Carolina Politics Online

My head wanted  to explode after reading this twisted, manipulative trash in the Charlotte Observer today, which not surprisingly is left unsigned by its author.  Can’t say that I blame him.  I wouldn’t want my name on that crap either.  In their usual form of attempting to protect their two year long investment in protecting Obama, they have printed an article in today’s paper painting this rosy picture of the Democrats’ health care proposals claiming that it’s not socialist, you can keep your own insurance, you can choose your doctor, basically contradicting everything that is actually in the bills.

Now there is still a lot of wheeling and dealing going on in the House and Senate, but that’s not what the Observer tells you.  They just flat out say, “Oh no, you silly.  That’s not how it’s going to be.  You don’t have to worry about that.”  wink, wink.

Here is the article. Let’s go through it.

Is it true that you would lose your current insurance if health care overhaul passes?

No. The aim of health care overhaul is to build on the existing system and expand insurance coverage, with the goal of health insurance coverage for everyone. If this legislation is enacted, expect insurance companies to be very busy writing new health policies for employers or employees. After five years, existing employer-based health plans would be required to provide “essential health benefits,” which would be defined by an independent health benefits advisory committee.

False!  The answer is a resounding yes and they even pointed it out in their response to the question after they just said no.  “If this legislation is enacted, expect insurance companies to be very busy writing new health policies for employers or employees.”  Duh!  Here is what that means by the way.  Investors Business Daily were the first ones to catch this provision and break the story a few weeks ago:

The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,” the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section of the bill clearly states:

“Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won’t be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

From the beginning, opponents of the public option plan have warned that if the government gets into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage, the private insurance market will wither. Drawn by a public option that will be 30% to 40% cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington’s coverage.

The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program. That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers. This could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, “fizzle out altogether.”

Investors Business Daily

Now here is the current text of H.R. 3200 that the Democrats in the House are trying to pass that address this.

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term `grandfathered health insurance coverage’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

• (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-

• • (A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

• • (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED- Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.

• (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS- Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

• (3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES- The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner.

(b) Grace Period for Current Employment-based Health Plans-

• (1) GRACE PERIOD-

(A) IN GENERAL- The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.

So what does all that mean? If you currently have private health insurance on day one when the law goes into effect in 2013 you are allowed to keep your current insurance. However, here is the caveat. Your company can’t change your plan. If they do, you are required to enroll in the government run insurance. You can’t change jobs. If you do, you are required to enroll in the government run insurance. And whether you do any of these things or not, your company has five years to move you and all of your co-workers into the government run insurance, or what they like to call health insurance exchanges. These exchanges are completely controlled by the government where they determine what is available and what coverage you are allowed to have whether you want them or not.

Why is the Charlotte Observer lying?

Then there is the part in the Observer article referencing independent health benefits advisory committee that will oversee these health insurance exchanges.  Independent?  Wow, if that’s not whizzing down my back and telling me it’s raining.  These will be political appointees!  What independence?

More from the Observer article:

Does health care reform mean socialized medicine?

No. The pending legislation relies on the private insurance sector to provide coverage, with the mandate that individuals and most employers participate.

Liberal Democrats, including President Obama, contend that a government entity should be created to sell health insurance and compete against private insurance companies. This is the “public plan” that proponents claim is needed to keep private insurance rates from going too high. Such a plan appears unlikely to win approval in any final legislation because of vociferous opposition from Republicans and conservative Democrats.

A public option is unlikely to win approval?  Well hell, it just passed in committee yesterday!

WASHINGTON — House members headed home on Friday, leaving behind the outlines of a nearly $1 trillion health care overhaul that is sure to draw fire from a variety of interests, but also shows the beginnings of a consensus that would provide insurance for more Americans and give them new rights in dealing with insurers.

As a final act before recessing until September, one crucial panel, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, approved landmark health legislation that could ultimately lead to coverage for about 95 percent of Americans and create a new government-run insurance program.

The 31-to-28 vote occurred at 9:05 p.m. Friday, at the end of a session that began at 10 a.m. Five Democrats joined all 23 Republicans on the panel in voting no.

The New York Times

Gee, they didn’t tell you that part.  I already discussed the government run health insurance exchange in the House bill, now here is the Senate counterpart:

The Senate bill requires that Americans buying through the exchanges — and as we’ve seen, that will soon be most Americans — must get their care through something called “medical home.” Medical home is similar to an HMO. You’re assigned a primary care doctor, and the doctor controls your access to specialists. The primary care physicians will decide which services, like MRIs and other diagnostic scans, are best for you, and will decide when you really need to see a cardiologists or orthopedists.

Under the proposals, the gatekeepers would theoretically guide patients to tests and treatments that have proved most cost-effective. The danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as were HMO physicians more than a decade ago. It was consumer outrage over despotic gatekeepers that made the HMOs so unpopular, and killed what was billed as the solution to America’s health-care cost explosion.

CNN Money

So the government will choose your doctor for you.  They will decide whether or not you get to see a specialist and the doctors will be financially rewarded for guiding you through tests and treatments that are the most cost effective, not necessarily the best for your ailment.

This is not socialized medicine?  According to Messrs. Merriam and Webster Socialism is defined as “ any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.” That sure sounds like an accurate description of the health care plan to me.

Why is the Observer lying?

Then, this is the best one yet.  The Observer goes on to discuss rationing.  Are you ready for this?

Will there be government rationing of health care?

No. The new system would rely on private health plans where patients and physicians make decisions on medical care.

Right now, there is a form of rationing based on cost. An individual or an employer may choose different coverage plans based on how much they want to pay. Less expensive plans with high deductibles, for instance, might lead some policyholders to defer medical care. That form of price-based rationing would continue under the pending bills.

If that is not the biggest load of bullshit.  Having a higher deductible health care plan is not rationing.  That is you choosing to have a higher deductible plan because you probably don’t go to the doctor often and are electing that option on your own.  Many of those people also have Health Savings Accounts that are tax free to use to pay the doctor with when they do go.

When those of us in the real world, the one that exists outside the Utopian gates at 600 South Tryon St, talk about rationing we, of course, are speaking of the government denying necessary and life saving treatments to the people in an effort of cutting costs.  There is plenty of language in these bills and from the Obama administration, including what I have already cited, to suggest that this will happen here in the U.S. just like it happens every single day in Canada and Great Britain and other nations with socialized health care.

Here is an exerpt from the Wall Street Journal:

Tom Daschle, Mr. Obama’s original pick to head Health and Human Services, argues in his book “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis,” that we should accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments.” Mr. Daschle blames the “use and overuse of new technologies and treatments” for runaway health-care costs. He suggests a Federal Health Board modeled after the British “NICE” board to make decisions on health-care rationing.

But the British system is infamous for denying state-of-the-art drugs to cancer patients. Thus cancer-survival rates in Britain are far below those in America, just as they are in Canada.

Canadian cancer patients told to wait months for treatment and diagnostic scans frequently go south and pay out-of-pocket for care in the United States. A number of Quebeckers even sued their government for violating their “right to life and security” under the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canada’s Supreme Court has acknowledged the pervasive rationing that occurs. In the 2005 case Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) , the majority opinion stated: “The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care.”

Despite such evidence, the Obama plan is likely to target various treatments—including radiology scans—in order to cut costs. I survived this long because my radiologist examines each of my scans with me in detail.

One of those scans also saved my life by picking up unsuspected uterine cancer. The congressional majority seems blissfully unaware that all cancer patients need those scans to monitor their diseases.

Or you can read about the story of Karen Jepp who had to drive from Calgary, Alberta, one of the wealthiest parts of Canada, to Great Falls, Montana to deliver her quadruplets because there were not enough neo-natal beds in any Calgary hospital to accommodate her.

Or take a gander over to the UK Times Online and read about their National Health Service’s plan that was denying people doctor appointments in order to ration care bring down costs.

I can direct you to dozens more of these examples, but I think you get the point.

Why is the Observer lying?

Then there is this question about the demographics of the uninsured in this country:

Is it true that people who are currently uninsured have money but choose not to be insured or they are illegal immigrants?

No. A study by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation found:

45 million people under age 65 had no health insurance coverage in 2007. Current estimates are that this number has risen to about 50 million because of the increase in unemployment and the loss of employer-provided health coverage.

66 percent of the uninsured were either poor or nearly poor, as defined by the federal poverty level.

Young adults, ages 19-29, constitute a large share of the uninsured, mostly because of their low incomes.

79 percent of the uninsured were U.S. citizens. (Noncitizens were about three times more likely to be uninsured than citizens because noncitizens had less access to employer coverage. Noncitizens are more likely to have low-wage jobs with employers who do not offer coverage.)

Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for coverage under pending legislation.

Let’s talk about illegal immigrants.  I direct you to Section 152 of H.R. 3200:

SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.

(a) In General- Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all 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.

(b) Implementation- To implement the requirement set forth in subsection (a), the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, promulgate such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to insure that all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act are provided (whether directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements) without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.

That’s rather vague, isn’t it?  “All 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.” That sounds pretty clear to me that nobody will be denied for any reason.  They make no exception for people here illegally.  I imagine if someone is here visiting from another country and they have to go to the hospital they are going to get treated, right?  Are they going to stop and check their citizenship and see if they have a visa?  Will they refuse them if they don’t?  It doesn’t sound like it.  The wording in this bill infers that illegals will be treated, but the answer is inclusive at this point in time.  That is not what the Observer told you, however.  They flat out said they would not be covered.

Why is the Observer lying?

Regarding who is uninsured and why, Lou Dobbs of CNN had a different set of numbers:

When President Obama and his supporters talk about the urgency of sweeping health care reform, they use a fairly impressive figure to make their point: “We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men, women and children.”

To be exact, 45.7 million is the number of people who told the Census Bureau that they do not have insurance, or did not at least at some point in 2007. The number was down from 47 million the year before.

But here is what, as best we can judge, what that number includes: 12 million people who are eligible for public health insurance program, including Medicaid or SCHIP, or for whatever reason don’t participate. And
among the estimated 10 million non-citizens who lack health insurance, an estimated 7 million illegal aliens as well. And some 7 million uninsured individuals, many of them young adults who earn at least $40,000 a year, and who may have chosen to not take health insurance because they thought they didn’t need it. Keep in mind, that the number, 46 million, refers to the number of people who say they’ve gone without health insurance at some point during the past year, when asked by the Census Bureau, not necessarily the entire year. That figure, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is closer to 20 million to 30 million.

And the number actually, without insurance, but in need of health care insurance, arguably, 10 million. So let’s slow down, look at the FACTS, and try to reform health care the way it should be: based on Truth and Fact.

So who has the right numbers?  Unlike the Observer I am going to be truthful to you.  I don’t know, but this goes to show you that there is a wide deviation of the statistics out there, so don’t be too quick to latch on to the claims of just one outlet just because they may fit your viewpoint.

Then on the government and your doctor, the Observer answers the following question:

Is it true that government bureaucrats will come between me and my doctor?

No. Most Americans would continue to have private health insurance.

I already debunked this above.  The Observer isn’t telling the truth.

It infuriates me to no end that we cannot have an objective media in this country when we have so much at stake.  I can only hope the American people will have enough sense to see through this ruse.  Public support for this plan has steeply declined, which gives me hope, but the month of August will be the real test.  The extreme left will be out in full force trying to con the American people into letting them destroy our health care system.  Then there are those of us who will fight to maintain our freedom, liberty, and the quality of  our health care system, the best in the world.  The mainstream media will evidently not be on our side, but that’s nothing new.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS