Deconstructing the Right Wing Lies on the Health Insurance Bill — Pages 1-500

(Thanks to a reader, I found another source of right wing crap on the health care bill, so there is now a part II to this post. As you may have noted, the right wingers who came up with this piece crapped out at page 500; their ADD must have kicked in. But this new source, a group of right wing Christian lawyers, no less, have gone much farther. Part II can be found here... part III is coming very soon… )

right's lies  about the current health
insurance proposals before Congress have rarely been compiled in such concise
form before. 


follows is
an article from the Right Wing blog ChronWatch


Page After Page of
Reasons to Hate ObamaCare

By Alan Caruba


problem is, there's something missing, such as context. See, the writer is
expecting the reader to take everything as gospel, and agree that it's bad,
without any sort of explanation.  It's a
list of all of the things that are wrong with the current state of the health
care reform bill before Congress. If you'd like to follow along, feel free
click here to go to the bill itself
. In fact, I would encourage you to look at it for yourself; it's an easy way to learn what's actually in it, without having to read through all of the legalese.


not called Please Cut the Crap for no reason. Below each item the right wing assures readers we're supposed
to hate, I've inserted context, and explained why you really shouldn't hate
it. Unless you should. All of my responses are italicized and printed in red,
so that you can tell whose words are whose.

I'll warn you, this is a long one, but it's an important one, so get a glass of tea, print this out, and read it to everyone who spews one of these talking points, because this really does touch on pretty much all of the right's talking points. And now you'll be able to refute them. Isn't that cool?

Now, let's continue with the article. 


Here are just a few
very good reasons to hate ObamaCare:

• Page 22: 
Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!


First of all, it starts on page 21, not 22, and it simply mandates a study of risk
on the part of all companies that choose to provide self-insurance, to make sure they are capitalized properly. This is something that private insurance
companies are required to do; it's to protect the consumer. Say you work at a
company with their own health insurance system; how would you like to find out
after you've received a $100,000 bill for a hospital stay, that the
insurance pool can't pay the bill?


This is also important because when they can't pay the bills, then everyone else with
insurance ends up picking up the slack. Got that? That's the reason health insurance
premiums have more than doubled in the last ten years, and are scheduled to
double again in the next ten, if nothing changes


Anyway, why should companies acting as health insurance companies be
allowed to operate under different rules than insurance companies? Isn't that
unfair competition?


• Page 29:
 Admission: your health care will be rationed!


The section actually starts on page 26, and it's entitled:


There is absolutely NO
section in there, from page 26 through page 30, that indicates rationing of any
kind. Looking at Page 29 specifically, it contains a section called
"Annual Limitation." A-HA! See? It's a LIMITATION! That's the same as
rationing, right? Didn't they admit rationing?


Well, no. Because the limit is on the amount that people will have
to pay out in cost-sharing, should the agency implementing the bill decide to
use a version of cost-sharing. The limit is on how much a patient will have to
pay, not a limit on the health care the patient receives.Watch how many times these tools bring up the "rationing" canard. It's almost as often as they mention ACORN. (I kid you not. Just wait.)


See what I mean when I say we have to watch these people, and check
their "facts?"


• Page 30:  A
government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and,
unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)


The section on Page 30 establishes an advisory committee, and yes;
they will decide which treatments and benefits you get. I'm unsure as to why
this is a bad thing. I don't want my health insurance premiums going to
Britney's boob job, even if I have private insurance. Which reminds me; does
this bozo actually think private insurance companies don't have a list of
acceptable treatments and benefits? 


There is one difference here, though. The committee's
recommendations will be published and the public will have access to them.
Which means they will be able to offer input to the process.


Oh, and there is nothing here about "no appeals process."
The Committee will simply recommend processes for implementation. Not only that, but varying appeals processes are laid out in detail throughout the bill. So, he lied about that…


• Page 42:  The
“Health Choices Commissioner” will decide health benefits for you.  You
will have no choice.  None.


See above.  The Commissioner
will simply oversee implementation of the rules that are decided upon by the
Commission. He or she will be responsible for making sure that everyone is
held accountable up and down the line. Nothing in the bill gives power to a
"czar," who will make health benefits decisions. The commission and
the Secretary will make decisions on benefits as changes become necessary.
Again; I'm not sure why this is a bad thing, except that right wingers don't
seem fond of accountability.Well, unless we're talking about unskilled poor people who get welfare money.


• Page 50:  All
non-U.S. citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare


Now, when you read something like this, you half expect to see
something mandating that non-US citizens be given "free health care."


The funny thing is, the word FREE only appears one time in the entire bill, and it is not coupled with the term "health care." People will be provided
with a new health care choice, based on their income, to a certain extent. So
we can toss that little red herring off the boat right away. NO ONE will
receive free health care. I mean, unless they win some sort of sweepstakes or
something.I guess that's possible.


No, the section the wingnut refers to is entitled:


What is says is:

"… [A]ll health care and related services
(including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act
shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the
provision of high quality health care or related services."

The word "free" isn't in there. It just means that no one
can be denied insurance coverage or health care because of their looks, or because they're wearing robes or a burqa. But
nothing in there says undocumented immigrants will be able to scam
"free" health care. In other words, you can only call that a lie.


• Page 58: 
Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.


No, it says everyone who opts into the public insurance system MAY be issued a health identification card, if the commission thinks that's a good idea. But
the bill doesn't mandate it. It's quite possible the insurance commission
will recommend that states implement the public health insurance option, and some states may put the information on your driver's license or state ID card. And again; the only people who will need a card are those with public insurance.


And what's wrong with this idea, anyway? I've never had
health insurance from a private company from which I didn’t receive an
identification card.


• Page 59:  The
federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank
accounts for electronic funds transfer.


Wow. Is that scary,
or what? Only one problem; it's a lie. And I don't mean he's mistaken; I mean,
he's lying. Here's what it says:

‘‘The standards under this section shall be developed, adopted and
enforced so as to… (C) enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow
automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance

It clearly refers to payment for the health care, not payment of the
premium. Most health care companies love this, and will adopt it. But it
is still their choice, just as it could be your choice to pay your health
insurance premiums by direct transfer, check or payroll deduction. As is the
case now.


• Page 65: 
Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans
(read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)


Once more, it doesn't say that. 
What it does say is:



(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
establish a temporary reinsurance program (in this section referred to as the ‘‘reinsurance program’’) to provide reimbursement to
assist participating employment-based plans with the cost of providing health benefits to retirees and to
eligible spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees.


Okay, you'll note the word PARTICIPATING in the above.  To anyone who would bother to slide down a
couple of paragraphs, past the definitions, all of which define the terms in
the above, and do not include the word "mandatory" anywhere, to Page
67, we find:

(b) PARTICIPATION.—To be eligible to participate in the reinsurance
program, an eligible employment-based plan shall submit to the Secretary an
application for participation in the program, at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Secretary shall require.

So, it's all voluntary. Not only that, but it's REINSURANCE, which
means the participating plan will be providing their capital to the federal
government to fund the plan. I would also point out that members of unions such as SEIU and UAW
are also taxpayers, and they currently purchase private insurance for retired
members.  And if ACORN isn't a red
herring, I don't know what is. I'm not aware that ACORN provides health
insurance to anyone. But hey; it's not true racist wingnuttery until you invoke
ACORN, eh? This isn't the last time you'll see it.


• Page 72:  All
private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a
Healthcare Exchange.


This is a phenomenally silly complaint from a right wing
ideological perspective, and it lays bare the moral bankruptcy in their
arguments against universal health care. These are the same people who are
always touting competition and choice as the most important aspects of
capitalism. The point of the insurance exchange is to give people an obvious
and transparent choice of health insurance options. A private insurance company
can participate and offer their wares alongside the public option, if they so
choose. If they don't want to participate, they're free to conduct business as
usual, and they won't have to conform to any
government rules. Well, except for the ones they must already conform with, whenever the Bush Administration's not in office.
They've always had to conform to government rules to participate in Medicare, and I
don't see any of them dropping out of business for that.


• Page 84:  All
private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e.,
total government control of private plans)


Again, this is a lie. There are
requirements for those choosing to participating in the Health Exchange, but there is absolutely no
mandate to join.  And if there is going
to be competition, it should be on a level playing field, which is
what the Exchange creates.  It creates an
easy-to-read set of options, which insurance companies are free to enhance, and
all companies who participate are instructed to offer several levels of plans. If you really think about it rationally, and not the right wing way, the Exchange actually enhances the private insurance companies'
chances of survival. But these idiots want to kill it.  If there's a public option available at a
competitive price per month, insurance companies can offer two other tiers of
service, with whatever enhancements they want to include, for a higher price.
So, rather than offering "total government control," it actually
allows insurance companies an opportunity to offer several tiers of "enhanced" service, to enhance their


• Page 91:
 Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation:
illegal aliens


There's that perpetual racist component
again. My great-grandmother couldn't read English well enough to follow medical
instructions when I was a kid in the 1960s, and she had been in this country
since she fled the Nazis in the 1930s. I know this, because she used to have me
read stuff to her when I was 6. By the way, she was from Poland, and she was
very, very white. Hundreds of thousands of people come here legally from all
over the world, without knowing English sufficiently, and they occasionally get
sick. Hell, half the right wingers in this country legally can't speak English
well enough to read a Congressional bill, let alone a doctor's instructions.


• Page 95:  The
Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for
Government-run Health Care plan.


Once more, they invoke ACORN. The above is too silly to even bother
with, except to say that informing people of their options and helping them
sign up seems remarkably similar to the teams of people the private insurance
companies send out to workplaces during "open enrollment." Just


• Page 102:
 Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no
choice in the matter.


Those eligible for Medicaid already have public health insurance.
The reason they qualify for Medicaid is because they are poor and have no
choices. What sense does it make to have two separate public health plans;
Medicaid and this new plan. I mean, this is purely stupid, folks. Page 102 makes clear that Medicaid will be folded into this new plan when it passes. It's a no-brainer.

But I will say this; people on Medicaid will actually have just as much choice as they've always had; probably more.


• Page 124:  No
company can sue the government for price-fixing.  No “judicial review” is
permitted against the government monopoly.  Put simply, private insurers
will be crushed.


This is also extremely inaccurate, if not an outright lie. There is
no "price-fixing." First of all, the bill refers to the same
rate-setting  statutes the government has
always followed with Medicare and Medicaid. It has to do with the rates they
pay for procedures, and the process includes medical providers and follows them
very closely. The doctors and medical corporations still set the prices in that
system, and private insurers will be free to negotiate higher or lower payment
prices if they wish. They don't pay the same as Medicare and Medicaid for procedures now, and no one's complaining about "price fixing."


You know what? This isn't just inaccurate,
it's dishonest.


• Page 127: 
The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.


Once again, the bill doesn't say that. In fact, the language is
almost exactly the same as the language in Medicare, and it says absolutely
nothing about anyone's "wages." The entire section is about rates for
procedures and treatment,  and physicians
are free to apply in any category they choose, just as they are now with


The level of dishonesty in this one is astounding. Every
single private health insurance company in the market negotiates rates for procedures
with participating physicians, and physicians are not allowed to charge any
more than that amount. In other words, they do the same thing Medicare does.
The only difference is, Medicare pays every claim short of fraud, while
insurance companies routinely deny claims, and try every trick they can think of to not pay at all. And they wonder why we're gunning for them…


• Page 145:  An
employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan.
 No alternatives.


This one is pure crap. There's no other way to put it.  Here's what it actually says:



21 (a) IN GENERAL.—An employer meets the
requirements of this section with respect to an employee if the following
requirements are met:

(1) OFFERING OF COVERAGE.—The employer offers the
coverage described in section 311(1) either

through an Exchange-participating health
benefits  plan or other than through such
a plan.

timely pays to the issuer of such coverage an amount not less than the employer
required contribution specified in subsection (b) for such coverage.8 (3)
PROVISION OF INFORMATION.—The employer provides the Health Choices
Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable, with such
information as the Commissioner may require to ascertain compliance with the
requirements of this section.

provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection (c).


In other words, IF the employer opts into the public insurance
system, THEN he must provide for the autoenrollment of employees… again a choice.
But here's the really dishonest part. Just a few paragraphs later, there is
this little section (Page 148):


(2) OPT-OUT.—In no case may an employer
automatically enroll an employee in a plan under paragraph (1) if such employee
makes an affirmative election to opt out of such plan or to elect coverage
under an employment-based health benefits plan offered by such employer. An
employer shall provide an employee with a 30-day period to make such an
affirmative election before the employer may automatically enroll the employee
in such a plan.


Remember; this lying wingnut said "no alternatives."
Strange, but I see an employer being able to choose not to participate in the
public insurance system. And every employee has the choice to opt-out; it says
so right in the bill. Those seem like alternatives. Even if you're not the best at math, you have to know that two is greater than zero, right?


• Page 126: 
Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.


Again, an absolute lie. The page number is 146, not 126, which is a quibble. But
employers are not required to pay healthcare bills for anyone. IF they CHOOSE
to participate in the public insurance system, they are required to
autoenroll employees in the insurance, unless the employee chooses to opt out.
But the INSURANCE pays the bills, not the employers. Employers will not be required to pay for the procedures themselves, unless they opt to self-insure. But that's hardly a mandate, is it?


• Page 149:
 Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the
public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll.

• Page 150: 
Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the
public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll.


More lies. The section ONLY refers to any employer who doesn't offer ANY
insurance to his employees. If they offer either private insurance or the public insurance, they do not have to pay the 8%, regardless of the size of their payroll. The purpose of the public
insurance system is to cover as many people as possible. An employee of such an
employer who wants to buy the public insurance will have to pay an amount
indexed to the probably meager pay the cheapskate employer is paying. (Think fast food franchise
where everyone works for $8 an hour or less.) The fund created by this tax
will subsidize the purchase of health insurance for these people.


An employer with a tiny payroll will pay considerably less, but
again; ONLY if he doesn't participate in the public insurance system. Here's
the table.


If the annual payroll of such employer for the
preceding calendar year:

The applicable percentage is:

Does not exceed $250,000
………………………………. 0 percent

Exceeds $250,000, but does not exceed $300,000 2

Exceeds $300,000, but does not exceed $350,000 4

Exceeds $350,000, but does not exceed $400,000 6


So, if they have a really small business, say 10 employees making
$24,000 each, and don't offer insurance, they get off scot-free. In fact, if
they have 20 employees making $15,000 per year, they only pay $6,000 into the

If you ask me, there's a gap here. Really small cheapskate business
owners are going to get off light, and all other taxpayers will have to foot
more of the bill as a result.


• Page 167: 
Any individual who doesn't have acceptable healthcare (according to the
government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.


Yay! Finally, they got one right. Well, partially right, anyway.


Anyone without health insurance — specifically those who choose to
run around without health insurance because they're too cheap and stupid —
will now have to pay something into a system that is required to take care of
them when they contract a serious illness or get hit by a bus. Let's see… if
the guy makes $100,000 per year, the total tax is $2,500, which is far less than he would pay for health insurance now. And for those who
think this is especially unfair to rich people who choose not to carry
insurance because of their immense wealth, don't
worry; the amount is capped at the size of the average health insurance premium. In return,
the rest of us won't have to pick up the tab when the uninsured numb nuts is
wheeled into the emergency room for a trauma because he was riding his dirt bike and slammed into a tree while not wearing a helmet. .


In other words, this is something to applaud, not to hate. It should
encourage people to opt into the insurance system, which saves everyone money.


• Page 170:
 Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will
pay for them).


This wingnut sure does have an obsession with immigrants. By the
way, NON-RESIDENT ALIEN means someone who doesn't LIVE here. In almost all
other countries, there is a national health insurance system, and their
government will pay for their health care. Why would we tax them for something
they won’t use in most cases?


• Page 195:
 Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have
access to ALL American financial and personal records.


And we get back to the lies.

The agency will have extremely limited
access to SOME information contained in IRS TAX records for those individuals
choosing to participate in the public health insurance system, in order to
determine eligibility for certain premium discounts. There are strict limits on
the info they will have access to, and there is a strict prohibition on passing
the information anywhere else.It is most certainly NOT "ALL American financial and personal records."


• Page 203:
 “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.” Yes, it
really says that.


No, actually, it doesn't. What is it about wingnuts that makes them think
they can put a period anywhere they want, and change the meaning of something,
and no one will notice? Here's what it REALLY says:

‘‘(4) NOT TREATED AS TAX IMPOSED BY THIS CHAPTER FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.—The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax
imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of
section 55.’’'

I can't explain what this means. I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't "really say" what they say it says…

•Page 239:
 Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid.  Seniors and the
poor most affected.”


This is also a lie. The entire section has to do with reducing the
number of physician services used to compute health care growth rates from 2011
on. There is absolutely no provision to reduce services for Medicaid. In fact,
Medicaid will be folded into the public insurance system, which makes the above
assertion just insane.


• Page 241: 
Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you’ll all be paid the same
(thanks, AMA!)


See above. Another lie. It's another part
of the section dealing with predicting costs. Specifically, it deals with
"conversion factors. There is nothing in there mandating what anyone gets
paid for anything.


• Page 253: 
Government sets value of doctors’ time, their professional judgment, etc.

• Page 265:
 Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare

• Page 268: 
Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.


These are
just insane. The first one doesn't set values for anything. It simply adjusts
the method for coming up with values later on. Which makes sense, because
covering everyone will drop the health care inflation rate tremendously,
especially after the first few years. 
The second evaluates productivity and offer incentives to increase
efficiency and productivity. As for the last one, why wouldn't the government
regulate the rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs they intend to
buy? You think private insurance companies just go to Wal-Mart? And read it
carefully; all it does is extend Medicare regulations to the public insurance
system. Why is it suddenly not good enough?


• Page 272: 
Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!


They love that word "rationing."
If only they knew what it meant.

Essentially, there is no rationing anywhere in
this bill. And anyone who doesn't think private insurance rations health care
has never encountered a denied claim. But not only does the section they point
to NOT impose anything close to "rationing," it promises to pay EXTRA
to hospitals that specialize in cancer treatment. EXTRA!

Since when does "rationing" constitute EXTRA anything? Bet our grandparents are pissed to know that gas rationing during World War II meant they could get extra.


• Page 280:
 Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable

• Page 298: 
Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a
readmission, you will be penalized by the government.


Okay, the first one's not entirely a lie, although it doesn’t say
"preventable readmissions;" it says "EXCESSIVE readmissions," and there is a significant difference. It
merely extends a policy that's been standard under Medicare for years. It
encourages doctors to make sure they aren't treating the hospital as an
assembly line and making sure people are treated properly the first time. It
also goes a long way to keeping hypochondriacs out of the hospital to a
significant degree, and keeping costs down.


The second one, on the other hand, is completely made up. First of
all, the page number is wrong. But it rewards efficiency. Think about it this
way. Suppose you take your car in to have the air conditioning repaired, and
the shop charges you $200. If you have to take it in two more times for the
same problem, are you going to accept them charging you $200 more each time? Of
course not. Well, why shouldn't doctors be encouraged to do everything possible
to fix a problem the first time? Not only that, but imagine a medical office
scamming the insurance company/government by purposely not treating everything
the first time, so that they can get more money for more readmissions? This
measure actually increases efficiency.


Imagine that; these wingnuts actually have a problem with the
government encouraging efficiency and conbatting waste, and keeping the cost of health
care down.


• Page 317:
 Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare

• Page
318:  Prohibition on hospital expansion.  Hospitals cannot expand
without government approval.

• Page 321:  Hospital expansion hinges on “community”
input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.


Surprise; more lies The bill prohibits doctors from referring
patients to hospitals in which they have a significant ownership interest
in,  without disclosing to the patient
that he indeed has an ownership stake in the hospital. The government also
prohibits "self-referral" under most circumstances. That's actually
fair to all of the other hospitals. There is absolutely zero prohibition on
doctors having ownership of hospitals. 
What this tool is citing has to do with rural areas. It's to prevent one
physician from effectively controlling all aspects of health care in a region,
where possible.


But once more; doctors are not prohibited from doing anything,
except creating a monopoly and locking others out of a market. And the
"community input" provision is just common sense. Note, another ACORN
reference, and there is no way it applies here at all. I'm not aware of ACORN
being involved in hospital expansion in rural areas.


• Page 335:
 Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e.,


I don't even have to look this one up, but I did anyway. Another


Outcome-based healthcare is common sense. And it has nothing to do
with "rationing." In fact, rationing is the exact OPPOSITE of
"outcome-based" care. By emphasizing quality care, you reduce the
number of ER and urgent care admissions, and you reduce the number of
readmissions, as well. Again; it's the opposite of rationing. Rationing is what
private insurance companies do. I'm reminded of that guy at the beginning of
Michael Moore's film, "Sicko," in which some poor guy had a choice of
which finger he would like to have reattached. "Outcome based" care
would have repaired both fingers and made the guy a productive citizen again.
Health care "rationing" forced him to choose the cheapest finger to


• Page 341:
 Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs,


They already have the ability to regulate and disqualify Medicare
Advantage plans.. In other words, this maintains the status quo .  Oh, and it says absolutely nothing about
"HMOS, etc."


• Page 354: 
Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.


No. That's not what it says. What it says is, it will begin to phase
such special needs individuals into the public health insurance system. IOW,
those people who qualify for Medicaid and people under 65 who qualify for
Medicare will be eligible for this system instead. Seriously, can wingnuts read
at all?


• Page 379: 
More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).

• Page 425: 
More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted
suicide, euthanasia?

• Page 425: 
Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of
attorney, etc.  Mandatory.  Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of

• Page 425:
 Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you
in death.

• Page 427:
 Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government
dictates how your life ends.

• Page 429: 
Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient’s
health deteriorates.  This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans.

• Page 430: 
Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.


More bureaucracy than the private insurer's tendency to automatically
deny claims over $1500, and force you to call them in order to get the bill
paid? Have you ever been to a hospital's administrative offices? There is no
more bureaucracy than in the private health insurance industry.


That said, Telehealth has been around for years, and has saved
Medicare countless dollars by directing seniors to services. This merely
expands the concept to people covered under the public insurance system.
Imagine; more service; what a concept, right?


The rest are pure paranoia. The Advance Care Planning Consultation
system has also been around for years, and I'm unaware of a spate of senior
suicides or euthanasia as a result. It simply encourages people to consult with
their doctors, and get all of the options available for either planning for the
end, or working to create a higher quality of life. I'm sure almost everyone
knows someone with a debilitating disease, such as multiple sclerosis or
diabetes; advance care planning reduces the likelihood that these people will
constantly show up at urgent care or the ER for minor problems that they
themselves can take care of.


• Page 469: 
Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.

• Page 472: 
Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.


Two more gratuitous mentions of ACORN. And
what's wrong with either of the above?


• Page 489: 
Government will cover marriage and family therapy.  Government intervenes
in your marriage.


This one is silly, of course. Unless the government starts mandating
marriage and family therapy, and then conducts the therapy themselves, the
"intervention" isn't happening. I mean, many health insurance plans
cover psychiatric services under some conditions, but no one is suggesting that
Blue Cross or CIGNA is trying to control your mind.


• Page 494: 
Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing
those services.


Of course, it merely adds them to the Medicare mix. There is nothing
to define, create or ration them in this bill.


I guess they became tired, because they got tired of lying about
halfway through the bill. There are over 500 more pages to this thing.


A tip of my hat to
my friend, Ben Cerruti, for providing this look at the Obamanation called


Yes, thank him for lying his ass off, and
giving me a chance to cut the crap, big time. I'd been working on a piece about
right wing health care lies, and this gave me a chance to dispel most of them
in one fell swoop. I mean, all of these lies in one piece. How do these people
sleep at night?


Write, e-mail, fax, or call your senators and your representative
and tell them to vote NO!


If you tell them that, you're a fool. The CBO estimates that, with
no changes to the health care system, premiums will increase by $1800 per year
for the next ten years. That means an family will pay an average annual premium
of more than $32,000 by then. And that's assuming that the 47 million people
without insurance doesn't increase tremendously. This offers everyone a chance
at affordable health insurance, and stops the health care inflation that has
crippled our economy for decades. But more than that, it will make us a proud
nation, that cares about its people once again.


Stop letting these wingnut idiots lie their asses off. Read what I
wrote above, and compare it to what's actually in the bill. It's really not as
long as it sounds, by the way; if the bill was written single spaced, with
normal margins, it would probably be a couple of hundred pages at best. But
look through it, and what you'll find is a plan that is very thoughtful and
measured, and provides access to everyone.


Call your Congressperson and Senators, and ask them one simple


Do you REALLY want to be on record as having voted against health
insurance for all this year?


This is going to happen. If not this year, then we throw out the
assholes who vote against it, and put in someone who will. Our country is
becoming second-rate right before our eyes, and one reason is the money we're
flushing away on health care for no one, while thousands of people die and
thousands of others are pushed to financial ruin.


The fact that the opposition can do nothing but lie to get their
point across means that even they believe universal health insurance is
necessary. Either that, or they like seeing their rates double every decade…

Comments are closed.