Our dear leader going after the kids

[Gav]

Seeing as we're back to HC reform...

If this Fox News piece is anything to go by it's no wonder you lot don't have the faintest idea how the NHS works.

The guys in the office have just had a seriously good laugh at this so-called news piece.

PS. And no, I don't mean laughing at the commentard's ludicrous hair do.

[I_luv_saber]

Thankfully, most of us do not rely on Fox as "real" news reporting or "fair and balanced" coverage (which is honestly the most laughable claim I've ever heard).

[Purple Fencer]

Thankfully, most of us do not rely on Fox as "real" news reporting or "fair and balanced" coverage (which is honestly the most laughable claim I've ever heard).

I'd move them to the Science Fiction network...but while there's plenty of fiction at Fox, there's precious little science.

Besides, SyFy is finally getting some GOOD shows (Eureka, for one)

[tchwojko]

Thankfully, most of us do not rely on Fox as "real" news reporting or "fair and balanced" coverage (which is honestly the most laughable claim I've ever heard).

While Fox is actively misleading, the rest of the television networks are awful too. They're just passively ignorant.

The only television news (as opposed to "news") I can think of is C-SPAN and the local cable channels that show local government. Just the facts, and in context.

I've seen far too many blatant mistakes with the distinction between "deficit" and "debt", for example. I've also seen far too much paraphrasing that fundamentally changes the meaning of what was actually said.

And polling is horrendous. They're not evening using good statistics to make their point anymore.

[Purple Fencer]

And polling is horrendous. They're not evening using good statistics to make their point anymore.

True....I've never understood how a polling of a few thousand people can apply to a nation of millions.....

[jessicasimpson]

Seeing as we're back to HC reform...

If this Fox News piece is anything to go by it's no wonder you lot don't have the faintest idea how the NHS works.

The guys in the office have just had a seriously good laugh at this so-called news piece.

PS. And no, I don't mean laughing at the commentard's ludicrous hair do.

This is a great example of how the right wing media works. They draw silly parallels to feed the paranioa of xenophobes, (i am sure some fox news watchers now think that if the US gets Universal Healthcare, a terrorist will be giving their wife and OB/GYN exam, then plant a bomb at their Wal-Mart). Then if the mainstream media picks up this story, it almost seems believable. If the mainstream media does not pick up the story, then it is proof of "liberal bias".
A total win-win

[Slim]

As I just explained to BB, it's emergency only. After that, sayonara. And in non-border states, it's really a mandatory "you must do this for free for whoever walks into your ER" money loser. NOT imposed by the federal government BTW, they have nothing to do with it there.

Look, I have no problem arguing that illegal aliens should get no coverage, or that the bill should be sent to their government if they themselves don't have the money to cover it. What I do have a problem with is people acting like it's Obama's fault when it's been the way it is for years and years - and it's broken.

Bull$hite. What's not being discussed is are the plans to grant amnesty to all the current illegals. So technically, O-man may not be lying, but the intent to pull the wool is clearly there.

Emergency only? Right. You dont think this has been figured out? Show up in the ER with a cough and runny nose, and they have to see you.

Take a trip to an ER in San Diego sometime and take a look around. Its not all trauma patients. Its more like a maternity ward.

[Slim]

This is a great example of how the right wing media works. They draw silly parallels to feed the paranioa of xenophobes, (i am sure some fox news watchers now think that if the US gets Universal Healthcare, a terrorist will be giving their wife and OB/GYN exam, then plant a bomb at their Wal-Mart). Then if the mainstream media picks up this story, it almost seems believable. If the mainstream media does not pick up the story, then it is proof of "liberal bias".
A total win-win

Boo hoo. Its that vast right wing conspiracy at work again.

[jessicasimpson]

Boo hoo. Its that vast right wing conspiracy at work again.

Do you think the point of the Fox story was to report factual information?
If I am just a diluted conspiracy nut, then I give you my full attn. to explain the point of that story to me.

[tchwojko]

Bull$hite. What's not being discussed is are the plans to grant amnesty to all the current illegals. So technically, O-man may not be lying, but the intent to pull the wool is clearly there.

Emergency only? Right. You dont think this has been figured out? Show up in the ER with a cough and runny nose, and they have to see you.

Take a trip to an ER in San Diego sometime and take a look around. Its not all trauma patients. Its more like a maternity ward.

1. Are you saying you'd rather go into the ER with no ID? I bet you'd save a lot of money on health care expenses. Prescriptions might be a problem though...

2. Are you saying that in the ER you want your citizenship, insurance, ability to pay, etc. thoroughly checked enough so that all fraud is removed?

3. Are you saying that congress is somehow going to be able to pass a law that legalizes all current illegal immigrants?

4. Are you saying that if congress somehow did, and illegal immigrants whose only competitive advantage in the workplace is that they're cheaper than the legal workers, and would then be covered by workplace insurance, and then pay more taxes both because they're paid at least minimum wage and they're in the system rather than outside of it, and would be less scared of seeking preventative care because they wouldn't fear deportation, would somehow cause a problem with health care?

5. Are you saying that you'd rather have pregnant illegal immigrants give birth at home, and then dramatically increase the mortality rates of both mother and child?

6. And finally, did you really say Obama didn't lie?

[tchwojko]

Bull$hite. What's not being discussed is are the plans to grant amnesty to all the current illegals. So technically, O-man may not be lying, but the intent to pull the wool is clearly there.

Emergency only? Right. You dont think this has been figured out? Show up in the ER with a cough and runny nose, and they have to see you.

Take a trip to an ER in San Diego sometime and take a look around. Its not all trauma patients. Its more like a maternity ward.

And can you remind me what percentage of health care dollars goes to emergency room care for illegal immigrants?

And what it has to do with the fact that if I get diagnosed with a condition, and then have to get new insurance (loss of my job, for example), I won't be able to, because of that pre-existing condition?

[Bayou Bum]

Now onto the complete falsehoods.

At no point does Obama say you have to lose your current health insurance coverage. He has said the exact opposite, and the language in the various bills says the same thing.

And because Obama says it, it must be so! Of course he says you don't have to lose your current health insurance, but he doesn't mention the fact that you probably will. If I were to get to fence in the Olympics, Obama saying I don't have to lose is correct but it won't change the fact that I would.

The "death panels" thing is a complete lie - repeated over and over. What that is about is counseling for end of life treatment options so families and patients can express their intent and understand their options, set up a living will, assign legal and medical proxies who can express the patient's will if he/she isn't capable of communicating. It has nothing to do with funding treatment. The proposal is to fund providers so they're not doing it for free, and came originally from a Republican. Yesterday I listened to the doctor who set up the original program this was modeled on, and he's quite offended that people have dishonestly distorted this into a fear tactic.

This is an example of how liberals distort objections. The objection is to a government panel (as defined in the bill) that would determine if treatment is to be paid by the government. If you need an expensive life extending procedure but the panel decides it isn't worth it and you cannot afford it, you are going to die sooner. Your criticism of insurance companies includes this now. They cancel policies for expensive treatments. The system needs to be fixed, but changing the panel from insurance companies with a profit motive to reliance on the government with cost cutting motives is not the answer. It is a totally different argument than end of life counseling, except when they tell you they aren't going to pay for your treatment so you had better get end of life counseling.

[jeff]

Bull$hite. What's not being discussed is are the plans to grant amnesty to all the current illegals. So technically, O-man may not be lying, but the intent to pull the wool is clearly there.

Emergency only? Right. You dont think this has been figured out? Show up in the ER with a cough and runny nose, and they have to see you.

Take a trip to an ER in San Diego sometime and take a look around. Its not all trauma patients. Its more like a maternity ward.

You of course have proof of these amnesty plans and how it would work that way? Show us. Or does "Slim" mean "Slim evidence"

There's a hell of a lot less evidence (that is: none) to support your "lying" claim than there was with GWB and WMD. I didn't see you get your knickers in a twist then.

You got it backwards: what the nationwide use of ERs for non-emergencies is a result of our supposedly great healthcare system not providing preventive or routine healthcare for large numbers of people - illegal aliens or not. And in reality, people show up in ER when they're sick as heck, because it's inconvenient, takes hours, time off from work or home. That's part of the problem: small ailments don't get treated till they're raging fevers. And this happens all over, citizens and non-citizens.

Just what % of health care do you claim is due to illegals? You keep harping on it - do you have proof that it's a major financial issue?

2007 Congressional study in 5 states with citizenship checking showed that costs went up by $8.3M. They found under 10 illegal aliens. That sure didn't help. Explain to me how you're going to make that work so well.

If all this goes the way you want, it's going to be real tough on Grandma if she shows up in ER having a stroke without her papers, especially if she has a Hispanic surname...

[tchwojko]

This is an example of how liberals distort objections. The objection is to a government panel (as defined in the bill) that would determine if treatment is to be paid by the government. If you need an expensive life extending procedure but the panel decides it isn't worth it and you cannot afford it, you are going to die sooner. Your criticism of insurance companies includes this now. They cancel policies for expensive treatments. The system needs to be fixed, but changing the panel from insurance companies with a profit motive to reliance on the government with cost cutting motives is not the answer. It is a totally different argument than end of life counseling, except when they tell you they aren't going to pay for your treatment so you had better get end of life counseling.

Um, no, I distinctly remember hearing directly from representatives from the right calling end-of-life consultations "death panels". (Not that ANY of the media actually asked in any depth what the hell they were talking about.)

I'm doing a search for primary sources on the net, and haven't found anything definitive so far. I did find this, but I don't know how accurate it is. If you've got something that proves my memory wrong, please link to it.

There are a lot of really good debates about health care reform. Imaginary death panels aren't one of them.

[erooMynohtnA]

This is an example of how liberals distort objections. The objection is to a government panel (as defined in the bill) that would determine if treatment is to be paid by the government. If you need an expensive life extending procedure but the panel decides it isn't worth it and you cannot afford it, you are going to die sooner. Your criticism of insurance companies includes this now. They cancel policies for expensive treatments. The system needs to be fixed, but changing the panel from insurance companies with a profit motive to reliance on the government with cost cutting motives is not the answer. It is a totally different argument than end of life counseling, except when they tell you they aren't going to pay for your treatment so you had better get end of life counseling.

I don't get it.

It's bad that people can't afford expensive procedures and they are denied help. We need to fix the system by giving everyone every procedure possible despite a lack of organs in addition to funding. Yet, we can't have the government providing it. How is this supposed to happen?

Step 1: Current system
Step 2: Keep the government out
Step 3: ?????
Step 4: Operations for everybody!

[jeff]

And because Obama says it, it must be so! Of course he says you don't have to lose your current health insurance, but he doesn't mention the fact that you probably will. If I were to get to fence in the Olympics, Obama saying I don't have to lose is correct but it won't change the fact that I would.

No, it says so not because Obama says so, but because that's what the proposed legislation says.

Show me where what you claim comes up: I'll help you, here's the link to the Senate bill: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/im....care.bill.pdf Have fun reading.

The objection is to a government panel (as defined in the bill) that would determine if treatment is to be paid by the government. If you need an expensive life extending procedure but the panel decides it isn't worth it and you cannot afford it, you are going to die sooner.

You're completely wrong again. (BTW: you were going to explain your way out of getting "Medicare Advantage" wrong, since you didn't understand what that was, and claimed that seniors were clamoring for it. What happened, BB?)

Here's a link: "Experts Debunk Health Care Reform Bill's 'Death Panel' Rule" http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/story?id=8295708

From that article: "At issue is a 10-page section of a 1,000-page House health care reform bill on "advanced care planning consultations." These consultations would reimburse a doctor for talking with a patient once every five years about what kind of care they want near the end of life. "

and "health care experts – even those who do not support the version of the health care reform bill now being discussed – note that these accusations are shocking, inflammatory and incorrect. "

and "doctors and supporters say, the intent of the measure is not for doctors to tell patients what to do, but to give doctors more incentives to talk to patients about all of their options."

Go read the rest, or articles like it, and stop making up BS and parroting lies.

Your criticism of insurance companies includes this now. They cancel policies for expensive treatments. The system needs to be fixed, but changing the panel from insurance companies with a profit motive to reliance on the government with cost cutting motives is not the answer.

Where's your proof that this is government motives. No tin-foil hat partisan sources, please. Explain to me why I should believe your analysis when the provision in question has nothing to do with funding procedures, but rather funding counsel? That's a big canyon to jump over. It has nothing t o do with funding medical services. That's how we can tell the death panel claims are BS.

Remember: government officials are terrified that seniors will come for them and vote them out of office (or worse) if senior benefits are removed. Healthcare executives get bonuses for removing care.

It is a totally different argument than end of life counseling, except when they tell you they aren't going to pay for your treatment so you had better get end of life counseling.

har har har.

[Purple Fencer]

The objection is to a government panel (as defined in the bill) that would determine if treatment is to be paid by the government.

No, you single-neuroned imbecile...the bill only covers the doctor fees for the consultation on things like living wills or DNR orders.

The only panels that ration care are the insurance companies that withdraw finding for people who suddenly fall ill....or in one case cited...in the middle of chemo treatment...a withdrawal that cost that guy his life.

You are an idiot.....and like Chase....to the ignore list YOU go.

[jessicasimpson]

If I were to get to fence in the Olympics, Obama saying I don't have to lose is correct but it won't change the fact that I would..

So is it Obama's fault you can't perform on that level?

This is an example of how liberals distort objections.

Could you please skip the insults and debate with facts?

[tchwojko]

Could you please skip the insults and debate with facts?

*psst* He thinks he has been using facts.

[Hauptman]

While Fox is actively misleading, the rest of the television networks are awful too. They're just passively ignorant.

The only television news (as opposed to "news") I can think of is C-SPAN and the local cable channels that show local government. Just the facts, and in context.

I've seen far too many blatant mistakes with the distinction between "deficit" and "debt", for example. I've also seen far too much paraphrasing that fundamentally changes the meaning of what was actually said.

And polling is horrendous. They're not evening using good statistics to make their point anymore.

Don't forget John Stewart of the Daily Show!! He was voted America's most trusted source not too long ago.

Seriously, he has some great guests on there and they have great discussions. The Newt Gingrich interview was great. And when John goes after someone it is SO well documented. They use so many great clips of people contradicting themselves... it's classic!!