Aw, man. You took the time out to go point by point. Props to you, but it does mean I have more work to do.
my mistake, either way its still a government run program, so in the context there' s no difference
Wasn't contending anything, just clarifying. :smile:
I'd call it more than an incentive; remember back on the prostitution thread when we talked about how this is a land of freedoms, and people should have the right to their bodies, and whore themselves if they want to? And it's illegal because of self-served morals. Well its the same here. Because of your moral thoughts - that everyone should have health care, you're essentially removing people's right to abstain from health care. This is quite frankly a violation of liberty, and is in such sense against-American values.
You'll recall that in that thread I provided some devil's advocate arguments that were not based in traditional forms of morality. The problem with this line of thought is that the right to 'abstain from health care' is not an abstinence at all. When a person gets sick, they get treatment. If they can't afford the treatment, they get indigent status wherein the hospital will 'waive' the cost. But it's not as simple as 'waiving' the cost. The hospital recoups the loses by charging more on treatments that other folks pay for through higher premiums.
In short, you're not abstaining from health care, you're leeching off of others. How American is that?
...
Don't answer that. :wink:
Ummm, no. You miss the all too common group of people who don't get healthcare because it's not cost-effective. Young couples (such as my parents when my dad was still a resident and got paid relatively little) who are healthy and can afford premiums, but find it too much of a waste with their constrained budgets v.s. good health. They're not lazy, I'm pretty sure, most are very hardworking. By taxing them what kind of message are you sending?t
And you're missing the whole bit about government subsidies based on economic need. If their budget is constrained such that they would be able to afford it, but only just, there would be assistance granted. (Not paid in full, but there nonetheless.) The healthcare system needs folks like your parents when they were young and healthy. The government calls them the 'young immortals' (a silly name, I grant) because they're unlikely to actually need the treatment ergo their payments into the system and support those who need more treatment. It's not exactly fair, but it's how other entitlement programs work like Social Security and Medicare. My point is that the young folks (who are the biggest demographic of uninsured) are the ones who need to get in the most.
UK has a public option along with private insurance, er... sound familiar?
The UK is socialized medicine. Doctors are salaried government employees and hospitals are government run. It's single-payer on crack. Private insurance in the UK is supplemental insurance to the coverage you already receive. That being said, I think that was hardly your point in quoting that bit.
This is also very valid and has been shown to be true in real life too. Lasik eye surgery, is one of the few operations not covered by health-care, and guess what, it's price has been going down, because of competition; people need to pay it themselves - so they think before they spend, and firms have to work for customers. With healthcare coverage, there's no competition because consumers don't fell the burn while getting their operations, so no need to shop around. Thus I don't understand the push for "more-coverage" when it hurts us in the long-run; not making it more affordable.
That would be valid if we were talking about socialized medicine here in the US. You're not wrong here. Competition can breed great benefits. The thing is, we're not employing doctors in any of these bills and we're not going single payer, so competition would still exist.
I agree with you here, but I don't understand how the public option is supposed to alleviate this.
It doesn't. There are only two points to the public option. (Well, three now that we have the Baucus bill.) The first is that it would serve as a check on private insurance companies to make sure they're not extorting folks with ridiculous prices for crummy benefits. The second is to provide an option for folks who don't have insurance that don't want to go into a private program. (People already on private insurance can't switch because they want to. The new exchange is limited that way.) The third point these days is to make sure that healthcare reform isn't just the government giving tons of money to the healthcare industry.
Okay, but state-run medicine already adds a ton to the cost too. Secretaries for taking care of medicare/caid forms, help to the poor people who don't know how to fill out their end, the convoluted process that run it in general... Alleviating these costs may help improve the earlier problems by providing money to address it, I don't understand how adding to these costs by creating more public plans is going to help... Competition (as with lasik) will on the other hand.
Medicaid, I'll grant, has some problems. That's part of the reason the health care proposals have calls for digitalization of medical records and other disbursement improvements. To help cut down on the costs.
Medicare, on the other hand, is a lot cheaper to run. Medicare has a substantially cheaper overhead than private insurance companies. It's a myth that 'government run'
intrinsically means more expensive.
For you're compelling arguments, its called the numbers don't lie; in history numbers are concrete
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FD ... -5409.aspx
All the sources you linked are stating predictions; there's a difference.
I'm going to actually give you this one with two reservations. 1 - This is only one aspect of FDR's new deal. Creating the FDIC, CCC, and other programs were other aspects that are not addressed. 2 - It's still a hypothetical. They can not guarantee that anti-trust lawsuits would have brought the depression to an end sooner.
Not really, these cuts your talking about are mere pennies on the dollar. If you've read the budget you'd know that 40% of total spending is on health care and another 20% is on social security (which we haven't touched yet), If you don't touch these you ain't making much difference. which brings me to my next two points.
Right, but they're cuts. A million here and a million there add up to real money. And next year when TARP and the Recovery act aren't taken into account, the deficit will be lower than in the Bush years.
Really though, this little bit of an argument runs against your overall conjecture on healthcare reform. With my point of healthcare costs growing faster than GDP it illustrates that healthcare, if not reformed, will overcome the entire budget. It makes fiscal sense to reform healthcare.
I know. It's a single year's expense and as pointed out earlier, TARP will be repaid (and is), the bailouts should be repaid, and the recovery act 'should' stimulate the economy more meaning there's more tax revenue. In the end these programs will likely have been deficit neutral.
Deficit increasing arguments with healthcare reform.
Yes, it will cost money to save money. There are a lot of one time fees associated with health care reform. (Digitalization, infastructure improvements, etc.) But the point that the CBO is making is more that HR 3200's payment mechanism isn't good enough, meaning that there will need to be additional tax revenue. (Like maybe a soda tax? :wink: )
What's this supposed to mean? do you consider it devolved because not everyone is all for the public option, or because us republicans have been trying to rebut arguments for it?
Niether, but cute false dichotomy there. I was more disappointed in the lack of substantiated claims. It was kind of a 'yeah-huh' - 'nuh-uh' thing going on without actual discussion.
@ United Washcloth Express. Elsewhere I've actually done a whole bit on those exact complaints debunking them one by one. I'll copy and paste it while taking out my personal information so that I don't get creepy stalker folk.
[spoiler="Debunking the bunk on health care reform." WARNING it's long.]Late at night, I was busy playing a game and watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer (yeah, yeah... judge me all you want) when I was interrupted by a chat message. In the message, I was linked to a blog-post that was fraught with misinformation about the current health-care proposal being debated most (H.R. 3200). Perhaps it's the fact that I was interrupted from an intense game of "Bouncing Balls" that pinched a nerve, but it infuriates me that such misinformation goes floating around without clear refutation.
I refer to this blog post.
http://babasfarmlife.blogspot.com/2009/ ... -3200.html
This writer may seem to have done their homework on HR3200; afterall, they refer to specific pages in the purported behemoth of a bill. But then I did the silly thing of actually checking up on their claims, and... well... let's just say someone is being slightly less than honest in their portrayal of the legislation at hand. So because I have far too much time on my hands, I'm going to go on a frenzy debunking the myths that this post brings. Each and every one.
... I need a life.
Anyway, without further ado or gilding the lily, let the healthcare ownage commence.
The 48 Rebuttals
One-----
Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
Actually page 22 says nothing of audits. It mandates that a health commissioner (with the help of the Secretary of Labor and Secretary of Health and Human Services) compiles a report on the various practices that employers use with providing coverage. It goes on to say that this report will be submitted to Congress for advisement purposes. Nothing about mandates here. Just advice.
Two-----
Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
What? No. Page 29 talks about "Annual Limitation"s. These annual limitations are limitations that an individual or family can pay into an employer based cost-sharing plan. In other words, it's saying that if an employer is going to provide coverage through cost-sharing, they can't abuse their employees by having them pay a ridiculous portion for minimal coverage. That's not rationing.
Three-----
Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
Um, no... no it really doesn't say this. Page 30 says that there will be a health advisory committee created that will provide recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Recommendations, not decisions.
Four-----
Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
Why does this person hate me? Page 42 doesn't say that the commissioner will decide our health benefits. Rather it says that they will function as a watchdog for abuse, decide the standard for benefits, operate the new health care exchange, and administer the affordability credits. In the new health exchange market, assuming you qualify, you will have plenty of choice. For everyone else (those being people who have health insurance already), this doesn't change anything for you.
Five-----
Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
Doesn't say anything about non-us citizens, illegals, or free healthcare service.
Six-----
Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
At this point, I'm going to say this person has been engaging in a disinformation campaign. In otherwords, they're lying. Page 58 doesn't say that everyone will get a National ID healthcard. (Not that I think this would be a bad thing, but it's simply not there.)
It DOES however say that in order to get the person's "financial liability at point of service" (AKA co-pay), it may be a good idea to have your health-plan card (You know, those little plastic cards y'all have already which says what insurance plan you are on? You may have mistaken this for your Costco card at one time or another. I know my mother has.) be machine readable. That way you wouldn't have to look up the co-pay in a database, it would just tell you by swiping your card. Saving time and effort sure is evil, isn't it?
Seven-----
Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
The bill does talk about automatic electronic fund transfers. You know how you can pay your copay with a credit-card? Yeah, that's what this is saying you'll be allowed to do. Nothing about the government accessing your private bank accounts.
Eight-----
Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
This is a slightly more complex one for me to clarify. In my defense, I'm a 19 year old townie. But page 65 does talk about the reimbursement of employee retirement plans for those who are eligible for subsidized care (i.e. the new market exchange). In other words, if an employer cannot financially cover the health insurance of its retirees (those being folks over 55, not eligible for social security, and on the employment plan) they will re-imburse up to 80% of the cost. It does not, however, say that it will cover organizer health plans like ACORN. It only takes care of the elderly who were relying on their former employer to cover them.
But taking care of the elderly is an evil, despicable thing, right? How dare Democrats have the audacity to take care of Grandma... Kind of strange, considering we were being accused otherwise.
Nine-----
Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
Holy crap! They're actually right on this one! For some reason, the government wants to make sure that private companies don't abuse the uninsured in the status quo, so they want oversight of the new market. Silly government trying to make sure we don't get screwed over, who do they think they are? The lawmakers or something?... Wait.
Ten-----
Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
Um... No. It doesn't say that at all. It says that insurance companies are allowed to have basic plans, premium plans, a premium plus plan, etc. Its purpose is to limit how many plans a single entity can put into the market. My guess is the purpose is to make it easier to choose a plan that best fits you. Instead of being swamped with 50 plans from a company, you can choose from four from that company, or four from a different, or the public option, etc.
Eleven-----
Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
Nope. Your translation is wrong, good sir/madame! It does say that health institutions need to accommodate other languages and cultures. It's a good idea to have forms in your native tongue so that you can increase the accuracy in your care and diagnosis. If there's a high concentration of German speakers in the area, you'll need forms in German. Same goes for Korean, Japanese, or yes, even Spanish. It seems to me that there is still a problem with this system though. If people refuse to read the bill to get their facts straight, how can they be expected to read their medical forms?
Twelve-----
Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
I WISH this was true. Since I'm considering doing work for Americorps, it would be groovey to get some extra dough by helping people get covered with insurance. Unfortunately, the bill doesn't say this. It DOES say that there will be people trying to inform the vulnerable about the new market. (With both a government run health care plan AND private plans) But it doesn't say they will pay specific organizations any more to do so.
Thirteen-----
Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
This is actually true. But this is also necessary for other things like getting rid of pre-existing condition. When you take into account that private insurers have said the only way they'll get rid of pre-existing conditions is by covering everyone, it helps when people are well... covered. It saves money for the overall health-care system by taking off some of the burden on private insurance companies. (Indigents have to be paid for by someone.)
Fourteen-----
Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
This one is actually true in so far as folks can't call for judicial review on payment rates. That being said, this isn't a guarantee that private insurers will be crushed. Why? Because this is a limitation on the establishment of payment rates and methods. You can contest them later.
Fifteen-----
Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
This is saying that the government will pay the doctors for the public option. It's exactly like with private health insurance companies when they pay the doctor, the government will do the same thing with the public option.
Sixteen-----
Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
This is just outright lying. It doesn't specify that they must enroll their employees in the government run plan. That's bull. This is the pay or play provision, saying that an employer must pay for their employee's health insurance (whether private or public. But only public if they qualify) or they have to pay a fee that will be used to help cover their employees. Small businesses are exempt from this provision and will receive subsidies to cover the burden. So for those of you who want to say this will make us lose jobs, it's already been covered.
Seventeen-----
Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
Doesn't say that (naturally), but I imagine this is another complaint on pay or play, which I covered above.
Eighteen-----
Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll
Doesn't need to be the public option, it's if they aren't providing insurance at all. It's more pay or play. Oh, and there's a typo in the bill here. They said Generak. Hehehe... Generak.
Nineteen and Twenty-----
Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll
* Page 167: Any individual who doesnt' have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
The first is just more pay or play, but it illustrates that the smaller your business, the less punitive action there is. The second is a necessary component for getting rid of Pre-Existing Conditions. Those who refuse to get coverage cost the system a bundle. So they need to pay somehow to alleviate the burden.
Twenty-One-----
Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).
They actually quoted the bill here, so I can't really say the bill doesn't say that(With the exception of their parenthetical). I will, however, point something else out by quoting the bill myself. "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." In other words, while non-resident aliens won't have to pay the 2.5% tax, they don't receive any subsidies from the government. Besides, you can't really collect 2.5% income tax on non-Resident aliens in so far as they don't file income taxes. (Unless it's an ITIN.)
Twenty-Two-----
Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
Financial records, yes. Personal records, no. The reason for financial records? To see if you qualify for the new health exchange and more importantly, whether you need affordability credits to buy insurance. (Subsidies.)
Twenty-Three-----
Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that.
Except it doesn't. Some have called me a grammar-nazi, but sometimes you need to be nitpicky. Particularly when you're a lying liar who lies to people. The sentence goes on, there wasn't a period at the end.
It says in full, "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55."
They truncated the sentence. Now this might not seem to make much sense because this sentence was taken out of context. It's saying that the tax they were talking about won't be imposed on charities.
Twenty-Four-----
Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected.
Page 239 doesn't talk about Medicaid at all. I'll admit that this section is fairly muddled in legalese, but by and large, the bill is pretty straightforward. I think people who say the bill is too big and difficult are just whiners. But what does 239 do?
It modifies 42 U.S.C. 1395w–4(d)(4) (Payment for physician's services) to update the formulas for physician expenditures to 2009 standards.
Twenty-Five----
Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)
The bill says that regardless of one's specialty, you're going to need to aim for preventative health care. It says nothing about the wages of different specialists, it's just further modification of 42 U.S.C. 1395w.
Twenty-Six-----
Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc.
No, the commissioner doesn't set the value, it reviews the value that doctors set for themselves.
Twenty-Seven-----
Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.
Mandates and controls? No, the exact wording is "Incorporating productivity improvements into market basket updates that do not already incorporate such improvements." Now, market basket isn't that delightful chain of grocery stores.
What it REALLY is doing in this section is adjusting the U.S. code, making ambulance services, labs, and other things more compliant with 2009. These things already exist in the code, there is no new mandate on private healthcare industries.
Twenty-Eight-----
Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.
This isn't new, it's already in the lawbooks. Specifically, 42 U.S.C. 1395m(a)(7)(A)(iii).
What it does is change "power-driven wheelchair" to "complex rehabilitative power-driven wheel
chair recognized by the Secretary as classified within group 3 or higher’’.
Um... yeah, that's actually a less than intuitive change, I'll grant that. But the government already 'regulated' those rental and purchases. Haven't y'all seen those Jazzy commercials where they say if you can't afford your power chair, medicare may be able to pay for it all? That's what this is. An adjustment to that.
Twenty-Nine------
Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!
Page 272 does talk about cancer. But what it's really saying is that the commissioner will be able to conduct a study to compare the different costs of cancer treatment at different hospitals. The commissioner would then have the power to lower the cost to hospitals giving the same treatment, but it's more expensive. In other words, this helps make cancer treatment more affordable to hospitals, regardless of where it's at.
Thirty------
Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.
This is true. Although it should be noted that the person that deems it a preventable re-admission would be a healthcare panel with non-federal employees (i.e. not the government.) The point of this provision is that doctors should be incentivized to treating you correctly the first time you visit. The way the reform would do this is by giving a slightly higher reimbursement to practitioners for the first visit, but if you have the same problem due to the doctor's negligence, they won't be reimbursed as well the second time. Our current system does nothing to help insure that doctors do the job correctly the first time. Although there isn't tort reform in this reform package (something I would like to see in the future), this could theoretically bring down malpractice law suits because it would, in theory, deter the doctor from goofing up the first time.
Thirty-One------
Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.
See above, though I will say that the patient needs to be returning for the same problem. That's why the 'admission results in a readmission' is critical.
Thirty-Two-------
Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!
Since when are hospitals healthcare companies? What this is trying to do is limit the incestuous nature of healthcare by saying that a doctor can't profit off of a referral to their own hospital as much in rural areas. The idea is that by limiting (not prohibiting) how much you can make from self-referrals, it will encourage you to send the patient to the best place possible for healthcare, not your pocketbook. (Doctors can still own hospitals/healthcare companies. They just can't profit as much from self-referral.)
Thirty-Three-------
Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.
Actually, Page 318 says that doctors can't be preferred investors into hospitals over other investors. It's another attempt at cutting back on the incestuous way that the healthcare industry makes money. Expansion limitations do come into play a little bit later, specifically number Thirty-Four which I do refute.
Thirty-Four-------
Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.
My head has become thoroughly acquainted with my desk after all of these. The bill doesn't do that. Page 321 says that a community will have an opportunity to give input on whether or not a hospital gets an expansion. I mean, if you don't want people to have a say on whether a hospital gets to tear down a park for expansion, that's your prerogative. But don't pretend this is a payoff for ACORN.
Thirty-Five------
Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.
No, what it says is by 2013, the Secretary will get to demand reports on the quality of care received by Medicare Advantage plans.
Thirty-Six------
Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
... Yeesh.
It doesn't say anything about HMOs. It does say that if folks are getting better healthcare with plain medicare, then the secretary shall have the power to stop sending money to medicare advantage plans because they aren't any better and are just an extra cost.
Thirty-Seven--------
Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.
I was particularly interested in looking at this one because this was what Palin used for her contention that her child would lose health-care. I can safely say that this bill does NOT restrict special needs coverage.
The bill commissions a report from the HHS Secretary that does an analysis on the "impact of such plans on cost, quality of care, patient satisfaction and other subjects as defined by the secretary." Page 354 calls for a fact-finding mission to see if changes need to be made for special needs care for the better and what options can be taken.
Thirty-Eight-------
Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).
This isn't new. It already exists in law, this is just a modification to add "a renal dialysis facility" clause to the previous law.
Thirty-Nine--------
Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?
Ah, the infamous death-panel claim. Do I really need to say that it's complete hogwash?
The bill stipulates that a person can receive end of life consultation. They will be informed about living wills, health care proxies, and other things that could be critical. There's nothing about assisted suicide or euthanasia. There is no euthanasia, assisted-suicide, death panels or anything of the sort there.
Forty-------
Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.
Aw, the person was so close to telling the truth until they threw in the "Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time." It's not a mandatory consultation, nor is the consultant's reccomendation binding. It's up to you.
Forty-One------
Page 425: Goverment provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
No... It doesn't say that. This is pointless fear mongering. This is about giving consultation for end of life care. Living wills, health-care proxies, etc. It's about helping you live well in your later years, not 'guiding you in death.'
Forty-Two-----
*Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.
Since when is 'life-sustaining treatment' synonymous with the government dictating how you'll die? What's more, it is still your choice whether you receive this care being as it's a consultation.
Forty-Three------
Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
<Gasp!> An order from the government? Wait, no... it's an ORDER from the GOVERNMENT! Gotta have the capitalization, because as we all know, capitalization enhances the truth of your claim due to truth by assertion.
Except it's not true.
Page 429 does talk about the End of Life consultant being able to order your doctor to treat you. But it says other things. What it's saying is that if your health turns for the worse, you can get more consultations. If in the consultation, you decide you want life-sustaining treatment, the consultant can order the doctor to give it to you. But the key point is that it's your choice. The consultant doesn't decide what care you'll receive, you would.
Page 430 describes the order that the consultant can give. It says the order "effectively communicates the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;". This isn't the government 'pulling the plug on granny.' It's about empowering you to make decisions on how you want to be treated.
Forty-Four-----
Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
What a coincidence, I was just talking about page 430 in the last refutation! Page 430 does talk about what treatments can be approved in this order. But there are a couple things to note. Remember that bit I quoted in the last answer about the order being the patient's preferences? Yeah, the government isn't deciding what treatments you'll get.
As far as the level of treatments, it lists some of the basic things your doctor can be directed to give you like antibiotics and other end of life care. But there is a key phrase in "Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items—"
Among other items. This isn't the end all be all, if you need care, the odds are you can get it.
Forty-Five-------
Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.
Um... no it's not. Because you'll notice that the first qualification for the non-profit to be a Community-based home medical service, they need to " [provide] beneficiaries with medical home services." ACORN doesn't do this. They do GOTV campaigns, voter registration (which I'll admit they botched), and housing rights advocacy. Nothing about health care. Just because they bill says community doesn't mean it's for ACORN.
Forty-Six-----
Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.
This is for the community-based home medical services. Yet again, ACORN isn't one, ergo it doesn't pay them off. This is outright disinformation.
Forty-Seven------
Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage!
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Okay, that one is awesome. I mean, seriously?
First off, the real language regarding that in the bill doesn't start until page 490. And what it says is that if you want to go to a certified marriage or family therapist with the purpose of diagnosing a possible mental illness and your insurance company won't pick up the tab, the government will pay for it. They're not intervening in your marriage, they're helping pay for services to make families stronger. I find it hilarious that Mitt Romney claimed the Republican tenets are "Strong economy, strong families, and strong military." (Which are pointless buzzword that sound good but mean nothing except to paint democrats like me as anti-american, but that's a different debate.) But when it comes time to help empower families and make them stronger, folks scream that it's a government intervention into the family. This is classic.
Forty-Eight
Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.
This doesn't define, create, or ration the services. Rather it says that if you want to go to a certified therapist, you will be covered for your visit. The only limitation is that you have to go to a certified therapist. No rationing.
In Conclusion
If you have an ideological opposition to healthcare reform, that's one thing. If you truly believe that the government messes everything up and fear what would happen if they were to enter health care, that's your prerogative. I'll just say that I'm glad to see you support the troops, firefighters, police, and like your roads.
What I'm tired of seeing is the spread of misinformation and disinformation. It's not hard to check up on the facts and see whether or not what's being said by the talking heads is true. Stop being parrots repeating everything you hear. I encourage all of you to check up on things if they sound fishy, whether good or bad. In fact, I'm no better than the talking heads on the radio or TV. Make sure that I'm telling the truth.[/spoiler]
(The specific grievances UWC posted are numbers 16-23 if y'all don't want to read every refutation.)
