Fact Check: Distortions rife in health care debate

[Political Junky]

The Associated Press: FACT CHECK: Distortions rife in health care debate

This piece points out the distortions provided by those opposed to a public option for health care.

 

[xsited1]

Fact Check: Distortions rife in health care debate

The IS no debate. Forcing someone to pay for the health insurance of someone who is perfectly capable of paying for their own insurance is unconstitutional and immoral.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Associated Press: FACT CHECK: Distortions rife in health care debate

This piece points out the distortions provided by those opposed to a public option for health care.

Junky, my man, it is somewhat misleading if folks think that an AP article is the FACTCHECK.ORG site.

AP is slanted left.

I find that debate on USMB goes much further in checking the two bills.

And what jumps out immedialtely is "THE FACTS: Millions of Americans already face rationing, as insurance companies rule on procedures they will cover."

This is a perfect example of "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

There is no, not any, rationing care in a free society.

THE FACT is actually the following. If your healthcare provider denies a request for, let's say an MRI, you can simply use your own money for the procedure.

The same is not true in Canada:

"Imagine a world in which you're forbidden to spend your own money to obtain medical care. Imagine that, regardless of your personal needs, you're forced to rely on the government for health care, no matter how long it takes or how substandard it may be.

A far-fetched Orwellian nightmare? Hardly. That's precisely how the Canadian health-care system operates. ...in seven of Canada's 10 provinces, it's illegal for citizens to pay out of their own pockets for medical services that are covered by the government-run health care system. And in the remaining three provinces, private payment is all but forbidden."
The Ghost of America's Health Care Future Lives in Canada Today by James Frogue and Robert Moffit -- Capitalism Magazine

If this doen't inform you as to why some of us object to ObamaCare, then you choose not to see.

 

[Harry Dresden]

The Associated Press: FACT CHECK: Distortions rife in health care debate

This piece points out the distortions provided by those opposed to a public option for health care.

how about the distortions the pro UHC people put forth....works both ways...

 

[Foxfyre]

Fact Check: Distortions rife in health care debate

The IS no debate. Forcing someone to pay for the health insurance of someone who is perfectly capable of paying for their own insurance is unconstitutional and immoral.

Absolutely correct.

I'll go one further and say that there is no constitutional authority for the Federal government to force Citizen A to involuntarily support Citizen B under any circumstances. There is constitutional authority for the Federal government to promote the general welfare which could include policies and regulation that would make healthcare more affordable for everybody. That could include requirements for more transparency - policy holders should know exactly what is and is not covered in their policy - developing assigned risk pools for hard-to-insure people - tort reform - all sorts of ways to improve the system without dismantling it.

But all you have to do is look at the absolute mismanaged administrative nightmare that has resulted from a simple little program like 'cash for clunkers' to know how much more of of a nightmare of far great consequence will be the mismanagement of a massive dismantling of the U.S. healthcare system. The healthcare they are trying to foce on us is designed by people who don't know what they are doing, who won't read the bill, who wouldn't understand the bill if they did read it (according to John Conyers), and who haven't even attempted to consider the problems already spelled out and who haven't thought through or even care about many of the far reaching ramifications. But they are hellbent on ramming this through before anybody catches on.

As President Obama said, he and Congress have excellent healthcare. Why should they care if the rest of us don't get what is being advertised? They already have made it clear they have no intention of being forced into the same system they want to force on the rest of us.

 

[driveby]

The Associated Press: FACT CHECK: Distortions rife in health care debate

This piece points out the distortions provided by those opposed to a public option for health care.

Oh the irony ..........

 

[Navy1960]

Well aside from the Fact Checks non story here about "rationing" I suppose it depends on how one looks at the issue. The difference is actually a very simple one, as pointed out above, in this nation even if your turned down for a procedure by your healthcare provider the only thing that stops you from getting it is you. So I suppose if you look at from a pure financial standpoint , in that in the eyes of those that cannot afford the procedure are rationed would seem to be a weak way of looking at it because the availaiblity it still there. All one need do is cure the financial side of it, and that goes straight to what I have been talking about on this healthcare debate and that is to address the real issues of healthcare costs and not, unconstitutional, infunctioning measures that will bankrupt this country in the hopes that it will somehow drive down the costs of healthcare. Want some facts well here are some real facts...

May 8, 1965 - US Estimates Medicare Cost Far Too Low, Insurers Figure. RY WILLIAM CLARK. [Financial EditorI. What will the government s medicare program cost? No- body knows for sure, but a substantial segment of the in- surance industry believes gov- ernment estimates may prove to be quite a bit ...
From US Estimates Medicare Cost Far Too Low, Insurers Figure - Related web pages
pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access ...

Sep 26, 1993 - It is difficult to overestimate the weight placed these days on Medicare costs. Each year, another 2 percent of the population qualifies for benefits; ... Clinton insists that his actuaries and accountants can squeeze $124 billion out of Medicare costs between 1994 and 2000, ...
From HEALTH PLAN BURDEN FALLS ON STATES MEDICARE - IMPERFECT … - Related web pages
pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access ...

Medicare costs history - Google Search

Those differing assumptions lead to a difference of $760 billion a year in Medicare spending by 2030, the panel said.

The 17-member commission, created by Congress and headed by Senator John B. Breaux, Democrat of Louisiana, has decided to assess the effects of all its proposals on Medicare spending under both sets of assumptions.

The panel is considering fundamental changes in the structure of Medicare, but has not yet made specific recommendations. The higher estimates of Medicare spending, considered more realistic by many commission members, accentuate the need for changes in the program to keep it solvent for 76 million baby boomers, born from 1946 to 1964.

One panel member, Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, said the estimates of Medicare spending could have a profound effect on the commission's recommendations, which must be submitted to the President and Congress by March 1, 1999.

Panel Finds Medicare Costs Are Underestimated by U.S. - The New York Times


The White House released budget figures yesterday indicating that the new Medicare prescription drug benefit will cost more than $1.2 trillion in the coming decade, a much higher price tag than President Bush suggested when he narrowly won passage of the law in late 2003.

The projections represent the most complete picture to date of how much the program will cost after it begins next year. The expense of the new drug benefit has been a source of much controversy since the day Congress approved it, with Democrats and some Republicans complaining that the White House has consistently low-balled the expected cost to the government.

Medicare Drug Benefit May Cost $1.2 Trillion (washingtonpost.com)



All that from a program meant for the elderly who's cost were not supposed to exceed 45 million in 10 years. So what then do you think this nation would be looking at for a program that the CBO estimates will cost this nation over a trillion dollars in 10 years? 10, 12, 15 trillion dollars? In case you have not noticed that about all our annual GDP. Further, in order to perpetuate this scheme , they wish to spend this money in a time when the Govt. is deep in debt to foreign powers and adding to it at a record pace. The bottom line here is this, while the Govt. has every right to address the issues that cause healthcare services to rise and they should, they are NOT empowered under the constitution to become a health insurance provider to the entire population. I have made this suggestion many times to all of you "healthcare rights progressives" you are going about this all wrong, if you really wanted to work within our form of Govt. to make healthcare a right then do so and advocate for a constitutional amendment that would make it so. I suspect though the reason why this is not being done is because, they know as well as I that 2/3rds required would never ratify it. In lite of that then the best approach is to go to your respective states and get that option onto your states constitutions. Until such time as the Govt. addresses the real issues of rising healthcare costs , rather than this one size fits all approach they will never solve healthcare issues in this country, in fact what this will do, if it does pass is further seperate the divide between those that can afford quality healthcare and those that cannot the only difference will be is those that cannot will be able to wave a card around saying I have Govt. healthcare only problem is they will have few if any places to use it.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

that took place today......That will tell you everything you need to know about this whole government run healthcare scheme!

 

[editec]

Let it bleed.

When enough Americans die it will change.

 

[Freedomlover]

Where in the Constitution does it give the federal government authority to compete directly with the public sector in anything, including healthcare? As an aside, where does the Constitution give the federal government the authority to give public money to private persons to buy automobiles? If you have an answer for this please cite that part of the Constitution that authorizes it.