six:
"6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke."

Although not full credit, you deserve at least partial credit as per rule Nine:
"9. Remember, as a liberal, you never have to apologize, be accurate, nor have any knowledge. No matter how many times your talking points are shown to be wrong, continue to repeat them. "

But I was wondering, other than abject ignorance, was there some other reason that you did not comment in any substantive way on the points made in the posts?

Allow me to play Mycroft Holmes, and hypothesize that you received what is referred to as a public school 'education' and internalized the knee-jerk response to the work "communism.'

Prior to today, were you familiar with "Communitarianism"?

Do you agree with Democrat former-governor Dick Lamb?

Have you made yourself familiar with the various authors and the aspects of the Waxman-Markey bills or the Kennedy bills?

Do you realize that if unfamiliar with all of the above, you opinion is worth less than nothing?

If I have embarrassed you, you need not respond to this post.

Sounds more like your tactics.

I appreciate the correction of 'you' to 'your.' Thank you.

 

[Bfgrn]

Private health insurance not banned on page 16 of the House bill
Pants on Fire!

We got several e-mails from readers asking if new health care legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives bans private health insurance for individuals. We tracked the statement back to its source, an editorial from Investor's Business Daily.

"It didn't take long to run into an 'uh-oh' moment when reading the House's 'health care for all Americans' bill," the editorial says. "Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal."

The editorial continues, "Under the Orwellian header of 'Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,' the 'Limitation On New Enrollment' section of the bill clearly states: 'Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day' of the year the legislation becomes law."

The editorial, published July 15, 2009, adds, "So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers."

Since then, the allegation about Page 16 has been repeated in many blogs and by at least one member of Congress.

We read the section of the bill to which Investor's Business Daily referred, as well as a summary of the legislation provided by the House Ways and Means committee. While the quotation is correct, it's it's taken out of context.

Individual private health insurance means coverage that someone buys on his or her own from a private company. In other words, it's for people who can't get coverage through work or some other group, and the rates tend to be much higher.

Under the House bill, companies that offer insurance to individuals will do it through an exchange, where the government sets minimum standards for coverage. The new regulations require insurance companies to accept people even if they have previously existing conditions and to provide a minimum level benefits, among other things.

To be sure we were reading the bill correctly, we turned to an independent health care analyst at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. The foundation has analyzed the major health care proposals, including those of the Republicans, providing point-by-point analysis.

Jennifer Tolbert, the foundation's principal policy analyst, told us that Page 16 doesn't outlaw private insurance. "There will be individual policies available, but people will buy those policies through the national health insurance exchange," she said.

The House bill allows for existing policies to be grandfathered in, so that people who currently have individual health insurance policies will not lose coverage. The line the editorial refers to is a clause that says the health insurance companies cannot enroll new people into the old plans.

The IDB editorial has caught the attention of some of the bill's most direct supporters. Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat who is guiding the legislation through Congress, wrote a letter to the publication saying the editorial was "factually incorrect and highly misleading."

The conservative Heritage Foundation also said the editorial misread the legislation, writing on its Foundry blog, "So IDB is wrong: individual health insurance will not be outlawed." Heritage believes that the new regulations will be so onerous as to drive private insurance out of business "which is effectively the same thing." But that is a substantially different argument than what the editorial said.

President Obama had the chance to personally quash the IDB editorial himself, when asked about it in a conference call with left-leaning bloggers. He said he wasn't familiar with the provision, before reiterating his general commitment to not forcing people out of health insurance that they like. (Impress your friends at parties by referring to the proper section on page 16 of the bill: It's Section 102.)

In response to Waxman's letter, Investor's Business Daily says it's sticking to its guns. In a follow-up editorial, it said that private insurance offered on the exchange will be too regulated to be considered true private insurance, hence its original editorial is correct that the bill bans private insurance. This seems like a creative way of covering up a factual error, though. Many private companies are highly regulated but are still considered to be private.

The original editorial said, "Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal." That's not what the legislation says. When the error was pointed out, a subsequent editorial said it was still true. For perpetuating misinformation and then standing by it in the face of facts, we rate the Investors Business Daily editorial Pants on Fire!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/22/ibdeditorialscom/private-health-insurance-page-16-house-bill/

 

[Toro]

If I read you flaccid sarcasm correctly you are claiming that " every other Western country"
has a national policy that requires its citizens to submit to 'end of life counceling" aimed at reducing the costs of national healthcare.

""One of the most shocking things is page 425, where the Congress would make it mandatory absolutely that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session," she said. "They will tell [them] how to end their life sooner."

The proposal specifically calls for the consultation to recommend "palliative care and hospice" for seniors in their mandatory counseling sessions. Palliative care and hospice generally focus only on pain relief until death."
Obamacare for old folks: Just 'cut your life short'

I thought that the Hippocratic Oath was part of the DNA of the medical profession, or have you learned that in " every other Western country" this is dispensed with?

And this has what to do with the principles of Communism? For my History of Economic Thought class, I had to read Das Kapital. I don't recall the chapter on communists supporting end of life counseling aimed to reduce the cost of national healthcare. Perhaps you could refer me. I must have forgotten that passage.

"True change, writes Dr. Emanuel, must include reassessing the promise doctors make when they enter the profession, the Hippocratic Oath. Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.) But Dr. Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their own patient and consider social justice."
Defend Your Health Care

And, since I must bow to your superior knowledge, it must be true that "every other Western country" proudly announces that they will institute long waits for procedures, and refusal to use latest technology and drugs for their sick and infrirm.

"Dr. David Blumenthal, a Harvard professor and key health advisor to President Obama, states that the goal is not only universal coverage but also a similar healthcare experience for everyone, regardless of ability to pay (New England Journal of Medicine, March 8, 2001). Dr. Blumenthal conceded that "government controls on health care spending are associated with longer waits for elective procedures and reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices."
Defend Your Health Care

Or would you like to admit that we have the finest healthcare system in the world, and the "hope and change" that is being promised is more in tune with the former Soviete Union than the United States of America?

America has the finest healthcare system in the world for those who can afford the care. I have lived in Canada, England and America, and I can tell you unequivocally that if I were poor or lower middle class, America would rank dead last on this list of countries in which I would choose to live for healthcare. Absolutely no question about it. If you are poor or lower middle class, England and Canada have America beaten hands down.

As for your reference to the USSR, please refer to my original point.

 

[alan1]

America has the finest healthcare system in the world for those who can afford the care. I have lived in Canada, England and America, and I can tell you unequivocally that if I were poor or lower middle class, America would rank dead last on this list of countries in which I would choose to live for healthcare. Absolutely no question about it. If you are poor or lower middle class, England and Canada have America beaten hands down.

As for your reference to the USSR, please refer to my original point.

Where do you obtain your health care? And why?

 

[editec]

America has the finest healthcare system in the world for those who can afford the care. I have lived in Canada, England and America, and I can tell you unequivocally that if I were poor or lower middle class, America would rank dead last on this list of countries in which I would choose to live for healthcare. Absolutely no question about it. If you are poor or lower middle class, England and Canada have America beaten hands down.

As for your reference to the USSR, please refer to my original point.

Where do you obtain your health care? And why?

I get mine HC from the veterans administration.

It's wondeful.

No waiting, they're very polite and give me whatever I need.

Why...it's almost like socialism.

 

[alan1]

America has the finest healthcare system in the world for those who can afford the care. I have lived in Canada, England and America, and I can tell you unequivocally that if I were poor or lower middle class, America would rank dead last on this list of countries in which I would choose to live for healthcare. Absolutely no question about it. If you are poor or lower middle class, England and Canada have America beaten hands down.

As for your reference to the USSR, please refer to my original point.

Where do you obtain your health care? And why?

I get mine HC from the veterans administration.

It's wondeful.

No waiting, they're very polite and give me whatever I need.

Why...it's almost like socialism.

If only everybody was a veteran.

 

[editec]

Where do you obtain your health care? And why?

I get mine HC from the veterans administration.

It's wondeful.

No waiting, they're very polite and give me whatever I need.

Why...it's almost like socialism.

If only everybody was a veteran.

Stroke of a pen and that's a done deal.

 

[Toro]

America has the finest healthcare system in the world for those who can afford the care. I have lived in Canada, England and America, and I can tell you unequivocally that if I were poor or lower middle class, America would rank dead last on this list of countries in which I would choose to live for healthcare. Absolutely no question about it. If you are poor or lower middle class, England and Canada have America beaten hands down.

As for your reference to the USSR, please refer to my original point.

Where do you obtain your health care? And why?

Through work.

 

[alan1]

America has the finest healthcare system in the world for those who can afford the care. I have lived in Canada, England and America, and I can tell you unequivocally that if I were poor or lower middle class, America would rank dead last on this list of countries in which I would choose to live for healthcare. Absolutely no question about it. If you are poor or lower middle class, England and Canada have America beaten hands down.

As for your reference to the USSR, please refer to my original point.

Where do you obtain your health care? And why?

Through work.

Cool, you work in a Doctors office.

 

[Toro]

No.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If I read you flaccid sarcasm correctly you are claiming that " every other Western country"
has a national policy that requires its citizens to submit to 'end of life counceling" aimed at reducing the costs of national healthcare.

""One of the most shocking things is page 425, where the Congress would make it mandatory absolutely that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session," she said. "They will tell [them] how to end their life sooner."

The proposal specifically calls for the consultation to recommend "palliative care and hospice" for seniors in their mandatory counseling sessions. Palliative care and hospice generally focus only on pain relief until death."
Obamacare for old folks: Just 'cut your life short'

I thought that the Hippocratic Oath was part of the DNA of the medical profession, or have you learned that in " every other Western country" this is dispensed with?

And this has what to do with the principles of Communism? For my History of Economic Thought class, I had to read Das Kapital. I don't recall the chapter on communists supporting end of life counseling aimed to reduce the cost of national healthcare. Perhaps you could refer me. I must have forgotten that passage.

"True change, writes Dr. Emanuel, must include reassessing the promise doctors make when they enter the profession, the Hippocratic Oath. Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.) But Dr. Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their own patient and consider social justice."
Defend Your Health Care

And, since I must bow to your superior knowledge, it must be true that "every other Western country" proudly announces that they will institute long waits for procedures, and refusal to use latest technology and drugs for their sick and infrirm.

"Dr. David Blumenthal, a Harvard professor and key health advisor to President Obama, states that the goal is not only universal coverage but also a similar healthcare experience for everyone, regardless of ability to pay (New England Journal of Medicine, March 8, 2001). Dr. Blumenthal conceded that "government controls on health care spending are associated with longer waits for elective procedures and reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices."
Defend Your Health Care

Or would you like to admit that we have the finest healthcare system in the world, and the "hope and change" that is being promised is more in tune with the former Soviete Union than the United States of America?

America has the finest healthcare system in the world for those who can afford the care. I have lived in Canada, England and America, and I can tell you unequivocally that if I were poor or lower middle class, America would rank dead last on this list of countries in which I would choose to live for healthcare. Absolutely no question about it. If you are poor or lower middle class, England and Canada have America beaten hands down.

As for your reference to the USSR, please refer to my original point.

I think you might want to brush up on the differences between communism and democracy.
Communism, and the other totalist philosophies view the state as more important than the individual.
This premise is on view in the Communitarian authorship of the healthcare plan in Congress.
The answer to this question will reveal to you why the plan is, as I have stated, more attuned to the policies of the former Soviet Union, or the current Democratic Republic of North Korea, than the United States of America: What kind of thinking would encourage the demise of our senior citizens in order to save the state medical costs?

Unfortunately, you have succumbed to his kind of thinking if you view the policies of Canada and the UK as superior to those of the United States. These countries believe in equality of treatment, lowering same for all, rather than the best possible drugs and technology available. Available is the operative term.

I hope you now see the answer to "And this has what to do with the principles of Communism? "

Further discussion should be along the line you have opened by "if I were poor or lower middle class, America would rank dead last on this list of countries in which I would choose to live for healthcare."
If you wish to open another thread, I would be happy to disabuse the undocumented assertion in the sentence which suggests that people in the United States are doomed to remain 'poor and lower middle class."

You do not understand the United States.

And, when you get around to reviewing Das Kapital, you should read as a companion piece
“The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression,” which is a compilation of research edited by French scholar Stephane Courtois, totals over 100 million victims of Communist murder during the 20th Century.

 

[Toro]

I think you might want to brush up on the differences between communism and democracy.
Communism, and the other totalist philosophies view the state as more important than the individual.
This premise is on view in the Communitarian authorship of the healthcare plan in Congress.
The answer to this question will reveal to you why the plan is, as I have stated, more attuned to the policies of the former Soviet Union, or the current Democratic Republic of North Korea, than the United States of America: What kind of thinking would encourage the demise of our senior citizens in order to save the state medical costs?

The proposed healthcare plan has far less government sponsorhip and involvement than most if not all universal healthcare plans in the world. Therefore, all those other nations are "communist" as well.

Unfortunately, you have succumbed to his kind of thinking if you view the policies of Canada and the UK as superior to those of the United States. These countries believe in equality of treatment, lowering same for all, rather than the best possible drugs and technology available. Available is the operative term.

I did not say that. I prefer the US healthcare system because I have great coverage and have access to the best technology in the world. But I am financially comfortable and can afford it. If I were not, without a doubt I would want to be in a country where I would not have to worry about whether or not I would go bankrupt if I needed an operation.

Medicare is very popular in Canada. There is a reason.

I hope you now see the answer to "And this has what to do with the principles of Communism? "

Further discussion should be along the line you have opened by "if I were poor or lower middle class, America would rank dead last on this list of countries in which I would choose to live for healthcare."
If you wish to open another thread, I would be happy to disabuse the undocumented assertion in the sentence which suggests that people in the United States are doomed to remain 'poor and lower middle class."

I did not make this assertion nor did I imply it. I stated that if I were poor or lower middle class, I would rather be in Canada or England. Why? Because I would be better off with the government paying for my healthcare. Simple as that.

You do not understand the United States.

And, when you get around to reviewing Das Kapital, you should read as a companion piece
“The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression,” which is a compilation of research edited by French scholar Stephane Courtois, totals over 100 million victims of Communist murder during the 20th Century.

You do not understand communism. You are using it as a scare-tactic. There are lots of good arguments for your case but you diminish your case by red-baiting.

For the record, I have no opinion on the current proposed plan.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The proposed healthcare plan has far less government sponsorhip and involvement than most if not all universal healthcare plans in the world. Therefore, all those other nations are "communist" as well.

Clearly false. Note the following, which are only some of the " government sponsorhip [sic]and involvement" in healthcare.
a. One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."

b. . THE FACTS: In House legislation, a commission appointed by the government would determine what is and isn't covered by insurance plans offered in a new purchasing pool, including a plan sponsored by the government. The bill also holds out the possibility that, over time, those standards could be imposed on all private insurance plans, not just the ones in the pool. …reform that plainly show the government making key decisions in health care.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/07/22/us/politics/AP-US-Obama-Fact-Check.html

c. , Dr. Blumenthal settled a debate on whether the system will control doctors' treatment decisions. In an article in the New England Journal of Medicine (April 9, 2009), Dr. Blumenthal stressed that the real importance of computers is to deliver "embedded clinical decision support," a euphemism for computers telling doctors what to do.
Defend Your Health Care

d. And when Medicare was enacted, Section 1801 of the original law specifically prohibited any bureaucratic interference with the practice of medicine. Today not one word of that protection still applies. The federal government owns the health-care industry lock, stock, and barrel.
The new program you support will eventually include all sorts of powers and privileges you can't even imagine right now.
The 7 Never-to-be-Forgotten Principles of Government

e. And as soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year -- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17).
Defend Your Health Care

f. Also slipped into the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age. Economists are familiar with the formula already in use in the U.K., where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYS or quality-adjusted life years) the patient is likely to benefit. In the U.K., the formula leads to denying treatments for age-related diseases because older patients have a denominator problem -- fewer years to benefit than younger patients with other diseases. In 2006, older patients with macular degeneration, which causes blindness, were told that they had to go totally blind in one eye before they could get an expensive new drug to save the other eye. It took nearly two years to get that government edict reversed. Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., a Louisiana heart surgeon, warned to no avail that it would lead to "denying seniors and the disabled lifesaving care."
Defend Your Health Care

Medicare is very popular in Canada. There is a reason.[quote/]

The reason is that most do not face serious health crisises. Ask those who are aware that the United States has higher survival rates for all forms of cancer, ...cancer patients in the United States are most likely to be screened regularly, and once diagnosed, have the fastest access to treatment.
"... found that overall cancer survival rates are higher in the United States than in Canada."http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596

You do not understand communism. You are using it as a scare-tactic. There are lots of good arguments for your case but you diminish your case by red-baiting.

Generally, I have found that those who have never comprehended the impact on human nature, and ambition, the salutary effects of hard work, effort and accomplishment, claim "You do not understand communism."
And those who have the ability to bury their heads in the sand, in terms of what history has shown about the effects of communism claim that exposing it is "a scare-tactic."

For the record, I have no opinion on the current proposed plan.

Wise.

 

[Toro]

The reason is that most do not face serious health crisises.

Of course Canada faces a serious health crisis. You think costs are only going up in the US?