The Nuts Rise to the National Level
I admit I am having a sort of feeling of cheerful vindication as the discourse over health care melts down into pure nuttiness. Teach the Facts first came together in late 2004 as a reaction to developments in the creation of a sex education curriculum in Montgomery County, Maryland, which in many ways presaged the current situation but on a local level. We had a situation where liberal parents and conservative parents had differing views of what sex-ed should be, most focally what should be taught about sexual orientation, just as the nation currently faces a question about the optimal extent of involvement of the federal government in health care support for individuals. But, just as the debate over health care is being shouted down by extremists, our debate over sex-ed was disrupted by a small cell of extremists making outlandish claims, misconstruing statements from the curriculum, accusing policy-makers and participants in the debate of immorality and other personality weaknesses, and it became almost impossible to discuss the issues themselves.
We heard arguments that if our school district taught students that there are variations in sexual orientation the result would be an epidemic of AIDS and the deaths of many students, followed by lawsuits that would blame the school district for the deaths and ultimately bankrupt it. We heard that gay people are dirty, disease-ridden, promiscuous, we heard that they are child molesters and that they are trying to spread their evil lifestyle to our children through the schools. People who supported the curriculum were described as "pro-promiscuity." These were simply inflammatory and derogatory lies, and did nothing to further the debate over what to include and exclude in the classroom, how to present possibly delicate information, what sources to draw on and what ones to reject, how to prepare teachers to present subjects they might not know much about.
Yesterday the blog FireDogLake had a short summary of recent disruptive events. It's an incomplete list, but you get the idea.
Last night I watched Chris Matthews interview the guy who brought a loaded gun to Obama's talk yesterday. The guy was articulate enough, he presented his case well enough, but the fact is, it's dumb and unnecessary to bring a loaded pistol to the President's talk. The guy said the gun is a "defensive tool," and I can relate to that, but a speech by the President is not the place where you need to be able to shoot people to defend yourself, and the risk of some crazy person bringing his gun to perform an assassination is, you might say, a serious one, especially when we hear that death threats against the President have increased four hundred percent under this administration.
Chris Matthews then interviewed a couple of guys in suits, including one from the Wall Street Journal who more or less supports the teabaggers. Matthews referred to them as "nuts," which maybe we haven't seen on a major news program before. The WSJ guy argued that the people disrupting these town hall meetings are not "nuts," but are people who are outraged by blah blah blah, and then went on to refer to the guy with the gun as a "nut."
I grew up during the waning years of the McCarthy era, but I don't really remember it. I remember being warned that Communists were everywhere, but by the time I was aware of the real world the embarrassment of the blacklists, the hearings, the accusations, was behind us. And it was an embarrassment, people looked back at those days and could not understand how it had happened, how our freedom had so broken down that the government was conducting inquisitions into people's beliefs, and tens of thousands of people were losing their jobs because they would not give the expected answer to some trick question.
That era only ended when the situation became so extreme that ordinary Americans could see what was wrong. We can cite our heroes, those brave souls who risked ostracism to speak out, but as folks at home watched the hearings on television it became clear that this was totalitarianism, pure and simple, draped in the good name of freedom. And at some moment the spell was broken, maybe when the Army's special counsel Joseph Welch said to McCarthy, "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" Suddenly people remembered decency, and it came back to us.
This teabagger business has been bubbling under the surface for a long time. It is not a belief system with a lot of facts behind it, it is more of a sense that our society is changing in ways that the individual can't control, the "way of life" that G. W. Bush famously invoked on 9/11/01 is dissolving into ways of life that the ordinary white guy might not understand, and because our society is free there is not much he can do to stop the progress, change is inevitable and some people are choking on it. The teabaggers' cry is "We want our country back," but it never belonged to them in the first place, the Founding Fathers did not intend to establish a lineage of overseers, they meant to create a system that was adaptive in the face of change while guaranteeing rights to individuals.
A main complaint of the disruptor movement is the cost of the interventions that are being implemented to bail the country out of recession. So far individuals' taxes have not gone up, but it is possible, and that will light a fuse that could lead to another regime change, but so far that is not in the works. The obvious question is, where were these people when the Bush administration was spending trillions of dollars to ravage Iraq? The fact that these same teabaggers supported that extravagant expense undermines their alleged outrage over the expense of salvaging a sunken economy and taking care of our own citizens.
It may seem perverse of me, but I am sort of enjoying watching the network talking heads deal with this problem that has plagued our county, and many other localities in the country, for some years at the grassroots level. The nuttiness has finally risen to the surface, and now needs to be addressed by the pundits and politicians for what it is. These corporate-supported outbursts are not furthering debate on any topic, they are an interruption of the dialogue exactly as we have experienced it in Mongtomery County. It is my hope that the country as a whole is watching, shocked at what we have become, and that a sense of decency will return as we collectively deal with these mobs.
We heard arguments that if our school district taught students that there are variations in sexual orientation the result would be an epidemic of AIDS and the deaths of many students, followed by lawsuits that would blame the school district for the deaths and ultimately bankrupt it. We heard that gay people are dirty, disease-ridden, promiscuous, we heard that they are child molesters and that they are trying to spread their evil lifestyle to our children through the schools. People who supported the curriculum were described as "pro-promiscuity." These were simply inflammatory and derogatory lies, and did nothing to further the debate over what to include and exclude in the classroom, how to present possibly delicate information, what sources to draw on and what ones to reject, how to prepare teachers to present subjects they might not know much about.
Yesterday the blog FireDogLake had a short summary of recent disruptive events. It's an incomplete list, but you get the idea.
July 29: Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD) hanged in effigy, with a sign reading "Congress: Traitors to the American Ideal."
August 3: Rep. Brad Miller's (D-NC) office gets telephone death threat warning "Miller could lose his life over this."
August 4: Teabagger urges Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) to kill himself with painkillers and alcohol.
August 4: Republican Rep. Todd Akin gets laughter and applause from a crowd of supporters by joking about his Democratic colleagues "almost [getting] lynched."
August 6: Three days after begging his viewers not to kill anybody, Fox News host Glenn Beck sets a great example by pretending to poison Nancy Pelosi's wine.
August 7: Twittering teabagger urges fellow protesters to bring guns, and also tweets that "If ACORN/SEIU attends these townhalls for disruption," (oh the irony) his fellow protesters should "stop being peaceful, and hurt them. Badly."
August 10: CNN anchor Lou Dobbs calls Howard Dean a "blood-sucking leftist" and says "you gotta put a stake through his heart to stop this guy."
August 11: Teabagger shows up at Obama townhall with a loaded gun strapped to his leg and a sign reading, "It Is Time To Water The Tree Of Liberty!" (That would be the tree that Thomas Jefferson said "must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.")
August 11: Teabagger with bullhorn at Obama's townhall yells, "Send [illegal immigrants] home with a bullet in the head" and "Read what Jefferson said about the Tree of Liberty - it's coming, baby!"
And yet, as repellent and crazy as these people are, prominent Republicans like David Vitter, House Minority Leader John Boehner, NRSC Chair John Cornyn, and NRCC Chair Pete Sessions embrace them as Patriotic Concerned Americans Speaking Their Minds And Giving Those Democrats What For...
Eliminationists ‘R’ Us
Last night I watched Chris Matthews interview the guy who brought a loaded gun to Obama's talk yesterday. The guy was articulate enough, he presented his case well enough, but the fact is, it's dumb and unnecessary to bring a loaded pistol to the President's talk. The guy said the gun is a "defensive tool," and I can relate to that, but a speech by the President is not the place where you need to be able to shoot people to defend yourself, and the risk of some crazy person bringing his gun to perform an assassination is, you might say, a serious one, especially when we hear that death threats against the President have increased four hundred percent under this administration.
Chris Matthews then interviewed a couple of guys in suits, including one from the Wall Street Journal who more or less supports the teabaggers. Matthews referred to them as "nuts," which maybe we haven't seen on a major news program before. The WSJ guy argued that the people disrupting these town hall meetings are not "nuts," but are people who are outraged by blah blah blah, and then went on to refer to the guy with the gun as a "nut."
I grew up during the waning years of the McCarthy era, but I don't really remember it. I remember being warned that Communists were everywhere, but by the time I was aware of the real world the embarrassment of the blacklists, the hearings, the accusations, was behind us. And it was an embarrassment, people looked back at those days and could not understand how it had happened, how our freedom had so broken down that the government was conducting inquisitions into people's beliefs, and tens of thousands of people were losing their jobs because they would not give the expected answer to some trick question.
That era only ended when the situation became so extreme that ordinary Americans could see what was wrong. We can cite our heroes, those brave souls who risked ostracism to speak out, but as folks at home watched the hearings on television it became clear that this was totalitarianism, pure and simple, draped in the good name of freedom. And at some moment the spell was broken, maybe when the Army's special counsel Joseph Welch said to McCarthy, "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" Suddenly people remembered decency, and it came back to us.
This teabagger business has been bubbling under the surface for a long time. It is not a belief system with a lot of facts behind it, it is more of a sense that our society is changing in ways that the individual can't control, the "way of life" that G. W. Bush famously invoked on 9/11/01 is dissolving into ways of life that the ordinary white guy might not understand, and because our society is free there is not much he can do to stop the progress, change is inevitable and some people are choking on it. The teabaggers' cry is "We want our country back," but it never belonged to them in the first place, the Founding Fathers did not intend to establish a lineage of overseers, they meant to create a system that was adaptive in the face of change while guaranteeing rights to individuals.
A main complaint of the disruptor movement is the cost of the interventions that are being implemented to bail the country out of recession. So far individuals' taxes have not gone up, but it is possible, and that will light a fuse that could lead to another regime change, but so far that is not in the works. The obvious question is, where were these people when the Bush administration was spending trillions of dollars to ravage Iraq? The fact that these same teabaggers supported that extravagant expense undermines their alleged outrage over the expense of salvaging a sunken economy and taking care of our own citizens.
It may seem perverse of me, but I am sort of enjoying watching the network talking heads deal with this problem that has plagued our county, and many other localities in the country, for some years at the grassroots level. The nuttiness has finally risen to the surface, and now needs to be addressed by the pundits and politicians for what it is. These corporate-supported outbursts are not furthering debate on any topic, they are an interruption of the dialogue exactly as we have experienced it in Mongtomery County. It is my hope that the country as a whole is watching, shocked at what we have become, and that a sense of decency will return as we collectively deal with these mobs.
posted by JimK at 9:44 AM
27 Comments:
But, just as the debate over health care is being shouted down by extremists, our debate over sex-ed was disrupted by a small cell of extremists making outlandish claims, misconstruing statements from the curriculum, accusing policy-makers and participants in the debate of immorality and other personality weaknesses, and it became almost impossible to discuss the issues themselves.
Not only are the disruptions, outlandish claims, and misconstrued statements similar, some of the very same players are involved, namely the trial lawyers over at Liberty Counsel.
The Liberty Counsel was involved in helping our local wingnuts JUST SAY NO to MCPS's long overdue revision of the health curriculum and now they are involved with healthcare industry-backed wingnuts who want us to JUST SAY NO to long overdue health care reform. But just like MCPS parents wanted their kids to have the opportunity to learn "Respect for Individual Differences in Human Sexuality," Americans want healthcare for all our citizens, just like every other developed nation on Earth.
Liberty Counsel published its error filled analysis of Obama's Health Care plan (pilfered from Peter Fleckenstein's blog), complete with SCREAM CAPS and exclamation points! Liberty Counsel's errors have been debunked here, here, and here.
We learned that as early as January 13, 2005, CRC was intent on using "aggressive tactics," "outrage streaming into their castle [nice pitchfork crowd analogy] headquarters," and "John Garza proceeding immediatley [sic] with his lawsuit. (Lawsuits tend to get peoples attention - merit or no merit because it forces them to deal with their legal team on a continuing basis)." It appears the Liberty Counsel is giving the same advice to this latest wave of SCREAMING INFLAMING wingnuts.
Was Liberty Counsel was in on the conference call recently reported by Greg Sargent at his Plum Line blog:
On a private conference call, a group of top Tea Party and conservative organizers offered a surprisingly frank description of their goal, according to a source on the call: Completely blocking any kind of bipartisan compromise, and completely preventing any type of health care reform bill at all from ever becoming law.
The source who got himself on the call was an organizer for the AFL-CIO, and AFL-CIO spokesman Eddie Vale provided me with the organizer’s notes. It’s certain to be seized on by Dems to argue that organized Tea Party opposition to Obama has no constructive intentions and is fomenting public “concern” about Obama’s plan solely to prevent any reform from ever taking place. GOP officials would argue that they don’t share these goals.
The call consisted of representatives of top conservative groups, such as the American Liberty Alliance, the “Tea Party Patriots,” and RecessRally.com, the AFL-CIO’s notes say.
The moderator on the call, whose name could not immediately be determined, told listeners that bipartisan compromise on the Senate Finance Committee, where senators are holding talks, must be stopped at all costs, AFL-CIO’s notes say. The moderator called on members to pressure GOP Senators seeking compromise with Dems, like Chuck Grassley, Mike Enzi, and Olympia Snowe, to stop the negotiating.
“The goal is not compromise, and ANY bill coming out this year would be a failure for us,” the moderator said, according to AFL-CIO’s notes. The moderator added that “the Democrats will turn even a weak bill from the Senate Finance Committee into Canadian-style single-payer through underhanded implementation.”
Another organizer on the call, according to AFL-CIO, added: “The purpose of Tea Parties is not to find a solution to the health care crisis — it is to stop what is not the solution: Obamacare.”
Check out AFL-CIO’s notes right here.
To be clear, this is AFL-CIO’s version of what happened. I’m reaching out to the groups in question to get more, and I’ll keep you posted.
****************************************
Update: Corrine Williams, a spokesperson for the American Liberty Alliance, tells me that the focus of the call was educational and policy-oriented, and not on the movement’s political goals. But she acknowledged that the above sentiments may have been expressed during a Q and A at the end of the call, though she doesn’t think the exact language was the same.
But Williams did confirm that the movement’s goal is to prevent the current compromise bill from becoming a reality, because it represents Obamacare. She said no audio of the call exists.
Update II: Tea Party organizer Eric Odom issues a statement in effect denying that the Tea Party movement has specific legislative goals:
“I and the America Liberty Alliance do not have the purpose of politically ‘accepting’ or denying legislation. Instead we provide individuals the tools to express their concerns to their government representatives.”
As an outsider I look on this healthcare issue with amazement. A vocal minority would rather shoot itself in the foot than have Obama do anything beneficial for them. In government run healthcare systems there is no such thing as the government assessing your level of productivity and deciding who is fit to receive various forms of healthcare and who isn't, you get whatever form of healthcare will assist you best without any regard for your standing in society.
It makes me laugh that some Americans are so stupid they'd rather have insurance companies going out of their way to deny them any health care whatsoever rather than having the government provide equal service to all regardless of pre-existing conditions etc. Private industry has a profit motive to minimize the amount of healthcare available, government, which is run by the people has an incentive to serve the people first and foremost. I don't know of a single Canadian who'd willingly give up unconditional health care for the gross insecurity of the American system. We pity you.
When will American rightwingers stop spinning lies about healthcare?
Yesterday, Dr. Hawking was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Barack Obama. Recently, some rightwingers have spread the lie that if Dr. Hawking lived in England, under their rationed NHS, he'd be judged unworthy of treatment due to his physical disabilities. This morning, Britian's Daily Mail reports Dr. Hawking has responded:
'I owe my life to the NHS':
Stephen Hawking tells US to stop attacking health service:
Professor Stephen Hawking has defended the NHS after its severe criticism during the American political debate over health care reforms.
The physicist spoke up for the NHS after the Republican Right claimed it was 'evil' and 'Orwellian' in a direct attack on Barack Obama's plans to overhaul health care in the U.S.
Critics of the president have said his plans would introduce a 'socialist' system like Britain's.
Prof Hawkin, who suffers from Lou Gehrig's disease, said: 'I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS.
'I have received a large amount of high quality treatment without which I would not have survived.'
He was in Washington last night to be awarded America's highest civilian honour, the Presidential Medal of Freedom...
...the Investor's Business Daily said in an editorial: 'People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.'
They had to correct the piece when it was pointed out that the physicist was born, lives and works in the UK.
Mr Hawking said: 'I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS.'...
...Opponents to reform suggest it would be too costly for taxpayers, even though U.S. citizens spend double per head on health - both their own and the limited state care for the old and needy - than the average for developed countries...
Shame on the liars who will say anything to advance their cause of JUST SAY NO to insuring the millions of Americans who have no health insurance.
We all envy your country's humane approach to health care and services, Priya Lynn. It has always amazed me why Americans have this fear of government sponsorship of social programs...except for the fact that we have been inculcated with incessant capitalistic propaganda of adoration for the so-called "free-enterprise" system. It is obvious that, in an increasingly complex society, we will pay dearly to line the pockets of the corporations whose primary aim is to make a profit from people who can ill-afford their diminishing "services".
Be prepared for an onslaught of snide comments, insulting personal attacks, childish whining and hair-tearing, and downright lies and distortions from the "Anonymous" who likes to believe that this is his/her/its Blog site.
Most of us here have learned to dismiss the rants of the egocentric "Anonymous" troll.
Diogenes
The misinformation campaign by the health care industry is interfering with reasoned discussions of the American health care fiasco that leaves tens of millions of us uninsured.
Salon reports:
...The people who've come out for the town halls held by Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., this week have been angry, there's no doubting that. It's just not totally clear that they really know what they're so angry about.
Take, for example, the man who stood halfway through Specter's town hall Wednesday morning to share his personal story -- a real tear-jerker: A disabled veteran, he'd just been laid off and was without health insurance when his wife became ill and was told she needed a heart transplant. Now, two years later, she's still alive because the state paid for the procedure.
In another time, another atmosphere, this might be an argument for increasing government's role in healthcare. Not now. Instead, the man went on to rail against Democratic reform plans, saying "the bill is socialistic" and picking up on the myths about euthanasia that have circled among opponents, asking Specter, "If this bill passed, would my wife be alive today?" (He was angry, too, about the town halls themselves, asking, "Why does Obama send his goons to the town hall meetings to rough people up?")
The crowd at large was more sympathetic to Specter, and to reform, than they had been at the events the senator held on Tuesday, so a few of them muttered that the man's story seemed to support their point, rather than his. And Specter himself made that explicit, telling the audience to loud applause, "She got help from the state of Pennsylvania, well, that's the government."
This sort of thing hasn't been confined to that one man. There is, for example, one angry man's demand of Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C., which has become famous on the Internet: "Keep your government hands off my Medicare." (It's a goverment program to begin with.) Similarly, on Wednesday, 69-year-old Robert Wargo told Specter he's "very scared about my grandchildren's America," and asked, "Can we have fiscal responsibility?" And he was certainly knowledgeable about government expenditures and about programs he didn't like and wants to see cut -- but when Salon asked him after the event for his feelings on healthcare reform, the first concern he mentioned was, "They're going to cut Medicare by half a trillion dollars."...
Most American senior citizens love the "socialistic program" Medicare, they rely on it to see their doctors, want to keep it, and fear it will be cut when in fact the President's plan is to expand it to cover more people. Even the GOP's 4 page health plan touts expanding Medicare to cover people starting at age 55. Specifically the GOP plan:
"Recognizes that many Americans who have not yet hit retirement age but may be changing jobs or have lost a job often face higher health care costs. To help those aged 55 to 64, the plan increases support for pre- and early-retirees with low- and modest-incomes."
I've been down South the last couple of days(as a matter of fact, I spent Tuesday night in Columbia, Alvin) and it's interesting to watch the local news coverage of these town hall gatherings.
Here, the reporters interview people from those debates with legitimate points that you don't see Jim highlighting above.
Things like:
1. how to lower costs and make things more efficient by having the government take over?
2. how do you have cost containment without denying services to people?
3. why does the CBO estimate the plan will cost a trillion dollars when Obama says it will be free?
4. how can call something "health care" when it will pay to kill unborn children and encourage old people to end their life before it becomes too wasteful?
Yet, people like TTF prefer to highlight out of context statements to negatively reflect on the movement that is bringing down the Obama administration.
how can call something "health care" when it will pay to kill unborn children and encourage old people to end their life before it becomes too wasteful?
Those are lies. The health plan offered by Congress has no such coverage for abortion or eugenics.
the movement that is bringing down the Obama administration.
And thank you for being honest about what the "health care debate" (**cough** -- I use the word "debate" in the most liberal way) is really about.
It's not about healthcare, it's about the GOP, which lost big in November 2006 and even bigger in 2008, trying to "bring down the Obama administration." It's not about healthcare, it's about politics, and in the meantime, today, another 14,000 Americans will lose their health care coverage.
"it's about the GOP, which lost big in November 2006 and even bigger in 2008,"
Well, that looks to be over.
Thanks, Barry.
53% of all Americans say they don't support you on the Ramussen poll released today.
Mr./Mrs./Ms. "Anonymous"
Please, if you would be so kind, cite the actual wording of any of any of the proposed Health Care Reform measures that say (in your rabble-raising babble): "4. how can call something "health care" when it will pay to kill unborn children and encourage old people to end their life before it becomes too wasteful?"
You are no better than the ignorant people at the various Town Meetings who could not even define "socialism", "nazism", "communism", or cite any specific changes in the proposed measures that would "take away their rights".
Just repeat the same lies over and over and over (as per Herr Goebbles' dictates) and the ignorant masses can be convinced to say or do anything you want of them. Is that your credo?
Citizen
53% of all Americans say they don't support you on the Ramussen poll released today.
Oh goodie, a big chunk of outlier poll flotsam for you to cling to as you circle the drain.
Palin in 2012!
Glub glub glub
page 425 of the house bill Citizen.
I read it.
Mandatory end of life counseling for seniors in order to continue receiving any Medicare or SS payments.....
I would suggest you go read it as well.
And Medicare is a little different than a complete welfare system... you do pay into it for years before you get any benefits...
Oh, and why don't you read the congressional budget office report while you are at it ?
that's the one that estimates 80 million people who currently have private health insurance will be forced onto the govt plan. And estimates the cost not a zero, but over a trillion ?
How exactly do you plan on paying for this ? More taxes ? Health care rationing ?
The 1/2 trillion Medicare "savings" is achieved by cutting the rates Medicare pays to doctors and hospitals for services. Already some doctors will not accept Medicare patients. Aunt Bea, I had the impression you were over 65. Is that what you want ? If Medicare drastically slashes it's rates, what doctor will treat you for free ? Most seniors are quite concerned about this.
and also check out page 16, where it says that all private insurance plans must become part of the exchange within 5 years.
and the last thing, check out what one of the senators who has read the bill says :
6. Will you vote for a plan that will allow a board of politicians and bureaucrats to override decisions made by you and your doctor?
Both the Senate and House bills set up a government-run “comparative effectiveness” board that will make final decisions about treatment and care. In committee, I gave senators several opportunities to accept language that would forbid this board from denying care. All of my amendments were rejected, which suggests that the intent is to set up a board that will ration care, as is done in the United Kingdom.
7. If you support a “comparative effectiveness” board, what qualifies you, as a politician, to practice medicine? Have you delivered health care to a single person, much less entire classes of people you claim to represent, such as the poor, the uninsured, or children?
I’m one of two physicians in the Senate, along with John Barrasso of Wyoming. I know for a fact that very few leaders in this debate have any firsthand experience or knowledge of health care, which is disturbing.
I don't expect any factual response to these posts just personal insults. Since you can't really argue with the facts, they too clearly expose what you are trying to deny.
page 425 of the house bill Citizen.
I read it.
Mandatory end of life counseling for seniors in order to continue receiving any Medicare or SS payments.....
I would suggest you go read it as well.
Here are pages 425-430.
Page 425
1 ‘‘(FF) advance care planning consultation (as
2 defined in subsection (hhh)(1));’’; and
3 (B) by adding at the end the following new
4 subsection:
5 ‘‘Advance Care Planning Consultation
6 ‘‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the
7 term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a con-
8 sultation between the individual and a practitioner de-
9 scribed in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning,
10 if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has
11 not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such
12 consultation shall include the following:
13 ‘‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of ad-
14 vance care planning, including key questions and
15 considerations, important steps, and suggested peo-
16 ple to talk to.
17 ‘‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of ad-
18 vance directives, including living wills and durable
19 powers of attorney, and their uses.
20 ‘‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the
21 role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
22 ‘‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list
23 of national and State-specific resources to assist con-
24 sumers and their families with advance care plan-
25 ning, including the national toll-free hotline, the ad-
Page 426
1 vance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal
2 service organizations (including those funded
3 through the Older Americans Act of 1965).
4 ‘‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the
5 continuum of end-of-life services and supports avail-
6 able, including palliative care and hospice, and bene-
7 fits for such services and supports that are available
8 under this title.
9 ‘‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of
10 orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar 0
11 orders, which shall include—
12 ‘‘(I) the reasons why the development of
13 such an order is beneficial to the individual and
14 the individual’s family and the reasons why
15 such an order should be updated periodically as
16 the health of the individual changes;
17 ‘‘(II) the information needed for an indi-
18 vidual or legal surrogate to make informed deci-
19 sions regarding the completion of such an
20 order; and
21 ‘‘(III) the identification of resources that
22 an individual may use to determine the require-
23 ments of the State in which such individual re-
24 sides so that the treatment wishes of that indi-
25 vidual will be carried out if the individual is un-
Page 427
1 able to communicate those wishes, including re-
2 quirements regarding the designation of a sur-
3 rogate decisionmaker (also known as a health
4 care proxy).
5 ‘‘(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement
6 for explanations under clause (i) to consultations
7 furnished in a State—
8 ‘‘(I) in which all legal barriers have been
9 addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining
10 treatment to constitute a set of medical orders
11 respected across all care settings; and
12 ‘‘(II) that has in effect a program for or-
13 ders for life sustaining treatment described in
14 clause (iii).
15 ‘‘(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining
16 treatment for a states described in this clause is a
17 program that—
18 ‘‘(I) ensures such orders are standardized
19 and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;
20 ‘‘(II) distributes or makes accessible such
21 orders to physicians and other health profes-
22 sionals that (acting within the scope of the pro-
23 fessional’s authority under State law) may sign
24 orders for life sustaining treatment;
Page 428
1 ‘‘(III) provides training for health care
2 professionals across the continuum of care
3 about the goals and use of orders for life sus-
4 taining treatment; and
5 ‘‘(IV) is guided by a coalition of stake-
6 holders includes representatives from emergency
7 medical services, emergency department physi-
8 cians or nurses, state long-term care associa-
9 tion, state medical association, state surveyors,
10 agency responsible for senior services, state de-
11 partment of health, state hospital association,
12 home health association, state bar association,
13 and state hospice association.
14 ‘‘(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is—
15 ‘‘(A) a physician (as defined in subsection
16 (r)(1)); and
17 ‘‘(B) a nurse practitioner or physician’s assist-
18 ant who has the authority under State law to sign
19 orders for life sustaining treatments.
20 ‘‘(3)(A) An initial preventive physical examination
21 under subsection (WW), including any related discussion
22 during such examination, shall not be considered an ad-
23 vance care planning consultation for purposes of applying
24 the 5-year limitation under paragraph (1).
Page 429
1 ‘‘(B) An advance care planning consultation with re-
2 spect to an individual may be conducted more frequently
3 than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant
4 change in the health condition of the individual, including
5 diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a
6 life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening
7 injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a
8 long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or
9 a hospice program.
10 ‘‘(4) A consultation under this subsection may in-
11 clude the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining
12 treatment or a similar order.
13 ‘‘(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order
14 regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect
15 to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to
16 the treatment of that individual that—
17 ‘‘(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as de-
18 fined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care
19 professional (as specified by the Secretary and who
20 is acting within the scope of the professional’s au-
21 thority under State law in signing such an order, in-
22 cluding a nurse practitioner or physician assistant)
23 and is in a form that permits it to stay with the in-
24 dividual and be followed by health care professionals
25 and providers across the continuum of care;
Page 430
1 ‘‘(ii) effectively communicates the individual’s
2 preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, in-
3 cluding an indication of the treatment and care de-
4 sired by the individual;
5 ‘‘(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized
6 within a given locality, region, or State (as identified
7 by the Secretary); and
8 ‘‘(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as
9 defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the in-
10 dividual.
11 ‘‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subpara-
12 graph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treat-
13 ment to an indication to limit some or all or specified
14 interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may in-
15 clude indications respecting, among other items—
16 ‘‘(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the
17 patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac
18 or pulmonary problems;
19 ‘‘(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer
20 to a hospital or remaining at the current care set-
21 ting;
22 ‘‘(iii) the use of antibiotics; and
23 ‘‘(iv) the use of artificially administered nutri-
24 tion and hydration.’’.
Tell us, Anon, which lines say "Mandatory end of life counseling for seniors in order to continue receiving any Medicare or SS payments..." It isn't in there, you are lying.
and also check out page 16, where it says that all private insurance plans must become part of the exchange within 5 years.
Sure, here you go, Page 16:
Page 16
1 SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT
2 COVERAGE.
3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV-
4 ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of
5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov-
6 erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health
7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance
8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the
9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef-
15 fective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.
17 (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER-
18 MITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect
19 the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an
20 individual who is covered as of such first day.
21 (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR
22 CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except
23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any
24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and
25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be-
26 fore the first day of Y1.
Well lookey there. Page 16 doesn't say a word about private insurance plans must become part of the exchange within 5 years.
You're lying again.
6. Will you vote for a plan that will allow a board of politicians and bureaucrats to override decisions made by you and your doctor?
Where are items 1-5 and who wrote the list of questions?
Right now my current private health isnurance plan and yours is administered by nothing but an office full of bureaucratic paper pushers with no required background or training in medicine. Those privately paid bureaucrats, with their eyes clearly focused on the bottom line, decide what will be covered and what will not be covered.
I already gave the example of how my private insurer denied me payment for one of their "wellness benefits," a covered (paid for) annual physical. They denied paying for it because a problem that required medication was discovered during it. Those private bureaucrats denied paying for my annual physical because it did what it was supposed to do, it caught an illness so I could be properly treated for it. And I told the story of my friend the nurse who was had her blood pressure chemically reduced after suffering a stroke and was sent home with a referral to a shrink so she could talk about why she thought her one-sided limpness meant she'd had a stroke. Despicable!
These are the kinds of denials that private insurance company paper pushing, non-medically trained bureaucrats make every single day under the current, broken system.
You are supporting those privately paid bureaucrats who are fighting with all they've got to try to stop competition by a government program that will cover the people they do not insure themselves. Why? Because they know seniors like Uncle Beau love their Medicare while many of us with private insurance, especially those 14,000 of us a month who get cut off by our private insurers, have horror stories to tell.
Those privately paid bureaucrats use lies to try to scare living daylights out of senior citizens, just like you have tried here to do with me.
You should be ashamed of yourself for joining them in trying to ramp up seniors citizens' fears, and I must say, it's a very cowardly thing for you to do under the cloak of anonymity.
Your actions make it abundantly clear to me who's running scared here.
especially those 14,000 of us a month who get cut off by our private insurers
My bad, that's 14,000 every day who lose private insurance coverage because of some privately paid, bottom line focused, non-medically trained bureaucrats' decision.
7. If you support a “comparative effectiveness” board, what qualifies you, as a politician, to practice medicine? Have you delivered health care to a single person, much less entire classes of people you claim to represent, such as the poor, the uninsured, or children?
What "comparative effectiveness board?" What page of the House healthcare plan does this provision supposedly lurk on?
And what expertise do the non-medically trained, privately paid, bottom line watching paper pushing private insurance bureaucrats who decide which treatments we get today have? None!
What health care has Congress delivered to classes of people? Try Medicaid, Medicare, all branches of the military, and the VA system.
Here's a question for you: What healthcare has the GOP alone delivered to a class of people? None. The GOP doesn't even have a plan to offer in the House or Senate to counter the Democrat's plan. Wny? They don't want to change a thing because they are partial to the campaign contributions from the healthcare industry. The GOP and some Blue Dog Democrats wants the broken status quo to continue ripping off poor people so the insurance companies can continue to reap enough profits to keep funding their campaigns.
The Journal Sentinel reports:
...In the first six months of 2009 alone, the health care sector has given $11.4 million in campaign contributions to members of Congress, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics...
"FF) advance care planning consultation (as
2 defined in subsection (hhh)(1));’’; and
3 (B) by adding at the end the following new
4 subsection:
5 ‘‘Advance Care Planning Consultation
6 ‘‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the "
Like our lovely gender identity bill, this modifys the existing code. Here is a good article describing this section which refers to the specific code (which I like)
http://www.tigerboard.com/boards/missouri-tigers.php?message=6778159
this one says it is mandatory.
here is an article that says it is not mandatory, just the medicare coverage is....
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/23/betsy-mccaughey/mccaughey-claims-end-life-counseling-will-be-requi/
However, these guys represent the national hospice care (which clearly would see a boom in business as a result, so not sure I trust them).
can you find an article that quotes the code from a source you trust ? All the sources I have found are biased sources.
Here's what is especially disturbing :
Here is the problem ....
‘‘(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order
14 regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect
15 to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to
16 the treatment of that individual that—
17 ‘‘(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as de18
fined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care
19 professional (as specified by the Secretary and who
20 is acting within the scope of the professional’s au21
thority under State law in signing such an order, in22
cluding a nurse practitioner or physician assistant)
23 and is in a form that permits it to stay with the in24
dividual and be followed by health care professionals
25 and providers across the continuum of care;
1 ‘‘(ii) effectively communicates the individual’s
2 preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, in3
cluding an indication of the treatment and care de4
sired by the individual;
The “order” that goes along with your medical records.
There doesn't seem to be any requirement that the patient see it or even know it is there.
So .... some “dr” signs off .. and so do you.
1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef-
15 fective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.
Basically what this is saying is that if you don't have a private insurance plan when the govt plan passes you can't get one. And if you do have one you can only keep it for 5 years. All insurance plans going forward must be part of the govt exchange. The govt exchange now sets the rules the insurance companies must abide by...
So yes, existing private insurance as we know it will drastically change.
Now, no one likes insurance companies and EVERYONE thinks more regulation is needed of them. I have had horrible experiences with the insurance my company provides but the insurance my husbands company provides is pretty good. I have been through the govt oversight agencies for insurance companies and they dont' have enough power and I think they are somewhat in league. when my husband had a hernia operation, one insurance company said the prevaling rate of the surgery was 300 for this area and the other said it was 900 and the secondary insurance covered it at 300 even though the primary had paid based on it being 900 and I was completely out of luck after taking it to every appeal board I could find. I got pretty close to suing this secondary insurance company over deliberate avoidance of paying claims.
NO ONE thinks the system doesn't need to be fixed. I think that the oversight boards need to be staffed by citizens like juries and empowered to award up to 3x the cost of the original medical claim and all of the panels need to be local. I was ready to fly to CA (where Blue Shield is based) to sue them in small claims court I was so angry. And when I checked on line on setting up a small claims appeal - the example address that the ca web site came up with was the one for Blue Shield !
I think we should be able to take insurance across state lines and create seperate group pools. It should be like homeowners or car insurance where you can get it anywhere not necessarily the only one your company provides.
Lots of changes are needed. It is not far to accuse those of us who agree that something needs to be done about the insurance companies behavior as being against reform. But it is not necessary to implement nationalized health care and force all companies to be part of it and change the entire system to tweak it a bit. That is what this bill does, it changes the entire system.
The article that I was referring to was written by Senator Tom Coburn. Here is the entirety :
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDM5NDJkMDA2ODJlNmMxY2VhYmI2NGJhZGEwZGFlNjU=
You should be able to validate what he says since all the committee meetings are a matter of public record.
This bill is over a 1000 pages long. It will drastically change health care as we know it. Covering the uninsured (even if you accept it is really 49 million which I don't believe), would be about 400 billion assuming each policy is 10K. Adjusting for families on the plan, maybe 200 billion. Adjusting for the illegals, probably 100 billion. I would be willing to pay for that. This bill does not even talk about tort reform, how can you talk health care reform without tort reform ?
Accusing those of us who have real concerns about being against reform in general is simply not fair Bea. We all agree something needs to be done. We don't agree that we have to go to socialized medicine, which this bill clearly does, to get it. And if you are currently getting Medicare, you have it pretty good right now as do my parents. I don't know that you should be so quick to want this plan. There is a reason that seniors are overwhelming turning against this plan.
I am headed off on vacation and will be gone for week and I have to go pack. So I won't have internet access to reply for a week. You usually research things pretty well and I will be curious if you still support this plan when I get back. I will check back then.
See ya !
Theresa
"What "comparative effectiveness board?" What page of the House healthcare plan does this provision supposedly lurk on?"
It was created in February as part of the stimulus bill.
Rationing care is part of Obama's long-term socialist agenda.
http://www.tigerboard.com/boards/missouri-tigers.php?message=6778159
this one says it is mandatory.
Yes, it does. And every time it says it's mandatory or mandated, the M-word is outside the quotes like this:
H.R. 3200 gives the government power to require mandatory "advance care planning consultations" for Medicaid recipients to discuss future end-of-life decisions;
and this
Mandatory "advance care planning consultations" for Medicaid recipients to discuss future end-of-life decisions
and this
Such mandated consultations must take place every 5 years or more frequently if there is a "significant change in the health condition of the individual"
A trifecta of spin!
The M-words do not appear in the bill, just in the spin accompanying quotes from the bill.
(... so not sure I trust them).
But you're not above quoting them if it serves your spin? Holy cow, Anon! You are so desperate to find fault with this bill, that you are willing to stoop to site a source you do not trust! How pathetic can you get?
can you find an article that quotes the code from a source you trust ?
Sure, I trust the bill to say what the bill says. You're the one citing websites you're not sure you trust that spin the bill so that the *spin* says what you want the bill to say.
Since when is an order that effectively communicates the individual’s... preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, in[...]cluding an indication of the treatment and care de[...]sired by the individual **especially disturbing**?
If you want to be kept alive on a respirator like Terri Schiavo was or to die naturally at home surrounded by family like Walter Cronkite did, then sign a medical directive saying so. Quit trying to scare seniors into thinking this provision means anything more than seniors will be covered to discuss all options with the doctor they trust most to care for them, and then get to formalize their own own wishes into a living will or medical directive document so that their own doctor will be aware of their wishes.
Basically what this is saying is that if you don't have a private insurance plan when the govt plan passes you can't get one. And if you do have one you can only keep it for 5 years. All insurance plans going forward must be part of the govt exchange. The govt exchange now sets the rules the insurance companies must abide by..
More lies! The words "government exchange" "5 years" "you can't get one" are lies, spin, fabricated, and nowhere in the quote you cited above.
The article that I was referring to was written by Senator Tom Coburn.
A couple of years ago, Senator Coburn thought lesbianism was so rampant in OK public school rest rooms that girls avoided using them. He's just as delusional now. His membership in The Family seems does nothing to check his delusions, they continue to flourish unchecked.
We all agree something needs to be done.
That's a bald faced lie for the GOP. If the GOP thought something **needs to be done** why are they refusing to write a healthcare plan of their own now and why didn't they come up with a plan from 1994 - 2006 when they controlled Congress?
There is a reason that seniors are overwhelming turning against this plan.
There are a whole lot of reason seniors are frightened -- namely every one of the lies you and your deather friends spin and fabricate and pretend are in the actual bill. You should be ashamed of yourself for lying and scaring seniors with your lies, particularly since I've posted the portions of the actual bill which prove you are full of it.
"What "comparative effectiveness board?" What page of the House healthcare plan does this provision supposedly lurk on?"
It was created in February as part of the stimulus bill.
Rationing care is part of Obama's long-term socialist agenda.
What page and line number??
Post a Comment
<< Home