Activism Discussion: Healthcare Scare Tactics Are Deja Vu All Over Again

Healthcare Scare Tactics Are Deja Vu All Over Again
Posts: 7

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

EconomicDemocracy Coop
2009-09-02 17:02:05 EST
When Medicare Was Defeated (Again and Again)
By David Leonhardt

Anyone interested in the history of health reform may enjoy this essay
by Larry DeWitt, public historian at the Social Security
Administration. It’s one of the sources for my column in Wednesday’s
paper.

In the column, I focused on the origins of Medicare as a incremental
measure, after Harry Truman’s plans for universal coverage failed. But
among other good details, the essay also includes a 1960s cameo by
Ronald Reagan:

The [American Medical Association's] campaign against Medicare
also marked the beginning of the political career of another rising
force in American politics — Ronald Reagan. Most conventional
histories of Reagan’s political career date his emergence as a
political figure from his nominating speech on behalf of Barry
Goldwater at the 1964 Republican Convention. But in 1963 Reagan was
the A.M.A.’s spokesman for their campaign against Medicare. The
A.M.A., in what was called Operation Coffee Cup, organized thousands
of small meetings in homes all across the land, hosted by the wives of
A.M.A. physicians. At these informal “coffees” the women would
organize local efforts against the pending Medicare legislation. This
would include letter-writing campaigns to members of Congress,
petition drives, networking with other civic groups and the like. The
central event of each meeting was the playing of a recording made of
Reagan presenting a short, dramatic, speech against the evils of
Medicare. Reagan played the socialized medicine theme to the hilt,
suggesting that the idea of government-sponsored medical insurance was
little short of the entering wedge of socialist domination of America.
His concluding appeal is typical of his sales pitch:

“… behind it will come other federal programs that will invade
every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. Until one
day, as Norman Thomas said, we will awake to find that we have
socialism. And if you don’t do this and if I don’t do it, one of these
days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our
children and our children’s children what it once was like in America
when men were free.”

A hat-tip to Ed Kilgore, whose “Ghost of L.B.J.” essay pointed me
toward Mr. DeWitt. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/when-medicare-was-defeated-again-and-again/#comment-75661

COMMENTS: Of course, the reason they’ll have those sunset years is
because of Medicare. -Quill

---

The social security website contains historical discussions and data
on Medicare that give insight into its birth.

In the late 1940s, Truman proposed universal health, but backed off
and proposed health insurance for social security recipients, to a
congress that was majority Republican. The health insurance industry
promised that it could and would handle the issue of healtn care for
the elderly.

Private industry did such a good job that by 1964 about 50% of seniors
had health isurance, and a full 50%
of these had insurance considered adequate to the task. In sum, only
25% of seniors had adequate insurance a generation after the private
sector pledged to take care of the issue.

So the industry didn’t live up to its promise. And government did what
it had to do. Medicare passed.

In 1993 Clinton proposed universal health care, when there were about
35 million uninsured. The industry said it would do the job,

and has done so well that now there are 47 million uninsured.

Any questions, folks? -Paul '52

-------------

*Patriotic music and a quasi-RNC logo*
*White screen w/ a white board a la UPS commercials, stereotypical
Republican walks out*

- Some people in Washington say they’re trying to reform health care.
Republicans have a better idea. Right now, Republicans in Congress are
protecting the health care you have now by standing tall against any
changes to try and “help” Americans. Our plan is different. Here it
is:
* No coverage for pre-existing conditions (if you don’t know you have
any, we’ll find them for you)
* Lose your job, lose your health care (and good luck finding a job
with the same benefits)
* Higher and higher costs (pay 3 dollars out of every 10 you earn to
your insurer by 2020)
* Add trillions to the national debt (because if you can’t afford your
care, China can! And who cares if we can’t pay for Medicare anymore?)

- The Republican Party knows how much you love to pay more for health
care in America than in any other country in the world. We know
there’s nothing wrong with health care in America, know that insurance
companies are working for you, and know that the best thing to do is
to make sure nothing gets done in Washington. Call your Republican
representative and thank them for standing up for the status quo! -
Trop

---


Today under CorporateCare, we have RATIONING.

Rationing by ability to pay. But not only that, also rationing by
saying “tough luck, pal” to those who have a family cancer history or
other problem.

Today we have WAITING LISTS.

How long do you think the 46,000,000 Americans without any health
insurance have to wait? Wait! It doesn’t stop there: add all those
Americans with “pre-existing conditions” (that silly made up word
which as one cartoonist
put it, means you have an EXISTING condition with a “pre” placed in
front of it) Sorry, you have to WAIT before you can get care…often for
many MONTHS.

Wait! Don’t stop there..add in those Americans who need some bean-
counting corporate bureaucrat (not a medical professional) to “Pre-
Approve” some procedure that the doctors and medical experts have
approved, but no, that’s good not enough, the parasitic for-profit
corporate middleman has to make sure his “Take” is not too small…

So take those 46,000,000 Americans without health insurance who need
to WAIT…add all your WAITING for those of us who are insured but have
“pre-existing conditoins” ….add those who have to WAIT for Pre-
Approval….and that’s just the beginning…not to mention all the WAITS
to get re-imbursed, with warning letters that basically say, “Yes,
technically, you should have the entire $5,000 covered by your
insurance but we’re still looking into it..” then a month or two or
three months later, if you’re lucky “We have now processed this and we
will cover $1500 and we are still looking into the other 3500 which
you are responsible for if we end up deciding we’re not gonna pay it”
and on and on and on..It’s happened to me and others I know..if you’re
lucky you get the expenses covered that they’re supposed to cover,
after 2 or 6 or 12 or more months of nail biting WAITING

We have DEATH PANELS but they are Corporate Death Panels( see “Death
by HMO: C Edwards” on you tube,
at v=C3so7EdKpCY or see another at v=Efq3ykIeYeQ or a third at ?
v=aUGep9nLU9k

Big Brother healthcare is here, and it’s un-elected Corporate Big
Brother….Unfortunately, Obama is not proposing what the rest of the
rich nations of the world have in some variation or another (single
payer; see healthcare-now.org) but even the small restrictions on the
above abusive practices that corporate”care” subjects Americans too,
is “too much”

We’re told to be afraid of regulations that restrict corporate abuse
(not us) and told to fear regulation by our elected rep (but not to
fear the abusese by un-elected bean-counters coming between us and our
doctors)

Meanwhile we spend as much on militarism as the rest of the world -
enemies and allies put together - combined..add up Pentagon to hidden
military (military parts of NASA, research etc) and you get 700
billion per Year…but 10% cut to pay for 70billion or even 5% cut of
that to get 35 billion for our children and fellow citizens health we
“can’t afford”? What a joke. Cut the bloat in militarism and in over-
priced monopoly-pharmaceuticals and forprofit health “care” and our
country can join the civilized world…sorry folks, England and Japan
and Australia and Taiwan are not what sane people think of as
“socialist countries” yet they have single payer universal care..how
many more years of scare tactics before we do too? -ED

====


Robert Of St Louis
2009-09-02 17:09:48 EST
I worked for a managed care company and I can tell you straight out
they bullishly are trained to refuse you care. Case managers are
rewarded and punished on how many cases they approve of and how many
they refused to pay for. I saw M.Ds. treated like dog shit ,because
they would not play the game. And this is what the Party of No
cherishs and wants to maintain? If you went to the wrong hospital or
the best doctor you were refused care. You were only allowed to use
the doctors/hospitals in their system, which usually were in on the
game to cut costs to profit, not give the best care.

Lorad
2009-09-02 18:48:21 EST
On Sep 2, 2:02 pm, EconomicDemocracy Coop <econdemocr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> When Medicare Was Defeated (Again and Again)

According to NPR this morning...

The Health Insurance Industry has spent $750 MILLION dollars in their
most recent PR attempt to defeat Obama's healthcare reform
program ! ! !

Anybody care to say that there are not excess profits in the US
healthcare insurance system?


EconomicDemocracy Coop
2009-09-03 15:19:38 EST
On Sep 2, 5:09 pm, Robert of St Louis <free.tun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I worked for a managed care company and I can tell you straight out
> they bullishly are trained to refuse you care. Case managers are
> rewarded and punished on how many cases they approve of and how many
> they refused to pay for. I saw M.Ds. treated like dog shit ,because
> they would not play the game. And this is what the Party of No
> cherishs and wants to maintain?  If you went to the wrong hospital or
> the best doctor you were refused care. You were only allowed to use
> the doctors/hospitals in their system, which usually were in on the
> game to cut costs to profit, not give the best care.

Thank you for posting this. I plan to cite this if you don't mind, in
future posts..! Meanwhile another person working in 'the industry'
posted a comment on a NY Times blog...while she does not speak of
"treating doctors like shit" I found her conclusion very well put:

"I am an insurance agent. It is not any fun to take an insurance
application, two months of premiums and send them to the underwriter
in the home office. The underwriter gets the doctor’s information on
the potential client and sees there is a pre-exhisting condition.

"Then I have to tell the potential client they have been declined and
their premium for two months will be returned. They can never get
coverage unless they are available to be employed by a large company
that has group insurance.

"The insurance agent, the underwriter and other people in the industry
who are the “gate keepers” could be employed in industries that add to
the well being of society. There are thousands of us who are spinning
our wheels and wasting our time.

"Let’s just get a health bill passed and then we will all be better
off. -Doris D"

Well put..lots of people with talents are employed to DENY HEALTH CARE
and "could be employed in industries that ADD to the well being of
society" as she put so well herself...This is what single payer woudl
accomplish, but if we can't get that pased, then at least the very
mild Obama-Congress reform (read: putting an end tothe most abusive of
practices by private industry) currently being contemplated can begin
to rein insome of these ""deny care" MOs the insurance companies use
to compete not by quality but to compete by kicking out the most sick
and grabbing and cherry picking only the healthiest...Adam Smith would
spin in his grave at this being called "The wonders of capitalist
competition" when it's the least useful "compete by denying care" and
"hot potato" games with those who need care...they only want people to
pay premiums and never actually get something expensive back for all
their years of paying premiums.

Thanks again for the post St Louis Robert...dont' know if you saw the
video links I posted...number 3 below particularly you could relate to
I'm sure..she worked in health ins for years..

1. Nurse w/cancer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efq3ykIeYeQ

2. Sicko woman testifies how her denial led to death:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUGep9nLU9k

3. Death by HMO: C Edwards
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3so7EdKpCY


Peter Principle
2009-09-03 15:26:50 EST
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 12:19:38 -0700 (PDT), EconomicDemocracy Coop
<*y@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sep 2, 5:09 pm, Robert of St Louis <free.tun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I worked for a managed care company and I can tell you straight out
>> they bullishly are trained to refuse you care. Case managers are
>> rewarded and punished on how many cases they approve of and how many
>> they refused to pay for. I saw M.Ds. treated like dog shit ,because
>> they would not play the game. And this is what the Party of No
>> cherishs and wants to maintain?  If you went to the wrong hospital or
>> the best doctor you were refused care. You were only allowed to use
>> the doctors/hospitals in their system, which usually were in on the
>> game to cut costs to profit, not give the best care.
>
>Thank you for posting this. I plan to cite this if you don't mind, in
>future posts..! Meanwhile another person working in 'the industry'
>posted a comment on a NY Times blog...while she does not speak of
>"treating doctors like shit" I found her conclusion very well put:
>
>"I am an insurance agent. It is not any fun to take an insurance
>application, two months of premiums and send them to the underwriter
>in the home office. The underwriter gets the doctor’s information on
>the potential client and sees there is a pre-exhisting condition.
>
>"Then I have to tell the potential client they have been declined and
>their premium for two months will be returned. They can never get
>coverage unless they are available to be employed by a large company
>that has group insurance.
>
>"The insurance agent, the underwriter and other people in the industry
>who are the “gate keepers” could be employed in industries that add to
>the well being of society. There are thousands of us who are spinning
>our wheels and wasting our time.
>
>"Let’s just get a health bill passed and then we will all be better
>off. -Doris D"
>
>Well put..lots of people with talents are employed to DENY HEALTH CARE
>and "could be employed in industries that ADD to the well being of
>society" as she put so well herself...This is what single payer woudl
>accomplish, but if we can't get that pased, then at least the very
>mild Obama-Congress reform (read: putting an end tothe most abusive of
>practices by private industry) currently being contemplated can begin
>to rein insome of these ""deny care" MOs the insurance companies use
>to compete not by quality but to compete by kicking out the most sick
>and grabbing and cherry picking only the healthiest...Adam Smith would
>spin in his grave at this being called "The wonders of capitalist
>competition" when it's the least useful "compete by denying care" and
>"hot potato" games with those who need care...they only want people to
>pay premiums and never actually get something expensive back for all
>their years of paying premiums.
>
>Thanks again for the post St Louis Robert...dont' know if you saw the
>video links I posted...number 3 below particularly you could relate to
>I'm sure..she worked in health ins for years..
>
>1. Nurse w/cancer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efq3ykIeYeQ
>
>2. Sicko woman testifies how her denial led to death:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUGep9nLU9k
>
>3. Death by HMO: C Edwards
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3so7EdKpCY

Here's ALL of the Big Lies about HR 3200 shot to shit by FACTS from
FactCheck.org and PolitiFact:

Both FactCheck...

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/

...and PolitiFact...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/30/e-mail-analysis-health-bill-needs-check-/

...have debunked ALL of these moronic claims, as has every other independent
fact checking and/or news organization on the face of the planet.

In case you're wondering where this idiot is getting the huge, steaming
piles of absurd happy horse shit he gobbles down like a puppy on fresh puke,
expecting us to do the same, every single one of the following LONG DEBUNKED
LIES comes from the same LONG DEBUNKED KOOK CHAIN LETTER. I shit you not.
He's THAT fucking stupid, and then some...

Now, before I use FACTS to contradict this boob.babble bullshit point by
point, since it's ALL bullshit, we'll just take the whole at one gulp.

------
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/

Twenty-six Lies About H.R. 3200

A notorious analysis of the House health care bill contains 48 claims.
Twenty-six of them are false and the rest mostly misleading.

August 28, 2009

Summary
Our inbox has been overrun with messages asking us to weigh in on a mammoth
list of claims about the House health care bill. The chain e-mail purports
to give "a few highlights" from the first half of the bill, but the list of
48 assertions is filled with falsehoods, exaggerations and
misinterpretations. We examined each of the e-mail’s claims, finding 26 of
them to be false and 18 to be misleading, only partly true or half true.
...
This chain e-mail claims to give a run-down of what’s in the House health
care bill, H.R. 3200. Instead, it shows evidence of a reading comprehension
problem on the part of the author. Some of our more enterprising readers
have even taken it upon themselves to debunk a few of the assertions,
sending us their notes and encouraging us to write about it. We applaud your
fact-checking skills and your skepticism. And skepticism is warranted.
------

And from PolitiFact...

------
E-mail 'analysis' of health bill needs a check-up
By Angie Drobnic Holan
Published on Thursday, July 30th, 2009 at 5:08 p.m.

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.
------

Point by point refutation of the following rightard kook chain email Big
Lies direct from FactCheck...

>• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!

------
Claim: Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!

False: This section merely requires a study of “the large group insured and
self-insured employer health care markets.” There’s no mention of auditing
employers, only of studying “markets.” The purpose of the study is to
produce “recommendations” to make sure the new law “does not provide
incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure.”
------

>• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!

------
Claim: Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!

False: This section says nothing whatsoever about “rationing” or anything of
the sort. Actually, it’s favorable to families and individuals, placing an
annual cap on what they could pay out of pocket if covered by a basic,
“essential benefits package.” The limits would be $5,000 for an individual,
$10,000 for a family.
------

>• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and
>benefits you
>get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)

Claim: Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and
benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)

False: Actually, the section starting on page 30 sets up a “private-public
advisory committee” headed by the U.S. surgeon general and made up of mostly
private sector “medical and other experts” selected by the president and the
comptroller general. The advisory committee would have only the power “to
recommend” what benefits are included in basic, enhanced and premium
insurance plans. It would have no power to decide what treatments anybody
will get. Its recommendations on benefits might or might not be adopted.

>• Page 42: The “Health Choices Commissioner” will decide health
>benefits for
>you. You will have no choice. None.

------
Claim: Page 42: The “Health Choices Commissioner” will decide health
benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.

False: The new Health Choices Commissioner will oversee a variety of choices
to be offered through new insurance exchanges. The bill itself specifies the
“minimum services to be covered” in a basic plan, including prescription
drugs, mental health services, maternity and well-baby care and certain
vaccines and preventive services (pages 27-28). We find nothing in the bill
that prevents insurance companies from offering benefits that exceed the
minimums. In fact, the legislation allows (page 84) any company that offers
an approved basic plan to offer also an “enhanced” plan, a “premium” plan
and even a “premium plus” plan that could include vision and dental
benefits.
------

>• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with
>free
>healthcare services.


------
Claim: Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with
free healthcare services.

False. That’s simply not what the bill says at all. This page includes "SEC.
152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE," which says that "[e]xcept
as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations
consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including
insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall
be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the
provision of high quality health care or related services." However, the
bill does explicitly say that illegal immigrants can’t get any government
money to pay for health care. Page 143 states: "Nothing in this subtitle
shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of
individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." And as we’ve
said before, current law prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in
government health care programs.
------

>• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.

------
Claim: Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.

False. There is no mention of any “National ID Healthcard” anywhere in the
bill. Page 58 says that government standards for electronic medical
transactions "may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan
beneficiary identification card,” to show eligibility for services.
Insurance companies typically issue such cards already, but if such a
standard were issued the cards would need to be in a standard form readable
by computers. The word “may” is used to permit such a standard, but it does
not require one.
------

>• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access
>to all
>individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.

------
Claim: Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to
all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.

False. This section aims to simplify electronic payments for health
services, the same sort of electronic payments that already are common for
such things as utility bills or mortgage payments. The bill calls for the
secretary of Health and Human Services to set standards for electronic
administrative transactions that would "enable electronic funds transfers,
in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care
payment and remittance advice." There is no mention of "individual bank
accounts" nor of any new government authority over them. Also, the section
does not say that electronic payments from consumers is required.
------

>• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community
>organizer
>health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)

------
Claim: Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community
organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)

Misleading. Page 65 is the start of a section (SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM
FOR RETIREES) that would set up a new federal reinsurance plan to benefit
retirees and spouses covered by any employer plan, not just those run by
labor unions or nonprofit groups.
------

>• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the
>Healthcare
>Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)

------
Claim: Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Health
care Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)

Partly true. Nothing like this appears on page 84. No insurance company is
required to sell plans through the exchange if it doesn’t want to. Any
employer may choose to buy coverage elsewhere. In fact, the vast majority of
employers will still be buying private plans through the normal marketplace,
because only employers with 10 or fewer employees are even allowed to buy
through the exchange in the first year.
------

>• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services;
>translation: illegal aliens

------
Claim: Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services;
translation: illegal aliens

Misleading. It’s true that page 91 says that insurance companies selling
plans through the new exchange “shall provide for culturally and
linguistically appropriate communication and health services.” The author’s
“translation,” however, assumes that anyone speaking a foreign language or
from another culture is an illegal immigrant, which is false.
------

>• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up
>individuals
>for Government-run Health Care plan.

------
Claim: Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up
individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.

False: This page is the start of “SEC. 205. OUTREACH AND ENROLLMENT OF
EXCHANGE-ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS AND EMPLOYERS IN EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING HEALTH
BENEFITS PLAN.” It says a newly established Health Choices Commissioner
“shall conduct outreach activities” to get people covered by private or
government health insurance plans. The section says on page 97 that the
Commissioner “may work with other appropriate entities to facilitate …
provision of information.” But there is no authorization anywhere in the
entire section for the Commissioner to pay money to any group to engage in
outreach.
------

>• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically
>enrolled: you
>have no choice in the matter.

------
Claim: Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled:
you have no choice in the matter.

Partly true. Page 102 says certain Medicaid-eligible persons will be
“automatically enrolled” in Medicaid (which is the state-federal program to
provide insurance to low-income workers and families) IF they are not
already covered by private insurance. That would happen only if they had
“not elected to enroll” in one of the private plans offered through the new
insurance exchanges, however.
------

>• 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.

------
Claim: 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.

Half true. It’s true that page 124 forbids any review by the courts of rates
the government would pay to doctors and hospitals under the new “public
option” insurance plan. But there’s no mention of “price fixing” in the bill
------

>• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.

------
Claim: Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.

Misleading. Nothing in the bill would “set wages” for doctors
------

>• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the
>government-run
>public plan. No alternatives.

------
Claim: Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the
government-run public plan. No alternatives.

False. It’s true that employers would be required to sign up their workers
for coverage automatically, but it doesn’t have to be the “public plan.” It
would be the employer-offered plan “with the lowest applicable employee
premium” (pages 147- 148). This would only be the "public option" if the
employer was eligible to buy coverage through the Health Insurance Exchange
(not likely, at least during the first two years when only small businesses
would have access), and the "public option" was the cheapest plan (which
would be likely). Furthermore, while the employer isn’t given an
alternative, the workers are. They may reject auto-enrollment under an
opt-out provision (page 148).
------

>• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time
>employees AND
>their families.

------
Claim: Page 146: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees
AND their families.

Half true. There’s nothing in this section about part-time employees’
families, but this provision does call for employers to contribute toward
part-time employees’ health insurance. The bill says that “for an employee
who is not a full-time employee … the amount of the minimum employer
contribution” will be a proportion of the minimum contribution for full-time
employees.
------

>• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not
>offer
>the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll
>
>• 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

------
Claim: Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not
offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll Claim: 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.

Both Partly True. The bill requires employers either to offer private health
insurance coverage or pay a percentage of their payroll expenses to help
finance a public plan. The 8 percent payment would indeed apply to employers
with payrolls over $400,000 in the previous year, and lesser amounts would
apply to smaller firms. Those with payrolls of $250,000 or less would pay
nothing. But the penalty isn’t incurred if an employer "does not offer the
public option," as the e-mail claims. Rather, it’s a penalty for not
offering health insurance to employees.
------

>• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes
>(Americans
>will pay for them).

------
Claim: Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes
(Americans will pay for them).

False. “Non-resident aliens” are generally those who have spent less than 31
days in the U.S. during the year. The claim that “Americans will pay for
them” assumes that such visitors would somehow be getting federal benefits
that would cost taxpayers money. In any case, they are not “exempt from
individual taxes” at all.
------

>• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare
>Bureaucracy will
>have access to ALL American financial and personal records.

------
Claim: Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Health care
Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.

False. This section of the bill discusses “Disclosures To Carry Out Health
Insurance Exchange Subsidies.” It says that government employees of the
health insurance exchange will have access to federal tax information for
purposes of determining eligibility for affordability credits available for
low- and moderate-income Americans. In other words, in order to qualify for
a government subsidy to purchase health insurance, the government needs to
confirm your income. And, no surprise, the government already has access to
your federal tax information.
------

>• Page 203: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated
>as tax.”
>Yes, it really says that.• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician
>services for
>Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected.”

------
Claim: Page 203: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as
tax.” Yes, it really says that.

Misleading. What this actually says is: “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,” which deals with the Alternative Minimum Tax. It would limit
the ripple effects of the new taxes the bill would impose on individuals
making over $350,000 a year.
------

>• Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you’ll all be
>paid
>the same (thanks, AMA!)

------
Claim: Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors
and the poor most affected. Claim: Page 241: Doctors: no matter what
specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)

Both False. Both of these claims pertain to Section 1121, which updates the
physician fee schedule for 2010 for Medicare. It doesn’t "reduce physician
services for Medicaid" (which wouldn’t pertain to seniors anyway)
------

>• Page 253: Government sets value of doctors’ time, their professional
>judgment, etc.

------
Claim: Page 253: Government sets value of doctors’ time, their professional
judgment, etc.

Misleading. It’s true that page 253 refers to “relative value units” to be
used when determining payment rates for doctor’s services, and that such
RVUs would weigh factors “such as time, mental effort and professional
judgment, technical skill and physical effort, and stress due to risk.” But
this is nothing new; the government already uses RVUs when setting rates it
will pay under Medicare.
------

>• Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private
>healthcare industries.

------
Claim: Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private
healthcare industries.

Misleading. This claim doesn’t even make sense. How can anyone "mandate”
that somebody else be productive, or “control” how productive they are? The
author has simply misunderstood what this controversial item would do.
------

>• Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven
>wheelchairs.

------
Claim: Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven
wheelchairs.

Misleading. What page 268 does is to stop Medicare for paying for “mobility
scooters,” which have been widely marketed as a Medicare-financed benefit,
leading to ballooning costs to the program. They would no longer qualify as
a “power-driven wheelchair.” Only a "complex rehabilitative power-driven
wheel chair recognized by the Secretary” would be covered. The Congressional
Budget Office estimates this will save the government $800 million over 10
years
------

>• Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of
>rationing!

------
Claim: Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of
rationing!

False. This page merely calls for a study of whether a certain class of
hospitals incur higher costs than some others for the cancer care they
deliver. It also says the secretary of HHS “shall provide for an appropriate
adjustment” in payments “to reflect those higher costs.” It’s hardly
“rationing” to pay hospitals more to compensate for higher costs.
------

>• Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial
>admission that
>results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government

------
Claim: Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission
that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.

False. That section is part of a list of potential physician-centered
approaches to reducing excess hospital readmissions.
------

>• Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing
>in
>healthcare companies!

------
Claim: Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in
healthcare companies!

False. It’s already illegal, with certain exceptions, for doctors to refer
Medicare patients to hospitals, labs, medical imaging facilities or other
such medical businesses in which they hold a financial interest.
------

>• Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand
>without
>government approval.

------
Claim: Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand
without government approval.

False. Expansion is forbidden only for rural, doctor-owned hospitals that
have been given a waiver from the general prohibition on self-referral. It
does not apply to hospitals in general. The bill provides for exceptions to
even this limited expansion ban (page 321).
------

>• Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on “community” input: in other
>words,
>yet another payoff for ACORN.

------
Claim: Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on “community” input: in other
words, yet another payoff for ACORN.

False. Page 321 says rural, doctor-owned hospitals that are exempt from the
Medicaid self-referral prohibition can ask to be allowed to expand under
rules that must allow “input” from “persons or entities in the community.”
Under that language, anybody in the community could offer their opinion, but
nobody – not ACORN or anybody else – would be paid for it.
------

>• Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based
>measures: i.e.,
>rationing.

------
Claim: Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based
measures: i.e., rationing.

Misleading. This section does deal with establishing quality measures for
Medicare. It does not make any recommendations for treatment, or empower
anyone to make treatment recommendations based on those measures.
------

>• Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS
>individuals.

------
Claim: Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS
individuals.

Misleading. Insurance companies already restrict enrollment in so-called
“special needs” plans, a special category of Medicare Advantage plans that
were created in 2003. Page 354 merely extends the authority to do that
beyond the end of next year, when it was set to expire. Furthermore, what’s
being restricted isn’t the number of patients, but the type of patients.
Plans can be restricted to accepting only those patients who fall into in
one or more special categories. These include those who are
institutionalized (think, nursing homes), those who qualify both for
Medicare and Medicaid (think, both low-income and over age 65) and those
with severe or disabling chronic conditions such as diabetes, emphysema,
chronic heart failure or dementia. And of course, this has nothing to do
with children with learning problems.
------

>• Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee
>(healthcare by
>phone).

------
Claim: Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare
by phone).

Misleading. The advisory committee would not be a “bureaucracy” or have any
administrative functions, but instead would bring together experts from the
private sector to give advice on how Medicare and Medicaid should treat the
practice of medicine via telecommunication, something used in rural
hospitals and such places as cruise ships, battlefield settings and even on
NASA space missions.
------

>• Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior
>Citizens,
>assisted suicide, euthanasia?
>
>• 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.
>
>• Page 425: Goverment provides approved list of end-of-life resources,
>guiding
>you in death.
>
>• Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life
>treatment;
>government dictates how your life ends.
>
>• 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.
>
>• Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may
>have at
>end-of-life.

------
Claim: Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior
Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia? Claim: 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. Claim: Page
425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you
in death Claim: Page 427: Government mandates program that orders
end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends. Claim: 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. Claim: Page 430: Government will decide
what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.

All False. These six claims are a twisted interpretation of a provision in
the bill that says Medicare will cover voluntary counseling sessions between
seniors and their doctors to discuss end-of-life care. Medicare doesn’t pay
for such sessions now; it would under the bill.
------

>• Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for
>ACORN.

------
Claim: Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for
ACORN.

False. This section defines the term "community-based medical home" as a
"nonprofit community-based or State-based organization" that "provides
beneficiaries with medical home services." ACORN does not provide medical
home services.
------

>• Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs
>for ACORN.

------
Claim: Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for
ACORN.

False. This section is referring to community-based medical homes.
------

>• Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy.
>Government
>intervenes in your marriage.

------
Claim: Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy.
Government intervenes in your marriage.

Half true. It’s true that pages 489 and 490 make state-licensed “marriage
and family therapist” services a covered expense “for the diagnosis and
treatment of mental illnesses.” But the therapists wouldn’t be employed by
the government, and there’s no requirement for anybody to receive their
help. So the claim that this would mean that “government intervenes in your
marriage” is false.
------

>• Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining,
>creating
>and rationing those services.

------
Claim: Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining,
creating and rationing those services.

Misleading. The provision amends Section 1861 of the Social Security Act
laying out what services Medicare will cover. It expands coverage for mental
health services, stipulating that a "mental health counselor" who can
perform mental health counseling is someone with a master’s or doctorate
degree, a state license, and two years of practice as a counselor.
------

There you have it, folks. The rightards all all wrong on every single point.
Every...

Single...

One.

It's all just a pack of stupid, easily debunked lies. Know you now. Debunk
the lies. Spread the word.

---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
© 1999 by the American Psychological Association
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments

Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University

ABSTRACT:
...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.

Peter Principle
2009-09-03 15:31:48 EST
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 14:02:05 -0700 (PDT), EconomicDemocracy Coop
<*y@gmail.com> wrote:

>When Medicare Was Defeated (Again and Again)
>By David Leonhardt
>
>Anyone interested in the history of health reform may enjoy this essay
>by Larry DeWitt, public historian at the Social Security
>Administration. It’s one of the sources for my column in Wednesday’s
>paper.

<snip of good article>

You may also be interest in a debunking of ALL of the Big Rightard Lies
about health care, direct from FactCheck...

Both FactCheck...

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/

...and PolitiFact...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/30/e-mail-analysis-health-bill-needs-check-/

...have debunked ALL of these moronic claims, as has every other independent
fact checking and/or news organization on the face of the planet.

In case you're wondering where this idiot is getting the huge, steaming
piles of absurd happy horse shit he gobbles down like a puppy on fresh puke,
expecting us to do the same, every single one of the following LONG DEBUNKED
LIES comes from the same LONG DEBUNKED KOOK CHAIN LETTER. I shit you not.
He's THAT fucking stupid, and then some...

Now, before I use FACTS to contradict this boob.babble bullshit point by
point, since it's ALL bullshit, we'll just take the whole at one gulp.

------
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/

Twenty-six Lies About H.R. 3200

A notorious analysis of the House health care bill contains 48 claims.
Twenty-six of them are false and the rest mostly misleading.

August 28, 2009

Summary
Our inbox has been overrun with messages asking us to weigh in on a mammoth
list of claims about the House health care bill. The chain e-mail purports
to give "a few highlights" from the first half of the bill, but the list of
48 assertions is filled with falsehoods, exaggerations and
misinterpretations. We examined each of the e-mail’s claims, finding 26 of
them to be false and 18 to be misleading, only partly true or half true.
...
This chain e-mail claims to give a run-down of what’s in the House health
care bill, H.R. 3200. Instead, it shows evidence of a reading comprehension
problem on the part of the author. Some of our more enterprising readers
have even taken it upon themselves to debunk a few of the assertions,
sending us their notes and encouraging us to write about it. We applaud your
fact-checking skills and your skepticism. And skepticism is warranted.
------

And from PolitiFact...

------
E-mail 'analysis' of health bill needs a check-up
By Angie Drobnic Holan
Published on Thursday, July 30th, 2009 at 5:08 p.m.

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.
------

Point by point refutation of the following rightard kook chain email Big
Lies direct from FactCheck...

>• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!

------
Claim: Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!

False: This section merely requires a study of “the large group insured and
self-insured employer health care markets.” There’s no mention of auditing
employers, only of studying “markets.” The purpose of the study is to
produce “recommendations” to make sure the new law “does not provide
incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure.”
------

>• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!

------
Claim: Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!

False: This section says nothing whatsoever about “rationing” or anything of
the sort. Actually, it’s favorable to families and individuals, placing an
annual cap on what they could pay out of pocket if covered by a basic,
“essential benefits package.” The limits would be $5,000 for an individual,
$10,000 for a family.
------

>• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and
>benefits you
>get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)

Claim: Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and
benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)

False: Actually, the section starting on page 30 sets up a “private-public
advisory committee” headed by the U.S. surgeon general and made up of mostly
private sector “medical and other experts” selected by the president and the
comptroller general. The advisory committee would have only the power “to
recommend” what benefits are included in basic, enhanced and premium
insurance plans. It would have no power to decide what treatments anybody
will get. Its recommendations on benefits might or might not be adopted.

>• Page 42: The “Health Choices Commissioner” will decide health
>benefits for
>you. You will have no choice. None.

------
Claim: Page 42: The “Health Choices Commissioner” will decide health
benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.

False: The new Health Choices Commissioner will oversee a variety of choices
to be offered through new insurance exchanges. The bill itself specifies the
“minimum services to be covered” in a basic plan, including prescription
drugs, mental health services, maternity and well-baby care and certain
vaccines and preventive services (pages 27-28). We find nothing in the bill
that prevents insurance companies from offering benefits that exceed the
minimums. In fact, the legislation allows (page 84) any company that offers
an approved basic plan to offer also an “enhanced” plan, a “premium” plan
and even a “premium plus” plan that could include vision and dental
benefits.
------

>• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with
>free
>healthcare services.


------
Claim: Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with
free healthcare services.

False. That’s simply not what the bill says at all. This page includes "SEC.
152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE," which says that "[e]xcept
as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations
consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including
insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall
be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the
provision of high quality health care or related services." However, the
bill does explicitly say that illegal immigrants can’t get any government
money to pay for health care. Page 143 states: "Nothing in this subtitle
shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of
individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." And as we’ve
said before, current law prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in
government health care programs.
------

>• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.

------
Claim: Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.

False. There is no mention of any “National ID Healthcard” anywhere in the
bill. Page 58 says that government standards for electronic medical
transactions "may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan
beneficiary identification card,” to show eligibility for services.
Insurance companies typically issue such cards already, but if such a
standard were issued the cards would need to be in a standard form readable
by computers. The word “may” is used to permit such a standard, but it does
not require one.
------

>• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access
>to all
>individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.

------
Claim: Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to
all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.

False. This section aims to simplify electronic payments for health
services, the same sort of electronic payments that already are common for
such things as utility bills or mortgage payments. The bill calls for the
secretary of Health and Human Services to set standards for electronic
administrative transactions that would "enable electronic funds transfers,
in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care
payment and remittance advice." There is no mention of "individual bank
accounts" nor of any new government authority over them. Also, the section
does not say that electronic payments from consumers is required.
------

>• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community
>organizer
>health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)

------
Claim: Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community
organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)

Misleading. Page 65 is the start of a section (SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM
FOR RETIREES) that would set up a new federal reinsurance plan to benefit
retirees and spouses covered by any employer plan, not just those run by
labor unions or nonprofit groups.
------

>• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the
>Healthcare
>Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)

------
Claim: Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Health
care Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)

Partly true. Nothing like this appears on page 84. No insurance company is
required to sell plans through the exchange if it doesn’t want to. Any
employer may choose to buy coverage elsewhere. In fact, the vast majority of
employers will still be buying private plans through the normal marketplace,
because only employers with 10 or fewer employees are even allowed to buy
through the exchange in the first year.
------

>• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services;
>translation: illegal aliens

------
Claim: Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services;
translation: illegal aliens

Misleading. It’s true that page 91 says that insurance companies selling
plans through the new exchange “shall provide for culturally and
linguistically appropriate communication and health services.” The author’s
“translation,” however, assumes that anyone speaking a foreign language or
from another culture is an illegal immigrant, which is false.
------

>• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up
>individuals
>for Government-run Health Care plan.

------
Claim: Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up
individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.

False: This page is the start of “SEC. 205. OUTREACH AND ENROLLMENT OF
EXCHANGE-ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS AND EMPLOYERS IN EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING HEALTH
BENEFITS PLAN.” It says a newly established Health Choices Commissioner
“shall conduct outreach activities” to get people covered by private or
government health insurance plans. The section says on page 97 that the
Commissioner “may work with other appropriate entities to facilitate …
provision of information.” But there is no authorization anywhere in the
entire section for the Commissioner to pay money to any group to engage in
outreach.
------

>• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically
>enrolled: you
>have no choice in the matter.

------
Claim: Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled:
you have no choice in the matter.

Partly true. Page 102 says certain Medicaid-eligible persons will be
“automatically enrolled” in Medicaid (which is the state-federal program to
provide insurance to low-income workers and families) IF they are not
already covered by private insurance. That would happen only if they had
“not elected to enroll” in one of the private plans offered through the new
insurance exchanges, however.
------

>• 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.

------
Claim: 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.

Half true. It’s true that page 124 forbids any review by the courts of rates
the government would pay to doctors and hospitals under the new “public
option” insurance plan. But there’s no mention of “price fixing” in the bill
------

>• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.

------
Claim: Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.

Misleading. Nothing in the bill would “set wages” for doctors
------

>• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the
>government-run
>public plan. No alternatives.

------
Claim: Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the
government-run public plan. No alternatives.

False. It’s true that employers would be required to sign up their workers
for coverage automatically, but it doesn’t have to be the “public plan.” It
would be the employer-offered plan “with the lowest applicable employee
premium” (pages 147- 148). This would only be the "public option" if the
employer was eligible to buy coverage through the Health Insurance Exchange
(not likely, at least during the first two years when only small businesses
would have access), and the "public option" was the cheapest plan (which
would be likely). Furthermore, while the employer isn’t given an
alternative, the workers are. They may reject auto-enrollment under an
opt-out provision (page 148).
------

>• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time
>employees AND
>their families.

------
Claim: Page 146: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees
AND their families.

Half true. There’s nothing in this section about part-time employees’
families, but this provision does call for employers to contribute toward
part-time employees’ health insurance. The bill says that “for an employee
who is not a full-time employee … the amount of the minimum employer
contribution” will be a proportion of the minimum contribution for full-time
employees.
------

>• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not
>offer
>the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll
>
>• 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

------
Claim: Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not
offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll Claim: 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.

Both Partly True. The bill requires employers either to offer private health
insurance coverage or pay a percentage of their payroll expenses to help
finance a public plan. The 8 percent payment would indeed apply to employers
with payrolls over $400,000 in the previous year, and lesser amounts would
apply to smaller firms. Those with payrolls of $250,000 or less would pay
nothing. But the penalty isn’t incurred if an employer "does not offer the
public option," as the e-mail claims. Rather, it’s a penalty for not
offering health insurance to employees.
------

>• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes
>(Americans
>will pay for them).

------
Claim: Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes
(Americans will pay for them).

False. “Non-resident aliens” are generally those who have spent less than 31
days in the U.S. during the year. The claim that “Americans will pay for
them” assumes that such visitors would somehow be getting federal benefits
that would cost taxpayers money. In any case, they are not “exempt from
individual taxes” at all.
------

>• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare
>Bureaucracy will
>have access to ALL American financial and personal records.

------
Claim: Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Health care
Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.

False. This section of the bill discusses “Disclosures To Carry Out Health
Insurance Exchange Subsidies.” It says that government employees of the
health insurance exchange will have access to federal tax information for
purposes of determining eligibility for affordability credits available for
low- and moderate-income Americans. In other words, in order to qualify for
a government subsidy to purchase health insurance, the government needs to
confirm your income. And, no surprise, the government already has access to
your federal tax information.
------

>• Page 203: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated
>as tax.”
>Yes, it really says that.• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician
>services for
>Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected.”

------
Claim: Page 203: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as
tax.” Yes, it really says that.

Misleading. What this actually says is: “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,” which deals with the Alternative Minimum Tax. It would limit
the ripple effects of the new taxes the bill would impose on individuals
making over $350,000 a year.
------

>• Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you’ll all be
>paid
>the same (thanks, AMA!)

------
Claim: Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors
and the poor most affected. Claim: Page 241: Doctors: no matter what
specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)

Both False. Both of these claims pertain to Section 1121, which updates the
physician fee schedule for 2010 for Medicare. It doesn’t "reduce physician
services for Medicaid" (which wouldn’t pertain to seniors anyway)
------

>• Page 253: Government sets value of doctors’ time, their professional
>judgment, etc.

------
Claim: Page 253: Government sets value of doctors’ time, their professional
judgment, etc.

Misleading. It’s true that page 253 refers to “relative value units” to be
used when determining payment rates for doctor’s services, and that such
RVUs would weigh factors “such as time, mental effort and professional
judgment, technical skill and physical effort, and stress due to risk.” But
this is nothing new; the government already uses RVUs when setting rates it
will pay under Medicare.
------

>• Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private
>healthcare industries.

------
Claim: Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private
healthcare industries.

Misleading. This claim doesn’t even make sense. How can anyone "mandate”
that somebody else be productive, or “control” how productive they are? The
author has simply misunderstood what this controversial item would do.
------

>• Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven
>wheelchairs.

------
Claim: Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven
wheelchairs.

Misleading. What page 268 does is to stop Medicare for paying for “mobility
scooters,” which have been widely marketed as a Medicare-financed benefit,
leading to ballooning costs to the program. They would no longer qualify as
a “power-driven wheelchair.” Only a "complex rehabilitative power-driven
wheel chair recognized by the Secretary” would be covered. The Congressional
Budget Office estimates this will save the government $800 million over 10
years
------

>• Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of
>rationing!

------
Claim: Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of
rationing!

False. This page merely calls for a study of whether a certain class of
hospitals incur higher costs than some others for the cancer care they
deliver. It also says the secretary of HHS “shall provide for an appropriate
adjustment” in payments “to reflect those higher costs.” It’s hardly
“rationing” to pay hospitals more to compensate for higher costs.
------

>• Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial
>admission that
>results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government

------
Claim: Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission
that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.

False. That section is part of a list of potential physician-centered
approaches to reducing excess hospital readmissions.
------

>• Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing
>in
>healthcare companies!

------
Claim: Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in
healthcare companies!

False. It’s already illegal, with certain exceptions, for doctors to refer
Medicare patients to hospitals, labs, medical imaging facilities or other
such medical businesses in which they hold a financial interest.
------

>• Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand
>without
>government approval.

------
Claim: Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand
without government approval.

False. Expansion is forbidden only for rural, doctor-owned hospitals that
have been given a waiver from the general prohibition on self-referral. It
does not apply to hospitals in general. The bill provides for exceptions to
even this limited expansion ban (page 321).
------

>• Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on “community” input: in other
>words,
>yet another payoff for ACORN.

------
Claim: Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on “community” input: in other
words, yet another payoff for ACORN.

False. Page 321 says rural, doctor-owned hospitals that are exempt from the
Medicaid self-referral prohibition can ask to be allowed to expand under
rules that must allow “input” from “persons or entities in the community.”
Under that language, anybody in the community could offer their opinion, but
nobody – not ACORN or anybody else – would be paid for it.
------

>• Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based
>measures: i.e.,
>rationing.

------
Claim: Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based
measures: i.e., rationing.

Misleading. This section does deal with establishing quality measures for
Medicare. It does not make any recommendations for treatment, or empower
anyone to make treatment recommendations based on those measures.
------

>• Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS
>individuals.

------
Claim: Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS
individuals.

Misleading. Insurance companies already restrict enrollment in so-called
“special needs” plans, a special category of Medicare Advantage plans that
were created in 2003. Page 354 merely extends the authority to do that
beyond the end of next year, when it was set to expire. Furthermore, what’s
being restricted isn’t the number of patients, but the type of patients.
Plans can be restricted to accepting only those patients who fall into in
one or more special categories. These include those who are
institutionalized (think, nursing homes), those who qualify both for
Medicare and Medicaid (think, both low-income and over age 65) and those
with severe or disabling chronic conditions such as diabetes, emphysema,
chronic heart failure or dementia. And of course, this has nothing to do
with children with learning problems.
------

>• Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee
>(healthcare by
>phone).

------
Claim: Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare
by phone).

Misleading. The advisory committee would not be a “bureaucracy” or have any
administrative functions, but instead would bring together experts from the
private sector to give advice on how Medicare and Medicaid should treat the
practice of medicine via telecommunication, something used in rural
hospitals and such places as cruise ships, battlefield settings and even on
NASA space missions.
------

>• Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior
>Citizens,
>assisted suicide, euthanasia?
>
>• 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.
>
>• Page 425: Goverment provides approved list of end-of-life resources,
>guiding
>you in death.
>
>• Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life
>treatment;
>government dictates how your life ends.
>
>• 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.
>
>• Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may
>have at
>end-of-life.

------
Claim: Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior
Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia? Claim: 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. Claim: Page
425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you
in death Claim: Page 427: Government mandates program that orders
end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends. Claim: 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. Claim: Page 430: Government will decide
what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.

All False. These six claims are a twisted interpretation of a provision in
the bill that says Medicare will cover voluntary counseling sessions between
seniors and their doctors to discuss end-of-life care. Medicare doesn’t pay
for such sessions now; it would under the bill.
------

>• Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for
>ACORN.

------
Claim: Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for
ACORN.

False. This section defines the term "community-based medical home" as a
"nonprofit community-based or State-based organization" that "provides
beneficiaries with medical home services." ACORN does not provide medical
home services.
------

>• Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs
>for ACORN.

------
Claim: Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for
ACORN.

False. This section is referring to community-based medical homes.
------

>• Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy.
>Government
>intervenes in your marriage.

------
Claim: Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy.
Government intervenes in your marriage.

Half true. It’s true that pages 489 and 490 make state-licensed “marriage
and family therapist” services a covered expense “for the diagnosis and
treatment of mental illnesses.” But the therapists wouldn’t be employed by
the government, and there’s no requirement for anybody to receive their
help. So the claim that this would mean that “government intervenes in your
marriage” is false.
------

>• Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining,
>creating
>and rationing those services.

------
Claim: Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining,
creating and rationing those services.

Misleading. The provision amends Section 1861 of the Social Security Act
laying out what services Medicare will cover. It expands coverage for mental
health services, stipulating that a "mental health counselor" who can
perform mental health counseling is someone with a master’s or doctorate
degree, a state license, and two years of practice as a counselor.
------

There you have it, folks. The rightards all all wrong on every single point.
Every...

Single...

One.

It's all just a pack of stupid, easily debunked lies. Know you now. Debunk
the lies. Spread the word.

---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
© 1999 by the American Psychological Association
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments

Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University

ABSTRACT:
...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.

Peter Principle
2009-09-03 15:32:14 EST
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 15:48:21 -0700 (PDT), lorad <lorad474@cs.com> wrote:

>On Sep 2, 2:02 pm, EconomicDemocracy Coop <econdemocr...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> When Medicare Was Defeated (Again and Again)
>
>According to NPR this morning...
>
>The Health Insurance Industry has spent $750 MILLION dollars in their
>most recent PR attempt to defeat Obama's healthcare reform
>program ! ! !
>
>Anybody care to say that there are not excess profits in the US
>healthcare insurance system?

That's why the rightards are lying their collective asses off...

Both FactCheck...

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/

...and PolitiFact...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/30/e-mail-analysis-health-bill-needs-check-/

...have debunked ALL of these moronic claims, as has every other independent
fact checking and/or news organization on the face of the planet.

In case you're wondering where this idiot is getting the huge, steaming
piles of absurd happy horse shit he gobbles down like a puppy on fresh puke,
expecting us to do the same, every single one of the following LONG DEBUNKED
LIES comes from the same LONG DEBUNKED KOOK CHAIN LETTER. I shit you not.
He's THAT fucking stupid, and then some...

Now, before I use FACTS to contradict this boob.babble bullshit point by
point, since it's ALL bullshit, we'll just take the whole at one gulp.

------
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/

Twenty-six Lies About H.R. 3200

A notorious analysis of the House health care bill contains 48 claims.
Twenty-six of them are false and the rest mostly misleading.

August 28, 2009

Summary
Our inbox has been overrun with messages asking us to weigh in on a mammoth
list of claims about the House health care bill. The chain e-mail purports
to give "a few highlights" from the first half of the bill, but the list of
48 assertions is filled with falsehoods, exaggerations and
misinterpretations. We examined each of the e-mail’s claims, finding 26 of
them to be false and 18 to be misleading, only partly true or half true.
...
This chain e-mail claims to give a run-down of what’s in the House health
care bill, H.R. 3200. Instead, it shows evidence of a reading comprehension
problem on the part of the author. Some of our more enterprising readers
have even taken it upon themselves to debunk a few of the assertions,
sending us their notes and encouraging us to write about it. We applaud your
fact-checking skills and your skepticism. And skepticism is warranted.
------

And from PolitiFact...

------
E-mail 'analysis' of health bill needs a check-up
By Angie Drobnic Holan
Published on Thursday, July 30th, 2009 at 5:08 p.m.

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.
------

Point by point refutation of the following rightard kook chain email Big
Lies direct from FactCheck...

>• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!

------
Claim: Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!

False: This section merely requires a study of “the large group insured and
self-insured employer health care markets.” There’s no mention of auditing
employers, only of studying “markets.” The purpose of the study is to
produce “recommendations” to make sure the new law “does not provide
incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure.”
------

>• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!

------
Claim: Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!

False: This section says nothing whatsoever about “rationing” or anything of
the sort. Actually, it’s favorable to families and individuals, placing an
annual cap on what they could pay out of pocket if covered by a basic,
“essential benefits package.” The limits would be $5,000 for an individual,
$10,000 for a family.
------

>• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and
>benefits you
>get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)

Claim: Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and
benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)

False: Actually, the section starting on page 30 sets up a “private-public
advisory committee” headed by the U.S. surgeon general and made up of mostly
private sector “medical and other experts” selected by the president and the
comptroller general. The advisory committee would have only the power “to
recommend” what benefits are included in basic, enhanced and premium
insurance plans. It would have no power to decide what treatments anybody
will get. Its recommendations on benefits might or might not be adopted.

>• Page 42: The “Health Choices Commissioner” will decide health
>benefits for
>you. You will have no choice. None.

------
Claim: Page 42: The “Health Choices Commissioner” will decide health
benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.

False: The new Health Choices Commissioner will oversee a variety of choices
to be offered through new insurance exchanges. The bill itself specifies the
“minimum services to be covered” in a basic plan, including prescription
drugs, mental health services, maternity and well-baby care and certain
vaccines and preventive services (pages 27-28). We find nothing in the bill
that prevents insurance companies from offering benefits that exceed the
minimums. In fact, the legislation allows (page 84) any company that offers
an approved basic plan to offer also an “enhanced” plan, a “premium” plan
and even a “premium plus” plan that could include vision and dental
benefits.
------

>• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with
>free
>healthcare services.


------
Claim: Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with
free healthcare services.

False. That’s simply not what the bill says at all. This page includes "SEC.
152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE," which says that "[e]xcept
as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations
consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including
insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall
be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the
provision of high quality health care or related services." However, the
bill does explicitly say that illegal immigrants can’t get any government
money to pay for health care. Page 143 states: "Nothing in this subtitle
shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of
individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." And as we’ve
said before, current law prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in
government health care programs.
------

>• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.

------
Claim: Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.

False. There is no mention of any “National ID Healthcard” anywhere in the
bill. Page 58 says that government standards for electronic medical
transactions "may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan
beneficiary identification card,” to show eligibility for services.
Insurance companies typically issue such cards already, but if such a
standard were issued the cards would need to be in a standard form readable
by computers. The word “may” is used to permit such a standard, but it does
not require one.
------

>• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access
>to all
>individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.

------
Claim: Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to
all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.

False. This section aims to simplify electronic payments for health
services, the same sort of electronic payments that already are common for
such things as utility bills or mortgage payments. The bill calls for the
secretary of Health and Human Services to set standards for electronic
administrative transactions that would "enable electronic funds transfers,
in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care
payment and remittance advice." There is no mention of "individual bank
accounts" nor of any new government authority over them. Also, the section
does not say that electronic payments from consumers is required.
------

>• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community
>organizer
>health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)

------
Claim: Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community
organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)

Misleading. Page 65 is the start of a section (SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM
FOR RETIREES) that would set up a new federal reinsurance plan to benefit
retirees and spouses covered by any employer plan, not just those run by
labor unions or nonprofit groups.
------

>• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the
>Healthcare
>Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)

------
Claim: Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Health
care Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)

Partly true. Nothing like this appears on page 84. No insurance company is
required to sell plans through the exchange if it doesn’t want to. Any
employer may choose to buy coverage elsewhere. In fact, the vast majority of
employers will still be buying private plans through the normal marketplace,
because only employers with 10 or fewer employees are even allowed to buy
through the exchange in the first year.
------

>• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services;
>translation: illegal aliens

------
Claim: Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services;
translation: illegal aliens

Misleading. It’s true that page 91 says that insurance companies selling
plans through the new exchange “shall provide for culturally and
linguistically appropriate communication and health services.” The author’s
“translation,” however, assumes that anyone speaking a foreign language or
from another culture is an illegal immigrant, which is false.
------

>• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up
>individuals
>for Government-run Health Care plan.

------
Claim: Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up
individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.

False: This page is the start of “SEC. 205. OUTREACH AND ENROLLMENT OF
EXCHANGE-ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS AND EMPLOYERS IN EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING HEALTH
BENEFITS PLAN.” It says a newly established Health Choices Commissioner
“shall conduct outreach activities” to get people covered by private or
government health insurance plans. The section says on page 97 that the
Commissioner “may work with other appropriate entities to facilitate …
provision of information.” But there is no authorization anywhere in the
entire section for the Commissioner to pay money to any group to engage in
outreach.
------

>• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically
>enrolled: you
>have no choice in the matter.

------
Claim: Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled:
you have no choice in the matter.

Partly true. Page 102 says certain Medicaid-eligible persons will be
“automatically enrolled” in Medicaid (which is the state-federal program to
provide insurance to low-income workers and families) IF they are not
already covered by private insurance. That would happen only if they had
“not elected to enroll” in one of the private plans offered through the new
insurance exchanges, however.
------

>• 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.

------
Claim: 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.

Half true. It’s true that page 124 forbids any review by the courts of rates
the government would pay to doctors and hospitals under the new “public
option” insurance plan. But there’s no mention of “price fixing” in the bill
------

>• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.

------
Claim: Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.

Misleading. Nothing in the bill would “set wages” for doctors
------

>• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the
>government-run
>public plan. No alternatives.

------
Claim: Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the
government-run public plan. No alternatives.

False. It’s true that employers would be required to sign up their workers
for coverage automatically, but it doesn’t have to be the “public plan.” It
would be the employer-offered plan “with the lowest applicable employee
premium” (pages 147- 148). This would only be the "public option" if the
employer was eligible to buy coverage through the Health Insurance Exchange
(not likely, at least during the first two years when only small businesses
would have access), and the "public option" was the cheapest plan (which
would be likely). Furthermore, while the employer isn’t given an
alternative, the workers are. They may reject auto-enrollment under an
opt-out provision (page 148).
------

>• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time
>employees AND
>their families.

------
Claim: Page 146: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees
AND their families.

Half true. There’s nothing in this section about part-time employees’
families, but this provision does call for employers to contribute toward
part-time employees’ health insurance. The bill says that “for an employee
who is not a full-time employee … the amount of the minimum employer
contribution” will be a proportion of the minimum contribution for full-time
employees.
------

>• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not
>offer
>the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll
>
>• 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

------
Claim: Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not
offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll Claim: 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.

Both Partly True. The bill requires employers either to offer private health
insurance coverage or pay a percentage of their payroll expenses to help
finance a public plan. The 8 percent payment would indeed apply to employers
with payrolls over $400,000 in the previous year, and lesser amounts would
apply to smaller firms. Those with payrolls of $250,000 or less would pay
nothing. But the penalty isn’t incurred if an employer "does not offer the
public option," as the e-mail claims. Rather, it’s a penalty for not
offering health insurance to employees.
------

>• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes
>(Americans
>will pay for them).

------
Claim: Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes
(Americans will pay for them).

False. “Non-resident aliens” are generally those who have spent less than 31
days in the U.S. during the year. The claim that “Americans will pay for
them” assumes that such visitors would somehow be getting federal benefits
that would cost taxpayers money. In any case, they are not “exempt from
individual taxes” at all.
------

>• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare
>Bureaucracy will
>have access to ALL American financial and personal records.

------
Claim: Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Health care
Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.

False. This section of the bill discusses “Disclosures To Carry Out Health
Insurance Exchange Subsidies.” It says that government employees of the
health insurance exchange will have access to federal tax information for
purposes of determining eligibility for affordability credits available for
low- and moderate-income Americans. In other words, in order to qualify for
a government subsidy to purchase health insurance, the government needs to
confirm your income. And, no surprise, the government already has access to
your federal tax information.
------

>• Page 203: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated
>as tax.”
>Yes, it really says that.• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician
>services for
>Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected.”

------
Claim: Page 203: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as
tax.” Yes, it really says that.

Misleading. What this actually says is: “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,” which deals with the Alternative Minimum Tax. It would limit
the ripple effects of the new taxes the bill would impose on individuals
making over $350,000 a year.
------

>• Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you’ll all be
>paid
>the same (thanks, AMA!)

------
Claim: Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors
and the poor most affected. Claim: Page 241: Doctors: no matter what
specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)

Both False. Both of these claims pertain to Section 1121, which updates the
physician fee schedule for 2010 for Medicare. It doesn’t "reduce physician
services for Medicaid" (which wouldn’t pertain to seniors anyway)
------

>• Page 253: Government sets value of doctors’ time, their professional
>judgment, etc.

------
Claim: Page 253: Government sets value of doctors’ time, their professional
judgment, etc.

Misleading. It’s true that page 253 refers to “relative value units” to be
used when determining payment rates for doctor’s services, and that such
RVUs would weigh factors “such as time, mental effort and professional
judgment, technical skill and physical effort, and stress due to risk.” But
this is nothing new; the government already uses RVUs when setting rates it
will pay under Medicare.
------

>• Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private
>healthcare industries.

------
Claim: Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private
healthcare industries.

Misleading. This claim doesn’t even make sense. How can anyone "mandate”
that somebody else be productive, or “control” how productive they are? The
author has simply misunderstood what this controversial item would do.
------

>• Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven
>wheelchairs.

------
Claim: Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven
wheelchairs.

Misleading. What page 268 does is to stop Medicare for paying for “mobility
scooters,” which have been widely marketed as a Medicare-financed benefit,
leading to ballooning costs to the program. They would no longer qualify as
a “power-driven wheelchair.” Only a "complex rehabilitative power-driven
wheel chair recognized by the Secretary” would be covered. The Congressional
Budget Office estimates this will save the government $800 million over 10
years
------

>• Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of
>rationing!

------
Claim: Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of
rationing!

False. This page merely calls for a study of whether a certain class of
hospitals incur higher costs than some others for the cancer care they
deliver. It also says the secretary of HHS “shall provide for an appropriate
adjustment” in payments “to reflect those higher costs.” It’s hardly
“rationing” to pay hospitals more to compensate for higher costs.
------

>• Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial
>admission that
>results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government

------
Claim: Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission
that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.

False. That section is part of a list of potential physician-centered
approaches to reducing excess hospital readmissions.
------

>• Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing
>in
>healthcare companies!

------
Claim: Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in
healthcare companies!

False. It’s already illegal, with certain exceptions, for doctors to refer
Medicare patients to hospitals, labs, medical imaging facilities or other
such medical businesses in which they hold a financial interest.
------

>• Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand
>without
>government approval.

------
Claim: Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand
without government approval.

False. Expansion is forbidden only for rural, doctor-owned hospitals that
have been given a waiver from the general prohibition on self-referral. It
does not apply to hospitals in general. The bill provides for exceptions to
even this limited expansion ban (page 321).
------

>• Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on “community” input: in other
>words,
>yet another payoff for ACORN.

------
Claim: Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on “community” input: in other
words, yet another payoff for ACORN.

False. Page 321 says rural, doctor-owned hospitals that are exempt from the
Medicaid self-referral prohibition can ask to be allowed to expand under
rules that must allow “input” from “persons or entities in the community.”
Under that language, anybody in the community could offer their opinion, but
nobody – not ACORN or anybody else – would be paid for it.
------

>• Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based
>measures: i.e.,
>rationing.

------
Claim: Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based
measures: i.e., rationing.

Misleading. This section does deal with establishing quality measures for
Medicare. It does not make any recommendations for treatment, or empower
anyone to make treatment recommendations based on those measures.
------

>• Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS
>individuals.

------
Claim: Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS
individuals.

Misleading. Insurance companies already restrict enrollment in so-called
“special needs” plans, a special category of Medicare Advantage plans that
were created in 2003. Page 354 merely extends the authority to do that
beyond the end of next year, when it was set to expire. Furthermore, what’s
being restricted isn’t the number of patients, but the type of patients.
Plans can be restricted to accepting only those patients who fall into in
one or more special categories. These include those who are
institutionalized (think, nursing homes), those who qualify both for
Medicare and Medicaid (think, both low-income and over age 65) and those
with severe or disabling chronic conditions such as diabetes, emphysema,
chronic heart failure or dementia. And of course, this has nothing to do
with children with learning problems.
------

>• Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee
>(healthcare by
>phone).

------
Claim: Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare
by phone).

Misleading. The advisory committee would not be a “bureaucracy” or have any
administrative functions, but instead would bring together experts from the
private sector to give advice on how Medicare and Medicaid should treat the
practice of medicine via telecommunication, something used in rural
hospitals and such places as cruise ships, battlefield settings and even on
NASA space missions.
------

>• Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior
>Citizens,
>assisted suicide, euthanasia?
>
>• 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.
>
>• Page 425: Goverment provides approved list of end-of-life resources,
>guiding
>you in death.
>
>• Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life
>treatment;
>government dictates how your life ends.
>
>• 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.
>
>• Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may
>have at
>end-of-life.

------
Claim: Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior
Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia? Claim: 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. Claim: Page
425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you
in death Claim: Page 427: Government mandates program that orders
end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends. Claim: 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. Claim: Page 430: Government will decide
what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.

All False. These six claims are a twisted interpretation of a provision in
the bill that says Medicare will cover voluntary counseling sessions between
seniors and their doctors to discuss end-of-life care. Medicare doesn’t pay
for such sessions now; it would under the bill.
------

>• Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for
>ACORN.

------
Claim: Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for
ACORN.

False. This section defines the term "community-based medical home" as a
"nonprofit community-based or State-based organization" that "provides
beneficiaries with medical home services." ACORN does not provide medical
home services.
------

>• Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs
>for ACORN.

------
Claim: Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for
ACORN.

False. This section is referring to community-based medical homes.
------

>• Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy.
>Government
>intervenes in your marriage.

------
Claim: Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy.
Government intervenes in your marriage.

Half true. It’s true that pages 489 and 490 make state-licensed “marriage
and family therapist” services a covered expense “for the diagnosis and
treatment of mental illnesses.” But the therapists wouldn’t be employed by
the government, and there’s no requirement for anybody to receive their
help. So the claim that this would mean that “government intervenes in your
marriage” is false.
------

>• Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining,
>creating
>and rationing those services.

------
Claim: Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining,
creating and rationing those services.

Misleading. The provision amends Section 1861 of the Social Security Act
laying out what services Medicare will cover. It expands coverage for mental
health services, stipulating that a "mental health counselor" who can
perform mental health counseling is someone with a master’s or doctorate
degree, a state license, and two years of practice as a counselor.
------

There you have it, folks. The rightards all all wrong on every single point.
Every...

Single...

One.

It's all just a pack of stupid, easily debunked lies. Know you now. Debunk
the lies. Spread the word.

---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
© 1999 by the American Psychological Association
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments

Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University

ABSTRACT:
...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
Page: 1   (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron