Obama's Health Plan Bars Private Insurance After All
Moderator: Super Moderators
No, I dismiss lies and distortions that are meant to appeal to those that are dumber than Joe the Plumber. And that goes triple for fools that want to rabble rouse and try to distract from reality. Just like the absolute LIE that started this thread "Obama's Health Plan Bars Private Insurance After All".. unmitigated and filthy lie.
Republican - re·pub·li·can (r-pbl-kn) - political party, which will control part of Congress 2011-2012, undermining the strength of the country - on purpose, in public, without apology or shame - simply for a campaign advantage in 2012.
I don't know, do you get your ears clogged up with the fecal material from where you have your head stuck all the time?Kaztronic wrote: I've always wondered, do you get a nice cooling sensation by having your head buried in sand Rombaldi? Does your back start to hurt after a while?
Republican - re·pub·li·can (r-pbl-kn) - political party, which will control part of Congress 2011-2012, undermining the strength of the country - on purpose, in public, without apology or shame - simply for a campaign advantage in 2012.
Nope.
My hearing appears to be working just fine, as does my vision. See, I'm actually looking at what is going on around me - whether I like what I see or not. Think I will be less shocked, angry and disappointed that way when reality bites us in the ass (which in your position - with your ass all hanging out in the air there while your head is buried in the sand - might be quite painful & surprising)
Thanks for checking in though!
My hearing appears to be working just fine, as does my vision. See, I'm actually looking at what is going on around me - whether I like what I see or not. Think I will be less shocked, angry and disappointed that way when reality bites us in the ass (which in your position - with your ass all hanging out in the air there while your head is buried in the sand - might be quite painful & surprising)
Thanks for checking in though!
"You'll get used to my babbling, all the others have." - Anna Madrigal from "Tales Of The City" by Armistead Maupin
http://www.adn.com/life/health/story/895431.html
Murkowski: Don't tell lies about the health-care reform bill
HOT TOPIC: Some things in the legislation are already bad enough, she says at civic center.
By LISA DEMER
Last Modified: August 12th, 2009 06:08 PM
U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski on Tuesday told an Anchorage crowd that critics of health care reform, the summer's hottest political topic, aren't helping the debate by throwing out highly charged assertions not based in fact.
"It does us no good to incite fear in people by saying that there's these end-of-life provisions, these death panels," Murkowski, a Republican, said. "Quite honestly, I'm so offended at that terminology because it absolutely isn't (in the bill). There is no reason to gin up fear in the American public by saying things that are not included in the bill."
Murkowski's analysis of the health-care reform measures was delivered to a Commonwealth North crowd of about 130 at the Dena'ina Civic and Convention Center. The nonpartisan group focuses on public policy issues.
Former Gov. Sarah Palin stirred up controversy last week by suggesting on her Facebook page that people like her parents and Down syndrome son might have to appear before "Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."
Experts who have reviewed the various pieces of legislation, which run for hundreds of pages, say there's no such provision.
Murkowski said it's essential the nation's health care system be reformed to improve access to care, boost existing cash-strapped programs such as veterans' health care and control escalating costs.
Still, she said, Congress should slow down and not rush into bad legislation. And critics shouldn't inflame the debate with lies, she said.
"I'll be honest with you," Murkowski said. "There are things that are in this bill that are bad enough that we don't need to be making things up."
When U.S. Sen. Mark Begich, a Democrat, gave a speech on health care Monday, sign-waving protesters gathered outside the Dena'ina center. The raucous crowds didn't come back to challenge Murkowski. Among other things, the protesters demanded that Begich face off with them in town hall meetings. He said he's already done so in Anchorage and Juneau, and plans to hold another in Fairbanks.
Murkowski said she's holding four town hall meetings on health care. An aide said the meetings start Thursday in Fairbanks, then will be Aug. 20 in Anchorage, Aug. 28 in Wasilla and Aug. 29 in Soldotna.
"I look forward to that input and if it's spirited, that's the way it is," Murkowski said. "This is an issue that impacts all of us."
She voted no on a health reform measure that in July passed out of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, of which she's a member. She tried to get through an amendment that set a floor for payments to providers under a government-run plan. In Alaska, she noted, seniors on Medicare have trouble getting seen by a primary care doctor because of low government reimbursement rates. But her amendment failed on a 13-10 party-line vote, she said.
She also tried, unsuccessfully, to exclude the smallest businesses from being penalized if they failed to provide health insurance.
"As we look to the impact, imposing additional taxes and penalties on the backbone of small businesses, particularly in a downturn in the economy as we are experiencing, this is exactly what Congress ought not to be doing," Murkowski said.
She was able to get through amendments to ensure that Alaska Native groups could tap into grants created through the legislation. Murkowski said those were technical changes. But Begich said Monday that some of Murkowski's successful amendments were more than technical -- evidence the Senate effort is bipartisan.
Alaska's senators also differ on whether reining in the costs of medical malpractice lawsuits would pay for reforms. Murkowski said tort reform would cover the costs, citing a Stanford University study that said doctors practice defensive medicine that contributes to significant unnecessary health expenses. But Begich on Monday said that savings from any tort reform would be a small part of the equation.
They also have divergent views of whether people could keep their existing health coverage if they want to do so. Begich says they could, under the versions of health reform that have passed committees.
Murkowski said that's not necessarily true. A House bill creates a system that could shift 88 million Americans from private insurance to a government-run plan, she said.
The best hope for reform, Murkowski said, is a bill being worked on in the Senate Finance Committee. Three Democrats and three Republicans are working through the August recess on it.
News reports say that committee's bill likely will include a provision to ensure no one is denied health insurance because of preexisting medical conditions, subsidies to help individuals buy insurance, and taxes on high-end health benefits. But it wouldn't include Obama's desired public health insurance option.
The cost may be about $900 billion over 10 years.
--
United States Senator Lisa Murkowski (Republican-Alaska)
Murkowski: Don't tell lies about the health-care reform bill
HOT TOPIC: Some things in the legislation are already bad enough, she says at civic center.
By LISA DEMER
Last Modified: August 12th, 2009 06:08 PM
U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski on Tuesday told an Anchorage crowd that critics of health care reform, the summer's hottest political topic, aren't helping the debate by throwing out highly charged assertions not based in fact.
"It does us no good to incite fear in people by saying that there's these end-of-life provisions, these death panels," Murkowski, a Republican, said. "Quite honestly, I'm so offended at that terminology because it absolutely isn't (in the bill). There is no reason to gin up fear in the American public by saying things that are not included in the bill."
Murkowski's analysis of the health-care reform measures was delivered to a Commonwealth North crowd of about 130 at the Dena'ina Civic and Convention Center. The nonpartisan group focuses on public policy issues.
Former Gov. Sarah Palin stirred up controversy last week by suggesting on her Facebook page that people like her parents and Down syndrome son might have to appear before "Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."
Experts who have reviewed the various pieces of legislation, which run for hundreds of pages, say there's no such provision.
Murkowski said it's essential the nation's health care system be reformed to improve access to care, boost existing cash-strapped programs such as veterans' health care and control escalating costs.
Still, she said, Congress should slow down and not rush into bad legislation. And critics shouldn't inflame the debate with lies, she said.
"I'll be honest with you," Murkowski said. "There are things that are in this bill that are bad enough that we don't need to be making things up."
When U.S. Sen. Mark Begich, a Democrat, gave a speech on health care Monday, sign-waving protesters gathered outside the Dena'ina center. The raucous crowds didn't come back to challenge Murkowski. Among other things, the protesters demanded that Begich face off with them in town hall meetings. He said he's already done so in Anchorage and Juneau, and plans to hold another in Fairbanks.
Murkowski said she's holding four town hall meetings on health care. An aide said the meetings start Thursday in Fairbanks, then will be Aug. 20 in Anchorage, Aug. 28 in Wasilla and Aug. 29 in Soldotna.
"I look forward to that input and if it's spirited, that's the way it is," Murkowski said. "This is an issue that impacts all of us."
She voted no on a health reform measure that in July passed out of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, of which she's a member. She tried to get through an amendment that set a floor for payments to providers under a government-run plan. In Alaska, she noted, seniors on Medicare have trouble getting seen by a primary care doctor because of low government reimbursement rates. But her amendment failed on a 13-10 party-line vote, she said.
She also tried, unsuccessfully, to exclude the smallest businesses from being penalized if they failed to provide health insurance.
"As we look to the impact, imposing additional taxes and penalties on the backbone of small businesses, particularly in a downturn in the economy as we are experiencing, this is exactly what Congress ought not to be doing," Murkowski said.
She was able to get through amendments to ensure that Alaska Native groups could tap into grants created through the legislation. Murkowski said those were technical changes. But Begich said Monday that some of Murkowski's successful amendments were more than technical -- evidence the Senate effort is bipartisan.
Alaska's senators also differ on whether reining in the costs of medical malpractice lawsuits would pay for reforms. Murkowski said tort reform would cover the costs, citing a Stanford University study that said doctors practice defensive medicine that contributes to significant unnecessary health expenses. But Begich on Monday said that savings from any tort reform would be a small part of the equation.
They also have divergent views of whether people could keep their existing health coverage if they want to do so. Begich says they could, under the versions of health reform that have passed committees.
Murkowski said that's not necessarily true. A House bill creates a system that could shift 88 million Americans from private insurance to a government-run plan, she said.
The best hope for reform, Murkowski said, is a bill being worked on in the Senate Finance Committee. Three Democrats and three Republicans are working through the August recess on it.
News reports say that committee's bill likely will include a provision to ensure no one is denied health insurance because of preexisting medical conditions, subsidies to help individuals buy insurance, and taxes on high-end health benefits. But it wouldn't include Obama's desired public health insurance option.
The cost may be about $900 billion over 10 years.
--
United States Senator Lisa Murkowski (Republican-Alaska)
racehorse
http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/koch/entry/ ... _love_with
Tuesday Aug 11, 2009
Koch's Comments
Falling out of love with Obama
by Ed Koch
I continue to be a supporter of President Barack Obama. He has had several outstanding successes. The major one has been a positive change in the economy due primarily, I believe, to his hand-picked team of economic advisers who, from all indications, have fashioned an effective economic recovery plan.
The recovery still has a long way to go, but using the language of my doctors at the hospital in which I recently spent six critical weeks recovering from open-heart surgery, "All the numbers are going in the right direction." I also believe his reaching out to our allies and those not allied with us has somewhat calmed the world's roiled waters.
Yet, strangely, the president's support is waning. A recent CNN poll gave him a C-minus after 200 days in office, whereas at the end of his first 100 days, he got an almost universal B-plus.
I think most people would say that the president's standing with the American public has suffered as a result of his handling of health care policy. During the election, Obama promised to speedily deliver universal health care. However, to date he has presented no health care bill to the Congress, and that legislative body has come up with a number of proposals for which he is being held responsible.
Furthermore, the president has seemingly caved on important aspects of his health care agenda such as not restricting private insurance coverage and obtaining volume discounts from drug companies.
In order to keep costs from rising, most people acknowledge the need for some kind of limitations on spending. Rationing of public monies makes sense, e.g., should public monies be used to give a kidney or heart transplant to a 90-year-old patient when it is necessary to reduce the costs of Medicaid and Medicare to keep them solvent?
Both programs are totally government funded and operated. I would say no. Then the question becomes what about private funds being used by an individual willing to buy gold-plated insurance to provide unlimited medical expenditures for their health and survival? Should the government be able to limit such expenditures? My answer would be no.
I speak from personal experience. I have been told that the cost of my hospital care, including the services of 20 doctors and 72 nurses and medical technicians over a six-week period, may ultimately cost a million dollars. My private insurance policy is paid for by my law firm, Bryan Cave LLP, and because I still work full-time, that insurance policy is my primary one, not Medicare, even though I am 84 years old.
Will that continue to be the case under any law signed by Obama? Or will I be denied the right to spend my own money and that of my law firm for such unlimited coverage?
The president, I believe, has said that there will be no restrictions on private insurance coverage, other than to expand that coverage for all by, for example, denying the insurance companies the right to reject persons with prior existing medical conditions. But he has not spoken loudly enough, nor has there been any discussion on the premiums that companies will be able to charge in such cases.
Most alarming for people like me, who at 84 years of age recently needed a quadruple bypass and aortic valve replacement, are the pronouncements of Obama's appointee, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.
According to a New York Post op ed by Betsy McCaughey, former lt.-governor of the State of New York,
Savings, he [Emmanuel] writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, 'as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others' (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008)."
Emanuel, however, believes that 'communitarianism' should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those 'who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens... An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia' (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96)."
Opponents of Obama's health care proposals raise the specter of a panel making decisions on who should receive health care. I am not aware of any proposed panel. However, an article in today's New York Times, referring to a Senate bill, stated:
The legislation could have significant implications for individuals who have bought coverage on their own. Their policies might be exempted from the new standards, but the coverage might not be viable for long because insurers could not add benefits or enroll additional people in noncompliant policies."
So, where lies the truth? I don't know. But I do know that I want the continued right to purchase and have available insurance that will permit me, no matter my age and physical condition, to purchase with my own money all the medical care I can afford.
Perhaps the most egregious mistake the president has made regarding health care was the statement by a White House spokesman on the subject of using volume discount pressures on the drug companies to save money on Medicare prescription drug purchases, which now cost over $800 billion a year.
The spokesman for the drug industry, former Congressman Bill Tauzin, recently announced that the drug industry had entered into an agreement with the White House in exchange for its support of universal medical coverage. Under the agreement, the drug companies would contribute $80b. over a 10-year period to defray the cost of universal medical coverage, while the White House has agreed not to require the drug industry to make any further financial contributions, meaning no change in the law barring the use of Medicare volume discounts and probably continuing the prohibition against importing American-made prescription drugs from Canada, which are sold there at up to 50 percent less.
On August 6, The New York Times reported, "Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion," over a 10-year period, which confirms the Tauzin statement.
Following that statement, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a number of Congressmen, including Henry Waxman of California, said they would not be bound by the White House agreement. According to the Times, Waxman "vowed to fight the White House, asserting that it was conceding too much to the powerful drug industry lobby PhRma."
Incidentally, why wouldn't the drug industry support universal medical care under any and all circumstances? With such legislation, more people will automatically be covered by insurance, including prescription drug coverage, creating an enormous new market for them. Volume discounts at only ten percent with existing expenditures by the government will bring in more than $80b. a year, as opposed to the drug companies' offer of $80b. over 10 years, or $8b. a year.
President Obama might not be persuaded to rethink some of his positions on health care because of the protests of moderates like me who support him, but he surely has to be alarmed by the comments of his most ardent supporters like New York Times columnist Frank Rich who, discussing the pending health care legislation, warns:
"It's in this context that Obama can't afford a defeat on health care. A bill will pass in a Democrat-controlled Congress. What matters is what's in it. The final result will be a CAT scan of those powerful Washington interests he campaigned against, revealing which have been removed from the body politic (or at least reduced) and which continue to metastasize. The Wall Street regulatory reform package Obama pushes through, or doesn't, may render even more of a verdict on his success in changing the system he sought the White House to reform... The larger fear is that Obama might be just another corporatist, punking voters much as the Republicans do when they claim to be all for the common guy."
Love, we know, is never having to say you're sorry. When falling out of love, hopefully a reversible process, saying one is sorry is not enough; change is required. Why do so many of our heroes ultimately have clay feet?
--
Koch's Comments- New York's legendary Jewish former mayor Ed Koch scopes out the scene in the US.
Tuesday Aug 11, 2009
Koch's Comments
Falling out of love with Obama
by Ed Koch
I continue to be a supporter of President Barack Obama. He has had several outstanding successes. The major one has been a positive change in the economy due primarily, I believe, to his hand-picked team of economic advisers who, from all indications, have fashioned an effective economic recovery plan.
The recovery still has a long way to go, but using the language of my doctors at the hospital in which I recently spent six critical weeks recovering from open-heart surgery, "All the numbers are going in the right direction." I also believe his reaching out to our allies and those not allied with us has somewhat calmed the world's roiled waters.
Yet, strangely, the president's support is waning. A recent CNN poll gave him a C-minus after 200 days in office, whereas at the end of his first 100 days, he got an almost universal B-plus.
I think most people would say that the president's standing with the American public has suffered as a result of his handling of health care policy. During the election, Obama promised to speedily deliver universal health care. However, to date he has presented no health care bill to the Congress, and that legislative body has come up with a number of proposals for which he is being held responsible.
Furthermore, the president has seemingly caved on important aspects of his health care agenda such as not restricting private insurance coverage and obtaining volume discounts from drug companies.
In order to keep costs from rising, most people acknowledge the need for some kind of limitations on spending. Rationing of public monies makes sense, e.g., should public monies be used to give a kidney or heart transplant to a 90-year-old patient when it is necessary to reduce the costs of Medicaid and Medicare to keep them solvent?
Both programs are totally government funded and operated. I would say no. Then the question becomes what about private funds being used by an individual willing to buy gold-plated insurance to provide unlimited medical expenditures for their health and survival? Should the government be able to limit such expenditures? My answer would be no.
I speak from personal experience. I have been told that the cost of my hospital care, including the services of 20 doctors and 72 nurses and medical technicians over a six-week period, may ultimately cost a million dollars. My private insurance policy is paid for by my law firm, Bryan Cave LLP, and because I still work full-time, that insurance policy is my primary one, not Medicare, even though I am 84 years old.
Will that continue to be the case under any law signed by Obama? Or will I be denied the right to spend my own money and that of my law firm for such unlimited coverage?
The president, I believe, has said that there will be no restrictions on private insurance coverage, other than to expand that coverage for all by, for example, denying the insurance companies the right to reject persons with prior existing medical conditions. But he has not spoken loudly enough, nor has there been any discussion on the premiums that companies will be able to charge in such cases.
Most alarming for people like me, who at 84 years of age recently needed a quadruple bypass and aortic valve replacement, are the pronouncements of Obama's appointee, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.
According to a New York Post op ed by Betsy McCaughey, former lt.-governor of the State of New York,
Savings, he [Emmanuel] writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, 'as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others' (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008)."
Emanuel, however, believes that 'communitarianism' should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those 'who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens... An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia' (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96)."
Opponents of Obama's health care proposals raise the specter of a panel making decisions on who should receive health care. I am not aware of any proposed panel. However, an article in today's New York Times, referring to a Senate bill, stated:
The legislation could have significant implications for individuals who have bought coverage on their own. Their policies might be exempted from the new standards, but the coverage might not be viable for long because insurers could not add benefits or enroll additional people in noncompliant policies."
So, where lies the truth? I don't know. But I do know that I want the continued right to purchase and have available insurance that will permit me, no matter my age and physical condition, to purchase with my own money all the medical care I can afford.
Perhaps the most egregious mistake the president has made regarding health care was the statement by a White House spokesman on the subject of using volume discount pressures on the drug companies to save money on Medicare prescription drug purchases, which now cost over $800 billion a year.
The spokesman for the drug industry, former Congressman Bill Tauzin, recently announced that the drug industry had entered into an agreement with the White House in exchange for its support of universal medical coverage. Under the agreement, the drug companies would contribute $80b. over a 10-year period to defray the cost of universal medical coverage, while the White House has agreed not to require the drug industry to make any further financial contributions, meaning no change in the law barring the use of Medicare volume discounts and probably continuing the prohibition against importing American-made prescription drugs from Canada, which are sold there at up to 50 percent less.
On August 6, The New York Times reported, "Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion," over a 10-year period, which confirms the Tauzin statement.
Following that statement, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a number of Congressmen, including Henry Waxman of California, said they would not be bound by the White House agreement. According to the Times, Waxman "vowed to fight the White House, asserting that it was conceding too much to the powerful drug industry lobby PhRma."
Incidentally, why wouldn't the drug industry support universal medical care under any and all circumstances? With such legislation, more people will automatically be covered by insurance, including prescription drug coverage, creating an enormous new market for them. Volume discounts at only ten percent with existing expenditures by the government will bring in more than $80b. a year, as opposed to the drug companies' offer of $80b. over 10 years, or $8b. a year.
President Obama might not be persuaded to rethink some of his positions on health care because of the protests of moderates like me who support him, but he surely has to be alarmed by the comments of his most ardent supporters like New York Times columnist Frank Rich who, discussing the pending health care legislation, warns:
"It's in this context that Obama can't afford a defeat on health care. A bill will pass in a Democrat-controlled Congress. What matters is what's in it. The final result will be a CAT scan of those powerful Washington interests he campaigned against, revealing which have been removed from the body politic (or at least reduced) and which continue to metastasize. The Wall Street regulatory reform package Obama pushes through, or doesn't, may render even more of a verdict on his success in changing the system he sought the White House to reform... The larger fear is that Obama might be just another corporatist, punking voters much as the Republicans do when they claim to be all for the common guy."
Love, we know, is never having to say you're sorry. When falling out of love, hopefully a reversible process, saying one is sorry is not enough; change is required. Why do so many of our heroes ultimately have clay feet?
--
Koch's Comments- New York's legendary Jewish former mayor Ed Koch scopes out the scene in the US.
racehorse
Ed Koch!!!!
Meanwhile, I saw this...
Ie, he's a liar? Nah...it's the NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/healt ... ml?_r=1&hp
Meanwhile, I saw this...
Obama Injects Himself Into Health Talks, Despite Risks
NYT
August 12, 2009
WASHINGTON — In pursuing his proposed overhaul of the health care system, President Obama has consistently presented himself as aloof from the legislative fray, merely offering broad principles. Prominent among them is the creation of a strong, government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers and press for lower costs.
Behind the scenes, however, Mr. Obama and his advisers have been quite active, sometimes negotiating deals with a degree of cold-eyed political realism potentially at odds with the president’s rhetoric.
Ie, he's a liar? Nah...it's the NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/healt ... ml?_r=1&hp
-
Cherry Kelly
- Pirate
- Posts: 12852
- Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
- Contact:
and add this to the fray:
Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
HR3200, Pages 59-60
``(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice;
``(D) require timely and transparent claim and denial management processes, including tracking, adjudication, and appeal processing;
``(E) require the use of a standard elec5
tronic transaction with which health care providers may quickly and efficiently enroll with a health plan to conduct the other electronic transactions provided for in this part; and
``(F) provide for other requirements relating to administrative simplification as identified by the Secretary, in consultation with stake12 holders.
====
interesting....
Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
HR3200, Pages 59-60
``(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice;
``(D) require timely and transparent claim and denial management processes, including tracking, adjudication, and appeal processing;
``(E) require the use of a standard elec5
tronic transaction with which health care providers may quickly and efficiently enroll with a health plan to conduct the other electronic transactions provided for in this part; and
``(F) provide for other requirements relating to administrative simplification as identified by the Secretary, in consultation with stake12 holders.
====
interesting....
-
Cynthia Lynn
- Pirate
- Posts: 2703
- Joined: 06-12-2001 02:00 AM
Cherry Kelly wrote: and add this to the fray:
Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
HR3200, Pages 59-60
``(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice;
``(D) require timely and transparent claim and denial management processes, including tracking, adjudication, and appeal processing;
``(E) require the use of a standard elec5
tronic transaction with which health care providers may quickly and efficiently enroll with a health plan to conduct the other electronic transactions provided for in this part; and
``(F) provide for other requirements relating to administrative simplification as identified by the Secretary, in consultation with stake12 holders.
====
interesting....
Yes, but it isn't true.
http://www.healthcarereformmyths.org/He ... hs.php#A36
MYTH: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
FACT: Referencing Pg 59, Sec 123 of HR 3200, from Viral Emails
This section applies to claims payers; e.g. insurers. The intent is to prevent the intentional delay of claims payments by insurers, a common practice which causes doctors, hospitals, and patients financial hardship.
Ref. US Health Crisis - It has nothing to do with individual citizens. It is meant to ensure timely payment, thereby preventing wasteful spending.
---------
or you could see here:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c ... latest.php
Your Bank Account Is Safe: Running Down The Latest Winger Health-Care Lie
By Zachary Roth
August 11, 2009, 11:57AM
"Another day, another metastasizing lie about health-care reform that needs debunking."
{snip}
"The hot new conservative health-care lie is that the bill will give the government direct access to Americans' bank accounts at any time, which, in some variations of the lie, will then be raided to finance the legislation."
{snip}
"Not that we're expecting any of the people actually disseminating this lie to be interested in the truth. But it's worth understanding where these things come from."
Copyright 2009 TPM Media LLC.
------------
or you could see here:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ds-check-/
E-mail 'analysis' of health bill needs a check-up
By Angie Drobnic Holan
Politifact
Published on Thursday, July 30th, 2009 at 5:08 p.m.
{snip}
• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer. Barely True: Section 163 sets out goals for electronic health records. One of the goals is to include features that "enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation" between payment and billing. The legislative summary says the intent in the section is "to adopt standards for typical transactions" between insurance companies and health care providers. The legislation generically describes typical electronic banking transactions and does not outline any special access privileges.
© 2009 · All Rights Reserved · St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South · St. Petersburg, FL 33701 · 727-893-8111
Cherry Kelly wrote: and add this to the fray:
Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
HR3200, Pages 59-60
``(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice;
``(D) require timely and transparent claim and denial management processes, including tracking, adjudication, and appeal processing;
``(E) require the use of a standard elec5
tronic transaction with which health care providers may quickly and efficiently enroll with a health plan to conduct the other electronic transactions provided for in this part; and
``(F) provide for other requirements relating to administrative simplification as identified by the Secretary, in consultation with stake12 holders.
====
interesting....
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Republican - re·pub·li·can (r-pbl-kn) - political party, which will control part of Congress 2011-2012, undermining the strength of the country - on purpose, in public, without apology or shame - simply for a campaign advantage in 2012.
Rombaldi wrote: Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Hmm....
Spineless from the start, sucked into the part
circus comes to town, you play the lead clown
Please, please
spreading his disease, living by his story
Knees, knees
falling to your knees, suffer for his glory
You will
[Chorus]
Time for lust, time for lie
time to kiss your life goodbye
Send me money, send me green
Heaven you will meet
Make a contribution
and you'll get a better seat
[End Chorus]
Bow to Leper Messiah!
Marvel at his tricks, need your Sunday fix
blind devotion came, rotting your brain
Chain, chain
Join the endless chain, taken by his glamour
Fame, Fame
Infection is the game, stinking drunk with power
We see
[Chorus]
Bow to Leper Messiah!
Witchery, weakening
Sees the sheep are gathering
set the trap, hypnotize
now you follow
[Chorus]
Lie!
Lie!
Lie!
Lie!
Bow to Leper Messiah!
Feeling victimized, White House hits back
Posted August 13, 2009 7 :28 AM
From ABC News White House correspondent Jake Tapper's "Political Punch" Blog:
Feeling victimized by misinformation spread virally through the Internet, the White House Thursday is launching its own "viral e-mail" for supporters to spread.
With the subject line: "Something worth forwarding," the e-mail — from senior White House adviser David Axelrod — seeks to combat "the viral e-mails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions" and invites Americans to "start a chain e-mail of our own."
The e-mail outlines 24 points — eight ways the Democrats' health care reform measures will, in Axelrod's view, "provide security and stability to those with or without coverage," eight "common myths" about reform, and eight reasons why reform is an urgent matter.
The e-mail also features a Web video from White House health care reform czar Nancy-Ann DeParle in which she refutes an opposition viral e-mail sent to one of her White House colleagues from his father, a physician.
DeParle then proceeds to refute points in the email (which, it appears, has made its way into Pat Boone's in-box), claims such as "the government will have direct real-time access to bank accounts," that all doctors will be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the notion that employers must enroll employees into the government run plan.
"This is probably one of the longest e-mails I've ever sent," Axelrod acknowledges at the beginning of the message. He explains that "it could be the most important."
This is just the latest attempt by the White House to combat opposition to health care reform, some of which is rooted in false information such as the "Obama 'death panel,'" that former Gov. Sarah Palin wrote about last week, painting a picture of a bureaucratic care-rationing board that would withhold medical treatment from seniors and the disabled.
This week, for instance, the White House set up a Web page, "RealityCheck," "to knock down the rumors and lies that are floating around the Internet," Axelrod said.
The eight "common myths" are: that reform will lead to rationing and will mean a "government takeover" of health care; that reform is unaffordable; that it will encourage "euthanasia"; that it will limit veterans' access to the health care; that it will hurt small businesses; that it will be paid for by cutting Medicare benefits; that health reform will force Americans out of their current insurance plans or force them to change doctors; that it will mean the government will be in charge of Americans' bank accounts.
Some of the "myths" are clearly false — that euthanasia is part of reform, for instance.
Others are matters of some dispute. Will health care reform really not lead to any American being switched from one insurance company to another, or one doctor to another? No, as President Obama has acknowledged, he cannot stop a private company from doing so — though, he emphasizes, private companies are dropping coverage altogether for millions of Americans. But wouldn't the creation of this less expensive government-run plan lead to some employers opting for that coverages? Estimates of how many Americans would go from private to public plans range from two million Americans by the Congressional Budget Office to an estimate of tens of millions by analysts at the Lewin Group, a group that asserts editorial independence but is owned by UnitedHealthcare.
Axelrod goes on to argue the eight reasons for reform, among them that "36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market" were either unable to do so because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or they were dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill.
Other reasons for reform, Axelrod says, are that employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, that those in rural areas have less access to health care, that nearly one-third of the uninsured are employees of small businesses, and that projections suggest that the number of uninsured Americans will rise to about 72 million.
The eight ways health reform will provide security to those with or without coverage include provisions in the health care reform bills working their way through Congress that would prohibit insurance companies from discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions; yearly caps on how much companies can charge for out-of-pocket expenses; and prohibitions against charging women more than men.
"Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered" by the viral e-mail, Axelrod writes. "So what are you waiting for? Forward this e-mail." He signs it: "Thanks, David."
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu ... ry_id=4793
Posted August 13, 2009 7 :28 AM
From ABC News White House correspondent Jake Tapper's "Political Punch" Blog:
Feeling victimized by misinformation spread virally through the Internet, the White House Thursday is launching its own "viral e-mail" for supporters to spread.
With the subject line: "Something worth forwarding," the e-mail — from senior White House adviser David Axelrod — seeks to combat "the viral e-mails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions" and invites Americans to "start a chain e-mail of our own."
The e-mail outlines 24 points — eight ways the Democrats' health care reform measures will, in Axelrod's view, "provide security and stability to those with or without coverage," eight "common myths" about reform, and eight reasons why reform is an urgent matter.
The e-mail also features a Web video from White House health care reform czar Nancy-Ann DeParle in which she refutes an opposition viral e-mail sent to one of her White House colleagues from his father, a physician.
DeParle then proceeds to refute points in the email (which, it appears, has made its way into Pat Boone's in-box), claims such as "the government will have direct real-time access to bank accounts," that all doctors will be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the notion that employers must enroll employees into the government run plan.
"This is probably one of the longest e-mails I've ever sent," Axelrod acknowledges at the beginning of the message. He explains that "it could be the most important."
This is just the latest attempt by the White House to combat opposition to health care reform, some of which is rooted in false information such as the "Obama 'death panel,'" that former Gov. Sarah Palin wrote about last week, painting a picture of a bureaucratic care-rationing board that would withhold medical treatment from seniors and the disabled.
This week, for instance, the White House set up a Web page, "RealityCheck," "to knock down the rumors and lies that are floating around the Internet," Axelrod said.
The eight "common myths" are: that reform will lead to rationing and will mean a "government takeover" of health care; that reform is unaffordable; that it will encourage "euthanasia"; that it will limit veterans' access to the health care; that it will hurt small businesses; that it will be paid for by cutting Medicare benefits; that health reform will force Americans out of their current insurance plans or force them to change doctors; that it will mean the government will be in charge of Americans' bank accounts.
Some of the "myths" are clearly false — that euthanasia is part of reform, for instance.
Others are matters of some dispute. Will health care reform really not lead to any American being switched from one insurance company to another, or one doctor to another? No, as President Obama has acknowledged, he cannot stop a private company from doing so — though, he emphasizes, private companies are dropping coverage altogether for millions of Americans. But wouldn't the creation of this less expensive government-run plan lead to some employers opting for that coverages? Estimates of how many Americans would go from private to public plans range from two million Americans by the Congressional Budget Office to an estimate of tens of millions by analysts at the Lewin Group, a group that asserts editorial independence but is owned by UnitedHealthcare.
Axelrod goes on to argue the eight reasons for reform, among them that "36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market" were either unable to do so because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or they were dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill.
Other reasons for reform, Axelrod says, are that employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, that those in rural areas have less access to health care, that nearly one-third of the uninsured are employees of small businesses, and that projections suggest that the number of uninsured Americans will rise to about 72 million.
The eight ways health reform will provide security to those with or without coverage include provisions in the health care reform bills working their way through Congress that would prohibit insurance companies from discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions; yearly caps on how much companies can charge for out-of-pocket expenses; and prohibitions against charging women more than men.
"Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered" by the viral e-mail, Axelrod writes. "So what are you waiting for? Forward this e-mail." He signs it: "Thanks, David."
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu ... ry_id=4793
-
Cherry Kelly
- Pirate
- Posts: 12852
- Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
- Contact:
HB3 wrote: Hmm....
Bow to Leper Messiah!
Ass.
Ass.
Ass.
Ass.
Go the hell away, we're tired of you.
Republican - re·pub·li·can (r-pbl-kn) - political party, which will control part of Congress 2011-2012, undermining the strength of the country - on purpose, in public, without apology or shame - simply for a campaign advantage in 2012.
Internal Memo Confirms Big Giveaways
In White House Deal With Big Pharma
A memo obtained by the Huffington Post confirms that the White House and the pharmaceutical lobby secretly agreed to precisely the sort of wide-ranging deal that both parties have been denying over the past week.
The memo, which according to a knowledgeable health care lobbyist was prepared by a person directly involved in the negotiations, lists exactly what the White House gave up, and what it got in return.
It says the White House agreed to oppose any congressional efforts to use the government's leverage to bargain for lower drug prices or import drugs from Canada -- and also agreed not to pursue Medicare rebates or shift some drugs from Medicare Part B to Medicare Part D, which would cost Big Pharma billions in reduced reimbursements.
In exchange, the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) agreed to cut $80 billion in projected costs to taxpayers and senior citizens over ten years. Or, as the memo says: "Commitment of up to $80 billion, but not more than $80 billion."
Representatives from both the White House and PhRMA, shown the outline, adamantly denied that it reflected reality. PhRMA senior vice president Ken Johnson said that the outline "is simply not accurate." "This memo isn't accurate and does not reflect the agreement with the drug companies," said White House spokesman Reid Cherlin.
Stories in the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times last week indicated that the administration was confirming that such a deal had been made.
Critics on Capitol Hill and online responded with outrage at the reports that Obama had gone behind their backs and sold the reform movement short. Furthermore, the deal seemed to be a betrayal of several promises made by then-Sen. Obama during the presidential campaign, among them that he would use the power of government to drive down the costs of drugs to Medicare and that negotiations would be conducted in the open.
And over the past several days, both the White House and PhRMA have offered a series of sometimes conflicting accounts of what happened in an attempt to walk back the story.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/1 ... 58285.html
In White House Deal With Big Pharma
A memo obtained by the Huffington Post confirms that the White House and the pharmaceutical lobby secretly agreed to precisely the sort of wide-ranging deal that both parties have been denying over the past week.
The memo, which according to a knowledgeable health care lobbyist was prepared by a person directly involved in the negotiations, lists exactly what the White House gave up, and what it got in return.
It says the White House agreed to oppose any congressional efforts to use the government's leverage to bargain for lower drug prices or import drugs from Canada -- and also agreed not to pursue Medicare rebates or shift some drugs from Medicare Part B to Medicare Part D, which would cost Big Pharma billions in reduced reimbursements.
In exchange, the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) agreed to cut $80 billion in projected costs to taxpayers and senior citizens over ten years. Or, as the memo says: "Commitment of up to $80 billion, but not more than $80 billion."
Representatives from both the White House and PhRMA, shown the outline, adamantly denied that it reflected reality. PhRMA senior vice president Ken Johnson said that the outline "is simply not accurate." "This memo isn't accurate and does not reflect the agreement with the drug companies," said White House spokesman Reid Cherlin.
Stories in the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times last week indicated that the administration was confirming that such a deal had been made.
Critics on Capitol Hill and online responded with outrage at the reports that Obama had gone behind their backs and sold the reform movement short. Furthermore, the deal seemed to be a betrayal of several promises made by then-Sen. Obama during the presidential campaign, among them that he would use the power of government to drive down the costs of drugs to Medicare and that negotiations would be conducted in the open.
And over the past several days, both the White House and PhRMA have offered a series of sometimes conflicting accounts of what happened in an attempt to walk back the story.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/1 ... 58285.html