The Fox Nation revives "death panel" myth by naming its "first...victim"
Following a report that a hospital denied treatment to a Florida mother after an increase in her income made her no longer eligible for Medicaid coverage, The Fox Nation posted the story under the headline "The First 'Death Panel' Victim?" In fact, the decision to stop her treatment, which was later reversed, was made by the hospital treating her -- not by a government panel -- and had nothing to do with any provisions of health care reform legislation.
The Fox Nation asks if Florida mother is "The First 'Death Panel' Victim?"
The Fox Nation: "The First 'Death Panel' Victim?" On April 12, The Fox Nation posted a local Florida CBS affiliate's article about a woman whose son's Social Security disability benefits raised her income level enough to make her ineligible for Medicaid. Her hospital then canceled her treatment for leukemia, reportedly out of liability concerns, until political and community pressure caused it to reverse the decision. The Fox Nation linked to the article under the headline "The First 'Death Panel' Victim?":
In fact, the hospital decided to stop her treatment, not a government panel
Hospital reportedly said it "could not provide the procedure because the risk is too high," making them "subject to liability issues." The CBS4 article to which The Fox Nation linked reported that the hospital chose to cease treating the patient after the she was no longer covered under Medicaid because it would be "subject to liability issues." From the CBS4, Fort Lauderdale, article:
In April, Medicaid canceled her universal health care policy because her income level had risen with her son's payments - making her ineligible for the insurance program.
The problem is Jackson Memorial Hospital could not provide the procedure because the risk is too high. The universal policy from Medicaid helps shield the hospital from liability in this kind of case. Without it, they are subject to liability issues.
WSVN: "Jackson Memorial backed out of the surgery." An April 12 article on Miami's WSVN reported that "Diana Smith, 28, was diagnosed with leukemia last July and was supposed to receive a bone marrow transplant on Tuesday at Jackson Memorial Hospital. Smith's insurance company agreed to cover the transplant surgery; however, the company did not agree to cover the cost of the operation to remove the bone marrow from the donor." The article added that, "In February, the community helped Smith raise over $133,000 for the transplant. However, Jackson Memorial Hospital backed out of the surgery because Medicaid canceled Smith's coverage." However, "Smith's surgery will proceed because of the pressure local residents placed on politicians."
Health care reform would increase income ceiling for Medicaid eligibility
Passed health care bill raises national Medicaid eligibility to 133 percent of the federal poverty level. From Title II, Subtitle A of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as passed:
TITLE II-ROLE OF PUBLIC PROGRAMS
Subtitle A-Improved Access to Medicaid
SEC. 2001. MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR THE LOWEST INCOME POPULATIONS.
(a) COVERAGE FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH INCOME AT OR BELOW 133 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE.-
(1) BEGINNING 2014.-Section 1902(a)(10)(A)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a) is amended-(A) by striking ''or'' at the end of subclause (VI);
(B) by adding ''or'' at the end of subclause (VII); and
(C) by inserting after subclause (VII) the following:
''(VIII) beginning January 1, 2014, who are under 65 years of age, not pregnant, not entitled to, or enrolled for, benefits under part A of title XVIII, or enrolled for benefits under part B of title XVIII, and are not described in a previous subclause of this clause, and whose income (as determined under subsection (e)(14)) does not exceed 133 percent of the poverty line (as defined in section 2110(c)(5)) applicable to a family, subject to subsection (k);''
White House: "States will be allowed to expand Medicaid eligibility to more individuals." From a White House fact sheet:
Beginning in April of this year, States will be allowed to expand Medicaid eligibility to more individuals. Starting on January 1, 2014, all low-income, non-elderly and non-disabled individuals will be eligible for Medicaid. This includes unemployed adults and working famlies [sic]...all people with income below $29,000 for a family of four (133% of poverty).
The Federal Government will support States by providing 100% of the cost of newly eligible people between 2014 and 2016, 95% of the costs in 2017, 94% of the costs in 2018, 93% of the costs in 2019, and 90 percent matching for subsequent years.
The President's Bill also recognizes the early investment that some States have made in helping the uninsured by expanding Medicaid to adults with income below 100% of poverty by increasing those States' matching rate for the cost of childless adults. It phases up the Federal matching payments so it is equal to that for the cost of newly eligible people by 2019 The President's Bill also provides additional assistance to the Territories by providing them with an additional $2 billion and the option to establish an Exchange.
Kaiser Family Foundation: "New law expands Medicaid to a national floor of 133% of poverty." According to an April 7 Kaiser Family Foundation guide to "Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program Provisions in the New Health Reform Law":
The new law expands Medicaid to a national floor of 133% of poverty ($14,404 for an individual or about $29,326 for a family of four in 2009) to help reduce state-by-state variation in eligibility for Medicaid and also include non-Medicare eligible adults under age 65 without dependent children who are currently not eligible for the program. Children currently covered by CHIP between 100% and 133% of poverty would be transitioned to Medicaid coverage. These changes help to provide the base of seamless and affordable coverage nationwide through Medicaid for those with incomes up to 133% of poverty and then subsidies for coverage for individuals with incomes between 133% and 400% of poverty through state-based Health Benefit Exchanges.
The "death panel" myth has been debunked numerous times
Media debunked the death panels -- more than 40 times over. Numerous media outlets debunked right-wing claims that health care reform would encourage euthanasia of the elderly, including Sarah Palin's claim -- forwarded by the conservative media -- that the bill would create a "death panel." Indeed, Media Matters for America identified more than 40 instances of media reporting that these claims are false.
It's sad that one side of the aisle flourishes on that garbage, and it's really sad for our country because of the damage that this toxic misinformation does to our national discourse.
They have hitched their wagons to Fox News and hate radio and it worked for a little while. But, they have now been proven to be electorally impotent. They have gone further and further into their obvious partisan madness in order to solidify their ratings. But ratings don't win elections. They now have a very vocal, very crazy, very niche market that they sell their snake-oil too. Everyone else is tuning out. Those who think Obama is a socialist, marxist, communist, tsar, Manchurian candidate from Africa can continue to chomp on the bit. It will not help with the moderates in this country. They ain't buying.
And, the other side, essentially, sits back and lets this misinformation to be spread. Granted, the left has tried to fight the absurd "death panel" claims, but once they finally decided to combat it, it was too late and enough people had already been infested with that BS. If Democrats would just take quicker action on these things, we wouldn't have people believing them as much.
it's my believe that the right has become very adept at tapping into peoples ignorance..fears and biases...which they have created and cultivated for many years..it's their only policy after all..and it make them a lot of money..
What's really interesting is that most of the FNatics just don't care. They simply could not give a rat's a** that the headline is 100% false (and don't be fooled--most of them know that's the case). Go look at the comments. At this point I see exactly one comment from a conservative poster that says (paraphrasing), "Whoa, hang on, I don't like Obama any more than you do, but this has nothing to do with him or his healthcare bill."
It doesn't even cause them to think, gosh, if FN can post a blatant and obvious falsehood like this, I wonder if there's anything else they've put here that might not be 100% accurate?
Okay, so, you don't want to saddle our kids with a giant debt. That's why part of the new Heathcare law mandates everybody buys insurance. This way, everybody shoulders part of the burden, which helps to keep your precious companies in business.
BUT, you don't want the individual mandate. So, then we should have a government run system, that way everybody is covered.
BUT, you don't want the government to run healthcare. You want to keep private insurance companies in charge. Which means 30 million people don't get insurance and 45,000 people a year die.
So, basically you want people to die. Which, as has been pointed out before, is the conservatives ingenious healhcare plan: If you get sick, die quickly.
Thanks for clearing that up seahawks.
But, hey. Why would we need to do anything? Let unrestricted capitalism solve all of our problems.
I actually don't have to worry about my children because I know they get basic health care here regardless of income, social status, etc.
The systems is already wrecked in the US. The only industrialized country that does not provide universal health care - it says it all. Lets hope the health care bill is just the first step in correcting this. There is a long way to go.
health insurance companies do not care about people, they care, as you have so aptly stated about money, you said yourself they need to make a profit, well they do that, at the expense of everyone.
free market theology at its finest. hope you sleep well knowing you would rather send 30 million people to die than help them with health insurance.
This issue has been front and center in the news lately. Danny Williams, the premier of Newfoundland, flew to Florida in February for heart surgery. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Williams could have received the procedure in Canada, but he chose to see Dr. Joseph at the Mount Sinai Center in Miami because Dr. Joseph has more experience with this specific procedure than any other doctor available. If Dr. Joseph lived in another country, Mr. Williams probably would have gone there. If you are rich, why not pay to have the best doctor available to perform the procedure? This goes for rich people in the United States as well. Wealthy Canadians are free to pay out of pocket for services in the United States, that doesn't mean that those services are subpar or not available in Canada.
That is NOT what he said. This, dear, is the internet, you can find most everything you want, like the transcript of that interview to verify.
What he said was:
And seahawks, in case you had trouble comprehending that - he is NOT saying any course of treatment would be denied. He is not saying the government will be making the decisions. He IS saying there are times when less is more, and sometimes doctors don't know that because they haven't seen the latest information about research into protocols.
What he was talking about has nothing to do with saving money at the expense of care. Nothing at all. It as to do with the fact that we can SAVE money by giving the right kind of care first if we better know what that is.
I'll give you a very minor example - I can't take cholesterol drugs, I react oddly to them. So, knowing I can't take them and that I'm already doing everything else to lower cholesterol, it is completely pointless to do a yearly cholesterol screening on me. But my doctor keeps trying to and I keep refusing.
Another example would be someone who is elderly and frail and has knee pain. The surgery might fix the problem but the surgery is risky and the recovery time may be long and may cause other functions to deteriorate. Another option is pain meds to control the knee pain without the risks of surgery. If the pain meds can control it, why not try that option first? Of course, for many docs the answer is "because we get paid more to do the surgery." But education about benefits and risks of various protocols is never a bad thing.
Lying about what the president said, IS a bad thing.
I don't understand how anyone could argue against providing insurance to fellow Americans. It is not only the ethical and moral thing to do, but is the patriotic thing to do. I look at patriotism as helping and loving your fellow Americans. Patriotism is not crying at the sight of the flag or wrapping yourself in flag clothing.
I am trying to explain to my grandchildren that all their life they will be paying to give already hugely wealthy people more money, then to also pay for a war that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent humans for no actually defined reason, THEN more money given to really rich people during a "time of war", and also an Orwellian "drug benefit" that really almost exclusively benefited more really wealthy people.
It is up to them to explain to their grandchildren why right wing politicians tried to stop anything that might help. So they will continue to be stuck with the bill!
wow thats 5 times better than Hitler
My most important question is since Fox News isn't news and that can easily be proven how can they continue to put news in their name? Yes, there is freedom of speech but there is also inciting a riot and that's what these people are doing! People's lives are being threatened because of the lies they tell. There should be a way the American people could bring a class action suit against them and shut them down. If a newspaper prints a story that isn't true they are forced to print a retraction. Why can't Fox News be forced to admit their lies?
Get this: My brother hung up the phone on me because he tried to tell me the entire $8 trillion in national debt we've accrued has happened since Obama took office and I called him on it! Of course, he watches nothing but Fox News. Since all the news sources ignored the growing debt and deficit until Obama took office and then started screaming about it these Fox News ditto heads think it all started when they started screaming about it. Give me a break!
It was not to make ALL insurance companies bankrupt.