Why do you need to Lie about the Health Care Law?

It's about time I approached some of these "viral" attacks on the recent health care legislation.

Here's one:

YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS...
Obama Care Highlighted by Page Number
THE CARE BILL HB 3200 

Hmm... Let's take a look at HB 3200...

Oh, wait.  This isn't the health care bill that passed congress.  It never even came up for a vote.  The ones that passed congress were H.R. 3590 and H.R. 3962.

Oh, details, schmetails.  Fine.  Let's look at the bill.  Even if it didn't pass congress.

THIS IS THE 2ND OFFICIAL WHO HAS OUTLINED THESE PARTS OF THE CARE BILL.
Judge Kithil of  Marble Falls,  TX -  highlighted the most egregious pages of HB3200
Please read this........ especially the reference to pages 58 & 59
  JUDGE KITHIL wrote:   ** Page 50/section 152:  The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. 

The legislation reads, "...(T)he Secretary of Health and Human Services shall . . . promulgate such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to insure that all health care and related services . . . covered by this Act are provided . . . without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services."

It seems kind of weird that our emailer interpreted it this way.  At first glance, it seemed to me to state the obvious - that administrators couldn't make health care coverage decisions based on things like race, sex, religion, political beliefs, and so forth.

It makes sense.  And it stretches the imagination to think that this language would extend health care benefits to people who are in this country illegally, and subject to deportation.

But, in case you were wondering...  If our writer bothered to read ahead to section 242, he'd see that benefits are only available to "an individual who is lawfully present in a State in the United States."  So, it looks like our viral emailer wasted a good worry.

* Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. 

The sections included in page 58 and 58 refer to billing practices.  It ensures that, when you go to your doctor, you'll know as soon as possible if you're covered, and how much you will continue to owe the doctor after s/he's completed his or her services.  And it ensures practitioners that there will be consistent rules on how to do the billing.

As for the government having "real-time access to an individual's bank account" and having the authority "to make electronic fund transfers"?  Maybe our emailer was referring to the standard stating that these systems will "enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance."

Note the word "enable".  In my mind, that means, "make something possible."  Not "make it mandatory".  Or, "allow a biller to have unlimited access to someone else's bank account".

It means that, as a patient, you may choose to pay a copayment by bank debit.  If you and the provider want to.

And doctors and hospitals, if they wish, can receive payment electronically from insurance companies.

But I don't see how this would have allowed the government to grab whatever they wanted from your bank account.

** Page 65/section 164:  The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).

This section reads, "The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish a temporary reinsurance program . . . to provide reimbursement to assist participating employment-based plans with the cost of providing health benefits to retirees and to eligible spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees."

So, when our viral emailer says that this is a "special" entitlement for unions and community organizations (particularly ones demonized by the right), it's an out-and-out lie.  These rules apply to any employment-based plan.

** Page 203/line 14-15:  The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax.  (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)

The language is a little bit bizarre.

This refers to some taxes levied on high-income individuals to pay for the costs of the program.  Of course, congressional debate did change the parameters of these costs, which are detailed in plain English over here.  In the end, if you're making over $200,000 as a single taxpayer, you'll have to pay an extra 0.9% in payroll taxes.

This tax can't be used to offset the alternative minimum tax.  Thus, this tax is not considered "a tax" when it comes to calculating the AMT.

Hey, no one said that tax law made much sense to non-tax-policy wonks.

** Page 241 and 253:  Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.

These pages refer to payment to doctors under Medicare.  And, for as long as I can remember, Medicare has always paid physicians according to a government-controlled payment schedule.

If a doctor feels that Medicare is paying too little, they have the right to refuse Medicare patients.  And they can continue to do so after passage of the recent health care bills.  So, in the end, nothing has changed here.

** Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age.

Here's the text:  "The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine if, under the system under this subsection, costs incurred by hospitals described in section 1886(d)(1)(B)(v) with respect to ambulatory payment classification groups exceed those costs incurred by other hospitals furnishing services under this subsection (as determined appropriate by the Secreretary. Insofar as the Secretary determines under subparagraph (A) that costs incurred by hospitals described in section 1886(d)(1)(B)(v) exceed those costs incurred by other hospitals furnishing services under this subsection, the Secretary shall provide an appropriate adjustment under paragraph (2)(E) to reflect those costs incurred by other hospitals furnished."

So, how did "if we do a study and find out that cancer care costs more in certain places, we'll adjust Medicare payments to compensate" become "rationing of care due to age"?

Beats me.

** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.

This is a (very slight) expansion to current anti-kickback law.  In order for doctors and hospitals to receive Medicare funds, they've needed to comply with anti-kickback provisions for quite some time.  Because Medicare felt it was unseemly to refer patients to hospitals that they owned, and services provided at these hospitals that they are subject to profit from.

They granted some exceptions to rural hospitals.  These rules tighten the anti-kickback rules governing such exceptions.  But it doesn't prevent the vast majority of hospitals from expanding as they please.

** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations.  Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counseling..)** Page 429,  line 13-25:  The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

Oh, yes.  "Death Panels".  The proud recipient of Politifact.com's "Lie of the Year" in 2009.

For those who haven't kept up:  This version of the health care bill ensured that physicians who discussed advanced directives and living wills with their patient could be paid for this service.  It was never mandatory.

And these "end-of-life" orders?  They're signed by the patient.  The doctor only serves as a witness.

But, no matter.  None of these provisions made it into the health care bills passed by congress.

HAD ENOUGH????  Judge Kithil then goes on to identify:"Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress.  

Funny how he suddenly stopped citing sections of the health care bill when he made this claim.

That's because... there's no exemption.  Members of congress are subject to the individual mandate requiring that they obtain health insurance of a minimum standard.  Fortunately for members of congress, most of the health plans that they're eligible for (as a virtue of their employment) qualify.

Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick 'fix' to make the plan financially sound for their future."  -    Honorable David Kithil of Marble Falls,  Texas

This lie is so prevalent, I gave it a special article.

All of the above should give you the point blank ammo you need to support your opposition to Obamacare. 

There are lots of reasons why it's reasonable to object to the recently passed healthcare legislation.

These "facts" aren't among them.

Soldiers' Death Benefits vs. 9/11 Victim Compensation?

And now, fresh from my inbox, here's another viral email:

Don’t like Limbaugh? No matter. You will be stunned by what he says….so….please read….you will learn the truth about the way we treat those who give up their all so we can be free.

Delete all names before forwarding to respect confidentiality

  Love him or hate him ...
~Limbaugh Nailed This One~

Love him or loathe him, he nailed this one right on the head..........

By Rush Limbaugh:
I think the vast differences in compensation between victims of the September 11 casualty and those who die serving our country in Uniform are profound. No one is really talking about it either, because you just don't criticize anything having to do with September 11. Well, I can't let the numbers pass by because it says something really disturbing about the entitlement mentality of this country. If you lost a family member in the September 11 attack, you're going to get an average of $1,185,000. The range is a minimum guarantee of $250,000, all the way up to $4.7 million..  If you are a surviving family member of an American soldier killed in action, the first check you get is a $6,000 direct death benefit, half of which is taxable.

Next, you get $1,750 for burial costs. If you are the surviving spouse, you get $833 a month until you remarry. And there's a payment of $211 per month for each child under 18. When the child hits 18, those payments come to a screeching halt.

Keep in mind that some of the people who are getting an average of $1.185 million up to $4.7 million are complaining that it's not enough. Their deaths were tragic, but for most, they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Soldiers put themselves in harms way FOR ALL OF US, and they and their families know the dangers.. (Actually, soldiers are put in harms way by politicians and commanding officers.)

We also learned over the weekend that some of the victims from the Oklahoma City bombing have started an organization asking for the same deal that the September 11 families are getting. In addition to that, some of the families of those bombed in the embassies are now asking for compensation as well.

You see where this is going, don't you? Folks, this is part and parcel of over 50 years of entitlement politics in this country. It's just really sad. Every time a pay raise comes up for the military, they usually receive next to nothing of a raise. Now the green machine is in combat in the Middle East while their families have to survive on food stamps and live in low-rent housing. Make sense?

However, our own US Congress voted themselves a raise. Many of you don't know that they only have to be in Congress one time to receive a pension that is more than $15,000 per month. And most are now equal to being millionaires plus. They do not receive Social Security on retirement because they didn't have to pay into the system. If some of the military people stay in for 20 years and get out as an E-7, they may receive a pension of $1,000 per month, and the very people who placed them in harm's way receives a pension of $15,000 per month.

I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join ranks before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our sons and daughters who are now fighting.  "When do we finally do something about this?" If this doesn't seem fair to you, it is time to forward this to as many people as you can.

How many people CAN YOU send this to?

****************************
How many WILL YOU???

It's hard to tell what this email is proposing.  It's clearly had several authors.

One way to interpret this is : "The 9/11 bombings were tragic...  but victims' families don't deserve more than the people in the armed forces who put their lives in harm's way.  $1 million per family is just much too much to pay."

I'm somewhat sympathetic.  I'm saddened for the losses of families that have had their lives cut short after the 9/11 bombings.  I'd love to see the the perpetrators forced to pay restitution.

However, the perpetrators are all dead.  And the people who were peripherally involved are now "enemy combatants" who aren't likely to answer to American lawsuits.

The government, in it's reasoning, saw what was likely to happen - since many families were looking to sue someone, they'd probably clog the judicial system with lawsuits against the airline industry, the government, the buildings' owners, or their contractors.  And there are likely to be a few clever prosecutors who can exploit a potential jury's natural desire to help the 9/11 victims.

In short:  This is a settlement.  It has nothing to do with "worth".  It has to do with practicality.  I don't know how folks get together to decide "how much is it worth to settle this case."  A reasonable discussion of this subject would talk about how these numbers were derived.  Not just with "One million dollars is too much."

That's one way to interpret this email message.  The other is, "Why can't soldiers get a million dollars when they fall in combat?  Why is it so much less than the 9/11 victims?"

For one?  Soldiers give up their ability to seek compensation through the courts when they enlist.  It's part of the package.

Now, looking at these figures, it seems like a pretty bad deal for our servicemen.  If I was thinking about enlisting, and my family was depending on my future income, a $6000 lump-sum benefit on my death, $800/month in compensation to my wife and $211/month/child in survivor benefits would make me think more than twice about whether I should sign up.  Because my odds of dying are pretty high in wartime.  And this wouldn't be much to leave my family.

In fact, with those figures, it would be surprising that any military families could be successfully recruited in a time of war.  Something doesn't seem right here.

Turns out Snopes has a long history of this particular viral email.  Turns out that the origin of this email is in 2002.

Now, let's turn back the clock.

In 2002, there was no Iraq war.  The war in Afghanistan was in a lull - the US role at that time was to support the Northern Alliance and the new government, and long before a resurgent Taliban.

In short, the pay structure reflected what was necessary to recruit during a period of peace, when few potential soldiers thought it was likely they would face a significant insurgency.

Since the "real war" started, the military has had to sweeten the deal.

At this point, the death benefit for an active-duty serviceman in a combat zone is $100,000 and is non-taxable.  Surviving spouses recieve dependency and indemnity compensation of $1154/month, and surviving children recieve more than this email suggests.  (Look here to see how much.)  And if they leave behind a spouse or children who are unable to earn a living, they're eligible for even more.

Plus, if they've enrolled in SGLI (the military's life insurance plan) for $27/month, they're eligible for a death benefit of $400,000.

In short - the surviving family probably won't be living the high life - but, at least, with this financial package, they're off to a secure start.

Finally, it wouldn't be a right-wing email without comparing the lives of "victims" with the fictional congresspeople.

You know, the ones who don't pay social security.  (Sorry, they do.)

The ones who earn over $15,000/month for serving one year in congress.  (Here's their real package.  And it's not even close.)

Although, to give them credit?  When this was written, they probably did write themselves pay raises - like those most Americans recieved.  But for the last two years, they've kept their salaries the same.

So, all in all, this is, at best, an outdated rant piece.  With a little bit of out-and-out lying on the side.

What do Bernie Madoff and Social Security Have In Common? Not Much.

It seems the Right-Wing Viral Message folks enjoy calling government officials "crooks".

Here's one where they take it too far.

Why did Bernie Madoff go to prison?  To make it simple, he talked people into investing with him.  Trouble was, he didn't invest their money.  As time rolled on he simply took the money from the new investors to pay off the old investors.

Of course, they've overlooked the whole "used the money to buy mansions, yachts, and live the high life" part...

Finally there were too many old investors and not enough money from new investors coming in to keep the payments going.

Of course.  Because he spent the money on himself.  And represented an unrealistic expectations of his ability to obtain returns on his investments.  And hid his operational details from regulators.  That's why it was fraud.

Next thing you know Madoff is one of the most hated men in America and he is off to jail.

You got that right...

Some of you know this.  But not enough of you. 

Maybe.  If "you" refers to "the average right-wing email forwarder".  Their average intelligence and knowledge of world events seems pretty spotty to me...

Madoff did to his investors what the government has been doing to us for over 70 years with Social Security. 

A bold statement, my friend - actually accusing the developers of social security with fraud.  Let's see the proof.

There is no meaningful difference between the two schemes, except that one was operated by a private individual who is now in jail, and the other is operated by politicians who enjoy perks, privileges and status in spite of their actions.

Restating what you've already said isn't proof, yet.  Sure, congressmen live pretty nicely.  But any citizen has access to the operating details of the social security trust fund.  And, yet, in spite of this transparency, this emailer can provide no proof that this money has directly lined the pockets of our congressmen. 

Do you need a side-by-side comparison here?  Well here's a nifty little chart.


BERNIE MADOFF
Takes money from investors with the promise that the money will be invested and made available to them later.
Instead of investing the money Madoff spends it on nice homes in the Hamptons and yachts.
When the time comes to pay the investors back Madoff simply uses some of the new funds from newer investors to pay back the older investors.
When Madoff's scheme is discovered all hell breaks loose.  New investors won't give him any more cash.
Bernie Madoff is in jail.

Again, seems like more of the same thing.  But the basics seem right - he said he'd invest the money, promised an impossible return, kept phony books, kept most of the money, and used new investors to pay old investors during times they wanted to cash out.  This is illegal.

SOCIAL SECURITY

Takes money from wage earners with the promise that the money will be invested in a "Trust Fund" (Lock Box) and made available later.  Instead of depositing money in a Trust Fund the politicians  transfer it to the General Revenue Fund and use it for general spending and vote buying.

All with complete transparency, to anyone who watched.  Voted into law in open congress, and signed by the president - all of whom were elected.  Democracy isn't perfect.  Bad laws happen.  (As far as whether a transfer was bad policy is a legitimate topic for reasoned debate.)  But bad laws aren't fraud -they're just bad laws.  As far as "vote buying" goes - our unnamed writer doesn't provide any specifics.  I wonder why?

When benefits for older investors become due the politicians pay them with money taken from younger and newer wage earners to pay the older geezers.

When you're a government, with the powers of an unlimited lifetime and the ability to print money, this might be okay.  As long as the end results are accounted for.  If they haven't (a debateable point, for forums other than this one) - they should be taken to task for this.  But, reasonable people disagree on this point.  And even if it is correct, bad ideas are just bad ideas.  It may be bad policy.  But it isn't outright fraud.

When Social Security runs out of money the politicians try to force the taxpayers to send them some more; or they cancel S/S to all those who paid into it.

Show me the proposed bills.  Because I don't see any.  Sure, there are some that delay benefits to future recipients - but no one talking about cancelling social security.  Except, perhaps, for asking folks to "volunteer" to put some money into private accounts.

Politicians remain in  Washington .. with fat medical and retirement benefits.

Do you want the job?  It's potentially yours.  All you have to do is get elected.

Oh, you can't win against more qualified opponents? Good.  I'm glad that they're paying enough for people to want to compete for the job.

Oh, I get it.  You're only for free enterprise when it suits you.  Gotcha.