Light Blogging For A While
I'm expecting to have a period of light blogging here over the next week or two, due to the holidays. There's plenty to talk about -- hey, how about that Senate vote? How about that snowball fight? What about Houston's new mayor? How do you think the war in Afghanistan is going? Cold enough for ya?
posted by JimK at 12:38 PM
28 Comments:
Politifact.com, a fact-checking Web site owned by the St. Petersburg Times, has selected its No. 1 political falsehood of the year: Sarah Palin's assertion that the Democratic health care bill would create "death panels" -- government bodies with authority to decide whether individual citizens should receive medical treatment. The site said that 61 percent of its readers also voted Palin's "death panel" remark as the No. 1 political lie of the year.
The remark was one of Palin's first political statements after she announced she would resign as governor of Alaska on July 3, and catapulted the former vice presidential candidate back into the political spotlight.
"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care," Palin wrote. "Such a system is downright evil."
The statement "spread through newscasts, talk shows, blogs and town hall meetings," Politifact writes. "Of all the falsehoods and distortions in the political discourse this year, [it] stood out from the rest."
bother, even the washington post asserted there was a lot of truth in palins' statements....basically the govt is now paying doctors to make sure all medicare patients have a living will, and I thought language made it mandatory that seniors had a session with a doctor to talk about EOL alternative in order to continue receiving medicare benefits... at least that was the language at one point, who the heck knows what made it into the final bill....
there was an article in the washington post about how even though living wills and EOL instructions were a good idea, the govt essentially mandating them, encouraging doctors to have those conversations and bill for them, was well, a little over the top.
most people don't want to talk about that. even though maybe it's a good idea to have a living will, do you want your 85 year old mom coaxed into this converation with a doctor who can bill for it, and then that document scanned and on the govt health care database without the family having been involved in that decision ? I don't my mom convinced her life isn't worth fighting for.... by some doctor who is encouraged by medicare reimburement policies to have that conversation and then perhaps also compensated on whether an agreement is executed... do you want your mom executing an agreement like that without telling you, with folks that don't necessarily have her best interests in mine witnessing that agreement ? I don't.
hey, does anyone else think it is hysterical that Obama returns from a conference on global warming to the biggest snowstorm in over a decade ? somehow I think the big guy upstairs might have been poking a little fun.....
Okay so now that the storm is done, here is Bea's post from earlier... and I do appreciate her research...
"Here are the record December snows for some other regional reporting stations:
Baltimore: 14.1", December 11-12, 1960
Richmond: 17.2", December 22-23, 1908
Baltimore's record is in play (50/50 chance), though it may be a little tougher for Richmond (20% chance) -- because they'll be flirting with the rain/snow line.
Could this storm make it into the top five on record of all time in D.C. (including all months of the year)? I'd give that a 30% chance.
Here are the top five storms:
January 27-28, 1922 ... 28 inches
February 11-13, 1899 ... 20.5 inches
February 18-19, 1979 ... 18.7 inches
January 6-8, 1996 ... 17.1 inches
February 15-18, 2003 ... 16.7 inches"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/19/AR2009121900741.html
Says 16" to 23" total, depending on where you measured. We absolutely had closer to 23" here in Kensington....
well we had 16.3" at Reagan according to the VERY LIBERAL Washington post... so bea, depending on where your measurements were taken we might have made it into the top 5.
did anyone in the dc suburbs measure and do you have a stat to compare with the post ?
Here's some good news for Vigilance readers, another Capital City's legislature has approved gay marriage!
In Deeply Catholic Mexico, Capital OKs Gay Marriage
"MEXICO CITY (Dec. 21) - Mexico City lawmakers on Monday made the city the first in Latin America to legalize same-sex marriage, a change that will give homosexual couples more rights, including allowing them to adopt children.
The bill passed the capital's local assembly 39-20 to the cheers of supporters who yelled: "Yes, we could! Yes, we could!"
Leftist Mayor Marcelo Ebrard of the Democratic Revolution Party was widely expected to sign the measure into law.
Mexico City's left-led assembly has made several decisions unpopular elsewhere in this deeply Roman Catholic country, including legalizing abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. That decision sparked a backlash, with the majority of Mexico's other 32 states enacting legislation declaring life begins at conception.
The conservative Nation Action Party of President Felipe Calderon has vowed to challenge the gay marriage law in the courts. However, homosexuality is increasingly accepted in Mexico, with gay couples openly holding hands in parts of the capital and the annual gay pride parade drawing tens of thousands.
The bill calls for changing the definition of marriage in the city's civil code. Marriage is currently defined as the union of a man and a woman. The new definition will be "the free uniting of two people."
The change would allow same-sex couples to adopt children, apply for bank loans together, inherit wealth and be included in the insurance policies of their spouse, rights they were denied under civil unions allowed in the city..."
Viva Mexico!
Andrea-not anon
I've not been here for almost a month and still the same nonsense from Anon. I know all abut living wills and family involvement. I also know that despite my mom's living will which the drs had- which made it clear that she did not want any measures to keep her alive if natural death was imminent- my sister and I had to give consent and sign the DNR/DNI order. So my mom's wishes- made when she was well and in our presence -with an attorney- could be contravened by family. If you want family involvement, you have to be involved- and maybe a parent or family member doesn't want you involved - that is also their right.
Parker Griffith was first elected to Congress as a Democrat in 2008.
"If Parker Griffith has actually discovered, within a year of being sworn in, that he's not what he said he was, I guess that's a good discovery to make. His voting record is extremely conservative -- an Alabama election Democrat is a very different thing from a D.C. voting Democrat. That's an honest difference he could represent to his constituents.
Griffith, however, seems to be using the issue of health care to make a switch he probably should have made a long time ago -- like, say, before November of last year. The party hasn't left him since then; he either (best case) misunderstood the party or (worst case) used the party's name to get elected. Now that the party he ran with isn't so popular back home, it's much more expedient to be on the other side, where he most likely belonged from the get-go. (The word "Democrat" didn't appear once on his campaign Web site).
Either way, the loser here seems to be the Alabama 5th District, which elected a member of the majority party to not only push through health care but to, as Griffith says, "continue the support of key federal programs across North Alabama." If you run on a platform of being able to make a difference in Washington, a mid-term switch to the minority party for selfish reasons isn't just risky, it's an abdication of the small power you once had.
Good work, Representative Griffith. You're now an even less relevant member of Congress, and you're under-serving your district."
My mom forwarded this to me.
I don't know if the story is true or not, but it does echo everything I have been saying. what is kinda sad and funny about this whole thing, is that when it passes (because it looks like it will) some of those folks like Bea who have been defending it most vigorously will be the first affected by it...they are the oldest....
I think they should be protected, that they have paid for medicare all their lives and medicare should treat them, not decide they are too old to receive treatment. bea (I think) doesn't believe obamacare will do this to her and her husband. I am not over 65 so actually Bea's husband will find out first if the alarm bells I have been ringing were wrong..... my mom could probably spend her savings and cover herself to a great degree, but bea doesn't have that luxury I believe with her husband. she needs medicare to NOT be rationed care.
bea, will you tell us if your hubby's care starts being rationed ? will you tell us ? and will you apologize for defending a plan that will hurt him and the rest of the seniors...
Mom's forwarded email follows....
"Rec'd this from a good friend of ours in Corpus who was diagnosed with cancer last year. See what his doctor is saying....
Wednesday, I was at the doctor whom I have been going to since we moved down here (he is the one who discovered my cancer). I have to get a very expensive shot every 3 months ($3000) that is designed to keep the PSI down and help to prevent a recurrence of the cancer. Has some uncomfortable side effects, and I was questioning the need to continue with it, which he assured me was necessary. He then asked how old I was, and when I replied 70, he said that if this legislation goes through as intended by the powers that be, that I probably would not be able to get it next year, as that would be money better spent on someone else with greater longevity. I would be referred to someone to "counsel" me.
I asked him why the AMA had recently endorsed the plan. He replied that only about 15% of the nation's doctors were members of AMA, and most of them were not really on the front lines of doctorhood but in some other areas of medicine. He said he was a member, but would not be after this membership year.
This man got part of his training in London , and practiced in Canada for 16 years before coming to the US , and he has no use for socialized medicine, regardless of how you wrap it, or what kind of bow to put on it. He said that we have a shortfall of around 400,000 doctors at the present time, and many of today's doctors are of the baby boomer generation who are nearing retirement and/or will decide to hang it up rather than deal with the results this is sure to bring.
Scary, my friends. The picture for our age group is not pretty in Obamaland.
SENIOR DEATH WARRANTS:
In England no one over 59 can receive heart repairs or stents or bypass because it is not covered as being too expensive and not needed.
Obama wants to have a healthcare system just like Canada 's and England 's. I got this today and am sending it on.. If Obama's plans in other areas don't scare you, this should. Please do not let Obama sign senior death warrants.
Everybody that is on this mailing list is either a senior citizen, is getting close or knows somebody that is.
Most of you know by now that the Senate version (at least) of the "stimulus" bill includes provisions for extensive rationing of health care for senior citizens. The author of this part of the bill, former senator and tax evader, Tom Daschle was credited today by Bloomberg with the following statement:
Bloomberg: Daschle says "health-care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them."
If this does not sufficiently raise your ire, just remember that our esteemed Senators and Congressmen have their own healthcare plan that is first dollar or very low co-pay which they are guaranteed for the remainder of their lives. Nor are they subject to this new law if it passes.
"I don't know if the story is true or not, but it does echo everything I have been saying."
When I receive anonymous supposedly "informative" emails from well-meaning friends, I take a minute to check them out by cutting and pasting the first few lines into Google. If fact checking websites have found errors in them, Google provides links I follow. Then I reply to the entire email list with the corrections and a link to the website that reports the errors.
Anyone interested in an *honest* and *factual* debate of these important health care issues would take a few moments and do a little fact checking IMHO, before they go off half-cocked.
You, on the other hand, **chose not** to investigate this email, probably because the fictions in it "echo everything [you] have been saying."
< eye roll >
But there is fiction in that email, Theresa.
Take this claim:
"In England anyone over 59 cannot receive heart repairs or stents or bypass because it is not covered as being too expensive and not needed."
SNOPES reports:
"We could find no documentation supporting the claim that Britain's National Health Service absolutely denies all coverage of "heart repairs or stents or bypass" to patients over the age of 59..."
And FactCheck.org reports:
This widely forwarded e-mail, targeted to senior citizens and claiming that health care legislation could constitute "senior death warrants," is riddled with false claims.
The anonymous e-mail claims that "[i]n England anyone over 59 cannot receive heart repairs or stents or bypass because it is not covered as being too expensive and not needed." That’s false.
We called the United Kingdom’s Department of Health and a spokesman told us: "It is not true that anyone aged over 59 years cannot receive heart repairs, stents or bypass surgery on the basis of their age."
He also said that medical procedures in the U.K. are not routinely denied for older people. The National Health Service, the U.K.’s public health care service, has a constitution which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age and other factors. "The NHS Constitution states that the NHS provides a ‘comprehensive service, available to all irrespective of gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion or belief,’ " the spokesman said.
These lies echo "echo everything [you] have been saying??"
Wow, Theresa!
I don't get why a well educated woman like you allows herself to be duped into believing this manure and then to be frightened by its unchecked fictions. That English/Canadian doctor who "has no use for socialized medicine" obviously hasn't read the bill and is letting his own dislike of public health care in England and Canada slant his view.
The US health care bill coming out of the Senate has *no* public option at all, and no one yet knows if there will be a conference committee and/or if the House's public option will make it into the final plan. But by all means, Ms. Quixote, tilt at that windmill all you want.
Sure, if Uncle Beau's health care gets rationed, I'll be sure to let you young'uns know.
In the meantime, ponder on this:
Starting in January 2010, Uncle Beau's Medicare premium will rise 9.75% over what he paid in 2009. Starting in January 2010, the private health insurance premium that covers me and the last kid at home and the private Medicare supplemental health insurance premium that covers Uncle Beau's donut hole are going up 29.8% over what we paid for them in 2009.
9.75% vs. 29.8%! Yikes!
Tell us, Theresa, Anone, etc., how much are your private health insurance premiums going up in 2010 compared to what they were in 2009?
mine went up 24% [from 2009-2010]
...most analysts expect premiums to double by 2014
Well, duh!
Four years at a 24% increase per year would easily double the current premium in 4 years.
That's what we'd get if we do nothing, as the Grand Obstructionist Party would have us do -- a doubling of premiums in four years or less. And there would no doubt be a doubling of obstructionists' campaign donations from obscenely compensated health industry CEOs too. In the meantime, American citizens would still be denied coverage by private insurers for pre-existing conditions and get canceled by them when facing chronic illnesses.
We can do better.
What experts? What's your source?
Which version of which plan are they talking about?
The "nays" have an edge over the "yeas" in the most recent Quinnipiac University poll released Dec. 22,
It only took the health care industry many months and many millions of dollars of astroturf protests and manure-packed anonymous emails like Theresa's mother passed on to effect this change in public opinion.
It reminds me of the snow job the neocons did convincing this nation that going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do. A few years and quite a few doses of reality later, the nation came to realize they'd been conned.
Democrats are united now and won't be fooled again.
Democrats are using every trick in the book to push health care reform legislation through before the end of the year. In the face of such pressure, conservatives are looking for ways to slow down the process.
The Democrats are fulfilling campaign promises to enact sweeping health care reform in an effort to insure every American and to keep insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and canceling coverage when the insured become ill. Republicans have decided to maintain the status quo by dragging their feet and becoming the Grand Obstructionist Party that attempts governs by "Just saying no." In the Senate, they have invoked an unprecedented number of cloture votes. The New York Times recently reported:
“We have crossed the mark of over 100 filibusters and acts of procedural obstruction in less than one year,” Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, said on the floor Sunday. “Never since the founding of the Republic, not even in the bitter sentiments preceding Civil War, was such a thing ever seen in this body.”
Republicans say that the pre-holiday legislative rush reflects an artificial deadline set by Democrats who want to force through a highly complex measure with minimal public scrutiny; Democrats say Republicans, under pressure from conservative campaigners and commentators to stall the bill, are simply unwilling to accept defeat.
Anon noted:
“by now, it's old news that global warming has halted in North America”
You have no evidence for that. A few cold days in December and a snow storm as Obama returns from Copenhagen are merely a coincidence -- not a sign from God or a refutation of decades of science behind global warming.
Anon also noted:
“what many people don't know is that Europe appears to be entering a new ice age:”
(Which was followed by an unattributed post.)
The cooling of Northern Europe was predicted by global warming scientists over a decade ago. Ironic, isn’t it? It is not evidence that refutes global warming, but rather another data point showing that climate change is already well under way.
England and Northern Europe have been kept “artificially” warm by circulation of the Gulf Stream in the North Atlantic for centuries. This was driven by super-cooled water sinking from under the ice caps which headed south. This was replaced by warm water heated in the tropics heading north towards the ice. With the ice caps disappearing, this process has been slowing down and may well stop. This means that all the heat energy that the Gulf Stream brought with it to keep England temperate is no longer coming. We should expect Northern Europe to get colder over the next few decades.
This article, written by Jonathan Leake 4.5 years ago explains the process in more detail: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article520013.ece (I recommend reading the entire article, a portion of which is shown below.)
“CLIMATE change researchers have detected the first signs of a slowdown in the Gulf Stream — the mighty ocean current that keeps Britain and Europe from freezing.
They have found that one of the “engines” driving the Gulf Stream — the sinking of supercooled water in the Greenland Sea — has weakened to less than a quarter of its former strength.
The weakening, apparently caused by global warming, could herald big changes in the current over the next few years or decades. Paradoxically, it could lead to Britain and northwestern and Europe undergoing a sharp drop in temperatures.
Such a change has long been predicted by scientists but the new research is among the first to show clear experimental evidence of the phenomenon.
Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University, hitched rides under the Arctic ice cap in Royal Navy submarines and used ships to take measurements across the Greenland Sea.
“Until recently we would find giant ‘chimneys’ in the sea where columns of cold, dense water were sinking from the surface to the seabed 3,000 metres below, but now they have almost disappeared,” he said.
“As the water sank it was replaced by warm water flowing in from the south, which kept the circulation going. If that mechanism is slowing, it will mean less heat reaching Europe.”
Have a nice day.
Cynthia
So Theresa, did you send the SNOPES.com and FactCheck.org links to your mother and explain to her the "false claims" in the email she sent you?
Did you tell her about the language in UK's National Health Insurance constitution and point out how it protects against age discrimination or are you keeping her as scared of health care reform as you are yourself?
Does honesty matter to you?
I don't think Americans want that
Golly, thanks Anone. Yet again you tell us what *you think* as if that has some bearing on the topic at hand. Got some data documenting what *you think* about Americans has some basis in reality?
more significant in Theresa's post, however, were the quotes from Daschle
It's spoon feeding time I see.
From FactCheck.org's piece referenced above:
The e-mail speculates that former Sen. Tom Daschle, once Obama’s nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services, was the author of this part of the bill. And it falsely says that Bloomberg News quoted Daschle as saying: "Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them." Daschle didn’t say that.
Instead, those are the words of the former Republican lieutenant governor of New York, Betsy McCaughey, who wrote an opinion piece for Bloomberg News and offered her reading of comments in Daschle’s book. Back in February, we dissected McCaughey’s column, pieces of which have popped up in chain e-mails, and found it to be full of errors. McCaughey also passes off opinion as fact, and in the case of Daschle, she paraphrases him, which is clear from the lack of quote marks in the column.
Betsy McCaughey who never found a lie about health care reform too big for her to foist on gullible types who don't check facts!
I see you've gotten the memo from GOP-HQ found on the front page of today's WaPo:
"Republicans set to concede - for now.
With the passage of some degree of health-care reform all but certain, Republicans turn their focus to turning voters against the measure."
It's time for the GOP to end its perpetual campaign and try governing for a change.
Link to FactCheck.org's February piece exposing Betsy Caughey's lies
Duh, that's Betsy McCaughey.
the more people read it and talk about it, the less they like it
Correction, the more industry lobbyists like Betsy McCaughey get gullible people like Anone, Theresa, and her mother to spread industry lies about health care reform, the less people like it.
Like I said, it's time for the GOP to govern and get out of campaign mode.
For an illustration of "paraphrasing" performed by Betsy McCaughey, be sure to watch both parts of her interview with Jon Stewart on the Daily Show earlier this year. Listen to her read a portion of the bill and then paraphrase it for Jon.
Part 1
Part 2
Apparently Betsy thinks "paraphrase" means to totally disregard the original material and make up whatever you want instead, what most of us refer to as "fabrication."
so, anon-B just takes some website's word for it that the statement is improperly paraphrased without seeing what statement was paraphrased and whether the paraphrase captures the idea accurately.
On the contrary, I have posted several links to proof of Betsy McCaughey's notion that paraphrasing=lies and here they are to refresh your memory:
"...you expect us to buy the miscontruals about Ezekiel Emanuel manufactured by Betsy McCaughey. Ms. McCaughey, a health industry hack who quit her Director's job at Cantel Medical Corporation for appearance's sake the day she appeared on The Daily Show, is the same woman who concocted the 1994 web of lies entitled "No Exit," which has been thoroughly debunked as full of lies and mischaracterizations of what was in that plan here, here, here, and here.
And BTW, what have you done to verify your statement "well, was the paraphrase accurate"?
Nothing.
Thinking it does *not* make it true.
bea.
65% or so of seniors are now against this bill.
It contains 500 billion of cuts to medicare, which takes effect BEFORE the bill truly kicks in.
How do you think 500 billion worth of medicare cuts won't effect your husbands care (who is on medicare ?)
again, the sad thing is, you are going to feel the effect of this first when you can't find a doctor to take his medicare any longer.
He is on Medicare AAdvantage ? because that plan goes COMPLETELY away.
Thanks for your concern, Theresa. If Uncle Beau's denied any care, I'll let you know. No, he didn't signed up for Advantage.
Did you tell your mom about the outright lies in her email and how to check them for accuracy yet?
Great news this Christmas Eve!
Senate Passes Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Thu Dec 24 2009 07:19:00 GMT
UPDATED: On December 24, 2009, the Senate passed (60-39) the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Against a wall of Republican opposition, Senate Democrats united to pass landmark health care legislation.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is the most sweeping health care reform package this country has ever seen. It will reduce costs, increase access, and provide critical insurance reforms that will put patients first. This legislation also makes Medicare more solvent and expands prescription drug coverage, all while reducing the deficit and reining in health care costs. The PPACA provides choice and competition and invests in the small businesses of this country.
Cost
-The PPACA will reduce the federal deficit by $132 billion first ten years
-In the second years, the bill will reduce the deficit by roughly $1.3 trillion.
-This bill will result in a net tax cut for Americans.
Coverage
-This legislation will cover over 94 percent of all Americans.
-It will provide coverage to 31 million of America’s uninsured.
-The bill will also expand rural and community health facilities.
Small Business
-This legislation provides tax credits to small businesses, beginning in 2010.
-These tax credits will health insurance more affordable for small businesses and their employees.
Insurance Reforms
-Insurance companies will be held accountable, forced to spend more on care and less on padding their bottom line.
-Insurers who excessively raise their rates will be barred from competing for your business in the Exchange.
-Patients will have the right to appeal to an independent board if an insurance company denies a coverage claim.
-Health insurers will offer national plans to Americans under the supervision of the Office of Personnel Management, the same entity that oversees health plans for Members of Congress.
Theresa, where did you read that Medicare Advantage "goes COMPLETELY away?"
Here's what The New Republic is reporting about Medicare Advantage:
Naturally, the money to subsidize insurance for people of moderate means has to come from somewhere. Obama has proposed spending cuts and tax increases to account for the entire cost of these new expenditures. Some of the savings come from a variety of Medicare trims, many of which were agreed to by the health care industry, as a trade-off for the financial benefits that will come from 30 million new subsidized customers. Another source of revenue is eliminating overpayments to Medicare Advantage, a Bush-era program that pays private insurers to cover people on Medicare, which costs the government 17 percent more per beneficiary.
"Eliminating overpayments" is not the same thing as "that plan goes COMPLETELY away."
The quote above is an excerpt from a pretty good summation of what this reform package means for all of us, entitled And the Rest Is Just Noise:
Why the health care bill is the greatest social achievement of our time.
I recommend reading all of it.
In a historic vote that took place this morning, members of the Senate joined their colleagues in the House of Representatives to pass a landmark health-insurance reform package; legislation that brings us toward the end of a nearly century-long struggle to reform America's health-care system.
Ever since Teddy Roosevelt first called for reform in 1912, seven presidents -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- have taken up the cause of reform. Time and time again, such efforts have been blocked by special-interest lobbyists who perpetuated a status quo that works better for the insurance industry than it does for the American people.
But with passage of reform bills in both the House and the Senate, we are now finally poised to deliver on the promise of real, meaningful health-insurance reform that will bring additional security and stability to the American people.
The reform bill that passed the Senate this morning, like the House bill, includes the toughest measures ever taken to hold the insurance industry accountable. Insurance companies will no longer be able to deny you coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition. They will no long be able to drop your coverage when you get sick.
No longer will you have to pay unlimited amounts out of your own pocket for the treatments you need. And you'll be able to appeal unfair decisions by insurance companies to an independent party.
If this legislation becomes law, workers won't have to worry about losing coverage if they lose or change jobs. Families will save on their premiums. Businesses that would see their costs rise if we do not act will save money now and they will save money in the future.
This bill will strengthen Medicare and extend the life of the program. It will make coverage affordable for over 30 million Americans who do not have it -- 30 million Americans.
And because it is paid for and curbs the waste and inefficiency in our health care system, this bill will help reduce our deficit by as much as $1.3 trillion in the coming decades, making it the largest deficit-reduction plan in over a decade.
As I've said before, these are not small reforms; these are big reforms. If passed, this will be the most important piece of social legislation since the Social Security Act passed in the 1930s and the most important reform of our health care system since Medicare passed in the 1960s.
What makes it so important is not just its cost savings or its deficit reductions. It's the impact reform will have on Americans who no longer have to go without a checkup or prescriptions that they need because they can't afford them, on families who no longer have to worry that a single illness will send them into financial ruin, and on businesses that will no longer face exorbitant insurance rates that hamper their competitiveness. It's the difference reform will make in the lives of the American people.
I want to commend Senator Harry Reid, extraordinary work that he did, Speaker Pelosi, for her extraordinary leadership and dedication. Having passed reform bills in both the House and the Senate, we now have to take up the last and most important step and reach an agreement on a final reform bill that I can sign into law.
And I look forward to working with members of Congress in both chambers over the coming weeks to do exactly that. With today's vote, we are now incredibly close to making health insurance reform a reality in this country. Our challenge then is to finish the job.
We can't doom another generation of Americans to soaring costs and eroding coverage and exploding deficits. Instead, we need to do what we were sent here to do and improve the lives of the people we serve.
For the sake of our citizens, our economy, and our future, let's make 2010 the year we finally reform health care in the United States of America.
President Obama
no bea, I didn't tell my mom I she was wrong because I did several more sources (I feel about fact check.org as you do about several of my sites...) I finally landed on a british site arguing about the statistics...
apparently they were denying cancer meds, and canada is much worse than britain. though they did say that they routinely do heart surgeries. then I was listening to coast to coast who had a british doctor on who was quoting some statistic where about 50% of the doctors know someone who died because they did not get timely care from NICE. (britains medical service)
medicare advantage - ie the ability to pay more for your medicare to get private insurance - is absolutely cancelled.
hey, it looks like they are going to pass it so it is somewhat irrelevant to argue about it anymore...
after all, you are going to find out much, much sooner than I will. My mom is retired military and married to retired military and will be able to use tri-care. so bea, you will find out FIRST if the 65% of seniors vehemently opposed to this plan were right.
I would look at adding Uncle bea on your private insurance ASAP.
I would expect that most doctors will stop taking medicare, once the cuts going into effect.
Merry Christmas !
coal from obama in your stocking.
medicare advantage - ie the ability to pay more for your medicare to get private insurance - is absolutely cancelled.
hey, it looks like they are going to pass it so it is somewhat irrelevant to argue about it anymore...
As long as you're sure!
Golly, Theresa, I'm sorry you were feeling so scrooged on Christmas Eve that you had to leave that comment, but you can thank the GOP and all their delays for the timing of the vote. I'm also sorry you won't level with your Mom (or yourself for that matter) and have doubts about non-partisan fact checking services like SNOPES.com and FactCheck.org -- especially FactCheck.org since McCain-Palin used a FactCheck.org quotes in one of their 2008 campaign ads.
I for one am very thankful that 60 of our finest Senators managed to overcome the Grand Obstructionist Party's health-industry funded foot-dragging. All of us will be better off once we can't be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, or lose coverage if we come down with serious illnesses or if we lose or leave our jobs.
Try to have yourself a merry little Christmas anyway, Theresa.
Best wishes to everyone!
Post a Comment
<< Home