It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Far-right religious group behind outrageous health care lies

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Far-right religious group behind outrageous health care lies




When reporters asked former Alaska Gov. and Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin where she got the misinformation she posted to her Facebook page about the health care reform bill creating a "death panel" to promote euthanizing the elderly and people with disabilities, her spokesperson pointed to the section in the House Democrats' legislation that begins on page 425.

If Palin or her staff had actually read the bill, they would have realized this section simply promotes advance care planning, which in fact puts the power to make decisions about end-of-life care in the hands of individuals -- not government panels.

So where did Palin get that bad information? It appears she pulled it from a set of talking points that has been making its way around the internet in recent weeks -- talking points assembled by the Liberty Counsel, a far-right religious group that's part of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University empire based in Lynchburg, Va.

On July 29, 2009, Liberty Counsel released its talking points about the health care reform bill. Among the many parts of the legislation it raises concerns about is the page cited by Palin, about which it states:

* Sec. 1233, Pg. 425, Lines 4-12 - Government mandates Advance (Death) Care Planning consultation. Think Senior Citizens and end of life. END-OF-LIFE COUNSELING. SOME IN THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED RATIONING HEALTH CARE FOR THE ELDERLY.

* Sec. 1233, Pg. 425, Lines 17-19 - Government WILL instruct and consult regarding living wills and durable powers of attorney. Mandatory end-of-life planning!

* Sec. 1233, Pg. 425-426, Lines 22-25, 1-3 - Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.

The section of the bill referred to does nothing resembling "rationing health care for the elderly" or "guiding you in death." As we already noted, it simply promotes advance care planning under the Medicare program by encouraging doctors to discuss with their patients advance directives such as living wills and durable powers of attorney -- legal documents that give individuals the power to state what they want in advance so that decision isn't left up to anyone else. You can read the entire bill with the pertinent page numbers here [pdf].

That got us wondering: What other distortions are contained in Liberty Counsel's talking points? We decided to fact-check some of the document's wilder claims against the actual text of the health care bill:

* THE CLAIM: "Sec. 122, Pg. 29, Lines 4-16 - YOUR HEALTH CARE WILL BE RATIONED!"

* THE FACTS: This refers to a section in Subtitle C of the legislation, which sets standards guaranteeing access to essential benefits. The lines the Liberty Counsel's talking point refers to actually limit the costs a family in a covered plan can be required to share in order to receive essential benefits. It does nothing to "ration" health care.

* THE CLAIM: "Sec. 1177, Pg. 354 - Government will RESTRICT enrollment of special needs people! 'Extension of Authority of Special Needs Plans to Restrict Enrollment.'"

* THE FACTS: This piece of the legislation refers to a section of the Social Security Act governing insurance for the elderly and disabled. It grandfathers in certain plans that already had contracts to run integrated Medicaid-Medicare programs for the impoverished elderly, and it requires the Department of Health and Human Services to analyze the impact of those plans. It restricts no one's enrollment in anything.

* THE CLAIM: "Sec. 1308, Pg. 489 - The government will cover Marriage and Family therapy. This will involve government control of your marriage."

* THE FACTS: This section of the bill does provide for insurance coverage of marriage and family therapy -- but by licensed, certified therapists, not government agents.

As this quick fact-check shows, the Liberty Counsel's talking points appear to have been assembled by someone who is either only barely literate or who simply scanned the document for language that could be twisted to serve their own propaganda purposes, with little regard for what the legislation actually says.
(visit the link for the full news article)

Source

Original Liberty Counsel Talking Points

[edit on 13-8-2009 by andrewh7]




posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Actually reading a thousand page bill is quite a challenge. Many are hoping that you are too apathetic to do so. They believe that you would simply take their word for what's actually in the bill, especially when they are willing to provide page numbers. They recognize your doubts and offer you exactly what you want to hear. They exploit you because they think they know you.

I urge you to prove them wrong. Check their page numbers and recognize the gross mischaracterizations of health care reform through your own eyes, purposely and maliciously made to scare you. When people are scared, they stop thinking.

By all means, disagree with health care reform but base your arguments on facts - not false paraphrasing of a bill or other groundless accusations that you have been fed by poorly-veiled health insurance company lobbyists.


[edit on 13-8-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:11 AM
link   
The bill prevents private insurers from aquiring new contracts and it also aims to price the public plan below the cost of the private market.

This will put the private insurance companies out of business.

The end result will be a much like we have now with public schools. Most people will be on the public plan, while people who want higher quality care will be forced to pay twice for private insurance, if they can even get it.

This ultimately leads to total government control over the healthcare system and rationing.

When government sets prices below that of market costs, it means there will be an excess of demand and a shortage of supply. Of course, this means rationed care.

The elderly will be the first to be killed by this fascist system.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


NONSENSE.

Check out the Georgia Guidestones.

The ruling oligarchy certainly has a heavy duty agenda to reduce the global population . . . down to a reported 200 million.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth B Ginzburg noted that she always knew that abortion was about population control.

Withdrawing support at the elderly end is more of the same.

The wording is only partially important.

The INTENT--the murderous genocidal goals of the oligarchy is what is important.

They have the power and the evil to carry out such goals. They are convinced [evidently by the "ET" fallen angel critters they are in cahoots with] that they MUST forcefully reduce the world population to 200 million in order to preserve humanity and the planet from destruction.

Of course, it's also easier to manage 200 million serfs and slaves than it is to manage 7 billion.

However, the globalists seem to have their apologists everywhere these days.

I'll just never believe the evil blokes are benign Sunday School teachers.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Of course you are thoroughly correct.

The evil doers are probably counting corpses gleefully already.

. . . just in time for us Baby Boomers reaching our elderly years.

Ain't that quaint!



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The bill prevents private insurers from aquiring new contracts and it also aims to price the public plan below the cost of the private market.

This will put the private insurance companies out of business.

The end result will be a much like we have now with public schools. Most people will be on the public plan, while people who want higher quality care will be forced to pay twice for private insurance, if they can even get it.

This ultimately leads to total government control over the healthcare system and rationing.

When government sets prices below that of market costs, it means there will be an excess of demand and a shortage of supply. Of course, this means rationed care.

The elderly will be the first to be killed by this fascist system.



So, your point is that public education of lesser quality that that of a private school? I went to a public high school in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan that was ranked by Newsweek as the best high school in the country in 2003.

Would you prefer that everyone pay to go to elementary and high school? Perhaps we should put quarter slots on public drinking fountains as well. Perhaps we should have a camera take a picture of your license plate and send you a bill every time you drive past a lit streetlight at night. No freebies right?

Your statement about rationing implies that the insurance companies never reject claims when they have always had a strong incentive to do so since it cuts into their profits. If you had any real experience with insurance companies while suffering through a serious illness or injury, you'd see they don't hesitate to declare necessary treatment "medically unnecessary." The second most common reason for bankruptcy in this country is medical bills.

We pay more for health care than any other country in the world and yet our life expectancy is ranked 30th. Canada is near the top of that list.





[edit on 13-8-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The bill prevents private insurers from acquiring new contracts and it also aims to price the public plan below the cost of the private market.


Don't make an assertion about the health care bill in here without offering a citation. If you are speaking truthfully, that shouldn't be a problem.

If price alone were determinative of consumer choice, we would not have expensive mansions, sports cars, and name-brand TVs. The public option is an option and, like all other consumer choices, people will balance quality and cost.

On one hand you claim that the government option will be so good that people will want to switch. On the other hand, you claim that the program is inferior to private insurance and will produce a lower quality of health care.

[edit on 13-8-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by andrewh7

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The bill prevents private insurers from acquiring new contracts and it also aims to price the public plan below the cost of the private market.


Don't make an assertion about the health care bill in here without offering a citation. If you are speaking truthfully, that shouldn't be a problem.

If price alone were determinative of consumer choice, we would not have expensive mansions, sports cars, and name-brand TVs. The public option is an option and, like all other consumer choices, people will balance quality and cost.

On one hand you claim that the government option will be so good that people will want to switch. On the other hand, you claim that the program is inferior to private insurance and will produce a lower quality of health care.

[edit on 13-8-2009 by andrewh7]



Investors Business Daily

www.ibdeditorials.com...


Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

"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.


and yes, public goods are aways inferior as a whole when compared to private goods.

including schools, postal delivery, and everything else.

but wait, there's more!



The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs.
With HSAs out of the way, a key obstacle to the left's expansion of the welfare state will be removed.




Can't let people have those HSAs!

They might force doctors to compete on price!


[edit on 13-8-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Investors Business Daily
www.ibdeditorials.com...


Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

"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.


[edit on 13-8-2009 by mnemeth1]


If you had even minimum amount of experience working with a legal document, you would know that one line has no force of law if it is taken out of context as you (and apparently some moron who works for "Business Investment Weekly"). You are citing from a term definition section (see below). It's a GLOSSARY!

This section of the bill, if enacted, would grandfather the right to continue individual private health care coverage. It does not address the right to obtain individual private health care coverage. And certainly does not make individual private health care coverage illegal.

The specific language you cite simply defines what would constitute "existing coverage"--in other words it says, when this bill refers to "grandfathered coverage" this is the coverage we're talking about.

I like that this thread has gotten no attention at all because it isn't advocating fear. The best you can do is stupidly citing from a glossary section? I HAVE a bar card in my wallet. How about you?

(By the way, Investors Business Daily is the rag that complained, "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." Hawking is BRITISH and has lived there is whole life!!!!)

Here is the WHOLE passage, which you so ignorantly left out.

"SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined. --Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for the purpose of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term "granfathered 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 all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the commissioner."


If You'll recall, I ask you to cite to the Bill, not cite to a poorly written article citing to the bill. My intention was to get you to ACTUALLY read the bill as you and many other have been asserting that your opponents don't.


[edit on 13-8-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
So how exactly is that any better?

So it grandfathers policies, but the insurance companies can't make any changes to those policies if they want to continue to sell that policy?

That's what you're telling me right?

This is supposed to make me feel better about this?

btw, I noticed you didn't bring up the problem of cost driving the private markets out of business.

Even if they allow private insurers to continue operations, they will be put out of business when having to compete with a public plan that is subsidized by fiat currency and confiscated wealth.


Did you see the list of outrageous requirements they tacked on? Those requirements will drive costs through the roof!










[edit on 13-8-2009 by mnemeth1]

[edit on 13-8-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



The bill prevents private insurers from aquiring new contracts and it also aims to price the public plan below the cost of the private market.

This will put the private insurance companies out of business.


After reading the relevant section of the bill, I came to the same conclusion.


"SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined. --Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for the purpose of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term "granfathered 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.


How can this be? The intent seems to be to prevent insurers from acquiring new contracts (exactly what you said).

And, if an employer who partially funds his employees health insurance has the choice of offering the employees the cheaper gov't plan or a more expensive plan, why would he offer anything except the the gov't plan?

Small businesses are especially sensitive to costs. They would be the first to cave in and offer only he gov't plan.

I must be reading or interpreting something wrong. This is America. They can't do this....can they?



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


I am wondering why your source (and you for that matter) did not just "go to the source" and cut and paste the actual words of the resolution for US to see if the Liberty Counsel was correct (or for that matter, if you are correct.)



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
I don't disagree that this country needs healthcare reform. Where I disagree is with this healthcare package that isn't reform at all!

Force the Insurance companies to cut cost.
Force Big Pharma to reduce cost on med's
Convict those who are guilty of healthcare crimes
Follow the law, Illigal immergrants are not entitled to free healthcare.
Fix the VA
Fix Medicad and Medicare
Give tax breaks to empoyers who offer care to their employees

That is reform, this is crap!



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


Bloomfield Hills borders on legendary, within Michigan. The whole area seems to defy the odds. It's our version of Harvard.

I just wanted to vouch for the praise being cast upon that particular school system, in question.

[edit on 14-8-2009 by theWCH]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   
I didn't have a chance to read thread but I had a question,I thought obama was considered a left wing individual?



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


How can this be? The intent seems to be to prevent insurers from acquiring new contracts (exactly what you said).

And, if an employer who partially funds his employees health insurance has the choice of offering the employees the cheaper gov't plan or a more expensive plan, why would he offer anything except the the gov't plan?

Small businesses are especially sensitive to costs. They would be the first to cave in and offer only he gov't plan.

I must be reading or interpreting something wrong. This is America. They can't do this....can they?


Perhaps I'm just not doing a good enough job explaining this. So, I'll give it one more shot.

Although I am an attorney, you do not need to be in order to understand the basics of how contracts or other legal documents are drafted.

Section 102 is laying out the requirements for Grandfathered Health Care Coverage. This means that the text refers to what an Insurance Provider must comply with in order to keep current plans from falling under the Bill's requirements for Insurance.

Your current insurance will not be required to meet the Bill's policies as long as they don't enroll new people, start charging you a lot more or change any of its terms or conditions.

If for some reason you change insurance providers or re-work your insurance, the New Insurance Policy will have to comply with the policies and requirements of the Bill.

Again, "does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1." refers ONLY to keeping a policy's status as "Grandfathered" or Immune to the requirements of the Bill. It does NOT apply to New Policies.

Rather, then encourage you guys to say "WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?!?" Here are the reforms that new contracts would have to comply with:

These are the reforms with which all private insurance company policies would have to comply in forming NEW contracts (not preexisting ones):

SEC. 111. PROHIBITING PRE-EXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS.

SEC. 112. GUARANTEED ISSUE AND RENEWAL FOR INSURED PLANS.

SEC. 113. INSURANCE RATING RULES.

SEC. 114. NONDISCRIMINATION IN BENEFITS; PARITY IN MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE DISORDER BENEFITS.

SEC. 115. ENSURING ADEQUACY OF PROVIDER NETWORKS

SEC. 116. ENSURING VALUE AND LOWER PREMIUMS.

If you have any issues under these headings, let me know.

We can try to tackle each, one at a time.


[edit on 14-8-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Answer one question: If this portion of the bill was misread and is in fact a good thing or normal practice why was it subsequently DROPPED from the bill within a week of being exposed to public scrutiny?

I hope Palin picks another controversial portion of the bill and begins exposing it to the public as well. There are hundreds to choose from.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by skycopilot
reply to post by andrewh7
 


I am wondering why your source (and you for that matter) did not just "go to the source" and cut and paste the actual words of the resolution for US to see if the Liberty Counsel was correct (or for that matter, if you are correct.)
\

I did for the section I was discussing with the other guy. I also said to go directly to the bill myself several times. If you're asking why the news article did not copy and paste large sections of 1000 page bill in a 2-page article, I think you know the answer to that question already.

There is a particular style in which legal documents are prepared that used to make sure that its clauses are interpreted the same way by everyone.
With English, we all decided that a clear liquid should be called "Water." Similarly, legal scholars all decided that the word "shall" means "must." However, it's not just words but the structure of the document or where those words are found, that determine how particular clauses should be applied.

It is a long bill so to 'translate' into something anyone could understand, it would take a while. The whole reason behind legal structure and terminology is to save time and make a document more concise. [Yes - 1000 pages isn't short but it would probably be 5000 if written in a more conventional form that everyone could understand].

[edit on 14-8-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Anyone notice the source for this is from a far-left wing anti-religious website? Guess that balances out their allegations.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
Anyone notice the source for this is from a far-left wing anti-religious website? Guess that balances out their allegations.


If you have specific complaints, we can address them. If you're simply going to disregard the information based on source, what do you want me to say? I put the article up because it did a good job of responding to concerns in ordinary, easy-to-understand language.

I also included the original flawed talking points [linked to at the bottom of my first post.] So, go either source or the original bill. Find something that you are concerned about and we'll go through it. If you're trying to bait me into a personal argument, it's not going to work. I wanted to discuss the law and what it actually means.

[edit on 14-8-2009 by andrewh7]



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join