Was there an AOL poll on who thought we should invade Iraq? It is not the job of Congress or the President to do what the majority of people express as their will at any given time. They do what they think is right, and based on the result they either get re-elected or not. That Rush, Hannity, Beck, and the rest of the conservative movement now advocate governing by the polls after making fun of Clinton for it all those years only shows how unprincipled they are. Of course, you can add to that the fact that they supported (by continuing to advertise) the corporate welfare of GM and now defend the right of fat people to be fat as an argument against Obamacare. It wasn't so long ago that they were trying to convince us that the real threat to America was fat welfare mothers in Cadillacs. 

Page 22 -- MANDATES the government will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure.

NO, ACTUALLY THE LANGUAGE SAYS THAT A STUDY SHOULD BE COMMISSIONED TO DETERMINE -- IN GENERAL -- HOW MANY EMPLOYERS ARE SELF-FUNDING THEIR BENEFITS AND MIGHT WANT TO SHIFT THEIR EMPLOYEES TO THE HEALTH EXCHANGE. NOTHING IN THERE ABOUT AUDITING THE BOOKS.

Page 30 Section 123 -- There will be a Government COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

NOT EXACTLY. AN INDEPENDENT COMMITTEE WILL RECOMMEND THE BENEFITS TO BE OFFERED, JUST LIKE WHAT YOUR EMPLOYER DOES NOW OR YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY -- THERE WILL BE OPPORTUNITIES TO BUY MORE EXPENSIVE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLANS BUT IT WILL BE YOUR CHOICE. FOR HEALTH PLANS THAT OFFER BENEFITS TO INDIVIDUALS WHO BUY THEIR INSURANCE THROUGH THE EXCHANGE, JUST LIKE WITH MEDICARE SUPPLEMENTS NOW, THERE WILL BE A COMMON PACKAGE OF BENEFITS OFFERED SO PEOPLE CAN COMPARE THEIR CHOICES.

Page 29 lines 4-16 -- Your Health Care is RATIONED.

WOW. NOT AT ALL! THIS LANGUAGE SAYS THAT YOU WILL NOT HAVE TO PAY MORE THAN A SET AMOUNT EACH YEAR FOR YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE. RIGHT NOW YOU ALL HAVE MAXIMUM AMOUNTS THAT YOUR INSURANCE WILL PAY ANNUALLY AND THEN YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN. THE NEW LAW WILL PROTECT YOU FROM HAVING TO PAY MORE THAN SET AMOUNTS. YOU SHOULD BE SO LUCKY!!

Page 42 -- The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your Health Care benefits for you. You have no choice.

AGAIN. NOT TRUE. THERE WILL BE CHOICES OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF PLANS YOU CAN BUY. RIGHT NOW IF YOU ARE EMPLOYED YOUR EMPLOYER CHOOSES FOR YOU. IN THE EXCHANGE, ALL KINDS OF PLANS WILL BE OFFERED FOR YOU TO CHOOSE. DID YOU THINK YOU WOULD PERSONALLY BE ABLE TO CHOOSE WHAT SERVICES YOU WANT COVERED AND WHAT YOU DO NOT? HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT EXCEPT THROUGH A RIDER?

Page 50 Section 152 -- Health Care will be provided to ALL non-U.S. citizens, illegal or otherwise.

THERE IS NOTHING ON PAGE 50 OR SECTION 152 ABOUT ILLEGALS. ILLEGALS WILL NOT BE COVERED. THIS SECTION PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGION OR GENDER OR ANYTHING ELSE.

Page 58 - Government will have real-time access to individual's finances and a National ID Health Card will be issued.

NO. IT SAYS THAT THE HEALTH PLANS IN THE EXCHANGE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DETERMINE YOUR FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY BEFORE THEY ISSUE YOU AN INSURANCE PLAN. YOU ALREADY HAVE ID CARDS IF YOU HAVE PRIVATE INSURANCE NOW OR EVEN MEDICARE. AND YOU CAN'T GET HEALTH INSURANCE NOW UNLESS YOU CAN PAY FOR IT. THIS IS NO DIFFERENT. IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT BUT THE PRIVATE INSURANCE PLANS THAT WILL REQUIRE THIS INFORMATION.

NOTE THIS IN POLITIFACT.COM
•

Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer. Barely True: Section 163 sets out goals for electronic health records. One of the goals is to include features that "enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation" between payment and billing. The legislative summary says the intent in the section is "to adopt standards for typical transactions" between insurance companies and health care providers. The legislation generically describes typical electronic banking transactions and does not outline any special access privileges.

Page 59 lines 21-24 -- Government will have direct access to your bank accounts for electrical funds transfers.

NOT THE GOVERNMENT. AGAIN. YOU WILL HAVE TO APPROVE AN ELECTRONIC (NOT ELECTRICAL!) FUND TRANSFER IF YOU WANT TO PAY YOUR PREMIUMS THAT WAY. IT WILL BE THE PRIVATE INSURERS WHO PROCESS THIS, LIKE BLUE CROSS, AETNA, ETC. HOW DO YOU DO IT NOW?

Page 65 Section 164 -- A payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions and community organizations (ACORN).

NO. THIS IS A PROGRAM WHERE THE GOVERNMENT WILL HELP EMPLOYERS WHO PROVIDE RETIREE MEDICAL BENEFITS TO PAY FOR THOSE BENEFITS IF THEY EXCEED A CERTAIN AMOUNT. IT'S A REINSURANCE PLAN THAT LARGE EMPLOYERS REALLY LIKE BECAUSE IT ALLOWS THEM TO CONTINUE GIVING THEIR EMPLOYEES RETIREE BENEFITS WHEN THEY RETIRE BUT NOT BREAK THE PRIVATE EMPLOYER'S BANK. UNIONS OPERATE HEALTH PLANS JUST LIKE PRIVATE EMPLOYERS SO OF COURSE THEY ARE INCLUDED. NOTHING SAID ABOUT ACORN HERE.

Page 72 Lines 8-14 -- Government is creating a Health Care Exchange to bring private health care plans under government control.

IT IS TRUE THAT GOVERNMENT WILL HELP TO REGULATE THE EXCESSIVE ACTIONS OF PRIVATE INSURERS WHEN THEY DENY YOU COVERAGE BECAUSE OF A PREEXISTING CONDITION OR BECAUSE YOU WERE SICK. BUT DON'T WE ALL WANT THAT? EVEN THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY HAS AGREED TO THAT. THE EXCHANGE IS A WAY TO KEEP OUR PRIVATE INSURANCE SYSTEM WORKING, BUT NOT ALLOW THEM TO DENY YOU INSURANCE OR CHARGE YOU AN ARM OR A LEG. HAVE YOU EVER HAD TO BUY PRIVATE INSURANCE BY YOURSELF? IF YOU DID, YOU KNOW THAT IF YOU WERE EVER SICK, THEY CAN REFUSE TO SELL IT TO YOU OR CHARGE YOU A LOT.

SEE NY TIMES SUNDAY WITH THIS QUOTE:

Lawmakers of both parties agree on the need to rein in private insurance companies by banning underwriting practices that have prevented millions of Americans from obtaining affordable insurance. Insurers would, for example, have to accept all applicants and offer a minimum package of benefits, to be defined by the federal government. Nearly all Americans would be required to have insurance. Lawmakers also agree on the need to provide federal subsidies to help make insurance affordable for people with modest incomes. For poor people, Medicaid eligibility would be expanded.

Page 84 Section 203 -- Government mandates ALL benefit packages for private Health Care plans in the Exchange.

THERE WILL BE DIFFERENT PLANS FOR YOU TO CHOOSE FROM, BASIC TO COMPREHENSIVE DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU WANT TO PAY. RIGHT NOW, IF YOU ARE A MEDICARE BENEFICIARY AND CHOOSE TO BUY A SUPPLEMENT OR "GAP" PLAN, YOU CHOOSE PLANS FROM A MENU AND THE BENEFITS ARE MANDATED AND CONSISTENT.

Page 85 Line 7 -- Specifications for Benefit Levels for Plans = The government will ration your Health Care.

NO RATIONING HERE. YOU CHOOSE THE BENEFITS YOU WANT TO PAY FOR. ONCE YOU HAVE YOUR PLAN, YOUR DOCTOR DECIDES WHAT TREATMENTS YOU NEED. "BENEFITS" MEANS YOU GET HOSPITAL SERVICES AND LAB AND X-RAY. IT DOESN'T DETERMINE WHEN OR HOW OR WHY. JUST LIKE THE PLANS YOU HAVE NOW THROUGH YOUR EMPLOYER OR WHICH YOU BOUGHT YOURSELF. NO DIFFERENT.

Page 91 Lines 4-7 -- Government mandates linguistic appropriate services. Example -- translation for illegal aliens.

YES, LINGUISTIC SERVICES. NO, ILLEGAL ALIENS. NO SERVICES TO ILLEGAL ALIENS. THIS IS A BLATANT LIE. THERE IS NO MENTION OF ILLEGAL ALIENS HERE AT ALL.

Page 95 Lines 8-18 -- The government will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Government Health Care plan.

THE BILL SAYS "APPROPRIATE ENTITIES" WILL HELP WITH ENROLLMENT. DOESN'T MENTION ACORN OR AMERICORPS.

Page 85 Line 7 -- Specs of Benefit Levels for Plans. AARP members -- Your Health Care WILL be rationed.

NO MENTION OF AARP. NO RATIONING. YOU GET TO CHOOSE THE LEVEL OF BENEFITS YOU CAN AFFORD. BUT SOMEONE HAS TO DESIGN THESE PLANS. GOVERNMENT WILL REQUIRE PRIVATE PLANS TO DESIGN THE BENEFITS SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THEM AND CHOOSE APPROPRIATELY.

Page 102 Lines 12-18 -- Medicaid Eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.

NO. LINE 16 SAYS IF YOU DO NOT ELECT (CHOOSE) TO ENROLL IN A PRIVATE PLAN AND IF YOU ARE ELIGIBLE FOR MEDICAID BY REASON OF LOW INCOME, YOU CAN BE ENROLLED AUTOMATICALLY. BUT YOU MAKE THE CHOICE.

Page 124 lines 24-25 -- No company can sue the government for price fixing. No "judicial review" against government monopoly.

TRUE, NO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF GOVERNMENT RATE NEGOTIATIONS. BUT GOVERNMENT IS NOT A MONOPOLY HERE. THIS ONLY PERTAINS TO THE PUBLIC PLAN AND YOU DO NOT HAVE TO CHOOSE THE PUBLIC PLAN, NOR DOES A DOCTOR HAVE TO CHOOSE TO CONTRACT WITH THE PUBLIC PLAN. IT IS VOLUNTARY.

Page 127 Lines 1-16 -- Doctors/AMA: The Government will tell you what you can make.

NO. THIS PERTAINS ONLY TO THE PAYMENTS NEGOTIATED FOR THE PUBLIC PLAN. IT'S THAT WAY NOW WITH MEDICARE. PHYSICIANS CAN CHOOSE TO CONTRACT WITH MEDICARE AND THEY CAN CHOOSE TO CONTRACT -- OR NOT -- WITH THIS PUBLIC PLAN. AND YOU DO NOT HAVE TO CHOOSE TO ENROLL IN THE PUBLIC PLAN. NO ONE IS TELLING DOCTORS WHAT THEY CAN MAKE.

Page 145 Line 15-17 - An Employer MUST automatically enroll employees into public option plan. No Choice.

ABSOLUTELY NOT. THE EMPLOYER CAN PROVIDE ITS OWN COVERAGE OR IT CAN ALLOW EMPLOYEES TO CHOOSE FROM THE MANY, MANY PRIVATE INSURANCE OPTIONS. NO ONE HAS TO GO INTO THE PUBLIC PLAN. SOME SMALL EMPLOYERS (TO BE DEFINED) CAN ALLOW THEIR EMPLOYEES TO CHOOSE A PLAN FROM THE EXCHANGE. IN MOST OF THE BILLS, LARGE EMPLOYERS CANNOT MOVE THEIR EMPLOYEES INTO THE EXCHANGE, AT LEAST IN THE FIRST FEW YEARS.

Page 126 Lines 22-25 -- Employers MUST pay for Health Care for part time employees AND their families.

THIS PAGE NUMBER AND REFERENCE IS WRONG. NOT SURE WHAT PAGE THEY ARE REFERENCING. BUT YES, THERE ARE SOME REFERENCES TO COVERING PART TIME EMPLOYEES.

Page 149 Lines 16-24 -- ANY Employer with payroll 400k and above who does not provide public option pays 8 percent tax on all payroll.

THERE IS AN EMPLOYER MANDATE FOR SMALL EMPLOYERS THAT HAVE MORE THAN 400K IN PAYROLL IN THE HOUSE BILL. BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PUBLIC PLAN. THE PUBLIC PLAN IS OPTIONAL.

Page 150 Lines 9-13 -- Business with payroll between $251k and $400k who does not provide public option pays 2-6 percent tax on all payroll.

NO REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE THE PUBLIC OPTION. WHERE IS THIS COMING FROM?

Page 167 Lines 18-23 -- Any individual who does not have acceptable Health Care according to the government will be taxed 2.5 percent of income.

THIS IS TRUE. THERE IS AN EMPLOYER MANDATE AND AN INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IN THIS BILL. EVERYONE MUST HAVE INSURANCE AND THERE ARE PENALTIES IF THEY DO NOT GET IT. BUT THERE ARE ALSO SUBSIDIES TO HELP THEM PAY FOR IT. IT'S LIKE AUTO INSURANCE. YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT AND YOU PAY FINES IF YOU DON'T GET IT.

Page 170 Lines 1-3 -- Any NONRESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes. (American citizens will pay).

ILLEGAL ALIENS WILL NOT BE COVERED. THEREFORE THEY WILL NOT BE PENALIZED. THEY WILL CONTINUE TO GET THEIR CARE IN EMERGENCY ROOMS LIKE THEY DO NOW, WITH THOSE COSTS BEING SHIFTED TO THE REST OF US.

Page 195 -- Officers and employees of Health Care Administration (government) will have access to ALL American's finance/personal records.

NOT ALL RECORDS. AND ONLY FOR THAT INFORMATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING IF THEY ARE ELIGIBLE FOR GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES. DO YOU WANT GOVERNMENT PAYING SUBSIDIES FOR PEOPLE WHO CAN AFFORD COVERAGE? PROBABLY NOT.

Page 203 Line 14-15 Health Care -- "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax". Yes, it says that.

IT DOES. AND IT'S FUNNY. BUT TAX IS A LEGAL TERM UNDER THE IRS RULES AND THIS IS A CLARIFICATION.

Page 239 Line 14-24 -- Government will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, and poor will be affected.

NO. THE LANGUAGE IS NOT VERY CLEAR BUT IT REFERS TO A FEE SCHEDULE, WHICH IS IN PLACE NOW ANYWAY FOR MEDICAID. YOU THINK GOVERNMENT PAYS ANYTHING A PROVIDER CHARGES WITHOUT CHECKING IT?

Page 241 Line 6-8 -- All doctors will be paid the same regardless of their specialty.

NO. THIS REFERS ONLY TO A CERTAIN EVALUATION AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IN MEDICARE. IT IS NOT A BLANKET PROVISION BY ANY MEANS.

Page 253 Line 10-18 -- Government sets value of doctors' time, professional judgment, etc.; literally the value of humans.

THE RVU (RELATIVE VALUE UNIT) IS THE WAY DOCTORS ARE PAID FOR MEDICARE NOW. IT'S A COMPLICATED FORMULA. PHYSICIANS ACCEPT IT, AND ACTUALLY, SOME LIKE IT BECAUSE IT REWARDS THEM FOR TIME SPENT TALKING TO PATIENTS, NOT JUST TIME WRITING PRESCRIPTIONS. THIS WHOLE SECTION IS ABOUT PAYMENT FOR MEDICARE. MEDICARE ALREADY USES THESE FORMULAS. IF YOU DIDN'T LIKE THIS, WHY DIDN'T YOU SPEAK UP EARLIER WHEN MEDICARE WAS PASSED IN 1965?

Page 265 Section 1131 -- Government mandates and controls productivity for private Health Care industries.

THIS IS FOR MEDICARE. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EXCHANGE OR PRIVATE PLANS.

Page 268 Section 1141 -- Government regulates rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs.

THIS IS ABOUT MEDICARE. GOVERNMENT ALREADY DOES THIS. NOT EVERYONE NEEDS A POWER DRIVEN WHEELCHAIR. DON'T YOU WANT YOUR TAXPAYER MONEY BEING SPENT WISELY BY MEDICARE?

Page 272 Section. 1145 -- Treatment at certain CANCER HOSPITALS; rationing for cancer patients.

NO. THIS REFERS TO MEDICARE PAYMENTS TO CANCER HOSPITALS AND THE ATTEMPT BY GOVERNMENT TO KEEP COSTS UNDER CONTROL BY NOT OVERPAYING.

Page 280 Section 1151 -- The government will penalize hospitals for what government deems preventable re-admissions.

THIS REFERS TO MEDICARE AGAIN. AND YES, IF A HOSPITAL DUMPS A PATIENT OUT BEFORE THEY ARE READY TO LEAVE AND THEY HAVE TO COME BACK AND BE ADMITTED AGAIN, THE HOSPITAL SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT. THIS IS ONLY FOR MEDICARE.

Page 298 Lines 9-11 -- Doctors, treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission and the government will penalize the doctor.

THIS APPLIES TO MEDICARE ONLY. AND YES, THE DOCTOR WHO RELEASES THE PATIENT SHOULD ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE IF THE PATIENT HAS TO COME BACK.

Page 317 Lines 13-20 -- PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Government tells doctors what/how much they can own.

NOT ALL OWNERSHIP. JUST SITUATIONS WHERE DOCTORS OWN THE MAJORITY OF A HOSPITAL OR LAB AND ONLY SEND THEIR PATIENTS TO THE PLACE THEY OWN, THUS INCREASING THEIR INCOME BUT NOT GIVING PATIENT ANY CHOICE. THERE ARE ALREADY PROHIBITIONS ON WHAT THEY CALL "SELF-REFERRAL" IN PLACE, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE NOT ALWAYS EFFECTIVE.

Page 317-318vLines 21-25,1-3 -- PROHIBITION on hospital expansions.

NO. ONLY SITUATIONS WHERE DOCTORS OWN THE HOSPITAL AS WELL AS THE LABS, ETC. AND THEY HAVE A MONOPOLY.

Page 321 2-13 -- Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. Approval by ACORN?

NOTHING SAID ABOUT ACORN HERE OF COURSE. AND BY THE WAY, THERE HAVE BEEN PROGRAMS TO REVIEW HOSPITAL EXPANSIONS SINCE 1980. THESE PROGRAMS WERE CALLED HEALTH PLANNING AND THEY ALLOWED THE PUBLIC TO COME AND COMMENT ON WHETHER OR NOT A HOSPITAL SHOULD BUY A NEW MRI OR BUILD A NEW WING..

Page 335 Lines 16-25; Page 336-339 -- Government mandates establishment of outcome based measures. Health Care the way they want it. Rationing.

THIS ONLY APPLIES TO MEDICARE AT FIRST, BUT IT IS COMMONLY USED NOW IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. WHY SHOULDN'T WE MEASURE THE QUALITY OF CARE RECEIVED? HEDIS, CAPHS, ALL USED FOR YEARS BY PRIVATE SECTOR -- EVEN BEFORE MEDICARE USED THESE MEASURES -- MOST DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS AGREE THAT OUTCOME MEASURES ARE IMPORTANT. THIS IS NOT CONTROVERSIAL IN MOST CIRCLES. WHO DOESN'T WANT BETTER QUALITY CARE?

Page 341 Lines 3-9 -- Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMO's, etc., thus forcing people into government plan.

YIKES. MEDICARE IS A GOVERNMENT PLAN. AND IT'S MEDICARE ADVANTAGE, NOT ADVANCE. AND MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLANS ARE HMOS AND PPOS AVAILABLE TO MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES NOW. THE PROGRAM WAS STARTED BY PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH. THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH RUNS MEDICARE, HAS ALWAYS REGULATED MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLANS SINCE THEY FIRST STARTED.

Page 354 Section 1177 -- Government will RESTRICT enrollment of special needs people.

NO. THIS PROVISION ATTEMPTS TO STRENGTHEN PLANS THAT SERVE PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS. YOU READ IT COMPLETELY WRONG.

Page 379 Section 1191 -- Government creates more bureaucracy -- Tele-Health Advisory Committee. Health Care by phone?

ONLY FOR PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN REMOTE AREAS. THIS WOULD ALLOW DOCTORS TO TALK TO PATIENTS WHO LIVE IN ALASKA OR SOME RURAL AREA WHO ARE SICK AND CAN'T GET TO A DOCTOR IN A TIMELY WAY. IT COULD SAVE LIVES.

Page 425 Lines 4-12 -- Government mandates Advance Care Planning Consults. Think senior citizens end of life.

THIS ONE REALLY MAKES ME MAD. ALL THIS DOES IS ALLOW PEOPLE TO CHOOSE (GET IT, CHOOSE?) TO HAVE A CONSULTATION ABOUT WHAT IS CALLED AN ADVANCED DIRECTIVE. AN ADVANCED DIRECTIVE IS NOTHING MORE THAN A STATEMENT BY A PERSON ABOUT HOW THEY CHOOSE (CHOOSE!) TO BE TREATED IF THEY GET A TERMINAL DISEASE. THE PERSON CAN DECIDE THEY WANT EVERYTHING POSSIBLE DONE FOR THEM OR THEY CAN DECIDE THEY DON'T WANT TO BE ON FEEDING TUBES. BUT IT IS THEIR CHOICE. NO ONE ELSE'S. AND THIS IS AN OPTIONAL BENEFIT. NO ONE NEEDS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT IF THEY DON'T WANT TO.

Page 425 Lines 17-19 -- Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!

NOT MANDATORY. NOT MANDATORY. NOT MANDATORY.
OPTIONAL. OPTIONAL. OPTIONAL.
IF YOU CHOOSE TO HAVE A CONSULTATION EVERY FIVE YEARS, YOU CAN. IF YOU DO NOT CHOOSE TO DO IT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 -- Government provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death.

THE LIST OF RESOURCES IS JUST A LIST SO PEOPLE KNOW WHERE TO FIND OUT INFORMATION.

427 Lines 15-24 -- Government mandates program for orders for end of life. The government has a say in how your life ends.

NO MANDATE. NO SAY IN HOW YOUR LIFE ENDS.
THIS IS AN OPTIONAL PROGRAM. . BUT IF THERE IS A PROGRAM TO ADVISE PEOPLE, OF COURSE THE GOVERNMENT WANTS THAT PROGRAM TO GIVE ACCURATE INFORMATION AND RESPECT PEOPLE'S WISHES.

Page 429 Lines 1-9 -- An "Advanced Care Planning Consultant" will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates.

CAN BE USED MORE FREQUENTLY. NOT WILL BE USED. IF THE PATIENT IS DYING QUICKLY AND NEEDS MORE HELP, THAT HELP WILL BE AVAILABLE.

Page 429 Lines 10-12 -- "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from Government!

NOT FROM THE GOVERNMENT. IT PLAINLY SAYS IF THERE IS AN ORDER -- FROM THE PATIENT TO THE DOCTOR -- THE DOCTOR ISSUES THE ORDER. NOT THE GOVERNMENT. READ IT! LINES 13-25.

Page 429 Lines 13-25 - The government will specify which doctors can write an end of life order.
.
NO. ONLY DOCTORS WHO ARE LICENSED PROFESSIONALS CAN MAKE THAT ORDER. AND THE ORDER IS AT THE REQUEST OF THE PATIENT TO START WITH. GOVERNMENT ONLY ASSURES THAT A REAL DOCTOR OR QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL IS HELPING OUT.

Page 430 Lines 11-15 -- The government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life.

NO. THE INDIVIDUAL PATIENT DECIDES THAT. IT PLAINLY STATES THAT THE INDIVIDUAL DECIDES. NOT THE GOVERNMENT. NOT EVEN THE DOCTOR.

Page 469 -- Community Based Home Medical Services = Non-profit organizations. ACORN Medical Services?

NOTHING TO DO WITH ACORN. AND IT'S NOT HOME MEDICAL. IT'S "MEDICAL HOME." THAT'S A CONCEPT THAT IS GAINING A LOT OF RESPECT AMONG PRIMARY CARE DOCTORS BECAUSE IT ALLOWS THEM TO GET PAID FOR HELPING TO COORDINATE PATIENT CARE MORE EFFECTIVELY.

Page 472 Lines 14-17 -- Payment to community-based organizations; One monthly payment to a community-based organization like ACORN.

ACORN IS NOT A MEDICAL HOME OR A MEDICAL ORGANIZATION. NO PAYMENT TO ACORN. I HAVE SEARCHED THE BILL AND ACORN IS NEVER MENTIONED.

Page 489 Section 1308 -- The government will cover marriage and family therapy, which means they will insert government into your marriage.

NO. THIS IS A CLARIFICATION OF A BENEFIT UNDER MEDICARE. IT ALLOWS CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKERS TO BE INCLUDED AS WELL AS PSYCHOLOGISTS. IT IS VERY TEMPTING TO GET SNARKY ABOUT THIS ONE. A LOT OF PEOPLE COULD USE A LOT MORE MARRIAGE COUNSELING!!

I don't know about you, but I am tired of right-wing propagandizers lying about health care proposals for no other reason that to confuse the general public.  In particular, I am tired of people who have built careers leeching off the public (or even defrauding the government) for their own benefit trying to deny me access to an affordable health care plan.  Fatigue with the lies and deception led me to write a letter to my Canadian cousin the other day in order to try to get some facts about health care in Canada.  He wrote back the following (which I paraphrase):

In the 1960s, and faced with similar future problems of escalating costs (and sharing similar health care systems, health care costs, and vital statistics), the two countries chose different paths.  The US chose to provide public coverage for only the elderly and the very old, whereas Canada decided on a universal single-payer system for hospitals and physicians' services.  Today, all Canadians have insurance.  They have no deductibles and no co-pays.  Most of the separate provinces provide additional coverage ... for home care, long-term and assisted living care, pharmaceuticals, and other benefits (though there are usually co-pays associated with them).  On our side of the border, close to 50 million people have no insurance, millions more are underinsured, and health-related bills bankrupt more than one million Americans every single year.

Obviously, a single-payer system would eliminate almost all problems related to coverage in the U.S.  Canada spends about 10% of its GDP on the single-payer system, whereas the U.S. currently is spending 16% (and everyone is not covered, nor are those covered covered equally).  The difference in spending has nothing to do with quality ... and everything to do with overhead.  There are not thousands of actuaries setting premiums and thousands of lawyers denying care.  According to the GAO, Medicare has about an 80% lower administrative cost than does Medicare Advantage (the trillion dollar boondoggle passed under the Republican idea of "reform" ... you know, reform that passes all sorts of unnecessary costs on to the for-profits offering Advantage coverage).  You know, he told me, it even makes sense to realize that providers and suppliers have a harder time defrauding the system when there is only a single payer.

A single-payer system reduces the paper work, and reduces costs arising from duplication of effort (or duplication of unnecessary services).  It also makes it possible to negotiate lower costs.  In Canada, because administrative costs are so much lower, Canadian citizens actually receive more medical care and services for the money that is spent.  They can afford to go to the doctor more often, and they can get more drugs.  While there are, point of fact, less heart surgeries in Canada than in the U.S. ... less Canadians die of heart attacks.  They live more than three years longer than do Americans.  And infant mortality in Canada is 20% lower than in the U.S.

Because funding goes to services (and not to dividends, salaries, bonuses or advertising), more people are served.  The Canadian system is not without its problems (what system is perfect, heh?).  Despite well-publicized cases to the contrary that are exceptions to the rule, most Canadians needing urgent care get it immediately.  They do wait a long time for elective surgeries (which a few of those propagandized stories were really about, by the way), including visits to the family doctor or to specialists.  And chronic disease is not managed well in Canada.  But we don't do any of those things very well in this country, either.  In fact, the GAO reported in April that emergency room wait times have increased over the last few years (on average, it takes 28 minutes in an emergency room), and the wait for mammograms has increased to two to four months.  However, the GAO says this wait-time for a mammogram has nothing to do with facilities or equipment ... rather, it is caused in large part by physician insistence on fee-for-service; an archaic 19th century solution to drive quacks and snakeoil salesmen out of the business.

A single-payer system is the simplest, least expensive, and most broadly applicable approach to universal health care.  However, American democracy runs on money.  The fuel to drive democracy (i.e., the money) is provided by corporations ... in this case, the pharmaceutical and the insurance industries.  Hundreds of billions of dollars are wasted in overhead for these leeches that could otherwise be used to provide basic health care coverage for everyone (and the rich, or those served by employers, can supplement the basic coverage they think they might lose).  We, the retired and under-insured, see all that money being wasted.  Business executives, of course, see bonuses and dividends, not to mention campaign contributions (to buy votes) and advertising (to buy loyalty).

Americans, truly and deeply ignorant of life beyond our borders, are sitting ducks for demagogues and propagandists.  Knee jerk anti-government rhetoric stirs passions rather than educates people about choices.  The media, succubus legislators, and even presidents cry about "socialism" ... knowing full well that it is a word very much in spirit with He Who Cannot Be Named (and has essentially the same effect).  They tell us that Canadian citizens cannot choose their own doctors ( a lie), while conveniently forgetting how many insurance plans severely restrict "in-plan" doctors that are in collusion with the insurance industry.

Unfortunately, very few Americans will ever hear the true story of Canadian, single-payer health care.  Then again, many Americans don't really care too much about the truth.

ObamaCare - Part 2?

I admit I didn't read the 1000 page stimulus bill. But according to Devyvy Kidd, buried in there is the first part of ObamaCare, which includes funding $1.1B for the Federal Coordinating Council For Comparative Effectiveness Research. This 15-member board has already been appointed! So despite what arguments shays may try to lull you to sleep with, you can bet with money in hand the DemocRATS will piecemeal this un-Constitutional abomination of freedom into multiple, inoculous bills. In the past they have slid things like an increase of H1-b visas into omnibus spending bills right before a recess, so that would be the first place to watch. There there are hundreds of bills every year that do things like name post offices, for example. THAT is where the pieces of this bill will be relocated.

If you're finally sensing that something is terribly wrong, maybe its the precepts of the U.S. Constititution [bleep]ing your consciousness. After all, the Supreme Court has already found it against the Constitution for the feds to regulate health care. To find good references to this argument, do a search on Devvy Kidd and go to her website - Debby's Project. Toward the bottom you will find a spot for NewsWithViews. Click on that, and the 2nd article down is about ObamCare and has the court citation and other references.

If you're not mad, you're not awake.

I'll Keep My Freedom -

You Keep The Chains

RealAmerica

Physician Perspective

One of the lacking elements and least heard is that of the physicians. They are generally reticent to voice their politics. But once in awhile one steps forward who is acknowledged as speaking for many, and this is one from Atlanta, Ga (Zane F. Pollard, MD).

While the healthcare reform debate has been picking up this summer, the conversation is mostly between politicians and average citizens who do not practice medicine. US doctors and nurses seem to have been left out from this dispute, even though the outcome will influence them, their lives, their practice, and their ability to stay in business, enormously.

Clearly, if the reform is not private practice "friendly" we as a community might lose our best physicians and our economy might weaken as a result of doctors shutting down or going out of business.

Below is an opinion of one of Atlanta's most recognized physicians, Dr. Zane F. Pollard, who works in pediatric ophthalmology for Children's Healthcare of Atlanta at Scottish Rite, Atlanta, GA.

OBAMACARE AND ME

I have been sitting quietly on the sidelines watching all of this national debate on healthcare. It is time for me to bring some clarity to the table by explaining many of the problems from the perspective of a doctor.

First off, the government has involved very few of us physicians in the healthcare debate. While the American Medical Association has come out in favor of the plan, it is vital to remember that the AMA only represents 17% of the American physician workforce.

I have taken care of Medicaid patients for 35 years while representing the only pediatric ophthalmology group left in Atlanta, Georgia that accepts Medicaid. For example, in the past 6 months I have cared for three young children on Medicaid who had corneal ulcers. This is a potentially blinding situation because if the cornea perforates from the infection, almost surely blindness will occur. In all three cases the antibiotic needed for the eradication of the infection was not on the approved Medicaid list. Each time I was told to fax Medicaid for the approval forms, which I did. Within 48 hours the form came back to me which was sent in immediately via fax, and I was told that I would have my answer in 10 days. Of course by then each child would have been blind in the eye.

Each time the request came back denied. All three times I personally provided the antibiotic for each patient which was not on the Medicaid approved list. Get the point -- rationing of care.

Over the past 35 years I have cared for over 1000 children born with congenital cataracts. In older children and in adults the vision is rehabilitated with an intraocular lens. In newborns we use contact lenses which are very expensive. It takes Medicaid over one year to approve a contact lens post cataract surgery. By that time a successful anatomical operation is wasted as the child will be close to blind from a lack of focusing for so long a period of time.

Again, extreme rationing. Solution: I have a foundation here in Atlanta supported 100% by private funds which supplies all of these contact lenses for my Medicaid and illegal immigrants children for free. Again, waiting for the government would be disastrous.

Last week I had a lady bring her child to me. They are Americans but live in Sweden, as the father has a job with a big corporation. The child had the onset of double vision 3 months ago and has been unable to function normally because of this. They are people of means but are waiting 8 months to see the ophthalmologist in Sweden. Then if the child needed surgery they would be put on a 6 month waiting list. She called me and I saw her that day. It turned out that the child had accommodative esotropia (crossing of the eyes treated with glasses that correct for farsightedness) and responded to glasses within 4 days, so no surgery was needed. Again, rationing of care.

Last month I operated on a 70 year old lady with double vision present for 3 years. She responded quite nicely to her surgery and now is symptom free. I also operated on a 69 year old judge with vertical double vision. His surgery went very well and now he is happy as a lark. I have been told -- but of course there is no healthcare bill that has been passed yet -- that these 2 people because of their age would have been denied surgery and just told to wear a patch over one eye to alleviate the symptoms of double vision. Obviously cheaper than surgery.

I spent two year in the US Navy during the Viet Nam war and was well treated by the military. There was tremendous rationing of care and we were told specifically what things the military personnel and their dependents could have and which things they could not have. While I was in Viet Nam, my wife Nancy got sick and got essentially no care at the Naval Hospital in Oakland, California. She went home and went to her family's private internist in Beverly Hills. While it was expensive, she received an immediate work up. Again rationing of care.

For those of you who are over 65, this bill in its present form might be lethal for you. People in England over 59 cannot receive stents for their coronary arteries. The government wants to mimic the British plan. For those of you younger, it will still mean restriction of the care that you and your children receive.

While 99% of physicians went into medicine because of the love of medicine and the challenge of helping our fellow man, economics are still important. My rent goes up 2% each year and the salaries of my employees go up 2% each year. Twenty years ago, ophthalmologists were paid $1800 for a cataract surgery and today $500. This is a 73% decrease in our fees. I do not know of many jobs in America that have seen this sort of lowering of fees.

But there is more to the story than just the lower fees. When I came to Atlanta, there was a well known ophthalmologist that charged $2500 for a cataract surgery as he felt the was the best. He had a terrific reputation and in fact I had my mother's bilateral cataracts operated on by him with a wonderful result. She is now 94 and has 20/20 vision in both eyes. People would pay his $2500 fee.

However, then the government came in and said that any doctor that does Medicare work cannot accept more than the going rate ( now $500) or he or she would be severely fined. This put an end to his charging $2500. The government said it was illegal to accept more than the government-allowed rate. What I am driving at is that those of you well off will not be able to go to the head of the line under this new healthcare plan, just because you have money, as no physician will be willing to go against the law to treat you.

I am a pediatric ophthalmologist and trained for 10 years post-college to become a pediatric ophthalmologist (add two years of my service in the Navy and that comes to 12 years).A neurosurgeon spends 14 years post -college, and if he or she has to do the military that would be 16 years. I am not entitled to make what a neurosurgeon makes, but the new plan calls for all physicians to make the same amount of payment. I assure you that medical students will not go into neurosurgery and we will have a tremendous shortage of neurosurgeons. Already, the top neurosurgeon at my hospital who is in good health and only 52 years old has just quit because he can't stand working with the government anymore. Forty-nine percent of children under the age of 16 in the state of Georgia are on Medicaid, so he felt he just could not stand working with the bureaucracy anymore.

We are being lied to about the uninsured. They are getting care. I operate at least 2 illegal immigrants each month who pay me nothing, and the children's hospital at which I operate charges them nothing also.This is true not only on Atlanta, but of every community in America. The bottom line is that I urge all of you to contact your congresswomen and congressmen and senators to defeat this bill. I promise you that you will not like rationing of your own health.

Furthermore, how can you trust a physician that works under these conditions knowing that he is controlled by the state. I certainly could not trust any doctor that would work under these draconian conditions.

One last thing: with this new healthcare plan there will be a tremendous shortage of physicians. It has been estimated that approximately 5% of the current physician work force will quit under this new system. Also it is estimated that another 5% shortage will occur because of the decreased number of men and women wanting to go into medicine. At the present time the US government has mandated gender equity in admissions to medical schools .That means that for the past 15 years that somewhere between 49 and 51% of each entering class are females. This is true of private schools also, because all private schools receive federal funding.

The average career of a woman in medicine now is only 8-10 years and the average work week for a female in medicine is only 3-4 days. I have now trained 35 fellows in pediatric ophthalmology. Hands down the best was a female that I trained 4 years ago -- she was head and heels above all others I have trained. She now practices only 3 days a week.

I'll Keep My Freedom -

You Keep The Chains

RealAmerica

A MESSAGE FROM THE AMERICAN SENIORS ASSOCIATION

(Forward by Dick Morris) Dear Subscriber,

I have gotten madder and madder at the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) for claiming to represent America's elderly when, in fact, it is just a vendor seeking to get revenue under the Obama health care plan. It was just such a conflict of interest that impelled the AARP to endorse Bush's prescription drug plan. The AARP has morphed from a group that speaks for seniors to one that tries to make money from them.

My wife, Eileen, and I were thrilled to learn of a rival to the AARP that has sprung up -- The American Seniors Association (ASA) -- which opposes Obamacare and is willing to be an independent, disinterested voice speaking up for the elderly. We reached out to Stuart Barton, its President, and suggested that we send a letter from him to our readers (this is not a paid mailing; we are sending it around because we deeply believe in fashioning an alternative to AARP).

We both suggest that you do as we are doing -- join ASA -- as a way of showing AARP that they do not speak for America's seniors. Obama's proposals represent a wholesale transfer of medical services away from the elderly and will force government rationing and denials of care for the very old and very ill. We need to fight against them and that is what ASA is doing and AARP is not!

The letter from ASA's President, Stuart Barton, is below.

Thanks,

Dick Morris
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dear DickMorrisReports Subscriber,

The American Seniors Association (ASA) invites any members of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) to mail us your torn AARP card in order to receive a 2-year-for-1-year ASA membership.

Indeed, anyone of any age can become an ASA member -- especially since young people, baby boomers, seniors, and just about all Americans are now under assault by various Obama healthcare proposals and by the sell-out AARP leadership.

ASA is fighting congressional healthcare proposals that could cost perhaps $1.8 trillion or more over the next 10 years, to be accompanied by cuts in Medicare of $500 billion. ASA opposes a government-run plan that increase taxes and limit doctor-patient choice. We object to one House bill that would actually force individuals or their employers who do not have approved health insurance plans to pay a fine. Furthermore, none of these congressional proposals have a provision that people enjoying healthcare benefits must have their citizenship and legal residency status verified by all 50 states. That opens the door for citizen taxpayers to be gouged for the healthcare coverage of possibly 15-20 million illegal aliens!

Please visit our website at americanseniors.org and consider joining our important crusade. We are for targeted healthcare reforms, but Obamacare and a dismantling of our private enterprise system is not the cure! Also check out the rich variety of membership benefits that ASA provides.

With kindest regards,

Stuart Barton

President, American Seniors Association

Good speech last night.  Since you love citing CNN polls, CNN announced that 68% of those who watched the speech now favor the plan Obama presented.

Freedom Federation Supports Heathcare Reform But Opposes Government-run Healthcare that Funds Abortion, Violates Conscience, Rations Care, or Limits Freedom

FreedomFederation.org - Real Hope. Real Change. Real Freedom.

Today some of the largest multiracial, multiethnic, and multigenerational faith-based and policy organizations in the country, representing more than 30 million people, gathered in the Nation’s capital to discuss healthcare reform and to mobilize their constituents regarding this national debate. The groups agreed on the following statement about healthcare.

We believe social justice includes healthcare reform that lowers the cost, increases quality, and expands choice at the greatest convenience, without moving private health decisions from the doctor’s office to Washington bureaucrats. Individual liberties trump government-imposed obligations. We believe that individuals, communities, and doctors in the free market make better health decisions than government mandates. We believe in incentives, not coercion.

We oppose funding for abortion. Abortion is not healthcare. We support the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. Life, no matter how young, is not expendable and, no matter how ill or aged, is not to be weighed on a cost-benefit scale. We support conscience laws protecting hospitals and healthcare providers from coerced participation in abortion. We oppose government policies pressuring people to forgo or limit treatment because of age or illness. We oppose rationed healthcare due to age, illness or based on a government agency’s determination of "quality" or "value" of life. President Obama said, "under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place." However, the House has repeatedly rejected amendments denying funding to abortion. We will hold Congress accountable to the principle of the sanctity of human life and to the President's assurance that no public funds will fund abortion and that conscience laws will remain in place.

We support health insurance that is affordable and portable. We support legal reform to stop frivolous lawsuits that drive up healthcare costs, while affording the injured appropriate compensation. We support portability, allowing people to take their healthcare with them so it is not tied to employment. We support options to purchase health insurance across state lines. We support competition; coverage of pre-existing conditions; wellness care and prevention incentives; tax relief that provides a dollar-for-dollar deduction for every dollar spent on premiums or other medical or prescription costs; and a dollar-for-dollar tax deduction with no limit from gross income for every dollar contributed to nonprofit organizations providing healthcare for free or at reduced cost to the needy.

We support freedom and the dignity of the individual, and thus we oppose federalization of the healthcare industry that would create a maze of bureaucracy which will impede and delay critical care and decrease the quality of healthcare. We oppose a single-payer, government-run insurance program or the so-called public option. It is time to start over with a truly nonpartisan approach to healthcare.

To learn more about the Freedom Federation, go to FreedomFederation.org.

Ohso found this -

I'll Keep My Freedom -

You Keep The Changeling

RealAmerica

its really very nice article. good.

How 'Bout Those Ethics

A health insurance provider was issued a gag order by CMS (an office of the Executive Branch), yet AARP was allowed to dessiminate similiar, but opposing information.

humanevents.com/article.php?id=33681

The insurance provider was stating that it would not be able to offer as many benefits if ObamaCare is passed.

Soetoro - YOU LIE

I'll Keep My Freedom -

You Keep The Chains

RealAmerica

Good News, Bad News

The bad news is, Rep. Joe Wilson was right, ObamaCare will be available to illegal aliens. The Senate Finance Committee rejected an amendment that would require id when applying for benefits.

The good news? Obama is considering that his upcoming AMNESTY II doesn't have a chance of passing, so he has to provide health care to illegal aliens through the back door.

I wonder if the House of Representatives will censure all the members who voted to admonish Rep. Wilson for his 'You Lie!' outburst.

I'll Keep My Freedom -

You Keep The Chains

RealAmerica

In a telephone survey of 3,003 U.S. adults conducted by Thomson Reuters - they found effective healthcare reform crossed party lines. 78 percent of Democrats were willing to pay higher taxes, as well as 64 percent of independents and 48 percent of Republicans. That's also true of most all Industrialized countries. While there's a bunch of news out about how many of the European countries are moving right - Europe's center-right parties have embraced many ideas of the left, generous welfare benefits, nationalized health care, and sharp restrictions on carbon emissions. If we had a floor that none of "us" fell through - then perhaps capitalism would look better. Well....I would add robust financial consumer protections to the mix too.

A CBS/Reuters poll taken immediately after the Senate Finance Committee rejected two separate amendments that would have added a public option to the HealthCareCo "Reform" Bill (that is, the Baucus Bill that was ghost-written by lobbyists for Big Health Care), 63% of those polled favored the public option (and 53% favored a single-payer system).  The ONLY people opposed to health care reform are all members of the Republican Party in the United States Congress and a handful of Democrats who are on the payroll of health care lobbyists.

And this just reported … the accumulated wealth of the Forbes 400 has only increased by a mere 2% ($30 billion) over the last year.  That small increase (they had grown accustomed to double-digit increases) may seem like a pittance, but compare it to the poor sucker who just lost 40% of his or her 401k.  And just think … $30 billion would provide five hundred thousand teachers a year's salary of $60,000!  Those top 400 rich people have a combined $1.57 trillion.  That would pretty much pay for the uninsured to have health insurance for about 20 years (but to take it from them to do so would, indeed, be extremely unfair).  It would quite possibly fund a Manhattan or Apollo-style Project to address issues related to climate change and developing industries providing renewable energy and a green, sustainable manufacturing sector.  It is MORE than enough to endow every college and university so that any child or adult who wished to go to college could do so (whether they "earned" admission or not).

As for the welfare state … just how much of the roughly $13 trillion in subsidies and guarantees for the financial, pharmaceutical, auto, and insurance industries has gone to actual PEOPLE?  I'll tell you.  Zero.  The roughly $350 billion annual outlay for means tested programs for low income citizens (which, to be true, some do abuse) pales in comparison – Wall Street's welfare is about 37 times larger than welfare provided to people!

We have turned our backs on providing free higher education, health care, and a sustainable economy.  Instead, we have created an unregulated fantasy finance boom and bust on Wall Street (where investment banks would buy up any mortgage they could find … who cares if the borrower had no job, could not make a down-payment, or operated under a false name because the lender had an instant buyer in Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs and any other number of outfits that until 2000 were forbidden to enter the housing market at all … and then sell it to greedy investors with all sorts of AAA ratings on the security of those loans … itself a con of still unexplored magnitude) which actually crashed the real economy.  We have 400 billionaires in exchange for 29 million unemployed and underemployed fellow Americans.  Our infrastructure is in shambles.  We have an environmental crisis and a health care system that would do Rube Goldberg proud.  And we have the worst income distribution since 1929.  I bet everyone of the top Forbes 400 members could get buy with an annual income of $100,000,000 … I bet it wouldn't harm their entrepreneurial spirit in the slightest, and it certainly wouldn't hurt the economy if the middle class were given even a glimmer of hope that one illness or one accident could put them under a bridge or on a park bench tomorrow night.