i am sure it is not really anything conspiratorial and they are probably just doing this to better counter what they think are false claims.... but this just sounds

again from whitehouse.gov

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

source.

Yeah, I got a link to that from Obama's twitter feed. It seems a little odd, certainly. There's no doubt that a lot of bull**** is spread by those chain e-mails (forward this to 10 people OR YOU WILL DIE), but it's odd to devote government resources to debunking that ****. There's going to be a whole lot more misinformation spread by Fox News and that will have a lot more impact.

Seems like a lot of different people wasting a lot of time.

I predict they will be receiving a lot of spam and mailing lists.

Has anyone recieved any of these health care chain e-mails? What do they actually claim?

I've got one. Hang on.

It is annoying that a post can not be all quote.

I've seen a few reposted on other, more conservative-leaning forums. One of the big claims is that hospitals will be pushing euthanasia for terminal patients in order to cut costs. Haven't seen any related to "control of personal finances" though.

Edit: Wow. They got every single part of the Natasha Richardson story wrong.

Heh. I don't know anything about the Canadian system, but that claim about the British system is just a lie. The NHS provides plenty of healthcare for the old, there's certainly no cutoff at 59. That's a pretty bizzarely specific lie. The NHS isn't perfect, there are plenty of issues with waiting times, but it's a fantastic institution.

This sort of bull**** is kinda annoying, but I wonder how many are actually suckered in by it. And the sort of Wookie-style retards that are won't ever be convinced by any government-sponsored debunking. Is this not just giving credence to conspiracy nuts that think this is "what the government doesn't want you to know!!!"?

in case anyone is interested here is the summery of the bill:

health care reform summery

and if your feeling really adventurous heres the text of the bill... all 1018 pages...
reform full text

Wow, what a load of bollocks.

The thing that really irks me about people against universal health care is that none of them take into account the fact that most if not all countries with said health care systems also have a private system that coexists peacefully.

"People's right to chose a health care provider has been taken away."

Yeah, it's referred to as a public option for a reason. The reform isn't meant for people with excellent health insurance--although if it's done right it should lower health care costs for everyone--it's intended for those with insufficient coverage or no coverage at all, in which case even a crappy government plan would be better than nothing at all (not that I'm advocating for the government to go about health care reform in a crappy way).

Except those chain e-mails gain momentum and trickle into the mainstream. It's good to rebut them before they become major stories. Look at the conspiracy that claims Obama isn't actually a US citizen and was born in Kenya. Started by a few fringe whackos online, and now it's snowballed. Media anchors are discussing it, Congressman are writing legislation about it, and now perhaps a majority of Republicans (58% according to a recent poll) have doubts that the President was actually born in the United States.

This stuff finds it's way into the mainstream political discourse, so that instead of talking about the best way to lower health care costs... the cable networks' talking heads are too busy arguing over whether Obama is going to sent your grandma to a concentration camp.

We could avoid governmental debunking by fixing the problems with public school systems. People are dumb. Fix it.

Yes, because it is deceptive. I can't enter into a debate here because I already know there is going to be overwhelming disagreement. It simply won't be worth the expenditure in energy and time. I will tell you that you don't have to read very far into the bill to see where insurance companies will no longer be able to offer the same policies they do now. Sec 102 (a)(1)(a)

my only potential issue with government run health care (provided the existing system isn't dicked about with) is that my tax dollars would be helping more than just the people who need it... but also the people i'd rather not have money wasted on to save their lives (gang members, suicides (the ones who do it wrong), drug overdoses, etc)

quick question...



is cost-sharing in this case mean the amount the individual will have to co-pay or the amount that the care plan will pay?

So, skimming through the document (search for "penalty" if you're bored) I see that employers may "elect" to participate in the program. Those who don't elect to participate (in the coverage required to be compliant with this legislation, they could still provide coverage that doesn't qualify and pay the fines, I mean taxes, too) are going to be more heavily taxed. So whether they choose to buy coverage for their employees or not to, they are going to be shelling out more money which means pay and/or employee reduction. But that's okay because the employees that do keep their lower paying jobs might get some health coverage they don't want if their employer opts in to the government program.

I oppose it because my private health care is paid for mostly by my employer, who happens to be the government. As soon as there's any sort of nationalized health care, I will not longer be able to get insurance where I work, and private health care will no longer be available to me.

In fact, if it's not all or nothing for nationalized health care, all you're doing is driving a gigantic wedge between the middle and upper class.

The assumption that people will be able to choose is absurd. If there is nationalized health care, expect the cost of private health care to sky rocket. Expect insurance costs to sky rocket. Expect laws requiring employers to offer health insurance at all to be repealed. A nationalized health care system will mean the lower and middle class will see an entirely different set of doctors than the upper class.

If you can't see why this sort of caste system is horrible, come over here so I can punch you in the face.

That's just stupid. People with excellent health insurance will end up using it anyway.

I like that Massassi's most outspoken conservatives and libertarians all collect government paychecks (JM, Wookie, JLee et al).

Are you saying that a government-insurance plan will be more effective and better than even excellent private insurance, thus enticing customers away from their existing plans? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just trying to better understand the argument.

That's already happening.


This issue is a little difficult to discuss at this juncture because the devil is in the details, and there are multiple versions of reform bills floating around in different committees in the House and Senate. We could argue over some specific proposal, only to have it not even make it into the final legislation.

They probably can't see it for all of the "Parliament even more terrible than before yet still in office!" articles that come out every week. :smug:


Edit: COOLFATTY YOU HAVE NONE OF THE COOL EMOTES

Edit2: Except that one.

No, I'm saying all the stuff I said in the post right above it.

People with excellent insurance will LOSE THEIR EXCELLENT INSURANCE.



Wookie isn't conservative, he's republican.
JLee also isn't conservative, he's authoritarian.

And the rest of your point is... well. Pointless. What exactly are you trying to say?

It's good that someone official is doing something about these chain letters. Snopes usually debunks them, but that requires that people actually know to look at Snopes. Most people just forward the emails to everyone they know, which I assume means that they believe what the mail says. This way, the administration can be ready to counter the lies before they go mainstream.

It is kind of annoying, though, that this is even necessary. More and more it seems that the old model of differing opinions is being replaced by a new one of differing realities. Why counter someone's interpretation of actual events when you can replace it with lies that prove your point? Spread it around anonymously, and soon enough people start to believe it.

In statutes, the word "such" is typically used to refer to something in an earlier paragraph or section. I probably don't even need to tell you what "except as provided in this paragraph" means. That you've purported to offer a complete argument about what the bill says while omitting both of these references suggests that either you're being intentionally deceptive, or you're being manipulated.

How does health insurance promote egalitarian health care, and especially better than national health care would.

I ponder the irony at times although obviously once choice of being employed by the government doesn't contradict any conservative principles. JM also made a comment would lead me to believe that his opposition to this proposed reform has nothing to do with any ideological values he holds. For the record, this isn't meant as an attack on JM. I don't know what his ideological beliefs are. He doesn't want this proposed legislation to go through because he believes that it would not benefit him. In fact, he believes it would harm him (and he is probably wrong because I am sure there are provisions for government employees to maintain their health care plan and there is specifically a section of the plan dealing with grandfathering existing coverage). To me, when you support something based on your values and beliefs, the benefit, or lack thereof, to yourself is irrelevant.

As a conservative there are numerous recent congressional actions that directly benefited me but that I fundamentally oppose. One would be recent pay raises. Are pay raises were limited by law to a certain percentage but when it became politically advantageous to support even higher pay raises that became a political hot potato. We should have gotten the raise required by the law, nothing more. Also, considering that the money all comes from the same appropriations, raising one category results in reductions in others.

Another would be the recent post-9/11 GI Bill. Basically, I am now entitled to receive a completely paid for four year college education. Tuition paid for 100%, stipends for books, and a monthly housing allowance while I am a full time student. This GI Bill is "free" now and since I paid $1200 for the GI Bill in effect when I joined, the government will refund me that money after I exhaust the new GI Bill. I will directly benefit from this program as I will go to school full time with no worries of student loans or necessity to work while I am in school. It would have been far to politically incorrect to oppose this legislation but I don't think it ever should have been passed. It is far too expensive and our troops are not some god-like entity that needs to be put on a pedestal for volunteering to serve. We are compensated well enough already.

Finally, I support reform to our retirement system. I directly benefit from the current system. Essentially, starting next year I will be receiving a retirement check monthly for the rest of my life and I'll only be 38 years old. There have been proposals to expand our retirement system to allow people with as little as five years in service to receive a retirement check however the payment for all pensions would not be until age 60-something. Considering that there are other programs in place now to help service members invest for retirement, the net effect would benefit more people especially when now we have a system that is 20 years or more, all or nothing retirement.

It is not always about what directly benefits you, it's about what is right and what is wrong. Seniors continue to vote for the people who promise them greater benefits rather than the people who will make the tough choices to ensure that the programs remain in place for those who truly need it. And the same thing will probably happen with health care reform. How many government programs are lauded as wonderfully efficient and effective programs? There are issues with our health care system but that doesn't necessarily mean that you completely rewrite the book.

There are many smaller steps that can be taken to dramatically improve the situation. One would be allow people to purchase insurance for catastrophic illnesses and injuries only. The average person probably doesn't mind paying a reasonable fee for a routine doctors visit. Another would be tort reform. People should be compensated for malpractice but that doesn't mean it should be like winning the lottery. If there is no malice involved there is no need to award damages much in excess of future medical expenses and projected lost future wages.

I could go on but my intent is not to debate but merely show that the opinions I form are based on my values, which happen to be conservative, and are the result of my thoughtful pondering of each issue. I don't need to watch Fox News in order to be told my opinion, not that I give any credence to that false argument. Considering that I haven't done much more than skim the website occasionally over the past year as I deployed to Iraq last October that is a pretty specious argument anyway.

Being that I provided the reference to the material and that the material has been formerly offered for download in this thread you could simply do as I did and actually read through the pertinent areas. I'm sorry that I didn't include all relevant sections to the material I cited. I just figured people would do the same that I did and actually read it if they are interested enough.

Perhaps, since I obviously missed it when I read those areas, you would be so kind as to tell us what relevant exceptions you found in those earlier paragraphs or sections.

Or better yet, I'll post it for you since you either haven't bothered to actually look at it yourself or simply wanted to create the false impression that I was being deceptive (by citing exactly where text could be found?).

Here ya' go:

But isn't one the main points of universal health care that nobody needs medical insurance?

no, its that those who cant afford it should not be denied medical care.

having decent medical insurance just means you dont have the waiting list of the public health care system.

Yeah this isn't a new thing.



As a conservative, I am offended by your claim.

As a conservative I am offended that you don't care to discuss what you might perceive as differences between our positions and instead throw a typical massassi snide remark. I mean we all throw MSRs but surely we agree on more than we disagree. Unless, of course, you aren't really conservative which your comments in this thread would lead me to believe that you aren't.

well as a conservative i am offended by soiled diapers!

also does this say what i think it does?



is it saying that unless you have a grandfathered in plan, the day that the reform is enacted you can no longer purchase a non exchange participating plan?

As a conservative, and a resident of a country that has national health care, or whatever you want to call it (universal health care), I can tell you, this type of system DOES NOT WORK. Everything the Republicans are saying that will happen, DOES INDEED HAPPEN under this system.

The prices of the private sector of medical attention are so high, that only the upper class can truely afford them.

The rationing of medical attention in favor of people who are not older than a certain age between 55-59. Most people who have a serious illness (note: serious, not fatal), who are over the age of 60 and receive government healthcare, do not receive the same attention that younger people do, and in an alarmingly high number of cases, their serious illness becomes fatal.

There is constantly a lack of medication, that is provided by the government free of cost (as long as you pay your taxes), as well as ridicously long waiting line of sometimes months to receive a medical exam with a certain specialist.

The attention in the private sector is incredibly more compotent, but the prices are sky rocketed. This is the same for the prices of medication sold by the private sector.

People have to CAMP outside of government hospitals inorder to keep their place in the line for a specialist to attend them.

Most doctors of Mexico prefer to work in other countries, where they can profit more according to their career choice.

The truth is, this government health care will force people by economics, to swith their health insurance to one of far lower quality, and add more taxes on small businesses. The horror stories of health care will only get worse, and will become many more at alarming rates.

This healthcare plan will not provide enough benefits to justify its negative aspects.

But Mexican health care is subsidized by American emergency rooms.



I'm probably the most conservative person here, Wookie. Except maybe freelancer; but he's also an anarchist and I am not. The problem is that you think Republicans are conservative. And I am nothing like a Republican, therefore, you think I cannot be conservative. My position is, and always will be : Leave me the **** alone Government. Doesn't get much more conservative than that.

That isn't universal health care, that's mexico.

Total horse****.

First off, how do any of you monsters have the gall to suggest that our system is less compassionate than yours? Everybody here gets free healthcare, and the same quality of care regardless of age or social status. We spend millions of dollars on medicine and care for our elderly and I know doctors who have worked their asses off replacing hip joints on people with unrelated terminal illnesses.
The American system on the other hand is a dystopian vulgarity; social darwinism veiled so thinly the rest of the world cringes and spits whenever any of you talk about how great it is.

I mentioned this in a previous thread, but when I got my cholecystectomy it was 6 days from diagnosis to my operation. The average waiting time in the United States for the same procedure is 106. If the American medical system is so great and responsive, why did Steve Jobs feel it was necessary to fly to Kentucky so he could get on the shortest liver transplant waiting list?

With regards to X CELEBRITY'S DEATH,
One, we do have helicopters.
Two, Natasha Richardson died because she refused emergency care from the paramedics who responded immediately to the incident.
Three, she was admitted to a local hospital immediately after she arrived.
Four, she died after being admitted to a hospital in New York.

The facts about her death are pretty easy to research. Maybe you should do that instead of perpetuating lies about a country that over half of your population can't locate on a map.

I like boobs.

Why must you always flaunt your sexuality? I find it a little nauseating.

I think you just hate boobs.

I'm just heterophobic you dirty breeder.