posted August 14, 2009 03:22 PM         

Summary

So much for a slow news month. August feels like campaign season, with claims on health care coming at us daily. Does the House bill call for mandatory counseling on how to end seniors’ lives sooner? Absolutely not. Will the government be dictating to doctors how to treat their patients? No. Do the bills propose cutting Medicare benefit levels? No on that one, too.

But on the other hand, has Congress figured out how to pay for this overhaul? Not yet. Or will it really save families $2,500 a year as the president keeps claiming? Good luck on that one, too.

In this article we offer a run-down of seven falsehoods we’ve taken on recently, with some additional updating and research thrown in.

Analysis

False: Government Will Decide What Care I Get (a.k.a. they won’t give grandma a hip replacement)

This untrue claim has its roots in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the stimulus bill), which called for the creation of a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The council is charged with supporting and coordinating research that the government has been funding for years into which treatments work best, and in some cases, are most cost-effective. Supporters of this type of research say it can provide valuable information to doctors, improving care and also lowering cost.

Betsy McCaughey, a former Republican lieutenant governor of New York (and now a professing Democrat), wrote in an opinion piece that the government would actually tell doctors what procedures they could and couldn’t perform. The claim took off from there, popping up in chain e-mails and Republican press conferences. It’s not true. The legislation specifically says that the council can’t issue requirements or guidelines on treatment or insurance benefits:

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Council to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer. … None of the reports submitted under this section or recommendations made by the Council shall be construed as mandates or clinical guidelines for payment, coverage, or treatment.

As for the health care bills themselves, the House’s H.R. 3200 sets up a center to conduct and gather such research within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, an entity the CBO called “the most prominent federal agency supporting various types of research on the comparative effectiveness of medical treatments." Like the stimulus legislation, the bill states that: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Commission or the Center to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer.’’

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee bill (not yet released in its entirety) calls for a similar center that “will promote health outcomes research and evaluation that enables patients and providers to identify which therapies work best for most people and to effectively identify where more personalized approaches to care are necessary for others,” according to the summary of the bill.

This claim also stems from a fear that the U.S. will institute a system like that of the U.K., where the government provides and pays for health care. But none of the bills now being debated in Congress call for such a system, and the president has said he doesn’t want nationalized or single-payer health care, as we’ve said several times.

For more, see: "Doctor’s Orders?" Feb. 20

"Government-Run Health Care?" April 30

False: The Bill Is Paid For

At least, it isn’t paid for yet.

President Obama has repeatedly said that a health care overhaul "will be paid for” and that he won’t sign a bill that isn’t deficit-neutral. But neither the House bill nor the Senate HELP Committee bill meets that criteria. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation, the House bill as introduced would add a net $239 billion over 10 years to the deficit, while the HELP Committee bill racks up more, $597 billion over 10 years.

Obama has also said he has "identified two-thirds of those costs to be paid for by tax dollars that are already being spent right now.” But "identified" is the operative word. These savings are estimates and whether around $650 billion (about two-thirds of the cost of health care over 10 years) can be saved remains to be seen. Most of the money would come from Medicare, but cuts in payments to insurers and practitioners aren’t popular measures that move easily through Congress.

So the big questions remain. Will the president break his promise and sign a bill that piles up hundreds of billions of additional debt? Will the legislation have to be scaled back to cost less, and perhaps cover fewer of the uninsured? Who will pay additional taxes? Can pain-free reductions in other government programs be found?

"Obama’s Health Care News Conference," July 23

False: Private Insurance Will Be Illegal

In July, Investor’s Business Daily published an editorial in which it claimed that H.R. 3200 would make private insurance illegal. But IBD was mistaken. It was citing the part of the bill that ensures people with individually purchased coverage don’t have to give up that coverage unless they want to.

Under the House bill, people who want to buy new individual, nongroup coverage will have to purchase it through a new health insurance exchange. They can still buy private insurance – the exchange, in fact, would offer a range of private plans, in addition to a new federal health insurance option. However, those who were already buying their own insurance before the bill went into effect – about 14 million Americans – will have their plans grandfathered in. The part of the bill IBD cites doesn’t forbid insurers from issuing new plans. It says that new individual plans will not be considered grandfathered, and will have to be purchased through the exchange.

"Private Insurance Not Outlawed" Aug. 13

False: The House Bill Requires Suicide Counseling

This claim is nonsense. In an appearance on former Sen. Fred Thompson’s radio show, McCaughey also enthusiastically pushed the bogus claim that the House bill will require seniors to have regular counseling sessions on how to end their lives:

McCaughey, July 16: The Congress would make it mandatory … that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner, how to decline nutrition, how to decline being hydrated, how to go into hospice care … all to do what’s in society’s best interest … and cut your life short.

This is a misrepresentation. What the bill actually provides for is voluntary Medicare-funded end-of-life counseling. In other words, if seniors choose to make advance decisions about the type of care and treatments they wish to receive at the end of their lives, Medicare will pay for them to sit down with their doctor and discuss their preferences. There is no requirement to attend regular sessions, and there is absolutely no provision encouraging euthanasia.

Of course, seniors who talk to their doctors about end-of-life care might well choose to discuss what types of life-saving treatment they wish to refuse. That choice has been federally guaranteed for almost 20 years. Euthanasia, on the other hand, is legal in only three states, making it even more unlikely to be a major part of the federal health plan.

"False Euthanasia Claims," July 29

False: Families Will Save $2,500

Proponents speak constantly of holding down rising medical costs. As recently as May 13, the president said legislation plus some voluntary measures by the private sector "could save families $2,500 in the coming years – $2,500 per family," echoing a claim he made countless times on the campaign trail last year.

Don’t start spending that $2,500 just yet.

For one thing, Obama isn’t actually promising to reduce health care spending below current levels, only to cut the rate of growth in spending. And even that is proving to be far tougher to accomplish than Obama led voters to believe. We’ve already mentioned that the Congressional Budget Office says "savings" in Medicare spending resulting from the House bill would fall short of what is needed to pay for two-thirds of its cost, which is Obama’s goal. And those savings come only in what the government pays, not in what families pay.

Squeezing more savings, even from Medicare, is proving difficult. On July 17, Obama’s lead man on the subject, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag, wrote to congressional leaders seeking legislation setting up an independent agency, the Independent Medicare Advisory Council (IMAC). It would be made up of health care experts with the power to make a package of annual changes in the amounts Medicare would pay to doctors. The president must either approve or diapprove the entire package as offered; if he approves, it goes into effect unless Congess passes a joint resolution stopping it. But when CBO took a look, it estimated that the new agency would save a total of only $2 billion over the next decade.

As for saving $2,500 for families, as opposed to saving money for the government, the CBO’s letter, signed by Director Douglas W. Elmendorf, said:

CBO: [E]xperts generally agree that changes in government policy have the potential to significantly reduce health care spending—for the nation as a whole and for the federal government in particular—without harming people’s health. However, achieving large reductions in projected spending would require fundamental changes in the financing and delivery of health care.

As an example of the "fundamental" changes that might do the trick: CBO suggested moving away from the current system of paying doctors and hospitals for performing medical procedures and paying them instead a fixed fee per patient or some other payment based on "value." Another CBO suggestion: "higher cost-sharing requirements." So far we don’t see those ideas in the bills being considered.

False: Medicare Benefits Will Be Slashed

The claim that Obama and Congress are cutting seniors’ Medicare benefits to pay for the health care overhaul is outright false, though that doesn’t keep it from being repeated ad infinitum.

The truth is that the pending House bill extracts $500 billion from projected Medicare spending over 10 years, as scored by the Congressional Budget Office, by doing such things as trimming projected increases in the program’s payments for medical services, not including physicians. Increases in other areas, such as payments to doctors, bring the net savings down to less than half that amount. But none of the predicted savings – or cuts, depending on one’s perspective – come from reducing current or future benefits for seniors.

The president has promised repeatedly that benefit levels won’t be reduced, reiterating the point recently in Portsmouth, N.H.:

Obama, Aug. 11: Another myth that we’ve been hearing about is this notion that somehow we’re going to be cutting your Medicare benefits. We are not.

Is he wrong? Not according to AARP, by far the nation’s largest organization representing the over-50 population. In a "Myths vs. Facts" rundown, AARP says:

AARP: Fact: None of the health care reform proposals being considered by Congress would cut Medicare benefits or increase your out-of-pocket costs for Medicare services.

To be sure, Obama hasn’t always thought that Medicare "savings" could be accomplished without actual cuts in benefits. Last fall, his campaign ran two television ads accusing Sen. John McCain of wanting “a 22 percent cut in [Medicare] benefits.” The basis for the ads was a newspaper article in which a McCain aide said the Arizona Republican would cut Medicare costs. But the aide said nothing about cutting benefits, in fact quite the contrary. We called the claim "false" when Obama made it against McCain, and it’s still false now when Obama’s critics are making the same accusation against him.

False: Illegal Immigrants Will Be Covered

One Republican congressman issued a press release claiming that "5,600,000 Illegal Aliens May Be Covered Under Obamacare," and we’ve been peppered with queries about similar claims. They’re not true. In fact, the House bill (the only bill to be formally introduced in its entirety) specifically says that no federal money would be spent on giving illegal immigrants health coverage:

H.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

Also, under current law, those in the country illegally don’t qualify for federal health programs. Of interest: About half of illegal immigrants have health insurance now, according to the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center, which says those who lack insurance do so principally because their employers don’t offer it.

"Misleading GOP Health Care Claims" July 23

– by Brooks Jackson, Viveca Novak, Lori Robertson and Jess Henig

Sources

Congressional Budget Office. Letter to Rep. Charles B. Rangel. 17 Jul 2009.

Congressional Budget Office. Letter to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. 2 Jul 2009.

U.S. House. "H.R. 3200." (as introduced 14 Jul 2009.)

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. "Advance Care Planning: Preferences for Care at the End of Life." Mar 2003.

"AARP Responds to Health Reform Scare Tactics." Press release. AARP 24 Jul 2009.

Keyserling, Jon. Interview with FactCheck.org 29 Jul 2009.

Patient Self-Determination Act. 42 USC 1395cc.

Collins, Sara. Interview with FactCheck.org. 21 Jul 2009.

"It’s Not an Option." Editorial. Investor’s Business Daily. 15 Jul 2009.

Orszag, Peter. Letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Office of Management and Budget. 17 Jul 2009.

posted August 14, 2009 11:53 PM         

• She reads what other Conservatives are saying,

• She does no homework or critical thinking on her own, and

• She reitterates what she's read/heard.
  

That's it. And that's about how long the cycle takes, too. There's no absorption time.

posted August 15, 2009 09:51 AM         

Quite an eye opener. Just a few years ago many of these same people were singing the exact opposite tune. Including: "I failed Geography" you too can hold a political office Palin. ^ ^ above

Undermining the current President, throwing sand down the gas tank of Health Reform, and just plain politicizing all the important decisions that need to be made to help get the US back on it's feet is Politics as usual for far too many elected officials.

The Mouthpiece Rush Limbaugh continues with his spittle stained rants of Nazi's running the country.

I watched one woman tearfully gasp out "this is not MY America"
One wonders what the original native Americans would have to say about that.

Those that are fearful of loosing "My America" are largely poor-middle class, and mostly white. They fear change. A black President and Powerful females rattles the cages of those with some very deep issues. It scares them that they are becoming (and in some cases) already are, the minority...they do not like it one little bit. The melting pot was OK when it comprised Northern and Western Europeans.

What was also interesting to see was W cutting short one of his frequent vacations (he was on vacation more days than behind the desk, and holds the record for vacation time) to add his weight to the government controlling end of life decisions. That was OK.

If counseling for end of life decisions, help to make good decisions, is taken out of the bill, you can thank Specter et all for the insurance co. not having to pick up the tab, when and if you need it.

Our Veterans have socialized Health Care. That's fine for them right?

The elderly have government run health care. If the conservatives had had there way that wouldn't exist either.( Medicare) I wonder if they know that. Or social security!! writing this fast, I don't have the particular case name on hand to reference about when conservatives, and Bush himself played a part a couple years ago when they weighed in on this...poor of me, come back.

And as a female ...regarding the right of choice... would be taken away in abortion decisions also. For a group singing such a different tune right now about, lets keep the government out...the hypocrisy is incredible.

I am off topic alot here...just wanted to 2 cents

For a fun thread we can suggest titles for the book she will surly write soon

posted August 15, 2009 01:05 PM         

Memo to all members of the Doofus Club.

While Doofus Club members describe Sarah Palin as the dullest tack in the box, the dimmest bulb in the marque; Sarah Palin sent all the cockroaches scurrying by shining a spotlight on them and focusing a blowtorch on their sorry, disgusting and contemptible a$$es.

She did it with only 2 words; "Death Panel".

All Doofus Club members denied there were any such provisions in bills before Congress..i.e., O'BomberCare; which only goes to prove members of the Doofus Club can't connect the dots. They can't connect the dots even when those dots are all lined up in a straight row.

So, while the public is showing up at town-hall meetings and ripping their congressional members and Senators, Sarah Palin gets the offending provision dropped from the Senate Bill under consideration. She did it with 2 words..."Death Panel".

You know which provision?

The very provision members of the Doofus Club denied existed.

However, there are provisions for "Death Panels" which were buried and sneaked into the Porkulus Bill by degenerate, disgusting and contemptible demoscats...the Porkulus Bill which members of Congress didn't so much as read before passing the $787 BILLION DOLLAR Bill.

The "authorizing" language which establishes "Death Panels" is in the Porkulus Bill...and the "implementing" language is in the House Bill...O'BomberCare in the provisions dealing with end of life issues.

Members of the Doofus Club will continue to deny it, the lying O'Bomber press will continue to deny it but if demoscats now pass O'BomberCare with any "Death Panel" provisions, they are going to have their political careers ended in November 2010.

Sarah Palin writes 2 words and blows up O'BomberCare.

Members of the Doofus Club really shouldn't be attempting to assess the intelligence of Sarah Palin...or anyone else for that matter.

On another front, Doofus Club members show they're not very good astrologers either.

Sarah Palin has all that Aquarius..and in the right places to boot. Intelligence, intelligence, intelligence.

Thought for the day;

Don't be a "Doofus".

posted August 15, 2009 01:18 PM         

Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin has come under fire for her Facebook post accusing President Obama and the Democrats of including a "death panel" provision the health care bill. The Associated Press recently ran a ‘Fact Check' article rebutting Palin's claim.

AP argues that the bill's end-of-life counseling provision has been mistaken as a promotion of euthanasia and thus the death panel assertion by Palin and many other conservatives is false and misleading.

The New York Times has joined in the death panel bashing. Jim Rutenburg and Jackie Calmes assert the following:

There is nothing in any of the legislative proposals that would call for the creation of death panels or any other governmental body that would cut off care for the critically ill as a cost-cutting measure.

The AP is technically correct in stating that end-of-life counseling is not the same as a death panel. The New York Times is also correct to point out that the health care bill contains no provision setting up such a panel.

What both outlets fail to point out is that the panel already exists.

H.R. 1 (more commonly known as the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, even more commonly known as the Stimulus Bill and aptly dubbed the Porkulus Bill) contains a whopping $1.1 billion to fund the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The Council is the brain child of former Health and Human Services Secretary Nominee Tom Daschle. Before the Porkulus Bill passed, Betsy McCaughey, former Lieutenant governor of New York, wrote in detail about the Council's purpose.

Daschle's stated purpose (and therefore President Obama's purpose) for creating the Council is to empower an unelected bureaucracy to make the hard decisions about health care rationing that elected politicians are politically unable to make. The end result is to slow costly medical advancement and consumption. Daschle argues that Americans ought to be more like Europeans who passively accept "hopeless diagnoses."

McCaughey goes on to explain:

Daschle says health-care reform "will not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.

Who is on the Council? One of its most prominent members is none other than Dr. Death himself Ezekiel Emanuel. Dr. Emanuel's views on care of the elderly should frighten anyone who is or ever plans on being old. He explains the logic behind his discriminatory views on elderly care as follows:

Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years.

On average 25-year-olds require very few medical services. If they are to get the lion's share of the treatment, then those 65 and over can expect very little care. Dr. Emanuel's views on saving money on medical care are simple: don't provide any medical care. The loosely worded provisions in H.R 1 give him and his Council increasing power to push such recommendations.

Similarly hazy language will no doubt be used in the health care bill. What may pass as a 1,000 page health care law will explode into perhaps many thousands of pages of regulatory codes. The deliberate vagueness will give regulators tremendous leverage to interpret its provisions. Thus Obama's Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein will play a major role in defining the government's role in controlling medical care.

How does Sunstein approach end of life care? In 2003 he wrote a paper for the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies arguing that human life varies in value. Specifically he champions statistical methods that give preference to what the government rates as "quality-adjusted life years." Meaning, the government decides whether a person's life is worth living. If the government decides the life is not worth living, it is the individual's duty to die to free up welfare payments for the young and productive.

Ultimately it was Obama himself, in answer to a question on his ABC News infomercial, who said that payment determination cannot be influenced by a person's spirit and "that at least we (the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research) can let doctors know and your mom know that...this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."

posted August 15, 2009 01:41 PM         

too much aquarius = fascist dictatorship "for the good of all"

comparative effectiveness does NOT equal gas chambers!

posted August 15, 2009 01:55 PM         

you too can run yourself into an early grave with "what ifs" and plans for vengeance!

posted August 15, 2009 02:00 PM         

no one is talking about killing off the frail, but that maybe "conventional" "surgical" and "pharmaceutical" interventions are not the only or best answer.

do you honestly run to the doctor every time your nose drips? should this be covered by insurance? so the doctor can palm off some sample medicines on you that cost him nothing and charge the insurance company $50?

my boss broke her hip recently due to chemo-induced osteoporosis. she refused the suggested surgery and worked on it with natural methods and nutritional aids, and it took about the same time to heal as it would have to heal from the surgery.

posted August 15, 2009 02:09 PM         

Palin didn't set in motion any change in the bill. It hasn't changed since she uttered those two words that so mischaracterized end of life counseling.

quote:

---

Members of the Doofus Club will continue to deny it, the lying O'Bomber press will continue to deny it but if demoscats now pass O'BomberCare with any "Death Panel" provisions, they are going to have their political careers ended in November 2010.

---

Uhhh...there hasn't BEEN any "Death Panel" provision in the bill. They could pass it today, and the so-called "Death Panel," still wouldn't be a part of it. Palin (and you) lack understanding, and critical thinking skills (not that it should require critical thinking when the information has been provided for you so plainly).

quote:

---

What both outlets fail to point out is that the panel already exists.

---

This is flatly false. Undeniably, flatly false. The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparitive Effectiveness Research isn't a "Death Panel." It's an academic think tank panel that doesn't have the power or over ANY patient's care. With your article writer going on to mischaracterize Emanuel's work in the same way other Conservatives have, this article proves itself a joke. American Thinker gets it wrong...AGAIN!

From my first post:

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Council to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer. … None of the reports submitted under this section or recommendations made by the Council shall be construed as mandates or clinical guidelines for payment, coverage, or treatment.

quote:

---

sarah palin signed into a law a similar provision in alaska last year. she just doesn't want the democrats to get credit for same.

---

Did you catch that, Jwhop? Do you understand it?

posted August 15, 2009 04:18 PM         

You think I've lost it acoustic?

I never for a moment believed you ever "had it".

I notice no one is prepared to actually talk about "The Bill".

Here's more.

DOCTOR'S ORDERS
Euthanasia advocates authored part of Obamacare
'Self determined dying' compared to 'women's reproductive health'
Posted: August 13, 2009
By Bob Unruh

Part of the controversial health care reform proposal in Congress that discusses "end-of-life" counseling and medical procedures that could be rationed based on the age of the patient and other factors was written by suicide advocates who argue openly for the "right" to death, according to reports.

The sources for the provisions have been documented on a blog for Family Research Council Action and discussed by prominent pro-life columnist Jill Stanek.

"Come again that promotion of euthanasia isn't part of Section 1233?" Stanek wrote in her new explanation of the dangers of the health care plan. "Kudos to FRC's The Cloakroom …for drawing attention to the fact that the two authors of Section 1233 are major proponents of euthanasia and assisted suicide."

The authors of the section include an Oregon congressman who has argued for assisted suicide before federal courts and an organization that openly boasts it helps "thousands of clients each year by ... guiding their search for a peaceful, humane death...."

FRC Action reports the group "has been getting some heat" for its criticism of the plan.

"Today comes (a) smoking gun … with the group Compassion & Choices coming out defending the questionable rationing portions of the bill and admitting THEY ACTUALLY WROTE THE LANGUAGE!" FRC Action said.

Stanek took up the explanation:

"The group Compassion & Choices, formerly known as the Hemlock Society, also says it had a hand in crafting Section 1233, writing July 27: 'Compassion & Choices has worked tirelessly with supportive members of Congress to include in proposed reform legislation a provision requiring Medicare to cover patient consultation with their doctors about end-of-life choice (section 1233 of House Bill 3200),'" she wrote.

"Compassion & Choices calls itself part of the 'aid-in-dying movement,'" she continued, quoting from the organization's description of itself:

An organization dedicated to care of terminally ill patients, including those seeking a hastened death

Compassion & Choices ... improves care and expands choice at the end of life

Our professional staff and trained volunteers help thousands of clients each year by ... guiding their search for a peaceful, humane death

We offer information on self-determined dying.

The second party claiming authorship of some of the controversial parts of the plan is Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., who wrote about his state's "Death with Dignity" law that allows doctors to give patients fatal doses of medication:

"The amicus brief I have filed with other members of the delegation supports the (appellate) court's decision to uphold Oregon's Death with Dignity law. In 1994, Oregon overwhelmingly approved physician-assisted suicide in a statewide vote. … Former U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft repeatedly attempted to undermine the Oregon law using various methods. Each time the judge ruled in favor of the Oregon law. I am pleased that Attorney General Gonzalez' attempt to overturn the will of the people has been no more successful than his predecessor's."

While physician assisted suicide is a contentious issue, it is an issue handled at the state level and the attorney general should not be permitted to deprive the citizens of Oregon and the nation the opportunity to make end of life decisions."
Blumenauer has condemned criticism of the Obama plan's provisions.

"The provision included in H.R. 3200 simply allows Medicare to pay for a conversation between patients and their doctors if the patient wishes to speak about his or her preferences and values," the congressman said. "The new Medicare benefit would allow doctors to be compensated for these conversations every five years, and more frequently if a patient has a life-limiting illness or health status changes."

He said without such "discussions," "families are left struggling to make decisions in the midst of turmoil."

Compassion and Choices also condemned criticism of the bill.

Citing its work on the language of the bill, the group said, "Anti-choice extremists and their allies in Congress have begun attacking this critical provision, saying it will 'promote euthanasia' and that it's part of a cynical plan to deny health care to the elderly and terminally ill."

On Stanek's blog, participants shared her alarm.

"What's conspicuously absent is a provision that the patient consents to orders written after the counseling session. Or that the orders be written by the patient's primary care physician," wrote one.

"'Self determined dying' sounds as innocent and good for us as 'women's reproductive health,'" said another. "Have to dress it up to sell it."

"Frankly, the death culture has strongly permeated our nation, especially among the liberal elite," wrote a third. "Many of them will either deny, make fun of or outright oppose the pro-life position."

Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, has had his organization analyze the plan. He confirmed it contains health care rationing, a national health ID card complete with government access to personal bank accounts, government decisions on what health care benefits are available and mandatory taxpayer support for abortion.

Staver condemned the health plan as worse than China's mandatory one-child policy.

The Liberty Counsel analysis said under Section 1308, the government will dictate marriage and family therapy as well as mental health services, including the definitions of those treatments. Under Section 1401, a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research would be set up, creating a bureaucracy through which federal employees could determine whether any treatment is "comparatively effective" for any individual based on the cost, likely success and probably the years left in life.

It also, according to Staver, "covers abortions, transsexual surgeries, encourages counseling as to how many children you should have, whether you should increase the interval between children."

The Liberty Counsel analysis also pointed out the government would be allowed to ration health care procedures, prevent "judicial review" of its decision, tell doctors what income they can have, impose new taxes for anyone not having an "acceptable" coverage, regulate whether seniors can have wheelchairs, penalize hospitals or doctors whose patients require "readmission," prevent the expansion of hospitals and set up procedures for home visits by health care analysts.

Under Section 440, Liberty Counsel said, the government "will design and implement Home Visitation Program for families with young kids and families that expect children." And Section 194 provides for a program that has the government "coming into your house and teaching/telling you how to parent," LC said.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106812

posted August 15, 2009 04:38 PM         

quote:

---

I notice no one is prepared to actually talk about "The Bill".

---

Said the man who's unwilling to look at the Bill. What a ******* .

When are you going to get that you don't have a clue, and that you're being fed erroneous information?

End of life counseling does not equal euthanasia.

Assisted suicide in Oregon was democratically voted in, and is a person's personal choice as an option. It is a freedom, much as taking your own life under any circumstances would be a personal choice. Which part of a person's freedom are you looking to take away, Jwhop? How much more anti-American can you get?

quote:

---

On Stanek's blog, participants shared her alarm.

"What's conspicuously absent is a provision that the patient consents to orders written after the counseling session. Or that the orders be written by the patient's primary care physician," wrote one.

---

"On Stanek's blog" (I still need that shaking head in disbelief smiley)

Yes, of course it's conspicuously absent, BECAUSE the patient is under no such compulsion. Conservatives are allowing their imaginations to run wild.

quote:

---

Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, has had his organization analyze the plan. He confirmed it contains health care rationing, a national health ID card complete with government access to personal bank accounts, government decisions on what health care benefits are available and mandatory taxpayer support for abortion.

---

Yeah, we're just supposed to trust that Mathew Staver knows what he's talking about? That may be fine for you, but I don't know if this guy knows his head from his ass. Why would I be inclined to trust that he knows what he's talking about, especially as his verdict has been disproved on multiple levels?

quote:

---

The Liberty Counsel analysis said under Section 1308, the government will dictate marriage and family therapy as well as mental health services

---

Alright Mr. I'll-Check-Out-The-Bill show me where this section dictates anything. Dictate being the key word.

quote:

---

Under Section 1401, a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research would be set up, creating a bureaucracy through which federal employees could determine whether any treatment is "comparatively effective" for any individual based on the cost, likely success and probably the years left in life.

---

Yes, but this doesn't mean that it dictates a single thing on patient care, and it would be illegal for it to do so (as stated previously, rather redundantly).

This "Liberty Counsel" obviously can't get any of it's facts straight on the subject. WND strikes out again.

You're right, Doofusses don't seem to get it. So get it already!

posted August 15, 2009 05:40 PM         

as for "death panels" make up your mind whether your hottie got them removed or not! crikey, either they were there or they weren't

looks like even you are admitting they weren't. but i am sure sarah palin will find a way to take credit for that fact too.

as for this: I notice no one is prepared to actually talk about "The Bill"

i have been inviting you to show us the pertinent parts of the bill DRAFT for yonks but every time i do you disappear!

and since you obviously don't bother to look at my links i will give you the relevant words from this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-dZx31g3Xw

posted August 15, 2009 08:06 PM         

just like it's illegal, or was awhile back, to have sex on sunday in connecticut even with your wife in your own bed...

edit:apparently successful suicide was once punished by burial on a public highway and the crown forfeiting all your worldly goods left behind...so the cynical might say they just wanted the loot.

from what i can find most states do not prosecute failed hopefuls (sic) except by incarcerating them in mental institutions - but it is against the law in states that use Common Law...

anyway, i digress!

on the subject of aquarians' intelligence, linda goodman said "it's true the ranks of geniuses have a high percentage of aquarians. it is also true that a very high proportion of mental hospital inmates are aquarians..."

posted August 19, 2009 10:13 AM         

I must confess it would appear so...and none more ignorant than those quoted here from the convicted felon, George Soros funded "Think Progress". A group dedicated to every crackpot idea dreamed up by Socialists in the last 150 years...including...Eugenics, Euthanasia, Open Borders, Legalization of Drugs, the reduction of American influence and power in the world, reduced standards of living for Americans...and a host of other crackpot Socialist ideas.

A "Proclamation" has no force or effect on public policy.

A "Law" on the other hand requires mandatory compliance.

One last fact.

Paul Begala runs "Think Progress" on behalf of convicted felon George Soros.

Paul Begala is a former member of the Clintonista Brigade....the administration judged by a star-studded panel of 100 Historians and Presidential writers to be the most corrupt administration in US history....beating out Richard Nixon for the honor of most corrupt.