FACT CHECK: Health overhaul myths taking root

reply to post by jam321


And you're saying this from experience of having written an health care reform act that was actually going to go before congress & the senate for approval?

I know I have no idea of how long a document of that nature should be. But judging by how fearful everyone is reacting, I'm sure it would require quiet a bit of elaboration to avoid pointless discussions. Such as concepts like death panels....but I guess it may have needed to be another 100 pages longer or something to have avoid that one.

reply to post by Shakesbeer


anybody not in depth involved with the government and copy-pasting what everyone is saying amongst those news channels. I really don't think there are a whole lot of media left.


But basically, they are debunking myths of a bill that's not even finished yet. So how exactly can they do that without an actual version of the bill.

reply to post by Gorman91


So do you know something about associate press writer Calvin Woodward that would be pertinent to your previously stated opinion on fact check sources?

reply to post by Shakesbeer

And you're saying this from experience of having written an health care reform act that was actually going to go before congress & the senate for approval?

No, just common sense. But a 1,000 page bill makes it clear that common sense no longer exists in Congress. They have the power to regulate any industry in the US, but choose not to.


Flag for your thread. Very Civil.

reply to post by drwizardphd

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

No, all private insurance companies get run out of business because the government is not a fair competitor. They can operate at a loss indefinitely because they can print and tax themselves more money.

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.

Everybody gets health care now, from the most poor without insurance to the richest people that can afford not to have health insurance. The reason for increasing rates is because the government is already involved in the health care industry. The government has legislated our problems into existence, now the same people that legislated these problems now want to "fix" them by controlling the health care industry.

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?

As I stated above, the less fortunate are able to see a doctor, and you also didn't read all of what I posted.

What is wrong with this picture is that people don't understand where the problems have arisen from. You can't fix the problem unless you know what caused the problems in the first place.

Before medicare, medicaid, and the HMO Act came along our health care costs were right inline with the rest of the world. The difference is the government legislated corporate thuggery into existence by allowing insurance companies to bully doctors into participating in HMO's, and also mandating that doctors that charge the same price for a treatment for everybody if they accept medicaid and medicare patients.

Until people know the facts, part of which I have outlined in this post, then the problems will not be solved.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]

reply to post by jam321


There are a lot of points that have to be covered in a move like this, it really doesn't surprise me that it would be a fairly long document.

For those interested here's the text of the Bill : HR3200

reply to post by Shakesbeer


The Associated Press is like a superpower amongst news agencies. They are neutral, however this reporter seems ignorant.

When you create a council payed by the government to advice elderly on what to do with the ends of their lives, there is nothing that says they won't take advantage of that. Nothing there that prevents them from setting up a dieing old person from being taken advantage of for the government's gain. Nothing there to prevent a will from being written from the government so as to give over something that she doesn't realize. Not to mention government seeks the lowest common denominator, trying to do the least for the most gain.

That's the truth.

Also consider that this government historically goes behind people's backs when they don't support something. They just add it in another bill. Good 'ol pork.


All in all, the reporter doesn't understand this.

reply to post by Gorman91


He "Doesn't understand this" based on what observations or direct interaction?

How do you know the polices that where in place where made to take advantage of elderly? Who's to say it's only elderly who where going to be getting the End of life counseling?

reply to post by Shakesbeer


No policy goes without abuse. No government agency is corruption free. Bureaucratic agencies often have lots of corruption. When this invades health care, we have a problem.

Simple and straightforward payments to the doctor on a single payer system promotes control of the situation into the hands of doctor and patient. Not bureaucrats, not companies. Just check once a year for corruption by the doctors taking out money for themselves.

Anything else is a method for control of society.

I agree with Gorman


What I'd like t see in the bill is this:

If you refuse preventative medical, dental and/or optical care in which a health condition would have been diagnosed, then subsequent care of said health condition is not covered.

If you are diagnosed with a health condition from your routine examinations that could be treated or controlled and refuse that care, then subsequent care of said health condition is not covered.

Yeah. I know. It's all subjective and another slippery slope. But the point is, people need to get routine health care because prevention of disease is much easier and cost effective than treating or trying to cure a disease once it manifests.

I know people with great medical/dental/optical insurance who do not get routine dental exams & cleanings. However, when they get a toothache or have difficulty with their gums, THEN they go in and get a root canal (or two). What would have been more cost efficient and less painful? Getting a routine cleaning every 3 - 6 months.

IF we're going to have a govt option; then to be cost effective, beneficial to the insurers and fair to all of us, it needs to focus on preventative care. Not just "By the way, you've had this chronic illness 5 years now. Have you made a living will and assigned a POA?"

[edit on 8/20/2009 by Nivcharah]

Something people don't seem to grasp is that this is a slippery slope. Once you start down it it becomes harder to get back up it.

Here's the deal. All of the important talking points that have been brought up are real. They aren't made up. They exist in the bill. Pages 425-430 have the death panel stuff. Can it be interpreted that way? Yes, it can. Is that what it means? No, but it can STILL be interpreted that way. This means that a corrupt official can guide the hand of his employees to do various things that might not be in the best interest of the person or the family.

The reality is that this death panel stuff is really just something doctors do every day. They talk to their patients about all sorts of things before going through with a major surgery.

The problem with including this in the bill, though, is that it regulates these talks. That's not something I want. That's not something you should want. That's not anything anybody should want.

Even further, the argument that "Insurance agencies already do this" is bogus. It doesn't solve the problem. You're sidestepping the issue. It doesn't matter if they already do it, it's an unacceptable behavior. Just because Johnny punches Susan doesn't mean it's O.K. for you to do the same.

The reality of this is shocking. Everyone seems to sidestep the actual issues. The issues are insurance agencies and pharmacuetical companies running together in fields, hand in hand.

Pharmacuetical companies know that they can make more money by pimping their stuff out to insurance companies and those insurance companies know they can make more money by raising the costs of the goods that the person buys as they typically make a %'ge of the money spent anyway.

The problem isn't health care. The problem is everything related to it. Rushing in to the problem blindly in a mad dash to get this passed isn't going to solve any problems. Take it one step at a time. Lets start with Tort reform and then work our way down.

I think people are hiding in the sand because reality is too sickening to accept and look at. Obama has said that his own grandmother should not have had a hip replacemnt when her hip broke but just be sedated as it was a waste of resources. That to my mind shows some large degree of psycopathic non feeling on his part.
Old people are killed all the time. The medical staff decide who lives and who dies.

Research has shown that 16.5 percent of all deaths in the UK are associated with continuous deep sedation until death, a number twice that of Belgium and the Netherlands, both countries that already have legalised direct euthanasia.

This is something Obama wants and it is included in the proposed reform whether it is directly said or not...and you won't be able to do a thing about it.

"It's important to make the distinction," Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews.com, "between what we do with someone who is nearing death and someone who is in pain but not dying." In some cases, he said, patients who are not dying but may be suffering are put into deep sedation, and then dehydrated to death - a use that is always unethical.

However, "if your patient is nearing death and is experiencing organ failure, you really can't be putting food and fluid into a body that can't use the fluids. When the body is shutting down, this is a natural part of the dying process. But when they're not dying, like Terri Schiavo, or someone who is experiencing great pain associated with cancer, that is a different issue, because then we are talking about causing that person's death.

"[Deep sedation] can be a backdoor route to euthanasia if it is used unethically," he said. "The issue is intention. The intention must be the alleviation of pain and suffering. Even a long-term sedation can be ethical as long as the person is not being dehydrated to death. A good palliative care physician won't use the technique very often."

www.lifesitenews.com...

Obama is expressly stating that the elderly are a drain on society and treatment should be given to those younger.

www.wnd.com...

"Make no mistake: the cost of our health care is a threat to our economy…," Obama told the American Medical Association in Chicago June 15.

"Older, sicker societies pay more on health care than younger, healthier ones," Obama told the AMA.

Now apart from other things he has said, it would not take a genius to see what he is really saying there.

In Europe, governments already ration health care, just as Obama plans to do here. The older and sicker people are, the less care they get.

In England, for example, bureaucrats determine a patient's eligibility for health care using the QALY system (quality-adjusted life years). They divide the cost of treatment by the number of "quality" years the patient is expected to live. Older, sicker patients are expected to live fewer "quality" years, so why bother treating them at all? On this basis, British elders are routinely denied treatment for cancer, heart disease and other deadly illnesses.

Many die in filthy, overcrowded hospitals or nursing homes, rife with pestilence, including the deadly, antibiotic-resistant "superbugs" Clostridium difficile and MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus). Each year in the U.K., nearly three times more people die from hospital infections than from traffic accidents.

That is not fantasy, that is the truth.

In the nation where Florence Nightingale invented modern nursing 150 years ago, cleanliness has become a lost art. British newspapers reported in 2007 that patients in government hospitals were told to "go in their beds" when they had diarrhea.

In March 2009, British health inspectors reported that poor treatment at one hospital may have killed up to 1,200 people in three years. That's 1,200 people at just one hospital.

Denied food, water and medicine, patients at Stafford Hospital in Staffordshire were left screaming in agony, drinking from flowerpots and lying helpless in their own waste. Many waited for operations which were repeatedly postponed.

British officials were quick to label the Stafford horror an "isolated incident." But many health care professionals in England say it is typical. Unfortunately, dissenters have little voice in Britain's National Health Service. The system is notoriously hostile to whistleblowers.

Take Margaret Haywood, for instance, a nurse of 20 years, who went undercover for the BBC, filming abuse and neglect of elderly patients at Royal Sussex Hospital. In April 2009, British health authorities punished Haywood for going to the press, banning her from practicing nursing. If she had complaints, they told her, she should have made them through proper channels.

In nursing homes where the elderly are often pushed out to from the hospitals, elderly abuse is so common it hardly raises an eyebrow any more.

Originally posted by oneclickaway
I think people are hiding in the sand because reality is too sickening to accept and look at. Obama has said that his own grandmother should not have had a hip replacemnt when her hip broke but just be sedated as it was a waste of resources.

Do you have a source with a direct quote of him saying this? I have seen him saying the exact opposite of this actually.

2nd all of your other points are once again pure speculation; just like this whole "slippery slope" stuff. How often do we hear that? It seems like more often then not it's a tool to propagate more fear against any given initiative more then an accurate observation.

Kind of like the statement above about any program being open to abuse, so does that mean we should have no programs to help people then?

Because obviously private business and interests have done the country a great service so far huh?

[edit on 20-8-2009 by Shakesbeer]

reply to post by Shakesbeer


‘‘(FF) advance care planning consultation (as
2 defined in subsection (hhh)(1));’’; and
3 (B) by adding at the end the following new
4 subsection:
5 ‘‘Advance Care Planning Consultation
6 ‘‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the
7 term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a con
8 sultation between the individual and a practitioner de
9 scribed in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning,
10 if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has
11 not had such a consultation within the last 5 years.

These are not new tactics **yawn** the democrats used them quite effectively against McCain, Palin and the Republicans in general during the last election.

Think not?

How many of you still believe Palin actually said "I can see Russia from my house"?

And that's just one example ...

So, now even if it's true that opponents of obamacare are doing the same, it's suddenly bad?

Deny hypocrisy ...

Originally posted by Shakesbeer

Kind of like the statement above about any program being open to abuse, so does that mean we should have no programs to help people then?

Because obviously private business and interests have done the country a great service so far huh?

[edit on 20-8-2009 by Shakesbeer]

I think almost everyone on both sides will agree that healthcare could use some kind of reform.

However, a bad reform bill is NOT better than no reform at all.

And all we've seen so far are bad reform bills as part of the obamacare proposals.

The other thing we've all seen so far is a bunch of members that feel the need (for "some" reason) to shill for obama and his healthcare bills. You can easily spot them. They post about how there is no single payer option, or requirement to discuss end of life, etc., etc., even though the exact locations and text of those items in the bills has been posted ad nauseum.

IMO, this thread is no different.




[edit on 8/20/2009 by centurion1211]

reply to post by centurion1211


So why is this bill "bad" in your opinion? What would be a satisfactory alternative?

All I see once again is rhetoric and rewrites of history to suit anyone's given opinion and agenda. It's amazing how people deny things that have had written statements & sound/video clips of statements made by politicians, only to be rebuffed with interpretation & implication not direct observation...meanwhile, no solutions are being brought up, just bickering for the sake of bickering.

So blame yourselves, not the thread, not Obama, not Palin, not the Dems, not the Reps: We're the ones dealing with effects of crappy health care in the country on top of everything else, they aren't.

Shill - 1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.

2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

I am neither of the above, once again pure speculation & rhetoric. And if you're going to try to insult someone, make sure you're accurate.


[edit on 20-8-2009 by Shakesbeer]

reply to post by Shakesbeer


Does this new plan make it easier to get a DR? I am on medicare and medicaid and I can't find a DR.

reply to post by dreamseeker


I can't honestly tell if it would or not, but theoretically it should open up more options.

There seems to be a misconception that this will "fix" everything but it won't like many here have voiced. But it will create more avenues for people who can't afford private insurance to get the care they need. As opposed to "pay us all you got so you can live, maybe" attitude that is dominating the industry right now. Dennis Kucinich talked about medical bankruptcies in Canada with it's scary "socialist" health care system which is almost non-existent & how many insured Americans go without needed care due to high insurance costs (which is 1 in 4):



There was a study posted in the August 2009 issue of the American Journal of Medicine that stated 60% of the bankruptcies in 2007 where due to cost of medical care.

Originally posted by Shakesbeer
reply to post by centurion1211

 

So why is this bill "bad" in your opinion? What would be a satisfactory alternative?

All I see once again is rhetoric and rewrites of history to suit anyone's given opinion and agenda. It's amazing how people deny things that have had written statements & sound/video clips of statements made by politicians, only to be rebuffed with interpretation & implication not direct observation...meanwhile, no solutions are being brought up, just bickering for the sake of bickering.

So blame yourselves, not the thread, not Obama, not Palin, not the Dems, not the Reps: We're the ones dealing with effects of crappy health care in the country on top of everything else, they aren't.

Shill - 1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.

2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

I am neither of the above, once again pure speculation & rhetoric. And if you're going to try to insult someone, make sure you're accurate.


[edit on 20-8-2009 by Shakesbeer]

Sorry.

The "why" I think these are bad bills has been posted many times on other threads that are difficult to distinguish from this one. I'll ask you to do the research, perhaps, instead of starting what appears to be just another thread using the old tactic of say a lie often enough and people will eventually accept it as truth. The democrats are masters of this tactic.

I'm placing my bets on #2 above. I guess you can't prove you're not. But then why else would someone waste their time posting "facts" contrary to what everyone else can see with their own eyes is in these bills. Has to be "some" reason ...

The real fact in evidence here is that a bad bill is NOT better than no bill.

[edit on 8/20/2009 by centurion1211]