FACT CHECK: Health overhaul myths taking root

FACT CHECK: Health overhaul myths taking root

news.yahoo.com

THE POLL: 45 percent said it's likely the government will decide when to stop care for the elderly; 50 percent said it's not likely.

THE FACTS: Nothing being debated in Washington would give the government such authority. Critics have twisted a provision in a House bill that would direct Medicare to pay for counseling sessions about end-of-life care, living wills, hospices and the like if a patient wants such consultations with a doctor. They have said, incorrectly, that the elderly would be required to have these sessions.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
blogs.suntimes.com

THE POLL: 54 percent said the overhaul will lead to a government takeover of health care; 39 percent disagree.

THE FACTS: Obama is not proposing a single-payer system in which the government covers everyone, like in Canada or some European countries. He says that direction is not right for the U.S. The proposals being negotiated do not go there.

We've all been hearing so much wild speculation from people like Alex Jones about what this health care idea is and honestly Alex is F-ing things up for people who actually need help. Especially the whole "death panel" BS people started believing Palin about. If one has never went through a death in the family, it's not an easy thing logistically all emotions aside. It can be a serious snafu and I think it's great there is plans for help with that.

Like wise, no one ever talked about a single payer system nor would it be feasible as that would require and entirely new infrastructure. My brother actually is one of the lead programmers at a large health insurance company and from his vantage point (he's for the government's health care option btw) and he says that no one is worried about the government taking over their job because there's no way they could do it without the help of the large insurance & health care companies.

I think this whole blah-blah-BS and uproar over this health care plan is simply more rhetoric from the Republicans who say "Damn the Country, Obama Must Fail"

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

This is from the same administration that announced the closing of Club Gitmo with no plan as to where they are going to put the detainees. They also gave us the porkulus spending bill and the dreaded Cash for Clunkers fiasco. Mr. Obama himself said that a government run operation (USPS) can't compete against its private counterparts. Remember if we pass the Porkulus bill unemployment wouldn't go over 8.5%. Are we really supposed to believe anything this adminstration has to say, especially when they are hell bent on socializing everything they touch, from banks, auto companies, and now health care?

The single payer option is not an option because, if your employer was smart, they would drop their current insurance plan and you would be at the mercy of the government plan. Also if the "Death Panel" or "End of life counselling" was a myth how come it was dropped real quick from the working bill?

I'm actually divided about this. If it fails it's good for America, and if it passes, the Democrats are out of power for a long time which would be good for America also.

Obama must fail....to save this country!

[edit on 19-8-2009 by RRconservative]

reply to post by Shakesbeer


I beg to differ on the point of the single payer option. I recall hearing Obama during his campagin,tout the single payer insurance as his preferred choice. I will see if I can find the video. There have been many others on the Dem.side that have sided with single payer.

If the gov. wants to help people with health care costs,then they could start by allowing more companies to manufacture all drugs in a generic form. The more the merrier,competition helps bring prices down.

reply to post by RRconservative


It's easy to say how one would close gitmo, end the fed, and disclose about ET affair when you don't have the means or authority: it's entirely another one when the guns are pointed at you.

Not to mention you see how people have reacted to rhetoric over actual written intention?

Who ever believes a politician can just enact changes without the blessing of the large corporations is out of their mind. Why do you think Bush was able to push "his" agendas through so easily? It definitely wasn't because they where great ideas, it was because they helped the large corporate interests, as opposed to the ideals of this administration. Including things like Gitmo which obviously plays into the agenda of the military industrial complex.

I love how people talk smack on USPS too. WHY are they struggling? Oh yeah that's right because it's NOT actually a government run agency, it's actually more like the FED & once again we're talking large corporation versus an assumed public entity. Those match ups haven't gone in favor of the public very often have they?

Have you actually looked into the "dropping" of the death panel? It's about as non-existent as the concept of government assisted euthanasia. Once again you're citing implication & rhetoric.

By the way, this country is more then a damn game of "us" versus "them" and the longer we live in a country persisting in competition between two PERCEIVED different groups(dem vs. rep), the longer the average person will get screwed, and the longer we'll all be taken advantage of. So once again, to say one party Dem or Rep is better is pure naivety.

reply to post by daddyroo45


Obama may have said he'd prefer that, but he also said that it's not feasible in the United States. Just like so many other things I'm sure all of us would like to see, like your point on Big Pharma. In a world where people actually care about each other more then profits (thanks "Capitalism") we might see something like that. But unfortunately that brain washing we've all be subjected too also involves making everyone believe that money is the most important thing in life and that we are entitled to make a profit off of others misfortune, ailment, or hardship.

That's not to say reciprocity isn't a good thing in regards to goods & services, but a fair balance definitely should be the priority.

reply to post by Shakesbeer


You're completely right and I posted the exact thing in a thread less than a day ago.

Let me find...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
I'm really angry that they removed End of Life Counseling under the insurance plan. Literally. I think pretty much no one understood what it meant, got scared, started rumors, and flipped out. My grandparents use End of Life Counseling because my grandpa has terminal cancer. They're not killing him, they're helping my family cope with the fact that he's almost 90, going through treatments, and has four types of cancer.

It would be sweet if that kind of counseling was covered under the new plan. It would be a really nice thing, because it's necessary in many cases and it's very expensive. But no, everyone had to freak out and now it's not going to happen.

There we go.

This is the way that it works, it's simple logic here. Fact Checks or no fact checks, I've read HR3200, and just like every other health insurance company they have a panel that decides which treatments are approved and not approved, it will be the same way with government.

It is the way every other government run health insurance or single payer system is run in the world. The government decides who gets what treatment and who doesn't, that is the way it is.

Anybody who think that here in America it is going to be any different is delusional. The way they are going to "bring cost down" is by capping doctors pay, and rationing care. That is just the way it works.

You have two options support a government run system that will decide what and who gets what, or support free market reform and get the government out all health care.

Most dems have already said it's either a public option or nothing, none of the people in government are interested in reform they are only interested in control and legislating more profits for their corporate sponsors.

Edit to add -

That includes both parties.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]

reply to post by ravenshadow13


I think you nailed it too with people getting scared over the idea of End of Life counseling. Many people fear death highest amongst most concepts in life and it's obvious this was exploited big time by opponents. What a surprise, politicians of a particular political persuasion using fear to push their agenda...wow who would have ever thunk it?

Unfortunately my family has dealt with it's share of deaths already and yeah for those who have been through enough of them know any aid you can get on the subject helps big time. Counseling usually isn't an option for many because of those costs mentioned which is really unfortunate that money becomes a factor in one's death more often then not.

So once again everyone, the more we keep fearing & playing the red vs. blue game, the more WE lose: NOT "them"

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


Very true, most people don't want to swallow the fact that their private insurance company has a panel that decides who gets the donor kidney or who doesn't, who gets approved for which treatment & who has to hope for the best.

I find it funny how everyone complains about big pharma and the insurance companies, wants the government to help, and when it does cries foul on stuff that just has to happen. Unfortunately there is only one donor kidney and there has to be a choice made, does it go to the 20 year old with a rare condition, or to ex-drinker who is in their 60's? Those are the choice that are made every day whether people like it or not, or call it a "death panel" or not. Even though that's not exactly what was being sighting by most, more the implication of "end of life" counseling means.

Either way, the profit hungry corporations are only out for their share holders. Which is where most insurance and health care organizations messed up when many switched from non-profit organizations to for-profit ones. As I stated I have a relative in the insurance business as well as some in the health care industry and they also echo this. Once these organizations switch to for-profit groups, it all went down hill because it became about saving & making money more then saving and enriching lives.

I have read the bill . . . and I hate it.

Do we need reform? Absolutely.

Do we need Obamacare? No *snip* way.

[edit on 8/19/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]

Originally posted by Shakesbeer

Who ever believes a politician can just enact changes without the blessing of the large corporations is out of their mind. Why do you think Bush was able to push "his" agendas through so easily? It definitely wasn't because they where great ideas, it was because they helped the large corporate interests, as opposed to the ideals of this administration.

Bush was able to push his agenda...(keeping America safe)...because he had to allow Democrats to load up his National Security bills up with pork and other pet projects. For Bush to get what he wanted Democrats made sure they got what they wanted. That is why the deficit skyrocketed under Bush, and it obvious why it has quadrupled under Mr. Obama.

Fact checks provided by government-entangled media are not valid for me. independent agencies must show it or I do not believe it.

There is only one way I'll agree with you and go along with this OP.

You and yours take CA, NY and few other Lib leaning states, and do what ever you want. When you are broke, hungry, and the lights are off, you can call someone in EU or Canada to help.
Oh, and to help you out, we will give you 50 cent on the dollar for any guns that you may want to get rid of............

reply to post by RRconservative


Baaaatttter up! Blue walks to the plate.... yeah dude that's kind of what I was saying. I'm not saying Dem or republicans are "right" and obviously those large interests are comprised of both dems & republicans. But make no mistake, Bush's policies on stuff like environment, military spending, tax breaks for wealthy, and tax breaks for large corps like the oil industry where unprecedented and who did they benefit more; the people or business?

reply to post by Gorman91


So who would be a part of these "independent agencies" you speak of?

reply to post by Shakesbeer


Yes, you are correct, but I'm for free market correction personally, as in get the government out of the health care business except for regulation. Medicare and Medicaid needs to go, me and my mom argue about this, but I tell her it is part of the reason why stuff is so screwed up, the other part is what you mentioned about for-profit insurance companies, and you can thank Nixon and the HMO Act of 1973 and the revision in 1976 for that.

99% of doctors aren't bad and would charge a cheaper price if they could, but they have to make up the overhead to pay for their mal-practice insurance. Yet another insurance industry making huge profits. I don't know which scale this is but, some mal-practice insurance cost the doc 500,000 grand a year. Mostly the only people that gripe about tort reform is, you guessed it, trial lawyers.

I mean we need to do something about health care costs, the actual care is just fine, it's the cost that is the problem. My suggestion before getting the government even more involved than it already is - is to do the no cost options first, as in open up market competition by allowing people to purchase health plans across state lines, in fact it would awesome if they did this with auto insurance and home insurance also. Tort reform, make it illegal to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, and to make it illegal for the insurance companies to deny treatment to anybody.

Also change the IP laws around for drug companies so they can't hold patents for 20 years. The only thing that is going to drive prices down inline with the market and not put us in the position for the government to raise our taxes when ever they feel like by threatening health care cuts, is to for the for-profit insurance agencies out of business.

To put my opposition to government run health care clearly, I don't want to give the government another tool to use to raise our taxes by having another service to threaten to cut off or ration, and also I don't want people that are easily bought off deciding what kind of care I get.

Originally posted by RRconservative


Bush was able to push his agenda...(keeping America safe)...

Please tell me you are not that gullible.

Originally posted by RRconservative
That is why the deficit skyrocketed under Bush, and it obvious why it has quadrupled under Mr. Obama.

Where do you get this stuff? The deficit increased from just under 10 billion in 2008, to just under 13 billion in 2009. How is that quadrupled? Do you just make stuff up to support yourself all the time?

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
You have two options support a government run system that will decide what and who gets what, or support free market reform and get the government out all health care.

Lemme get this straight.

The options are:

Government mandates healthcare for everyone. Everyone gets covered. Insurance rates are kept in check because they have to compete with a subsidized government option.

Free market healthcare where only those who can afford healthcare get covered. Insurance rates continue to skyrocket due to there being absolutely no checks on the insurance companies.

What is wrong with this picture? You don't want less fortunate people to be able to see a doctor? You would rather the insurance companies decide who lives and who dies based on profit? Where does this mindset come from? How can people possibly be this heartless (and stupid) in this day and age?

reply to post by j2000


you realize the only thing the bill really does is make another insurance company right?

That seems too complicated for many to understand it seems. I can't remember this much raucous being made about a new health insurance company being formed before, so why now? Because more competition aided by the government that we elected obviously means the fall of society...

Keep in mind, I think all insurance companies are blood-suckers (my bro gets pissed at me when I say that ) but unfortunately due to the financial system they are required at this time. So if we really want to avoid this whole discussion we need to recalibrate the financial system in general, but that's an even harder task really(I'm sorry we logistically we can't go back to gold & silver and just about anything else would be labeled "socialism" by the reactionary).

reply to post by Shakesbeer


Do you really feel it takes 1,000 pages to cover 47 million more Americans(disputed number), lower premiums, lower cost, and guarantee that Americans cannot lose their health insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions or job lost?

IMO, it doesn't.