<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt">To piggyback onto Adrian's post, this article below provides a very thorough response to many of the rumors being spread about the health care bill. Although in the comments section, Peter Fleckenstein, the author of the tweets, claims that some of his messages were distorted. Still, the messages are out there and folks continue to preach them. <br><br>-Adina<br><br><span><a target="_blank" href="http://www.reasic.org/2009/08/debunking-health-care-misinformation/">http://www.reasic.org/2009/08/debunking-health-care-misinformation/</a></span><br>
<br>
Debunking Health Care Misinformation<br>
<br>
In her recent article at Salon, Joan Walsh lamented the level of
discourse, or lack thereof, from the right at town hall meetings. She
complained that "Democrats are being shouted down by angry mobs
inflamed by corporate interests spewing lies about healthcare reform".
The rhetoric has continued to worsen in recent days, and it's mostly
being fueled by lies and distortions about what is in the House bill:<br>
<br>
At Blue Dog Rep. Mike Ross' town hall, he was shouted down by a woman
insisting Obama supports a single-payer (government) insurance plan,
which is simply not true. Another woman began sobbing, talking about
what her country has become, ending, "I'm scared!" They're being
terrified by false claims that Obama is promoting mandatory end-of-life
"counseling" (read assisted suicide), mandatory gender-change surgery
(!) and aiming to eliminate private insurance.<br>
<br>
Some of the misinformation I've encountered on the internet is a result
of the work of a man named Peter Fleckstein. Apparently, he has been
causing quite a stir about how the current health care bill in the
House is a horrendous idea, by tweeting about specific sections in the
bill that would be, in his view, particularly damaging to our way of
life. These tweets then made it onto a couple of small time
conservative blogs, and from there, they spread all around teh
intertubez. It seems that they're everywhere.<br>
<br>
Well, I've taken the time to compare all of these tweets to the actual
bill, and what I found was very interesting. Apparently, every single
one is wrong. In EVERY case, Fleckstein either didn't understand what
he was looking at, or he deliberately misrepresented the section of the
bill being addressed. So, in an effort to stem the tide of ignorance
that is quickly sweeping the web, I've provided my responses to
Fleckstein's tweets. Feel free to copy and paste at any location where
you see the original tweets. Also, feel free to compare these tweets to
the bill for yourself.<br>
<br>
Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!<br>
<br>
If you go to pg 29, lines 4-16, you'll see that this section is
discussing limits on cost sharing. Scroll up to pgs 8 and 9 for a
definition: "The term 'cost-sharing' includes deductibles, coinsurance,
copayments and similar charges but does not include premiums or any
network payment differential for covered services or spending for
non-covered services".<br>
<br>
So, if cost sharing is the amount that you have to pay for services,
then a section on a limitation of cost sharing is setting a limit on
the amount you have to fork out, NOT on the amount of coverage you
receive. Therefore this is NOT about rationing your health care.<br>
<br>
Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose UR HC Benefits 4 you. U have no choice!<br>
<br>
This section is about the establishment of a Health Choices
Administration, and the duties of its Commissioner. To understand this
section, you must understand that this bill will set up a "Health
Insurance Exchange", in which private insurance companies will compete
with each other and with the public option. In this exchange, there
will be three or four standard plans that must be offered, so that
everyone is on the same level, and to help reduce confusion over
benefits being offered by competing plans. So, this section sets the
Commissioner' s duties, one of which is to help determine what those
standard plans offered in the exchange should look like.<br>
<br>
This has nothing to do with a reduction in choice. You can still choose
the level of coverage that is right for you, and most importantly, if
you already have coverage that you like, you keep it and none of this
applies to you.<br>
<br>
Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access 2 ur banks accts 4 elect. funds transfer<br>
<br>
Okay, this page falls under Section 1173A of the bill, which discusses
the standardization of "electronic administrative transactions" , and
is an amendment to a section of the Social Security Act. I see no
mention in this section, much less that particular page, of the
government have direct access to your bank accounts. Rather, the lines
in question seem to be about enabling electronic funds transfers
between the government and health care providers. This must be viewed
in the context of the entire section, which is about standardizing the
attempt to streamline the various processes involved electronically, in
an effort to save money. This isn't an attempt to steal your money.<br>
<br>
PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan 4 retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).<br>
<br>
Section 164 simply makes no mention of unions or community orgs, much less ACORN. This was made up.<br>
<br>
Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange 2 bring priv HC plans under Govt control.<br>
<br>
This is an assumption of intent. The bill sets up an exchange in which
any private health insurance companies can compete with each other and
with the public option for your business. In order to work properly,
there must be certain standard plans available, so that consumers can
easily compare plans to determine the best price for them. Now, if you
have insurance under your current employer that you are happy with,
nothing changes for you. This is clearly either a misunderstanding of,
or an attempt to mislead the public about, this bill.<br>
<br>
PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs 4 priv. HC plans in the Exchange<br>
<br>
As explained above, the creation of a functioning marketplace
necessitates the standardization of several plan options. It reduces
confusion over the plan choices, and allows for consumers to make
better value-based decisions.<br>
<br>
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration ur Healthcare!<br>
<br>
This point seems to be the result of a breakdown in logic. The creation
of these standard plans does not mean that your health care will be
rationed. Besides, if you stay with your current coverage, nothing
changes for you.<br>
<br>
PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Govt mandates linguistic approp svcs. Example - Translation 4 illegal aliens<br>
<br>
Like it or not (and for the record, I don't), there are LEGAL citizens
in this country who dno't speak english. The requirement that there not
be cultural or linguistic barriers to obtaining coverage does not have
anything to do with illegals.<br>
<br>
I'm starting to notice a trend, btw. The author seems to be inserting his own talking points, making something of nothing.<br>
<br>
Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps 2 sign up indiv. for Govt HC plan<br>
<br>
Again, the author adds details ("ACORN", etc.) not located in the bill,
as a scare tactic. This is simply a statement that people should be
informed of the new system.<br>
<br>
-PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Indiv. will b automat.enrolled in Medicaid. No choice<br>
<br>
Here, the author has turned a positive into a negative. The goal is to
ensure that everyone has coverage. In the referenced section of the
bill, it states that a Medicaid-eligible individual who "has not
elected to enroll in an exchange-participat ing health benefits plan"
will be enrolled in Medicaid. This prevents a lack of coverage as a
result of someone simply not knowing how to obtain it. If they are not
enrolled in Medicaid, they would have no coverage. Who does that
benefit? So they can choose to enroll in a plan, but if they don't,
they'll be covered by Medicaid. Again, not a lack of choice.<br>
<br>
pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt Monop<br>
<br>
Another misinterpretation. Pg 124 falls under section 223, which
discusses the establishment of payment rates for the public option.
These rates that are paid to providers will be based on the rates for
similar services under Medicare. The lines referenced simply state that
these are not subject to review. This has nothing to do with the rates
that consumers are charged, and especially nothing to do with a
monopoly.<br>
<br>
pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ #AMA - The Govt will tell YOU what u can make.<br>
<br>
This is section 225, which discusses the payment of providers under the
public option. The lines in question simply establish to classes of
participation for providers in this option. This is no different than
providers who accept Medicare payments.<br>
<br>
Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into pub opt plan. NO CHOICE<br>
<br>
These lines in question are only describing which employers have to
abide by the rules set forth in this section on employer contributions.
One of the requirements is that they offer autoenrollment "in
accordance with subsection (c)". Scrolling down to subsection (c),
paragraph (2), you will find that employees are clearly given the
choice to opt-out of employer coverage. So much for "NO CHOICE". Maybe
the author should've given this more than a skim.<br>
<br>
Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay 4 HC 4 part time employees AND their families.<br>
<br>
Typo. Should be pg 146. However, this does not mention families. It
discusses the minimum employer contributions for part-time employees,
which is set to the rate of a full-time employee, but prorated by the
average weekly hours worked.<br>
<br>
Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Emplyr w payroll 400k & above who does not prov. pub opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll<br>
<br>
This doesn't make sense AND lies. Employers would never provide the
public option. That is provided by the government. What this section is
saying is that if an employee opts out of employer-provided coverage,
and the employer has payroll over $400,000, the employer must pay 8% of
the AVERAGE wages in the company. This basically ensures that the
company is still contributing some amount, even if the employee gets
coverage in the exchange.<br>
<br>
pg 150 Lines 9-13 Biz w payroll btw 251k & 400k who doesnt prov. pub. opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll<br>
<br>
Same as above. This is a contribution equal to a certain percent of the
AVERAGE wages, for ONE employee, if they choose to get insurance in the
exchange. More lies.<br>
<br>
Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesnt have acceptable HC accrdng 2 Govt will be taxed 2.5% of inc<br>
<br>
This is the first one I've seen that is actually correct. However, the
purpose of this section must be clearly understood. For an example,
I'll use auto insurance. Now, all drivers are required by law to carry
at least a minimum amount of coverage, in order to prevent any
unforeseen expenses on the part of other parties. The same sort of
logic is applied here. The more people we have insured, the lower our
collective rates will be. Studies have shown that insurance premiums
are currently approx. $1,000 higher because of the cost of care
provided to those that don't have insurance. So, a tax is imposed on
those who can afford it, but don't get insurance. The tax is 2.5% of
adjusted gross income, but not larger than the average insurance plan.
So, it's basically an incentive. If you know that you're going to be
charged a tax that is equal to a premium, you'd just be sure you had
insurance. Problem solved.<br>
<br>
Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from indiv. taxes. (Americans will pay)<br>
<br>
Not quite. This section states that people who are visiting from other
countries are not required to have insurance. This has nothing to do
with American's paying.<br>
<br>
Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access 2 ALL Americans finan/pers recs<br>
<br>
Wrong again. This page states that the admin can have access to certain
limited information about you, strictly for the purposes of determining
if you qualify for gov't subsidies. This limitation is spelled out in
the next page.<br>
<br>
PG 203 Line 14-15 HC - "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" Yes, it says that<br>
<br>
True, but taken out of context. This section is an addendum to the IRS
tax code. The subparagraph in question states that the tax won't be
treated as a tax "for the purposes of determining the amount of any
credit under this chapter".<br>
<br>
Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Govt will reduce physician svcs 4 Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected<br>
<br>
This section discusses adjusting the way that the target growth rate is
computed. This has nothing to do with reducing physician services.<br>
<br>
Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors, doesnt matter what specialty u have, you'll all be paid the same<br>
<br>
Again, this is about computing the target growth rate, not about
physicians' pay. The previous paragraph establishes new service
categories for this purpose, and the statement in question simply says
that these apply, without regard to specialty.<br>
<br>
PG 253 Line 10-18 Govt sets value of Dr's time, prof judg, etc. Literally value of humans.<br>
<br>
In this instance, the author has attempted to make it sound like the
gov't will set the pay for all doctors, which is not the case. This
section is very specifically about the identification of misvalued
codes in the system, and what to do when they are found. This will
actually increase the efficiency of Medicare and the public option,
which should be a good thing for conservatives, right?<br>
<br>
PG 265 Sec 1131Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries<br>
<br>
This section is about adjusting the Medicare market basket to account
for productivity updates. In other words, if health care providers
incorporate cost-savings measures, such as moving to electronic records
keeping, they will be rewarded. This creates an incentive to save the
government money. Once again, probably something that conservatives
should be happy about. However, you guys get scared by claims of
"socialized medicine", so you close your eyes, plug your ears, and
scream about the sky falling.<br>
<br>
PG 268 Sec 1141 Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs<br>
<br>
What?! This is a section that is already covered by Medicare, and it's
just being tweaked. In some cases, under Medicare, these are paid for,
so yes, there must be regulations as to when and how this is allowed.<br>
<br>
PG 272 SEC. 1145. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!<br>
<br>
This is just dumb. The author randomly inserts the word "rationing"
everywhere to apply to various aspects of health care. This section is
simply about the adjustment of costs for cancer hospitals, regarding
ambulatory services.<br>
<br>
Page 280 Sec 1151 The Govt will penalize hospitals 4 what Govt deems preventable readmissions.<br>
<br>
This is sort of correct. The adjustments are based on each hospital's
percentage of potentially preventable Medicare readmissions for 3
conditions with risk adjusted readmission measures endorsed by the
National Quality Forum. This helps to increase the effeciency of
Medicare, thereby reducing costs. Again, something conservatives ought
to stand behind.<br>
<br>
Pg 298 Lines 9-11 Drs, treat a patient during initial admiss that results in a readmiss-Govt will penalize u.<br>
<br>
Taken out of context (again). The beginning of this subsection (d)
states that a study will be conducted within the first year after this
bill is passed that will determine "how the readmissions policy
described in the previous subsections could be applied to physicians".
It then goes on to describe various options, of which this penalty is
one. I assume if the study finds that this is the best option, that
could happen at some point in the future, but conservatives would want
to institute cost-cutting measures, which reward those who are the most
efficient and effective, right? That's a market-based strategy<br>
<br>
Pg 317 L 13-20 OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investmen t. Govt tells Drs. what/how much they can own.<br>
<br>
This section does not prevent ownership. It closes a loophole, which
allows physicians to refer patients to hospitals in which they have a
direct financial interest. This is a clear example of how the author
didn't understand what he was looking at.<br>
<br>
Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand<br>
<br>
First of all, this prohibition is established as a requirement to
qualify for certain exceptions to the self-referral prohibition
mentioned earlier in the bill. Secondly, if one were to scroll down to
pages 321-326, one would find a little over four pages of exceptions to
this prohibition. Bottom line: Goverment is NOT flatly mandating
hospitals can't expand as part of this bill.<br>
<br>
pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have oppt to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can u say ACORN?!!<br>
<br>
Why is it that any time a conservative sees the word "community", they
think of ACORN? Clause (ii) in subparagraph (A) means that ANYONE in
the community can voice their opinions on a proposed expansion. That
means me, you, ACORN, Sean Hannity, Jesse Jackson, ANYBODY! We should
all go! It'll be like a huge party! YEAH!!<br>
<br>
Pg335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339 - Govt mandates estab. of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing<br>
<br>
This isn't about general health care. It's an amendment to the Social
Security Act, to add "Quality Based Payment Adjustments" , which are
intended to improve the quality of care in that program.<br>
<br>
Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Govt has authority 2 disqual Medicare Adv Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing peeps in2 Govt plan<br>
<br>
What?! This page is still under section 1162, which is about quality
bonus payments to various Medicare Advantage plans. The only
disqualification here, would be in respect to whether a plan would be
eligible to receive bonus payments.<br>
<br>
Pg 354 Sec 1177 - Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs ppl! WTF. My sis has down syndrome!!<br>
<br>
Ugh.,, The government already restricts enrollment to specialized
Medicare Advantage plans annual, coordinated enrollment periods, prior
to a certain date. This simply moves that date back, which has the
opposite effect of what the author thought.<br>
<br>
Pg 379 Sec 1191 Govt creates more bureaucracy - Telehealth Advisory Cmtte. Can u say HC by phone?<br>
<br>
Telehealth services already exist. This creates a committee that meets
twice a year, to help determine how to more effectively provide the
telehealth services. This is intended to INCREASE efficiency, which is
again, something one would think that conservatives would be for, not
against.<br>
<br>
PG 425 Lines 4-12 Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life<br>
<br>
This section says nothing about mandating any such consultation.<br>
<br>
Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory!<br>
<br>
Again, this isn't mandatory. It's a direction on the things that should
be discussed in a requested advanced care planning consultation, if one
hasn't been given in the last five years.<br>
<br>
PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Govt provides apprvd list of end of life resources, guiding u in death<br>
<br>
It says no such thing.<br>
<br>
PG 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program 4 orders 4 end of life. The Govt has a say in how ur life ends<br>
<br>
First of all, this is about orders for "life sustaining treatment".
Secondly, this is still in the section about the "advanced care
planning consultation" , and what it should cover, once requested, if
the patient hasn't had one in five years. So, this is about a talk with
a doctor, not a government mandate on providing a service.<br>
<br>
Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An "adv. care planning consult" will b used frequently as patients health deteriorates<br>
<br>
One must remember that this is under the Medicare section. This is
about how often such consultations are covered, not when they are
mandated.<br>
<br>
PG 429 Lines 10-12 "adv. care consultation" may incl an ORDER 4 end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV<br>
<br>
No, an order from the patient's doctor, if deemed necessary BY THE
DOCTOR. The order, by the way, is for "life sustaining treatment".<br>
<br>
Pg 429 Lines 13-25 - The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.<br>
<br>
This does no such thing. It describes the qualifications of an acceptable "order regarding life sustaining treatment".<br>
<br>
PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment u will have at end of life<br>
<br>
This section simply states that the level of treatment may vary, not
that the government will decide anything. This is up to the patient's
doctor.<br>
<br>
Pg 469 - Community Based Home Medical Services=Non profit orgs. Hello, ACORN Medical Svcs here!!?<br>
<br>
Wow. Just insert "ACORN" wherever possible 'cause it's SCARY!! BOO!!!
Last time I checked, ACORN was not an organization that "provides
beneficiaries with medical home services", or assists in "teaching
self-care skills for managing chronic illnesses, transitional care
services, care plan setting, medication therapy mgmt services for
patients with multiple chronic diseases, etc.".<br>
<br>
Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG. 1 monthly payment 2 a community-based org. Like ACORN?<br>
<br>
Ugh. Teh stupid is making my head hurt! This dude sees "community-based
org.", and immediately thinks "ACORN", as if they're the only community
org.<br>
<br>
PG 489 Sec 1308 The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt in2 ur marriage<br>
<br>
Um, no. The two key things to note here, are that we are still under
the Medicare section of the bill, and the word "coverage". This only
means that if you qualify for Medicare, and need marriage and family
therapy, those might be paid for by your Medicare plan.<br>
<br>
Pg 494-498 Govt will cover Mental Health Svcs including defining, creating, rationing those svcs<br>
<br>
Again, this is under changes to Medicare, so this has nothing to do
with the public option or the health insurance exchange. Therefore,
this is only about what will be covered by Medicare.<br></div><br>
</body></html>