The conservative wing-nuts don't care that they are spreading mistruth.
This is the republican's last stand - if healthcare passes, their party goes the way of the do-do. This is why they are so heated about this issue.
In this post, http://www.speakupwny.com/forums/sho...3&postcount=21
there's a horrible copy/paste job detailing the 'horrors' of Obama care.
Specifically, it's claimed that pages 16 and 17 (of what document is left out, but easily determined one you realize it's been copied from another page that _does_ have the document) say you will not be able to shop for private insurance if you don't have insurance prior to the public option. This is claim 1.
The document in question can be found at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/...CA09001xml.pdf
Claim 2 is that "every five years, the elderly will have to attend a mandatory consultiation for end of life services". Page 425 is listed as a reference.
As for the truth...
Claim 2:
Page 425 is amending the current Medicare bill by adding the definition of "advance care planning consultations." The purpose of defining it, as will all the other definitions in that section (like Kidney Failure consults) is to determine what will be PAID FOR. That's what the 5-year stipulation is for - to say that the public option WILL NOT PAY for these consults if 5 years haven't passed. There is NO MENTION that this is mandatory, or that ANYONE is FORCED to have one - EVER.
Claim 1:
As mentioned before, pages 16 and 17 only refer to the actual policy in force when the bill takes effect. The next several hundred paragraphs detail what an acceptable policy would include (and would therefore be included in the Health Insurance Exchange), and Subtitle A of Title II (which begins on page 72) includes section 202, called "Exchange-Eligible Individuals and Employers".
On page 73, there's a definition:
a) Access to Coverage - In accordance with this section, ALL INDIVIDUALS are eligible to obtain coverage through enrollment in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan...
ALL INDIVIDUALS will be perfectly capable of buying private insurance even if they change from their current plan.
So - there's no doubt that whatever source the previous poster copy/pasted from is not telling the truth, or is at the very least misinterpreting fairly basic legalese. The better question is WHY, when the entire text of the bill is available, these posters are choosing to cherry pick quotes from it out of context to raise some false hysteria.
The conservative wing-nuts don't care that they are spreading mistruth.
This is the republican's last stand - if healthcare passes, their party goes the way of the do-do. This is why they are so heated about this issue.
"I know you guys enjoy reading my stuff because it all makes sense. "
Dumbest post ever! Thanks for the laugh PO!
Dougles - this thread is about refuting two points that are being made by opponents of the plan. If you care to deny the claims I'm making, feel free.
Sure. On point two, even Mr. Spector said the house bill requires end of life counselling!
"The senator agreed with the crowd on some issues, saying he opposes mandatory counseling on end-of-life issues called for in a House version of health-care legislation. Specter also vowed he would never support any bill that increased the federal deficit or took away a person's right to choose their health-care coverage."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ng/#more-64031
"I know you guys enjoy reading my stuff because it all makes sense. "
Dumbest post ever! Thanks for the laugh PO!
Then Mr. Specter didn't read the bill, as seems to be the case with most of his cohorts. Nothing in the bill even hints at "mandatory end of life counseling".
"I know you guys enjoy reading my stuff because it all makes sense. "
Dumbest post ever! Thanks for the laugh PO!
I'm getting on people who claim to have read the bill, and are quoting passages from it, and still wildly misrepresenting it. You seem to be saying you want the leaders to explain it to you, but you also have a long history of not believing what they tell you.
"I know you guys enjoy reading my stuff because it all makes sense. "
Dumbest post ever! Thanks for the laugh PO!
Dave338 - excellent catch.
Still makes me wonder about the question that prompted the other thread - Do "they" (mikenold, specifically, in this case) spread the lies to be intentionally misleading?
Or, do they (again, mikenold in this case) do it just because they're dumb?
It's a serious question - not meant to be rhetorical.
Exchange plans are privately offered options, which, as you mention, must adhere to the broad guidelines set forth by the govt. The "govt plan" is the public option.
Brandon, please do not call Bill O' Reilly a "conservative wing-nut." Sure, Bill' and his wonderful family are insured to the max and he has nothing to lose by accidentely lying to viewers.
If anything, we should ALL learn to be good obedient citizens who question nothing and obey all as Bill O' Reilly, Rush, Hannity, Beck, Ingraham, Savage, Crystal and other good citizens have taught us to be.
If these fully insured for medical and dental, VERY well-paid talk show hosts and op-ed columnists say that universal health care coverage is bad ONLY for America (not most other industrialized nations), they MUST be telling us the TRUTH for these "wing nuts," as you so pejoratively call them, Brandon care about us.
They care about all of us and want us to be healthy and happy.
Wow, this is really good Kool Aid!
Now let us all watch Bill O' Reilly with reverence and respect and learn the TRUTH at the teacher's feet.
"He's a lying propagandizing nazi hack! Don't believe a word he says!"
Bill O' Reilly responds to the independent-thinking American,
"Hey! Shaddup! Yeah, you! Shut up! I said, SHUT UP, already! Shut your mouth!!!"
Coincidence is the word we use when we can't see the levers and pulleys.
Emma Bull
Mitch Albom
The Buffalo News : Opinion
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
I have no illusions about protesters at town hall meetings on health care.
Some are fueled by angry conservative groups. Some are hopped up on radio hosts’ rants and ravings. Some are Obama haters. Some use one piece of wrong information to smear an entire event.
And some just think the whole idea of government health care stinks.
But all of them—all of them—have the right to be there, and the right to their point of view. Liberal-minded thinkers who regularly speak up for the poor and underprivileged cannot suddenly yank the rug when it comes to free speech for others.
No matter what I think of national health care — no matter what you think, either — it is an issue that affects everyone, and everyone should have the same right to talk, argue or shout about it.
Let’s be honest. Those of us who grew up in the 1960s took great pride in storming events and yelling slogans. We didn’t care who we interrupted. We were, in our minds, right and proud and arguing for our beliefs. And we look back on that era now with a certain pride. We were engaged. We were involved.
Well, some of us are the same people now offended by critics shouting, “Socialism!” or “Kill the bill!” at these town hall meetings. We chide the protesters for lacking all the facts or for looking out for only their small group’s interests.
But ask yourself, did we always have all the information when we did the shouting? Did we always read all the fine print? Probably not. We had our basic core beliefs (Stop the war! Save the environment! More rights for women!) and we fought for them whenever we perceived an enemy.
Well, like it or not, people perceive an enemy when they hear about a government health care plan. Especially one so complex, confusing and undercooked that no one can really say what it will or won’t allow,
or who will or won’t pay for it.
And so they yell. And if they are yelling incorrect facts, those hosting these events should try to correct them.
Now, I know some of these protesters are sent by dubiously named groups like Americans for Prosperity, which sounds harmless enough, until you check and see the group’s leader once organized for Enron and worked with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
I know these groups often hand out instructions on how to be disruptive.
And I know some people just want to see Obama — and any of his plans — fail.
But that’s what America is. That’s what town halls are for. And let’s be honest, politicians try to orchestrate these events as much as protesters do. The only problem I have is when people won’t let others speak or come only to disrupt. That’s not democracy.
But the rest is. If you feel other people are ill-informed, try to correct them. If others are shouting to bring down a cause, shout to bring it up.
But I would rather live in a place where people questioned what their government proposed rather than swallowing it blindly — especially a government whose members guard our tax money while taking bribes, shout morality and then get caught with their pants down, or lecture businessmen about private planes and then order a bunch for themselves.
What did Democrats expect? Roses and hosannas? Many who supported Obama’s campaign promises of health care for everyone wouldn’t have done so if they read how he now plans to pay for and administer it.
It may not be pretty, but shouting and confrontations are part of this country. They have been from the start. More manners would be better. But silence would be worse.
This is far too important to allow plants to disrupt a REAL debate.
Should freedom of speech impede the process which SHOULD avail ALL OF US to the same healthcare enjoyed by our Senators and Congressmen?
Coincidence is the word we use when we can't see the levers and pulleys.
Emma Bull
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)