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.