E-mail 'analysis' of health bill needs a check-up

E-mail 'analysis' of health bill needs a check-up

www.politifact.com

Most of what the e-mail says is wrong. In fact, it's a clearinghouse of bad information circulating around the Web about proposed health care changes, so we thought it would be helpful to address a bunch of its claims.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Wow..

And people wonder why there is so much anger and hate.

There is so much disinfo in the world.

Now we are in the process here on ATS of peeling he layers away from this health bill. We are in the process of attempting to come to a consensus on our interpretations of it.

I think it's a noble effort; difficult but noble.

Either way, I think that what is happening is a positive thing in so much that many of us are digging into this bill.

Still it's amazing how much of the population won't be as involved in the analysis and just believe whatever they hear...



www.politifact.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Well which of the many bills. I don't know what one is valid anymore.

Also, it's basically replacing greedy corporations with greedy lazy government Bureaucracies.

How can anyone agree to the set up of management by the government? Simply a collection of money from the massive taxes we get would be adequate enough, plus a few money savers in energy independence and other stuff.

But all an all it simply is not sustainable, what they want to do. A transitional way I heard today would basically be health stamps, like food stamps.

reply to post by HunkaHunka

Either way, I think that what is happening is a positive thing in so much that many of us are digging into this bill.

Still it's amazing how much of the population won't be as involved in the analysis and just believe whatever they hear...

Your bottom quote fits Congress perfectly.

Your top quote shows that many of us are doing the job Congress should have done in the first place.

Disinformation will always be around. But if you can show somebody what is written in black and white, it makes it easier to prove the disinformation wrong.

Imagine if members of Congress started quoting pages of the bill rather than labeling posters. IMO, it would help clarify the unknown.

I'd just like to point out that many of the things they listed in their article have a "Mostly True" or "Barely True" label, meaning that those items are more true than they are false.

It's also worth pointing out that this one:

Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure! False: Section 113 of the bill requires the Health Choices commissioner to conduct a study to make sure health reform does not unintentionally create incentives for businesses to self-insure or create adverse selection in the risk pools of insured plans. There is no mandated audit.

Fails to take into account that calling it a study doesn't make it any different from an audit.

Originally posted by Jenna
I'd just like to point out that many of the things they listed in their article have a "Mostly True" or "Barely True" label, meaning that those items are more true than they are false.

It's also worth pointing out that this one:

Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure! False: Section 113 of the bill requires the Health Choices commissioner to conduct a study to make sure health reform does not unintentionally create incentives for businesses to self-insure or create adverse selection in the risk pools of insured plans. There is no mandated audit.

Fails to take into account that calling it a study doesn't make it any different from an audit.

Thanks for pointing this out, Jenna. I'm a little confused on the terminology, though. Would the Health Commissioner ensure that actual reforms don't create loopholes for corporations, or would the HC be studying individual businesses on a case-by-case basis? It seems to me like they would study the actual laws/processes to make sure there aren't ways to take unethical advantage of the program.

However, the wording's a little confusing!


On a side note, government audits are a joke. I used to do internal auditing for Sarbanes-Oxley (this was all passed after the whole Enron debacle).

A company has to shell out the cash to pay for an audit where they test you on your own rules, regardless of how complicated the rules are. If you have a check or control in the procedure, that's all they care about. If you have someone prepare you for the audit internally (what I did), it was extremely easy to go through issues that were completed incorrectly, unethically, without a controlling check, etc. and create the evidence you needed or "complete the process" after the fact.

The auditors would go in and select a random sample of issues, then use your rules to see if you left an appropriate paper trail for each step, which always seemed like a waste of time because if the company really wanted to they could create their own paper trail or just alter their rules to be easier without changing how they handled anything.

Just a quick lesson on how stupid government audits can be!

Originally posted by Avenginggecko

Thanks for pointing this out, Jenna. I'm a little confused on the terminology, though. Would the Health Commissioner ensure that actual reforms don't create loopholes for corporations, or would the HC be studying individual businesses on a case-by-case basis? It seems to me like they would study the actual laws/processes to make sure there aren't ways to take unethical advantage of the program.

Sometimes I think they word bills as confusingly as possible just so no one can understand it. The bill itself says that they are going to "study" all employers who self insure. Redhatty has posted the relevant section here if you want to take a look. It doesn't mention anything about a case by case basis.

On a side note, government audits are a joke. I used to do internal auditing for Sarbanes-Oxley (this was all passed after the whole Enron debacle).

Thanks for the info on government audits. I used to work for a retailer and the audits we had were equally a joke. We'd just go through in the day or two before they showed up and fix anything that wasn't like it should be. Perhaps that's why this bill calls it a study instead of an audit?

I just posted a reply with this news link in another thread. Link

Good site. They even won a Pulitzer!

My own theory....

Why is this getting nasty? Because of Big Pharma and Big Insurance Lobbyist. Follow the money. They have helped bring this country to it knees. Add to it Big Oil, Big Banks and "Free Trade" (NAFTA). Lobbyist run this country, not us.

For the record I voted for BUSH twice and Obama once. They are a two party crime family. I have since become a political Atheist.

With that said, I have had too many family members with health issues and health insurance that drove them to bankruptcy, to think that we do not need to fix this problem, is beyond belief.

Sincerely,
The Grandma Killer

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

Either way, I think that what is happening is a positive thing in so much that many of us are digging into this bill.

Still it's amazing how much of the population won't be as involved in the analysis and just believe whatever they hear...

Your bottom quote fits Congress perfectly.

Your top quote shows that many of us are doing the job Congress should have done in the first place.

Disinformation will always be around. But if you can show somebody what is written in black and white, it makes it easier to prove the disinformation wrong.

Imagine if members of Congress started quoting pages of the bill rather than labeling posters. IMO, it would help clarify the unknown.

Agree jam.

I think that congress should have a similar culture of digging into things as we do here. Despite the political differences here on ATS, well.. that and the trolls, we are able to come to some consensus.

Typically it's a defense mechanism to wild and biased claims. But in the end I think we do find consensus... eventually :-)

I think it is high past time for Health Care reform. My brother-in law is a pediatrician, my system has her masters in nursing & my wife has many health problems. My health insurance is very good.
What I have a problem with is the health care industry.
There are many good cancer fighter/cures out there but we Have to use chemotherapy.
They are just now talking about pre & pro biotics when their good work has been known for years.
Better and less expensive medications are out there that are so much better then those approved by the FDA. Please don't get me going on the FDA.
Doctors are being taught to treat the symptoms and not fix the basic problem.
My wife has Celiac (1 out of 160 people have it and don't know it) and was misdiagnosed for 20 years. We had changed plans and her doctor had worked at Johns Hopkins. He looked through her folder of her research & said I think you have Celiac.
Women are are on the fore front of researching their own medical problems because Doctors won't listen. Their pain & problems are all in their heads & have they seen a psychiatrist.
I'm all for fixing the health care system. This bill (and yes I've only made it through only 550 pages) does nothing of the kind. Stay on the subject of Reform. As President, I could cover all the uninsureds for a year under my current insurance plan out of 4 months of the pork barrell projects for the year.
Talk to me about charging the last 25 heads of the FDA with murder, manslaughter, conspiracy to ...
Tell me how this bill will reform the health care system. Don't talk to me about left & right or libertarian or who is paying off who. Reform, reform, reform - that is the subject.

Sorry about getting angry. Don't get me mad.
Ignorance is bliss. I used to be blissfull oh so many years ago.

I think it is time to take out the trash (left, right, anyone up there in DC). 2010 is comming
Is this a conspiracy board or not? Why not create our own conspiracy?
using electoral-vote.com... as a baseline

Tough races
Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio

Easy for Dems
Arkansas, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland,
New York, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont,
Washington, Wisconsin

Easy for Reps
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah

I think a businessman/woman with an engineering degree would make a great president. They could do process charts and with a business background know where to cut. But what about the senate?
What kind of party would it be and what would be the platform?
Who could we push (new) and who could we subvert?
Anyone want to start a conspiracy instead of talking about others?

This is 36 races. If we could take 20 of them that would be 1/5 of the senate. A good place to start.
You would then see which Dems & Reps start marching in lock-step.
Let's get the trash out of the house and see where the bad smells are really comming from.