Title: Health care reform
Eutaw - August 15, 2009 06:28 PM (GMT)
Received this email this AM
What's true and what's not :scratch:
COMMENTS ???????
Dear Friend,
This is probably one of the longest emails I’ve ever sent, but it could be the most important.
Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform. Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions.
As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, “where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed.”
So let’s start a chain email of our own. At the end of my email, you’ll find a lot of information about health insurance reform, distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now.
Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by what’s below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email.
Thanks,
David
David Axelrod
Senior Adviser to the President
P.S. We launched www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck this week to knock down the rumors and lies that are floating around the internet. You can find the information below, and much more, there. For example, we've just added a video of Nancy-Ann DeParle from our Health Reform Office tackling a viral email head on. Check it out:
8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage
Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26
.
Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance...er-protections/
8 common myths about health insurance reform
Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment.
And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.
Learn more and get details:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq
8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now
Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill.
Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied...rage/index.html
Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage.
Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html
Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care.
Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html
Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities.
Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes
Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse.
Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline
The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone.
Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction
Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families.
Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inacti...hing/index.html
The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform.
Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents...Care_Report.pdf
[COLOR=red]
The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW • Washington, DC 20500 • 202-456-1111
What's true and what's not :scratch:
COMMENTS ???????
Dear Friend,
This is probably one of the longest emails I’ve ever sent, but it could be the most important.
Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform. Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions.
As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, “where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed.”
So let’s start a chain email of our own. At the end of my email, you’ll find a lot of information about health insurance reform, distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now.
Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by what’s below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email.
Thanks,
David
David Axelrod
Senior Adviser to the President
P.S. We launched www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck this week to knock down the rumors and lies that are floating around the internet. You can find the information below, and much more, there. For example, we've just added a video of Nancy-Ann DeParle from our Health Reform Office tackling a viral email head on. Check it out:
8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage
Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26
.
Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance...er-protections/
8 common myths about health insurance reform
Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment.
And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.
Learn more and get details:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq
8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now
Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill.
Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied...rage/index.html
Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage.
Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html
Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care.
Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html
Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities.
Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes
Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse.
Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline
The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone.
Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction
Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families.
Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inacti...hing/index.html
The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform.
Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents...Care_Report.pdf
[COLOR=red]
The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW • Washington, DC 20500 • 202-456-1111
Focus - August 16, 2009 12:38 AM (GMT)
The TV news today said that that email was not from David Axelrod. :dunno:
historyfan - August 16, 2009 01:26 AM (GMT)
Wow. That's strange because according to the Whitehouse.gov site (their blog) the emails actually DID come from Senior Advisor David Axelrod.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/The-Return-...he-Viral-Email/
Which news program or newspaper did the quote come from? I tried to find it and was unsuccessful but when I googled "David Axelrod Whitehouse Emails" it was the second link. Additionally, both the Chicago Tribune and the Huffington Post both credit Axelrod with the emails.
Rahm Emmanuel and David Axelrod are going to make Karl Rove look like an amateur.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/The-Return-...he-Viral-Email/
Which news program or newspaper did the quote come from? I tried to find it and was unsuccessful but when I googled "David Axelrod Whitehouse Emails" it was the second link. Additionally, both the Chicago Tribune and the Huffington Post both credit Axelrod with the emails.
Rahm Emmanuel and David Axelrod are going to make Karl Rove look like an amateur.
Focus - August 16, 2009 01:42 AM (GMT)
I might have just misunderstood what I heard. I was doing something else at the time I heard it mentioned.
Karl Rove has always looked like an amateur Imp, IMO....trying desperately to portray the devil himself. :downer:
Karl Rove has always looked like an amateur Imp, IMO....trying desperately to portray the devil himself. :downer:
historyfan - August 16, 2009 04:00 AM (GMT)
Apparently Emmanuel and Axelrod don't need to try. Either Emmanuel brother--Rahm or Ezequiel.
Drumer - August 16, 2009 09:58 PM (GMT)
Marco Island, FL
August 16th, 2009
9:23 am
As a US citizen and a medical doctor currently living in Germany, a country where health care is universally available for its residents at affordable rates, I might have some perspectives on this debate you haven't yet run across.
What I find most astounding about our US health care system is not only how many people don’t have coverage (some 46 million, and going up). But rather, how fragile and precarious health care coverage is for so many people who think they are well insured.
How does our US health care system compare? Let's go through some important points in the universal health care system in Germany, which I'm very familiar with:
Here in Germany you are mandated to have standard comprehensive health insurance:
your employer pays half the monthly family premium, you pay the other half,
•you don't get rejected because of any previous condition,
•you don't pay more or less working for a large or small business,
•you don’t pay more or less if you are male or female, black or white, German or foreign born, gay or straight,
•the rates don't go up if someone in the small (or large) business gets sick,
•health insurance is not a consideration when changing jobs or careers because you take the policy with you,
•you don’t lose your policy if you get sick, if you become unemployed, or even if your employer goes out of business,
•you won’t be billed for “out of network” services in hospitals or elsewhere - these services are part of your coverage, no matter which hospital or team of doctors treats you,
•you don’t have annual, lifetime, disease-related, or disease-recurrence caps,
•you won’t be billed at 20%, 30% or more for expensive medications (“price-tiered” pharmaceuticals), because there is no \"tiering\", legally approved pharmaceuticals are fully covered when you need them, even if they're very expensive,
•nor will you ever go bankrupt due to unpaid and unaffordable medical bills piling up, - that simply doesn't happen – you enjoy completely comprehensive coverage.
•Also, forget expensive copays ($40/year max. for doctor visits @$10 per quarter, a few dollars per prescription, a minimal meals expense during a hospital stay.
•Forget too the denials, the constant slog of endless 0800 calls (yours and your doctor’s) to your insurance company for requests for coverage or adjustments, wasting huge amounts of people's time, energy, and productive capacity every business day - this doesn't happen in Germany, because this is a comprehensive coverage system (which is an important reason why it's so efficient).
I might add that Germany is a democratic country with a freely elected government; its residents are free people – this is not "Russia". In fact, this is the country with long stretches of Autobahn without speed limits, right? (Here, it’s your responsibility to drive safely, and most do.) People here freely change jobs, careers, and locations without regard for health insurance, and live free of the fear of going bankrupt or losing their homes or life’s savings if they were to get seriously ill, because their comprehensive insurance protects them from that!
Germany and its residents are not going broke paying for this, either. On the contrary, this fair, efficiently run health care system costs roughly a third less per person that the US system - that's right, about 1/3 less per capita – despite (or because?) everyone being on board and receiving comprehensive health care.
That figure doesn’t come from rationing, long waits to see a doctor, or long waiting lists to get an operation, either - that doesn’t happen here. What that figure does reflect, however, is just how much waste, duplication, and gouging of consumers must be taking place in the US health care system every day.
My point in describing the German health care system is not to encourage you all to move to Germany, but to prove to you, that for one-third less money than you currently already spend, you should be getting comprehensive, universal health care, like every resident of Germany does (yes, including all immigrants!). But you're not.
May I humbly suggest: advocate, and work with your friends and neighbors for health care reform now, absolutely including a strong public plan, which is the lynchpin for any meaningful reform.
Don't let the lobbyists, their surrogates on TV, or their gun-toting mobs and pre-organized advocates at town hall meetings, scare you, confuse you, or drown out your voices yet again.
It is time to face up to this national challenge as adults, and finally join the peoples of the 17 (seventeen!) other advanced democracies (not \"Russia\", but, yes indeed, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Norway, Australia, Japan, S. Korea and even Taiwan!) around the world, who already enjoy the benefits of universal, comprehensive, and affordable health care.
We absolutely can grab this bull by the horns, and get this job done this year!!!
Dr. med. Frederick B. Lacey Jr.
Frankfurt am Main, Germany
August 16th, 2009
9:23 am
As a US citizen and a medical doctor currently living in Germany, a country where health care is universally available for its residents at affordable rates, I might have some perspectives on this debate you haven't yet run across.
What I find most astounding about our US health care system is not only how many people don’t have coverage (some 46 million, and going up). But rather, how fragile and precarious health care coverage is for so many people who think they are well insured.
How does our US health care system compare? Let's go through some important points in the universal health care system in Germany, which I'm very familiar with:
Here in Germany you are mandated to have standard comprehensive health insurance:
your employer pays half the monthly family premium, you pay the other half,
•you don't get rejected because of any previous condition,
•you don't pay more or less working for a large or small business,
•you don’t pay more or less if you are male or female, black or white, German or foreign born, gay or straight,
•the rates don't go up if someone in the small (or large) business gets sick,
•health insurance is not a consideration when changing jobs or careers because you take the policy with you,
•you don’t lose your policy if you get sick, if you become unemployed, or even if your employer goes out of business,
•you won’t be billed for “out of network” services in hospitals or elsewhere - these services are part of your coverage, no matter which hospital or team of doctors treats you,
•you don’t have annual, lifetime, disease-related, or disease-recurrence caps,
•you won’t be billed at 20%, 30% or more for expensive medications (“price-tiered” pharmaceuticals), because there is no \"tiering\", legally approved pharmaceuticals are fully covered when you need them, even if they're very expensive,
•nor will you ever go bankrupt due to unpaid and unaffordable medical bills piling up, - that simply doesn't happen – you enjoy completely comprehensive coverage.
•Also, forget expensive copays ($40/year max. for doctor visits @$10 per quarter, a few dollars per prescription, a minimal meals expense during a hospital stay.
•Forget too the denials, the constant slog of endless 0800 calls (yours and your doctor’s) to your insurance company for requests for coverage or adjustments, wasting huge amounts of people's time, energy, and productive capacity every business day - this doesn't happen in Germany, because this is a comprehensive coverage system (which is an important reason why it's so efficient).
I might add that Germany is a democratic country with a freely elected government; its residents are free people – this is not "Russia". In fact, this is the country with long stretches of Autobahn without speed limits, right? (Here, it’s your responsibility to drive safely, and most do.) People here freely change jobs, careers, and locations without regard for health insurance, and live free of the fear of going bankrupt or losing their homes or life’s savings if they were to get seriously ill, because their comprehensive insurance protects them from that!
Germany and its residents are not going broke paying for this, either. On the contrary, this fair, efficiently run health care system costs roughly a third less per person that the US system - that's right, about 1/3 less per capita – despite (or because?) everyone being on board and receiving comprehensive health care.
That figure doesn’t come from rationing, long waits to see a doctor, or long waiting lists to get an operation, either - that doesn’t happen here. What that figure does reflect, however, is just how much waste, duplication, and gouging of consumers must be taking place in the US health care system every day.
My point in describing the German health care system is not to encourage you all to move to Germany, but to prove to you, that for one-third less money than you currently already spend, you should be getting comprehensive, universal health care, like every resident of Germany does (yes, including all immigrants!). But you're not.
May I humbly suggest: advocate, and work with your friends and neighbors for health care reform now, absolutely including a strong public plan, which is the lynchpin for any meaningful reform.
Don't let the lobbyists, their surrogates on TV, or their gun-toting mobs and pre-organized advocates at town hall meetings, scare you, confuse you, or drown out your voices yet again.
It is time to face up to this national challenge as adults, and finally join the peoples of the 17 (seventeen!) other advanced democracies (not \"Russia\", but, yes indeed, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Norway, Australia, Japan, S. Korea and even Taiwan!) around the world, who already enjoy the benefits of universal, comprehensive, and affordable health care.
We absolutely can grab this bull by the horns, and get this job done this year!!!
Dr. med. Frederick B. Lacey Jr.
Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Dred Scott - August 16, 2009 10:14 PM (GMT)
"Don't let the lobbyists, their surrogates on TV, or their gun-toting mobs and pre-organized advocates at town hall meetings, scare you, confuse you, or drown out your voices yet again."
lector - August 17, 2009 03:37 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill Ends Gender Discrimination Extends Coverage for Young Adults |
wow, what terrible ideas. :rolleyes: I mean, they sound like something close to um......people who understand what it is to have humanity. :whistle:
Best thing I read yesterday, Obama telling the Insurance Companies they have been denying care to certain people (pre existing conditions) and it's going to stop. :thumb:
It's hard to believe nobody in charge has *yelled* at them before----publically called them out--------- and called them the kind of names they should be called, but can't be posted here. :)
CyberianWinter - August 17, 2009 04:37 AM (GMT)
Drumer-
Thank you so much for explaining the health care situation in Germany! I can never understand why people here focus upon one of the weaker Single-Payer health systems (England), when they should be comparing our Dark-Ages Health Care financing with the excellent systems of Germany and several other countries.
Now that the Health Care lobby, served so faithfully by our own Mike Ross, has Obama's Single-Payer plan on the ropes, our only hope is people like yourself who will set the record straight. A terrible fraud and deception is being perpetrated upon the American people, and it isn't "Socialized" Medicine. It's the scumbags who steal peoples' homes and kill their loved ones with with impossible-to-pay insurance premiums, and then fill the airwaves with lies.
Let's kick those foreigners out of Guantanamo and refill the place with REAL enemies of our country, like Medical Insurance and Drug Company CEO's.
I have to point out to those knee-jerk haters of Socialism that the Mena Medical Center is owned by the City, meaning it is part way down that "Slippery Slope" which many of you are so terrified of. Best ye take your heart attack elsewhere so that your soon-to-be-corpse is not dirtied by even that hint of Socialized Medicine.
Thank you so much for explaining the health care situation in Germany! I can never understand why people here focus upon one of the weaker Single-Payer health systems (England), when they should be comparing our Dark-Ages Health Care financing with the excellent systems of Germany and several other countries.
Now that the Health Care lobby, served so faithfully by our own Mike Ross, has Obama's Single-Payer plan on the ropes, our only hope is people like yourself who will set the record straight. A terrible fraud and deception is being perpetrated upon the American people, and it isn't "Socialized" Medicine. It's the scumbags who steal peoples' homes and kill their loved ones with with impossible-to-pay insurance premiums, and then fill the airwaves with lies.
Let's kick those foreigners out of Guantanamo and refill the place with REAL enemies of our country, like Medical Insurance and Drug Company CEO's.
I have to point out to those knee-jerk haters of Socialism that the Mena Medical Center is owned by the City, meaning it is part way down that "Slippery Slope" which many of you are so terrified of. Best ye take your heart attack elsewhere so that your soon-to-be-corpse is not dirtied by even that hint of Socialized Medicine.
LizzieJ - August 20, 2009 01:32 AM (GMT)
Found this in the news. Fact Check.
The judgment is harsh in a new poll that finds Americans worried about the government taking over health insurance, cutting off treatment to the elderly and giving coverage to illegal immigrants. Harsh, but not based on facts.
President Barack Obama's lack of a detailed plan for overhauling health care is letting critics fill in the blanks in the public's mind. In reality, Washington is not working on "death panels" or nationalization of health care.
To be sure, presenting Congress and the country with the nuts and bolts of a revamped system of health insurance is no guarantee of success for a president - just ask Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Their famous flop was demonized, too. After all, the devil does lurk in details.
It can also lurk in generalities, it seems.
Obama is promoting his changes in something of a vacuum, laying out principles, goals and broad avenues, some of which he's open to amending. As lawmakers sweat the nitty gritty, he's doing a lot of listening, and he's getting an earful.
A new NBC News poll suggests some of the myths and partial truths about the plans under consideration are taking hold.
Most respondents said the effort is likely to lead to a "government takeover of the health care system" and to public insurance for illegal immigrants. Half said it will probably result in taxpayers paying for abortions and nearly that many expected the government will end up with the power to decide when treatment should stop for old people.
A look at each of those points:
THE POLL: 45 percent said it's likely the government will decide when to stop care for the elderly; 50 percent said it's not likely.
THE FACTS: Nothing being debated in Washington would give the government such authority. Critics have twisted a provision in a House bill that would direct Medicare to pay for counseling sessions about end-of-life care, living wills, hospices and the like if a patient wants such consultations with a doctor. They have said, incorrectly, that the elderly would be required to have these sessions.
House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio said such counseling "may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia."
The bill would prohibit coverage of counseling that presents suicide or assisted suicide as an option.
Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia, who has been a proponent of coverage for end-of-life counseling under Medicare, said such sessions are a voluntary benefit, strictly between doctor and patient, and it was "nuts" to think death panels are looming or euthanasia is part of the equation.
But as fellow conservatives stepped up criticism of the provision, he backed away from his defense of it.
THE POLL: 55 percent expect the overhaul will give coverage to illegal immigrants; 34 percent don't.
THE FACTS: The proposals being negotiated do not provide coverage for illegal immigrants.
THE POLL: 54 percent said the overhaul will lead to a government takeover of health care; 39 percent disagree.
THE FACTS: Obama is not proposing a single-payer system in which the government covers everyone, like in Canada or some European countries. He says that direction is not right for the U.S. The proposals being negotiated do not go there.
At issue is a proposed "exchange" or "marketplace" in which a new government plan would be one option for people who aren't covered at work or whose job coverage is too expensive. The exchange would offer some private plans as well as the public one, all of them required to offer certain basic benefits.
That's a long way from a government takeover. But when Obama tells people they can just continue with the plans they have now if they are happy with them, that can't be taken at face value, either. Tax provisions could end up making it cheaper for some employers to pay a fee to end their health coverage, nudging some patients into a public plan with different doctors and benefits. Over time, critics fear, the public plan could squeeze private insurers out of business because they would not be able to compete with the federal government.
It's unclear now whether Obama is committed to the public option. He described it recently as "just one sliver" of health reform, suggesting it was expendable if lawmakers could agree on another way to expand affordable coverage. Now the White House is emphasizing his strong support for it.
THE POLL: 50 percent expect taxpayer dollars will be used to pay for abortions; 37 percent don't.
THE FACTS: The House version of legislation would allow coverage for abortion, but the bill says a beneficiary's own money - not taxpayer funds - must be used to pay for the procedure. How that would be enforced has not been determined.
Obama has stated that the U.S. should continue its tradition of "not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care." Current laws prohibiting public financing of abortion would stay on the books.
Yet abortion guidelines are not yet clear for the government-supervised insurance exchange. There is strong sentiment in Congress on both sides of the issue.
The poll of 805 people was taken Aug. 15-17 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
The judgment is harsh in a new poll that finds Americans worried about the government taking over health insurance, cutting off treatment to the elderly and giving coverage to illegal immigrants. Harsh, but not based on facts.
President Barack Obama's lack of a detailed plan for overhauling health care is letting critics fill in the blanks in the public's mind. In reality, Washington is not working on "death panels" or nationalization of health care.
To be sure, presenting Congress and the country with the nuts and bolts of a revamped system of health insurance is no guarantee of success for a president - just ask Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Their famous flop was demonized, too. After all, the devil does lurk in details.
It can also lurk in generalities, it seems.
Obama is promoting his changes in something of a vacuum, laying out principles, goals and broad avenues, some of which he's open to amending. As lawmakers sweat the nitty gritty, he's doing a lot of listening, and he's getting an earful.
A new NBC News poll suggests some of the myths and partial truths about the plans under consideration are taking hold.
Most respondents said the effort is likely to lead to a "government takeover of the health care system" and to public insurance for illegal immigrants. Half said it will probably result in taxpayers paying for abortions and nearly that many expected the government will end up with the power to decide when treatment should stop for old people.
A look at each of those points:
THE POLL: 45 percent said it's likely the government will decide when to stop care for the elderly; 50 percent said it's not likely.
THE FACTS: Nothing being debated in Washington would give the government such authority. Critics have twisted a provision in a House bill that would direct Medicare to pay for counseling sessions about end-of-life care, living wills, hospices and the like if a patient wants such consultations with a doctor. They have said, incorrectly, that the elderly would be required to have these sessions.
House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio said such counseling "may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia."
The bill would prohibit coverage of counseling that presents suicide or assisted suicide as an option.
Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia, who has been a proponent of coverage for end-of-life counseling under Medicare, said such sessions are a voluntary benefit, strictly between doctor and patient, and it was "nuts" to think death panels are looming or euthanasia is part of the equation.
But as fellow conservatives stepped up criticism of the provision, he backed away from his defense of it.
THE POLL: 55 percent expect the overhaul will give coverage to illegal immigrants; 34 percent don't.
THE FACTS: The proposals being negotiated do not provide coverage for illegal immigrants.
THE POLL: 54 percent said the overhaul will lead to a government takeover of health care; 39 percent disagree.
THE FACTS: Obama is not proposing a single-payer system in which the government covers everyone, like in Canada or some European countries. He says that direction is not right for the U.S. The proposals being negotiated do not go there.
At issue is a proposed "exchange" or "marketplace" in which a new government plan would be one option for people who aren't covered at work or whose job coverage is too expensive. The exchange would offer some private plans as well as the public one, all of them required to offer certain basic benefits.
That's a long way from a government takeover. But when Obama tells people they can just continue with the plans they have now if they are happy with them, that can't be taken at face value, either. Tax provisions could end up making it cheaper for some employers to pay a fee to end their health coverage, nudging some patients into a public plan with different doctors and benefits. Over time, critics fear, the public plan could squeeze private insurers out of business because they would not be able to compete with the federal government.
It's unclear now whether Obama is committed to the public option. He described it recently as "just one sliver" of health reform, suggesting it was expendable if lawmakers could agree on another way to expand affordable coverage. Now the White House is emphasizing his strong support for it.
THE POLL: 50 percent expect taxpayer dollars will be used to pay for abortions; 37 percent don't.
THE FACTS: The House version of legislation would allow coverage for abortion, but the bill says a beneficiary's own money - not taxpayer funds - must be used to pay for the procedure. How that would be enforced has not been determined.
Obama has stated that the U.S. should continue its tradition of "not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care." Current laws prohibiting public financing of abortion would stay on the books.
Yet abortion guidelines are not yet clear for the government-supervised insurance exchange. There is strong sentiment in Congress on both sides of the issue.
The poll of 805 people was taken Aug. 15-17 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
Awshoot - August 21, 2009 01:34 AM (GMT)
So many monkeys, so few footballs. :sheep:
Malone Laveigh - August 21, 2009 03:41 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (LizzieJ @ Aug 19 2009, 08:32 PM) |
| Found this in the news. Fact Check. |
You mean Annenburg Fact Check, owned and operated by the Annenburg Foundation. I can't but help but wonder if Rush Limbaugh started a "factual truth" website, how much credibility it would have. :laughing:
Malone
Drumer - September 8, 2009 01:29 PM (GMT)
Health care issues: The public insurance plan
09-08-2009 08:09 AM CDT
(Associated Press) --
A look at key issues in the health care debate:
THE ISSUE: Should Americans have the option of getting health insurance from a government plan that competes with private companies?
THE POLITICS: Many Democrats want to do away with private insurance and replace it with something resembling Medicare coverage for all, but that's not politically feasible. Offering the choice of a government insurance plan was a compromise within the Democratic Party. But Republicans are adamantly opposed, saying it's the first step to a government takeover of health care. Defeating the government plan also is the top priority for the insurance industry, and hospitals, doctors, and drugmakers have their own concerns about it. Unions strongly support the public option, and so does a majority of the public in opinion polls.
WHAT IT MEANS: A public plan could expand coverage at a lower cost to taxpayers, but it may also put insurers out of business and squeeze hospital budgets. Alternatives being discussed include nonprofit, self-governed co-ops, and giving insurers a last chance to show they can keep costs in check before resorting to a government plan. Studies indicate that a public plan could coexist with private insurance, if the government option is restricted to individuals and small businesses.
_ Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar
09-08-2009 08:09 AM CDT
(Associated Press) --
A look at key issues in the health care debate:
THE ISSUE: Should Americans have the option of getting health insurance from a government plan that competes with private companies?
THE POLITICS: Many Democrats want to do away with private insurance and replace it with something resembling Medicare coverage for all, but that's not politically feasible. Offering the choice of a government insurance plan was a compromise within the Democratic Party. But Republicans are adamantly opposed, saying it's the first step to a government takeover of health care. Defeating the government plan also is the top priority for the insurance industry, and hospitals, doctors, and drugmakers have their own concerns about it. Unions strongly support the public option, and so does a majority of the public in opinion polls.
WHAT IT MEANS: A public plan could expand coverage at a lower cost to taxpayers, but it may also put insurers out of business and squeeze hospital budgets. Alternatives being discussed include nonprofit, self-governed co-ops, and giving insurers a last chance to show they can keep costs in check before resorting to a government plan. Studies indicate that a public plan could coexist with private insurance, if the government option is restricted to individuals and small businesses.
_ Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar
Malone Laveigh - October 13, 2009 09:18 PM (GMT)
Obamacare Tax Frays Middle-Class Vow
By Kevin A. Hassett
Bloomberg.com
Monday, October 12, 2009
The U.S. Senate's version of Obamacare finally is emerging into broad daylight, and the more people see of it, the less popular it should be.
For all the rhetoric, the plan is quite easy to sketch, thanks in part to an analysis by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.
So here goes: Under the health-care plan advanced by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, lower- and middle-class people who have insurance today are going to be taxed and squeezed in order to cover people who don't.
The money to finance the new entitlement comes from two main sources, tax increases and Medicare cuts. Medicare cuts are mostly borne by elderly folks with modest means. That undoubtedly explains why seniors are so concerned.
Democrats always seem to promise that they will finance their dreams by taxing the rich. And they always seem to increase taxes on everyone.The tax increases, by contrast, have received little attention. There has been almost no discussion of the simple question: who would pay the tab?
Think about how unusual that is. It is a radical departure from past tax debates. When President George W. Bush was in office, every tax proposal, no matter how minor, seemed to be buried by a blizzard of detailed distributional analyses that went from think-tank Web sites to the front pages of your favorite newspaper instantaneously.
In this debate, the distributional-industrial complex has remained silent.
Such remarkable silence in the noisiest town on earth can only be caused by an uncomfortable truth. And the mother of all uncomfortable truths is lurking below the surface in the health debate. If you are a card-carrying member of the left-wing establishment, you can't analyze the distributional consequences of the health bill, because if you do, you will catch President Barack Obama in a lie.
Campaign Promise
Think back to the 2008 election, when Obama promised again and again that he would not increase taxes on the middle class.
"And if you're a family making less than $250,000 a year, my plan won't raise your taxes one penny--not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes," Obama told an audience in Orlando, Florida, in August 2008, something he repeated at almost every opportunity.
In one way the statement is true. If your income is less than $250,000, Obama will not raise your taxes by just a penny. The hit will be much more painful than that.
We know that now because Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, asked the Joint Committee on Taxation to perform the distributional analysis nobody else would. The committee's analysis was provided to him in a letter dated Sept. 17. I received a copy a week later.
Tax on Plans
The report focused on the main revenue-raising step of the Baucus plan, an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans. At the time of the analysis, the Baucus plan held that if you have an insurance plan with a high premium (exceeding $8,000 per individual or $21,000 per family), your insurance company would pay a tax of 35 cents for every dollar that your plan exceeds the threshold.
The goal of the tax is to raise revenue to cover the uninsured and to discourage these so-called gold-plated plans, which some say encourage excessive medical care.
Ostensibly the excise tax is a tax on insurers. But as with other excise taxes (gasoline, cigarettes), the cost would undoubtedly be passed on to the consumer, in the form of more expensive insurance. Or firms might stop offering generous plans and increase wages commensurately, which would also increase tax revenue.
The analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation concluded that tax payments would indeed rise. And it found that the middle class would be stuck with the tab.
87 Percent
The report projected that the excise tax would raise about $52 billion in 2019. Of that, about $8.9 billion would come from taxpayers with incomes of less than $50,000; about $19.4 billion from taxpayers with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000; and about $17.4 billion from taxpayers with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000.
Add those up, and you see that about 87 percent of the revenue in the original Baucus proposal to finance Obamacare would come from individuals with incomes of less than $200,000.
Baucus and the Senate committee have since upped the proposed tax to 40 percent, and the trigger thresholds to $9,850 and $26,000, tweaks that shouldn't change the basic thrust of the story. The Democrats' plan is a moving target--and given who will pay the tab, that is probably on purpose.
The remarkable thing is that this revenue comes from low- and middle-income people who already have insurance. Many members of organized labor have these "gold-plated" plans. And they would be worse off, not better, because of Obamacare.
Democrats always seem to promise that they will finance their dreams by taxing the rich. And they always seem to increase taxes on everyone.
There they go again.
Kevin A. Hassett is a senior fellow and the director of economic policy studies at AEI.
____________________________________________________________________
Malone
By Kevin A. Hassett
Bloomberg.com
Monday, October 12, 2009
The U.S. Senate's version of Obamacare finally is emerging into broad daylight, and the more people see of it, the less popular it should be.
For all the rhetoric, the plan is quite easy to sketch, thanks in part to an analysis by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.
So here goes: Under the health-care plan advanced by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, lower- and middle-class people who have insurance today are going to be taxed and squeezed in order to cover people who don't.
The money to finance the new entitlement comes from two main sources, tax increases and Medicare cuts. Medicare cuts are mostly borne by elderly folks with modest means. That undoubtedly explains why seniors are so concerned.
Democrats always seem to promise that they will finance their dreams by taxing the rich. And they always seem to increase taxes on everyone.The tax increases, by contrast, have received little attention. There has been almost no discussion of the simple question: who would pay the tab?
Think about how unusual that is. It is a radical departure from past tax debates. When President George W. Bush was in office, every tax proposal, no matter how minor, seemed to be buried by a blizzard of detailed distributional analyses that went from think-tank Web sites to the front pages of your favorite newspaper instantaneously.
In this debate, the distributional-industrial complex has remained silent.
Such remarkable silence in the noisiest town on earth can only be caused by an uncomfortable truth. And the mother of all uncomfortable truths is lurking below the surface in the health debate. If you are a card-carrying member of the left-wing establishment, you can't analyze the distributional consequences of the health bill, because if you do, you will catch President Barack Obama in a lie.
Campaign Promise
Think back to the 2008 election, when Obama promised again and again that he would not increase taxes on the middle class.
"And if you're a family making less than $250,000 a year, my plan won't raise your taxes one penny--not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes," Obama told an audience in Orlando, Florida, in August 2008, something he repeated at almost every opportunity.
In one way the statement is true. If your income is less than $250,000, Obama will not raise your taxes by just a penny. The hit will be much more painful than that.
We know that now because Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, asked the Joint Committee on Taxation to perform the distributional analysis nobody else would. The committee's analysis was provided to him in a letter dated Sept. 17. I received a copy a week later.
Tax on Plans
The report focused on the main revenue-raising step of the Baucus plan, an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans. At the time of the analysis, the Baucus plan held that if you have an insurance plan with a high premium (exceeding $8,000 per individual or $21,000 per family), your insurance company would pay a tax of 35 cents for every dollar that your plan exceeds the threshold.
The goal of the tax is to raise revenue to cover the uninsured and to discourage these so-called gold-plated plans, which some say encourage excessive medical care.
Ostensibly the excise tax is a tax on insurers. But as with other excise taxes (gasoline, cigarettes), the cost would undoubtedly be passed on to the consumer, in the form of more expensive insurance. Or firms might stop offering generous plans and increase wages commensurately, which would also increase tax revenue.
The analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation concluded that tax payments would indeed rise. And it found that the middle class would be stuck with the tab.
87 Percent
The report projected that the excise tax would raise about $52 billion in 2019. Of that, about $8.9 billion would come from taxpayers with incomes of less than $50,000; about $19.4 billion from taxpayers with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000; and about $17.4 billion from taxpayers with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000.
Add those up, and you see that about 87 percent of the revenue in the original Baucus proposal to finance Obamacare would come from individuals with incomes of less than $200,000.
Baucus and the Senate committee have since upped the proposed tax to 40 percent, and the trigger thresholds to $9,850 and $26,000, tweaks that shouldn't change the basic thrust of the story. The Democrats' plan is a moving target--and given who will pay the tab, that is probably on purpose.
The remarkable thing is that this revenue comes from low- and middle-income people who already have insurance. Many members of organized labor have these "gold-plated" plans. And they would be worse off, not better, because of Obamacare.
Democrats always seem to promise that they will finance their dreams by taxing the rich. And they always seem to increase taxes on everyone.
There they go again.
Kevin A. Hassett is a senior fellow and the director of economic policy studies at AEI.
____________________________________________________________________
Malone