York falsely claimed health reform measure requires end-of-life consultation
On Fox News' Special Report, Washington Examiner chief political correspondent Byron York falsely claimed that a provision in a House health reform bill "says that there will be consultation between a caregiver and a patient to discuss things like hospice care and other issues -- other end-of-life issues," which he claimed raised the question of "whether there's any coercive element to this." But the provision York cited is not mandatory.
YORK: This is the notorious page 425 that the AARP man mentioned today, which says that there will be consultation between a caregiver and a patient to discuss things like hospice care and other issues -- other end-of-life issues. And the question is whether there's any coercive element to this. [Special Report, 7/28/09]
York misrepresented House health care bill
Advance care planning is not mandatory in the Affordable Health Choices Act. Section 1233 of America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 -- which includes "page 425" -- amends the Social Security Act to ensure that advance care planning will be covered if a patient requests it from a qualified care provider [America's Affordable Health Choices Act, Sec. 1233].
AARP, Obama explained counseling provision at health forum
AARP moderator properly stated that the provision would allow Medicare to "cover consultation." During a July 28 AARP health care forum, moderator Michael Cuthbert, "the AARP man" to whom York referred, stated: "As I read the bill, it's saying that Medicare will, for the first time, cover consultation about end-of-life care." Cuthbert did not suggest that consultation would be required. When he made his statement, Cuthbert was responding to a questioner who said: "I have been told there is a clause in there that everyone that's Medicare age will be visited and told to decide how they wish to die."
Obama made clear the intent was to "simply make sure that you've got more information, and that Medicare will pay for it." In his response, Obama stated, "But understand what the intent is. The intent here is to simply make sure that you've got more information, and that Medicare will pay for it." Obama later added: "So, if Medicare is saying you have the option of consulting with somebody about hospice care, and we will reimburse it, that's putting more power, more choice in the hands of the American people, and it strikes me that that's a sensible thing to do."
York resuscitated Betsy McCaughey falsehood
York's false claim advanced "pants on fire" falsehood. In recent weeks, former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey (R) has repeatedly asserted that the House Democrats' health care reform bill makes end-of-life counseling for seniors "mandatory," a claim PolitiFact.com declared "a ridiculous falsehood," adding, "That's a Pants on Fire."
York repeated falsehood even after McCaughey backtracked. During an interview, when Politico asked McCaughey to respond to criticisms of her claim, she backpedaled, telling Politico that the bill would make end-of-life counseling mandatory "[i]n so many words," because "although it is presented in the bill as a Medicare service, when a doctor or a nurse approaches an elderly person who is in poor health, facing a decline in health, and raises these issues, it is not offering a service. It is pressuring them."
Other conservatives in the media have advanced McCaughey falsehood. Fox News host Sean Hannity cited McCaughey to falsely claim that under the House provision, senior citizens would be "forced to undergo" end-of-life counseling. Similarly, syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh has falsely claimed that seniors would be subject to "[m]andatory counseling" at "a minimum of every five years, more often if the seasoned citizen is sick or in a nursing home." He added, "That's an invasion of the right to privacy."
From the July 28 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
BRET BAIER (host): Let's start on this specific concern about end-of-life issues and whether the government is going to get in between the patient and the doctor deciding how the medical care will move forward. Byron, what about this?
YORK: This is the notorious page 425 that the AARP man mentioned today, which says that there will be consultation between a caregiver and a patient to discuss things like hospice care and other issues -- other end-of-life issues. And the question is whether there's any coercive element to this.
And I think the problem for Obama is that it mixes in with what he said a few weeks ago, that health care forum at the White House, when a woman got up, said her mother was 100 years old, needed an operation, but she was really vigorous. She got it, and now she's 105 and still vigorous -- and was there some way to take, you know, her spirit of life into account?
And Obama has said, well, maybe it'd be better to opt out of the surgery and take the painkiller. I think that was kind of a chilling remark to a lot of people. Senior citizens vote in large numbers, and I think this is going to be a big issue in August.
BAIER: The White House, A.B., is saying that this particular section of this bill is not mandatory. It's a consultation. It's to try to drive costs down in the long haul.
But Republicans, critics, say this is a slippery slope when you start getting down this road.
Despite the meme being drummed by mmfa many Americans are not in favor of the democrat's and Pres.Obama's plans to accomplish reform.
This from National Public Radio on July 26:
-- As you may have heard, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are preparing a plan to change the health care system. From what you have heard about this plan, do you favor or oppose Obama and the Democrats' health care proposal? --
42% favor...47% oppose.
I realize that mmfa's mission is to report on conservative misinformation...but there is plenty of space available on County Fair or the Op-ed articles for legitimate discourse on various healthcare reform proposals.
How 'bout it mmfa...are you for healthcare reform...or just democrat proposals for reform? Is your agenda for political gain or meaningful healthcare reform for all americans?
We all know who controls the message
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/News/News-Releases/2008/Jan/New-Study--U-S--Ranks-Last-Among-Other-Industrialized-Nations-on-Preventable-Deaths.aspx
However, if you're interested beyond knee-jerk political rancor you can look here for some republican proposals.
In the link that you provide, essentially what they're proposing is, yes, more tax cuts.
Here's one of the tax cuts. Currently if you have employer furnished health insurance it's a tax free benefit. The republican plan offers the same tax benefit to those providing their own coverage.
It's also probably true that they would be given short shrift by the dems, but, that's one the things that come along with winning and having the majority. The other side gets to have a seat for a little while.
There are good options in both republican and democratic plans...the sticking point seems to be the public option and its cost.
Additionally, the issue is not to pass the democratic plan or do nothing...and that is the way most of the media portray this. The issue is to reduce the costs and make it affordable for all...I just don't think that the govt. is the proper vehicle to handle the plan.
We can’t afford the public plan that we already have, and if we create a government-run health care plan that’s unaffordable and unsustainable, it isn’t going to be any good for anyone -- Sen.Grassley
Here you can find the links to the medicare financial report, Grassley's full comments, and rebuttal by Bob Reich.
Medicare costs have been grossly more expensive than we were promised...I don't like the odds of a public health option performing any better.
I was under the impression that health related expenses such as insurance and doctors' bills were already tax deductable. It's only worth taking, however, if the amount plus other deductions exceeds the standard deduction.
Of course, for someone paying very few taxes because they make very little money, getting some money back in April of next year isn't gonna matter much because they can't afford the insurance premiums now.
My problem with using "democrat" as a perjerative is that it is oh-so-lame. Its as though right-wing posters feel clever when they commit a grammatical error which they picked up from RNC talking points. I mean, can you at least show some creativity with your insults? Like us liberals with re-pigs, re-pugs, re-thugs and my personal favorite, re-pukes.
Boy, you'd think there'd be a lot of polls about this. You hear of any other polls, Wesley? What do they say?
Wesley?
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1913426,00.html
-- By significant margins, survey respondents said they believe the final health-reform legislation is likely to raise health-care costs in the long run (62%), make everything about health care more complicated (65%) and offer less freedom to choose doctors and coverage (56%).
At the same time, survey respondents remain dissatisfied with the current state of health-care delivery and supportive of reform in principle. Forty-six percent of respondents said it was "very important" that Congress and the President pass major health reform in the next few months, and an additional 23% said it was "somewhat important." Only 28% found the immediate effort either not very or not at all important. In a separate question, more Americans said it would be better to pass "major reform" to health care (55%) rather than "minor adjustments" (43%).
On the details of the plan, respondents remained supportive of many of the rough outlines of the health-reform effort as originally described by President Obama. Sixty-three percent said they would support providing health-care coverage for all Americans, even if the government had to subsidize those who could not afford it. Fifty-six percent said they supported a "public health insurance option" to compete with private plans. Fifty-seven percent support raising taxes on those with annual incomes over $280,000 to pay for the plan. Eighty percent said they would support a bill that required insurance companies to offer coverage to anyone who applies, even those with pre-existing medical conditions. By contrast, a slight plurality of 48% opposed requiring all but the smallest businesses to provide health care, and 56% of Americans opposed taxing employer-provided health care to pay for the cost of covering the nation's uninsured. (Watch TIME's video "Uninsured Again.")
Obama also retains significantly more credibility with the public than with his Republican foes when it comes to tackling the problem. Asked who they trust to develop new health-care legislation, 47% of respondents said Obama, compared with 32% who said Republicans in Congress.
The costs you mention in your post are ALREADY BEING PAID. You think hospitals don't charge someone for the cost incurred in treating the uninsured who use the ER as their primary care physician? Someone pays for that, and it's not the hospital, and it's not insurance companies.