Obama lied about AARP Supporting Obamacare...and more

Status
Not open for further replies.

kokonut

New Member
He's getting desperate.

Obama lied about the AARP supporting the Obamacare bill.

…the President may have overstated support for his plan in one instance. When asked about the potential impact of the reform plan on Medicare, the President said, “The AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare.” Problem is - the AARP has not yet endorsed the plan. The New Hampshire head of the AARP chapter here told ABC’s Lisa Chinn today that the AARP hasn’t yet made up its mind as an organization whether to endorse the bill.
Obama Tries to Fine Tune Health Care Message - Political Punch

Another sign of desperation when you have Democrat lawmakers running for cover and taking refuge inside SEIU offices!!

Tim Bishop (D, NY-01) is having something called a “health care reform rally” on Thursday, at (of all things) SEIU’s Hicksville NY offices (1199 Duffy Ave, starts at 1 PM). This is otherwise known as “over twenty miles outside the borders of NY-01.” Bishop is of course one of the first Democrats holding down a Red district (NY-01 is a R+0) to discover that his constituents are paying attention to his votes: he rather famously canceled his future in-district meetings. Presumably he assumes that his constituents won’t drive twenty miles to complain.
Moe Lane Rep. Bishop, Boswell having health care meetings allllll the way over *there*.

When all else fails, hide behind the purple shirted people.

And then you have hypocrisy!

Rep. Eugene Green (D-TX) is now requiring you to show a photo ID to attend his town hall meetings. The irony and hypocrisy is that he opposed photo ID to vote in federal elections.
Congressman Gene Green :: Representing the 29th District of Texas :: Home Page

green.jpg (image)

Gene Green on the Issues

When all else fails...cheat...cheat like hell and make sure team Obama buses in a whole busload of pro-Obamacare supporters for the socialized health care meeting yesterday in New Hampshire....more.
HotAirPundit: Obama Town Hall: Supporters In New Hampshire Bussed In
 

kokonut

New Member
More...

theblogprof: BUSTED!: "Obama As Hitler" Poster Was A Democrat/Union Plant At John Dingell Townhall! UPDATED with video interview!


The beating of a black man while attackers threw racial epithets at him for exercising his right to sell yellow "Don't Tread on Me!" flags by SEIU thugs.

Plantings of Obama supporters in both pro and anti-rallies.

Intellectual dishonesty on photo ID requirements to enter townhalls.

Absolute cluelessness on the fact we don't have the money for a nationalized, socialized, universal healthcare for all. Simply...impossible.
 

yizuman

Active Member
You know that Obama has a website for people to snitch on people talking bad about Obamacare?

It's something like this....



Yes the email address is real. What's scary that it sounds like snitching to the Castapo.

Yiz
 

darkdog

New Member
It turns out that Obama Hitler poster actually did come from the left, but it looks like they weren't doing it to smear the right- they were actually serious. It came from LaRouchePAC and they're upset because they feel Obama isn't left enough on the issue. Here's the website where you can actually download a PDF of the Obama Hitler poster.

LaRouchePAC

What's most telling is the way the media (MSNBC in particular) passed it off as coming from the right without even bothering to look into it.
 

C.C.Sinned

New Member
It turns out that Obama Hitler poster actually did come from the left, but it looks like they weren't doing it to smear the right- they were actually serious. It came from LaRouchePAC and they're upset because they feel Obama isn't left enough on the issue. Here's the website where you can actually download a PDF of the Obama Hitler poster.

LaRouchePAC.
:laugh2: some of that propaganda is funny
 

kokonut

New Member
And so, we caught them by the multitudes their pants down for lying and distorting the whole picture.
 

kokonut

New Member
Not a smart thing to do if. If anything intellectual dishonesy is a poor excuse to be a politician. Obama failed. And he continues to tank in the pools.
 

shel90

Audist are not welcome
Premium Member
Enter Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), the Blue Dog Democrat who struck a deal with Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) to narrow the health care bill's scope and cost. Ross' amendment to the bill spends two of its 28 pages on the question of end-of-life care. Specifically, Ross makes it illegal for counselors to promote or list as an option suicide or assisted suicide. Ross also states that the counseling is optional, and that seeking counseling on a living will, for example, will not be interpreted by a hospital as declining full and aggressive treatment.

The House has not passed its health care reform bill yet, and the Senate Finance Committee has not voted on health care reform at all. But the language now in House's health care reform bill, specifically in the Ross amendment, does not promote euthanasia or assisted suicide. It prevents health care providers from discussing it.

Euthanasia and Reform: What is the Truth? -- Politics Daily


If you’ve been listening to all those Republican leaders spouting this nonsense and thinking “man, that sounds crazy”, there’s a good reason why. It’s because it is crazy. How can we tell? Because it is disturbingly similar to a line that has been pushed for a couple months now by an actual crazy person — political cult leader and full-on nutbar Lyndon LaRouche.

If you’re not familiar with him, LaRouche has been living on the American political fringe since the 1960s, first as an extreme Marxist, then reinventing himself in the 1980s as an extreme right-winger to capitalize on the popularity of Ronald Reagan.

Over all those years, though, LaRouche has been consistent in advancing some of the most downright crazy ideas ever introduced to American political discourse. Said crazy ideas include, but are not limited to:

The world is secretly run by the British Empire!
The international drug cartels are secretly run by Queen Elizabeth!
The Beatles weren’t a band, but a psychological warfare campaign by the British government!
Henry Kissinger was an agent for the KGB and the Trilateral Commission!
Vice President Dick Cheney was a puppet of British intelligence!
This spring’s swine flu outbreak was orchestrated by the World Wildlife Fund!
The anti-tax “tea party” movement is a creation of liberal billionaire George Soros — and popular social-networking site Twitter was created by Soros to control it!
It would almost be comical, if his little cult didn’t have a record of embezzling elderly people and exploiting impressionable young people — with one such young person even ending up dead after attempting to break away.
So why do I bring all this up? Because for months before Betsy McCaughey and the GOP started peddling the Big Lie that health care reform meant euthanasia, LaRouche was peddling the same thing.
Consider this statement from a LaRouche publication dated May 16:
Today, the looters are inside the White House, in the persons of Larry Summers, Peter Orszag, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Nancy-Ann DeParle, and others. There, they are dictating how to continue the HMO looting rights, even to the point of death, under the banner of “saving money” by health-care “reform.” Citizens are receiving Hitler-era “reasons” for why they must accept drastic medical cutbacks, sickness, and death. For example, you must forego what is called “wasteful, excessive treatment,” during your end-of-life months.
President Obama has proclaimed this Nazi medicine/health “reform” his top goal. Congress, so far, is acting in lockstep, under the direction of Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), to whip up comprehensive reform legislation by this June.
Or this one, dated May 15:
“This is mass murder,” LaRouche said. “Obama has adopted Hitler’s program. There is no reason to hold one’s tongue. When the President of the United States has adopted Hitler’s program, that’s the time to unleash. This is exactly what I warned about on April 11th in my webcast. Obama has a Nero complex. Obama is the new Nero. This is exactly what is happening. This is Hitler’s policy now being echoed by Obama. Let’s not allow any compromise. You have to attack this directly. He has adopted Hitler’s genocidal health policy.”
The "Health Reform = Euthanasia" Lie: It Sounds Crazy Because It Is Crazy | CtW Connect


“AARP supports specific measures that would help older Americans and their families – including bipartisan proposals to create a new follow-up care benefit in Medicare that would help prevent hospital re-admissions, as well as to address the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap known as the ‘doughnut hole.’ We also support the need for lawmakers and the Administration to act this year to fix what doesn’t work in the health care system.

“We share the President’s commitment to act this year, and our members appreciate his insistence that any final reform package will not reduce Medicare benefits for the millions of people that literally depend on that program as a lifeline.

AARP Reacts to President?s Health Care Townhall
 

shel90

Audist are not welcome
Premium Member
It turns out that Obama Hitler poster actually did come from the left, but it looks like they weren't doing it to smear the right- they were actually serious. It came from LaRouchePAC and they're upset because they feel Obama isn't left enough on the issue. Here's the website where you can actually download a PDF of the Obama Hitler poster.

LaRouchePAC

What's most telling is the way the media (MSNBC in particular) passed it off as coming from the right without even bothering to look into it.
Lyndon LaRouche is an extremist. He goes way past the Democratric left into the world of nutjob.
 

kokonut

New Member
Better read the bill, Shel, since you are so high-minded in support of choices and employer insurance.

Look for bold "re-evaluation of passages" as a summary explaination found in HR 3200, ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” to explain what each section was about.

1. WILL THE PLAN RATION MEDICAL CARE?

This is what the bill says, pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS:

‘(ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN READMISSIONS.—For purposes of clause (i), with respect to a hospital, excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital.

and, under “Definitions”:

‘‘(A) APPLICABLE CONDITION.—The term ‘applicable condition’ means, subject to subparagraph (B), a condition or procedure selected by the Secretary . . .

and:

‘‘(E) READMISSION.—The term ‘readmission’ means, in the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time period specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge.

and:

‘‘(6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of— . . .

‘‘(C) the measures of readmissions . . .


EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. This section amends the Social Security Act

2. The government has the power to determine what constitutes an “applicable [medical] condition.”

3. The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.

4. This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted.

5. This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up.

6. There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts.

7. The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318.





2. Will the plan punish Americans who try to opt out?

What the bill says, pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE:

‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—

(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. . . .”

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.

3. The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.


3. what constitutes “acceptable” coverage?

Here is what the bill says, pages 26-30, SEC. 122, ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED:

(a) IN GENERAL.—In this division, the term ‘‘essential benefits package’’ means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 124 to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security . . .

(b) MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED.—The items and services described in this subsection are the following:

(1) Hospitalization.

(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services . . .

(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.

(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician’s or a health professional’s delivery of care . . .

(5) Prescription drugs.

(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.

(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.

(8) Preventive services . . .

(9) Maternity care.

(10) Well baby and well child care . . .

(c) REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO COST-SHARING AND MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE . . .


(3) MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The cost-sharing under the essential benefits package shall be designed to provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 70 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package described in subparagraph (B).


EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. The bill defines “acceptable coverage” and leaves no room for choice in this regard.

2. By setting a minimum 70% actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services, but carry insurance only for catastrophic events, (such as Health Savings Accounts) illegal.


4. Will the PLAN destroy private health insurance?

Here is what it requires, for businesses with payrolls greater than $400,000 per year. (The bill uses “contribution” to refer to mandatory payments to the government plan.) Pages 149-150, SEC. 313, EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE

(a) IN GENERAL.—A contribution is made in accordance with this section with respect to an employee if such contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of the average wages paid by the employer during the period of enrollment (determined by taking into account all employees of the employer and in such manner as the Commissioner provides, including rules providing for the appropriate aggregation of related employers). Any such contribution—

(1) shall be paid to the Health Choices Commissioner for deposit into the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, and

(2) shall not be applied against the premium of the employee under the Exchange-participating health benefits plan in which the employee is enrolled.

(The bill then includes a sliding scale of payments for business with less than $400,000 in annual payroll.)

The Bill also reserves, for the government, the power to determine an acceptable benefits plan: page 24, SEC. 115. ENSURING ADEQUACY OF PROVIDER NETWORKS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—A qualified health benefits plan that uses a provider network for items and services shall meet such standards respecting provider networks as the Commissioner may establish to assure the adequacy of such networks in ensuring enrollee access to such items and services and transparency in the cost-sharing differentials between in-network coverage and out-of-network coverage.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. The bill does not prohibit a person from buying private insurance.

2. Small businesses—with say 8-10 employees—will either have to provide insurance to federal standards, or pay an 8% payroll tax. Business costs for health care are higher than this, especially considering administrative costs. Any competitive business that tries to stay with a private plan will face a payroll disadvantage against competitors who go with the government “option.”

3. The pressure for business owners to terminate the private plans will be enormous.

4. With employers ending plans, millions of Americans will lose their private coverage, and fewer companies will offer it.

5. The Commissioner (meaning, always, the bureaucrats) will determine whether a particular network of physicians, hospitals and insurance is acceptable.

6. With private insurance starved, many people enrolled in the government “option” will have no place else to go.

5. Does the plan TAX successful Americans more THAN OTHERS?


Here is what the bill says, pages 197-198, SEC. 441. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS

‘‘SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.

‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to—

‘‘(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,

‘‘(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and

‘‘(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.


EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2. Tax surcharges are levied on those with the highest incomes.

3. The plan manipulates the tax code to redistribute their wealth.

4. Successful business owners will bear the highest cost of this plan.


6. Does THE PLAN ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO set FEES FOR SERVICES?

What it says, page 124, Sec. 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority to correct for payments that are excessive or deficient, taking into account the provisions of section 221(a) and the amounts paid for similar health care providers and services under other Exchange-participating health benefits plans.

(e) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as affecting the authority of the Secretary to establish payment rates, including payments to provide for the more efficient delivery of services, such as the initiatives provided for under section 224.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. The government’s authority to set payments is basically unlimited.

2. The official will decide what constitutes “excessive,” “deficient,” and “efficient” payments and services.


7. Will THE PLAN increase the power of government officials to SCRUTINIZE our private affairs?

What it says, pages 195-196, SEC. 431. DISCLOSURES TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUBSIDIES.

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, upon written request from the Health Choices Commissioner or the head of a State-based health insurance exchange approved for operation under section 208 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, shall disclose to officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, return information of any taxpayer whose income is relevant in determining any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Such return information shall be limited to—

‘‘(i) taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer,

‘‘(ii) the filing status of such taxpayer,

‘‘(iii) the modified adjusted gross income of such taxpayer (as defined in section 59B(e)(5)),

‘‘(iv) the number of dependents of the taxpayer,

‘‘(v) such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof), and

‘‘(vi) the taxable year with respect to which the preceding information relates or, if applicable, the fact that such information is not available.

And, page 145, section 312, EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT COVERAGE:

(3) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.—The employer provides the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable, with such information as the Commissioner may require to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this section.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code

2. The bill opens up income tax return information to federal officials.

3. Any stated “limits” to such information are circumvented by item (v), which allows federal officials to decide what information is needed.

4. Employers are required to report whatever information the government says it needs to enforce the plan.



8. Does the plan automatically enroll Americans in the GOVERNMENT plan?

What it says, page 102, Section 205, Outreach and enrollment of Exchange-eligible individuals and employers in Exchange-participating health benefits plan:

(3) AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT OF MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS INTO MEDICAID.—The Commissioner shall provide for a process under which an individual who is described in section 202(d)(3) and has not elected to enroll in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is automatically enrolled under Medicaid.

And, page 145, section 312:

(4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES.—The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection (c).

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. Do nothing and you are in.

2. Employers are responsible for automatically enrolling people who still work.


9. Does THE PLAN exempt federal OFFICIALS from COURT REVIEW?

What it says, page 124, Section 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:

(f) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review of a payment rate or methodology established under this section or under section 224.

And, page 256, SEC. 1123. PAYMENTS FOR EFFICIENT AREAS.

‘‘(C) LIMITATION ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, 1878, or otherwise, respecting—

‘‘(i) the identification of a county or other area under subparagraph (A); or

‘‘(ii) the assignment of a postal ZIP Code to a county or other area under subparagraph (B).


EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. Sec. 1123 amends the Social Security Act, to allow the Secretary to identify areas of the country that underutilize the government’s plan “based on per capita spending.”

2. Parts of the plan are set above the review of the courts.
The Health Care Bill

Instead of protecting Obama at every turn, especially this insurance thing that WILL impact you and your private insurances, including the ones you have under your employer you'll find out soon enough that there are no choices when it comes to insurances. It'll all be govt controlled and govt insurances....not private. Hmm...there's that word again...slippery slope.
 

kokonut

New Member
Here's another lie perpetuated by Obama at a Townhall meeting about diabetes, amputations after he lied about the tonsilectomy thing.

On the doctors’ front, one of the things we can do is to reimburse doctors who are providing preventive care and not just the surgeon who provides care after somebody is sick. (Applause.) Nothing against surgeons. I want surgeons — I don’t want to be getting a bunch of letters from surgeons now. I’m not dissing surgeons here. (Laughter.)

All I’m saying is let’s take the example of something like diabetes, one of — a disease that’s skyrocketing, partly because of obesity, partly because it’s not treated as effectively as it could be. Right now if we paid a family — if a family care physician works with his or her patient to help them lose weight, modify diet, monitors whether they’re taking their medications in a timely fashion, they might get reimbursed a pittance.
But if that same diabetic ends up getting their foot amputated, that’s $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 — immediately the surgeon is reimbursed. Well, why not make sure that we’re also reimbursing the care that prevents the amputation, right? That will save us money. (Applause.)
Why does he continue to lie and exaggerate, Shel? Oh, yes, push the Health Care "Reform" at all costs....including yours.

The problem is this. Diabetics are treated by general practitioners and endocrinologists, neither of whom perform amputations. Funny thing that the AMA pointed out that Obama was off by a factor of 100 on the costs claim.


We agree with President Obama on the importance of prevention. However, a recent example used to illustrate his important point was misleading. Surgeons are not paid $30,000 to $50,000 to amputate a diabetic’s foot. Medicare pays a surgeon, on average, from $541.72 to $708.71 for one of two procedures involving a foot amputation. It is possible that the total bill, hospital stay, rehabilitation, prosthesis, etc. may approach the larger amount mentioned.

In the case of tonsillectomies, a patient is referred to a surgeon after medication therapy has proven to be ineffective. Actually, the medical profession itself recognized questions about utilization and appropriateness of tonsillectomies and took action by developing clinical guidelines, which has resulted in a sharp decline in the rate of tonsillectomies.

These types of examples create the impression that physicians are motivated by payment levels rather than what is best for patients. The AMA will continue to stress to our elected leaders that physicians are dedicated to putting patients first and optimizing health care quality.
At What Cost, Cutting Off A Leg? - The Atlantic Politics Channel

What’s next? Accuse nurses of stealing money from patients’ wallets while they sleep?
 

shel90

Audist are not welcome
Premium Member
Lies????

U.K. health system hits back at ‘untruths’
British officials attack ‘ridiculous claims’ in U.S. about socialized medicine

Jim Young / Reuters
President Barack Obama presents the Medal of Freedom to physicist Stephen Hawking at the White House on Wednesday. Hawking, who lives in Britain, has debunked a claim that the country's National Health Service would consider his life "essentially worthless."
View related photos



Why taxes, not a co-pay, should cover health care
July 16: The Huffington Post's Katharine Zaleski describes receiving free, fast health care while she was in Europe, and why the U.S. should follow the U.K.'s model for preventative care.
MSNBC


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





LONDON - Britain's health care service says it is sick of being lied about.

Pilloried by right-wing critics of President Barack Obama's health care plan, Britain's National Health Service, known here as the NHS, is fighting back.

"People have been saying some untruths in the States," a spokesman for Britain Department of Health said in a telephone interview. "There's been all these ridiculous claims made by the American health lobby about Obama's health care plan ... and they've used the NHS as an example. A lot of it has been untrue."

Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement | your ad here

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He spoke to The Associated Press anonymously in line with department policy.

A particularly outlandish example of a U.S. editorial, printed in the Investor's Business Daily, claimed that renowned physicist Stephen Hawking, who is disabled, "wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."

Hawking, who was born and lives in Britain, personally debunked the claim. "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he told The Guardian newspaper. Investor's Business Daily has since corrected the editorial.

Waiting lists
As the debate over how best to look after American patients rages on, Britain's socialized health care system has increasingly found itself being drawn into the argument. Critics of the Obama administration's plan to overhaul US health care say the president is seeking to model the U.S. system on that of Britain or Canada — places they paint as countries where patients linger for months on waiting lists and are forbidden from paying for their own medication.

A Republican National Committee ad said that in the U.K. "individuals lose their right to make their own health care choices." Another ad launched earlier this month by the anti-tax group Club for Growth claimed that government bureaucrats in Britain had calculated six months of life to be worth $22,750. "Under their socialized system, if your treatment costs more, you're out of luck," the ad says, as footage of an elderly man weeping at a woman's bedside alternate with clips of the Union Jack and Big Ben.

The online attacks on Britain's health care system have been paired with strident criticism from Republican lawmakers.

In an interview widely interpreted here as an attack on the U.K., Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa told a local radio station last week that "countries that have government-run health care" would not have given Sen. Edward Kennedy, who suffers from a brain tumor, the same standard of care as in the U.S. because he is too old. Another Republican, Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia, said that the U.K. and Canada "don't have the appreciation of life as we do in our society, evidently."

The criticism, widely covered in the U.K. media, has clearly stung Britain's left-leaning Labour government. The Department of Health took the unusual step of contacting The Associated Press and e-mailing it a three-page rebuttal to what it said were misconceptions about the NHS being bandied about in the U.S. media — each one followed with the words: "Not true."


Click for related content
Private organ transplants banned in U.K.
U.K.'s health service faces huge shortfall
Health care in U.S. vs. U.K.

At the top of the list was the idea that a patient in his late 70s would not be treated for a brain tumor because he was too old — a transparent reference to Grassley's comments about Kennedy.

And what of Republicans' claim that British patients are robbed of their medical choices? False again, the department said.

"Everyone who is cared for by the NHS in England has formal rights to make choices about the service that they receive," it said in its rebuttal.

Video

Obama tamps down flames of health care debate
Aug. 12: As town meetings designed for congressional representatives to get in touch with their constituents continue to get rough, the White House is hoping to temper the talk and get a health care reform deal done.
Nightly News



Then followed a fact sheet comparing selected statistics such as health spending per capita, infant mortality, life expectancy, and more. Each one showed England outperforming its trans-Atlantic counterpart.

The British government offers health care for free at the point of need, a service pioneered by Labour in 1948. In the six decades since, its promise of universal medical care, from cradle to grave, is taken for granted by Britons to such an extent that politicians — even fiscal conservatives — are loath to attack it.

But the NHS faces significant challenges, not least a multibillion dollar deficit predicted to open up over the next five years. It has its critics too, particularly cancer patients who complain that the government refuses to cover costlier drugs, leaving those who need expensive treatments to pay for them out of pocket.

Nevertheless, many in the British press bristled at the criticism from America's right wing.

"How dare the Republicans bad-mouth our free health care system?" Guardian columnist Michele Hanson wrote Wednesday. "If I'd been born in the U.S., I'd probably be dead by now."



U.K. health system slams ?untruths? - Europe- msnbc.com


:hmm:
 

kokonut

New Member
Thank you, Shel. That means Obama WILL tax the middle class, both indirectly and directly. How else will he try and pay for this pet programs of his?
 

Foxrac

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Thank you, Shel. That means Obama WILL tax the middle class, both indirectly and directly. How else will he try and pay for this pet programs of his?
You can believe whatever you want but your comment isn't true after Obama made address that he will not raise the taxes for middle class.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top