Opposing those opposed
Talking Points Memo reports that, in an effort to “disrupt the disrupters” at town hall meetings on healthcare reform, the pro-Obamacare group Health Care for America has developed a strategy document designed to shut down debate and demonize those speaking out against the president’s plan.
Here are a few highlights from the HCAN’s playbook on how to take on and take out the “militant right-wing activists” at these gatherings:
Do not debate on their “policy” points. Remember, they are seeking a platform to distort the truth about reform by making health care about abortion, rationing, euthanasia, etc. Rather than try to reply with the truth (which won’t move them anyway) we should respond with our message and at every turn re-focus the agenda on communicating with the Member of Congress.
Interrupt them when they get disruptive and refocus the meeting: Line up a number of people who feel comfortable interrupting and prepare them with statements like:
- “Excuse me, I came today to listen to Representative XXX explain how this bill is going to make health care more affordable for me and my family. We’re being gouged by insurance companies that just want to make more profits while we struggle to keep up with premiums and co-pays. Representative, how are you going to fix that?”
- “I’m retired and can’t afford my prescription drugs because I’m on a fixed income. Representative, how is this bill going to affect me?”
- I want to hear the Representative speak. He’s the one voting on the bill. Representative, how will this bill help people who already have insurance at work?”
- “What I’m worried about is how we’re going to keep the insurance companies from continuing to charge people more for being sick and keep them from taking away coverage when we need it most. What’s the plan for that?”
Don’t get into a shouting match with them. Instead, prep people on our side to keep raising the questions that we want answered. Repetition is the key. We need to arm our side with questions that play to the strength of our message and make sure we keep bringing them up over and over so that the press recognizes those central themes. We should also phrase those questions strategically to help move the message.
- “Over the last XX years, insurance company profits have risen XXX %; in this bill you would regulate insurance companies so that they can no longer deny people with pre-existing conditions and would have to play by fair rules. Isn’t that right, Representative XX?”
- “Isn’t it true that this bill would guarantee everyone a choice of public health insurance option that will lower cost overall in the system?”
We should demonstrate that we are the majority by chanting: When the other side gets too loud, we should shut them down with chants that counter their message like “Health Care Can’t Wait!” and “Health Care Delayed is Health Care Denied” and prep people to chant at key points when the other side gets most disruptive.
Sounds like if this keeps up these town hall meetings could turn into fistfights. But let me get this straight, we’ve been hearing all week that it’s wrong to organize against Obamacare, but apparently it’s OK to organize against those organized against Obamacare?














Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top143 Comments to “Opposing those opposed”
“Let me get this straight, we’ve been hearing all week that it’s wrong to organize against Obamacare, but apparently it’s OK to organize against those organized against Obamacare?”
That’s not even a logical inconsistency, Mickey. It is right to organize against those who are wrong. Simple.
Report comment to moderator
Mickey be fair otherwise I think you’re being shrewd. The gripe is about organizing against Healthcare Reform, it’s more about PRETENDING to be some type of grassroots organization of the people, when really the people are paid for and planted by Republicans and/or the insurance lobby.
Report comment to moderator
Opps, that should have been, . The gripe is NOT about organizing against Healthcare Reform
Report comment to moderator
“Health Care for America has developed a strategy document designed to shut down debate and demonize those speaking out against the president’s plan.”
So what Mickey is saying is the supporters of health care reform are going to use the tea bagger tactics?
Report comment to moderator
#1 “It is right to organize against those who are wrong. Simple. “
Um, yeah.
Report comment to moderator
So now the anti-Obama health care plan people have this and will come up with one of their own. Where do the swastika come in?
Report comment to moderator
Scott says that those of us who protest against Obamacare are paid for and sent by the Republican party…..oh really? Guess I haven’t received that check yet! NO SCOTT, those of us who are going have actually READ the bill…..want some highlights….want some truth:
* Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
* Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
* Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
* Page 42: The “Health Choices Commissioner” will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
* Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
* Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
* Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
* Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
* Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
* Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
* Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
* Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
* Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
* Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No “judicial re view” is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
Report comment to moderator
And people that is only a few bullet points of the entire 1018 page House bill…..some friends and I who all either own small businesses or work in small businesses put this together in an evening of READING…….and if you think we are being paid to do this by some health insurance company, some Republican politician or some activist group, you are dead wrong.
We are sick and tired of this administration reaching into our pockets,taking money out and redistributing it because they think government is the answer to all.
I will get behind health care reform the day the politicians attack the problem with health care – TORT LAW SUIT REFORM. When that happens health care costs will go down.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you ITSABOUTFREEDOM. Get ready: you’ll be attacked as a lier.
Report comment to moderator
Whoops. Spelling error. Now I’m a liar.
Report comment to moderator
Tort reform is essential. But most lawyers are Democrats. In NJ, that means “pay to play.” That’s what happens on a national level. The Dems will never agree to tort reform.
I am offended by each and every one of the items on Itsaboutfreedom’s bulleted list. That the leftys can’t see what that all means is just plain scarey.
Report comment to moderator
Because you dare to disagree with orthodoxy “ItsAboutFreedom”, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, the communications office of the White House and the President of the United States of America consider you nothing more than an astroturfing, swastika bearing, Brooks Brothers suit wearing, money grubbin insurance company stooge.
Isn’t it great to be an American?!
Report comment to moderator
And Norm P. is right. Disagreeing with a liberal is by definition lying.
Report comment to moderator
9. Where do you get a copy of the bill?
Report comment to moderator
And once again Mynock comes up with a brilliant argument: “Well, we’re right and you’re wrong.” Seriously, do they teach ANYTHING about REASONED debate in the schools anymore?!!
Report comment to moderator
ITSABOUTFREEDOM, what town hall meetings have you attended to voice your opinions? Any? Are you suggesting that there are not plants out there disrupting these meetings and that they are all “concern citizens” like yourself? Are you suggesting that the insurance companies, who clearly oppose this reform, don’t have people out at these meetings? Just curious, what kind of “small business” do you own?
Report comment to moderator
Scott, can you tell me that the bill does not say what he says it does in post 9.
Report comment to moderator
HR 3200, aka “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act,” can be downloaded here.
Report comment to moderator
“Thank you ITSABOUTFREEDOM. Get ready: you’ll be attacked as a lier.”
Why thank someone for lying? It’s obvious that Itsaboutfreedom is not telling the truth, and he’s reposting his SPAM. It’s false information, of course.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/30/e-mail-analysis-health-bill-needs-check-/
Report comment to moderator
“9. Where do you get a copy of the bill?”
Kbells. Itsaboutfreedom didn’t analyze the bill. He copied and pasted a SPAM email that has been widely discredited as lies to the point where they describe it as “Pants on fire.” See Politifact.com’s analysis of it at the link in 21.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/30/e-mail-analysis-health-bill-needs-check-/
Report comment to moderator
It is amazing that to the left everyone is a plant. They can even conceive of the idea that people are opposed to this bill.
I’m not a plant either, and I am opposed. And it’s not just about health care. This bill represents a government takeover of a major sector of the economy. That’s not in the Constitution. Not that any leftys really read the Constitution.
Report comment to moderator
Anybody care to look at the actual bill?
http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
Report comment to moderator
#19, KBells, did you read the link that RPN put up? (He beat me to it) The hatchet job being done is crazy. However, I’ve always felt that the Republicans will always resort to scare tactics to get what they want/don’t want. Go ahead, defend the undefendable. You’re god will remind you of it on judgment day.
Report comment to moderator
NJL, what town hall meeting have you attended to speak out about this. Please tell us?
Report comment to moderator
NJ, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to impose taxes to “provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.”
GENERAL WELFARE States.”
Report comment to moderator
Kbells, that link to the pdf has been posted around here for days now. I (and Steve recently) have been posting the link to both the Summary and the thomas.gov link for two weeks. Those of us interested in the facts have referred to it often, and still we get tea bagg nonsense like post 9.
Report comment to moderator
“GENERAL WELFARE States.”
((((( 8-/ ))))) Those commie founders….
Report comment to moderator
Worse, RPN (#28), you get people actually defending it and NOT shouting it down. Where are the detractors to the reform calling this out as a lie?
Report comment to moderator
Mickey: But let me get this straight, we’ve been hearing all week that it’s wrong to organize against Obamacare, but apparently it’s OK to organize against those organized against Obamacare?
It would have been better for people to come to those meetings, ask reasonable questions and engage in dialogue. But yes, Mickey, since the opponents decided that they couldn’t win on honesty and needed to resort to disruption and intimidation, proponents have every right to try to disrupt the disruptions.
You pretend to be very clever in asking what I’m sure you imagine is a nice gotcha question revealing some hypocrisy, but I didn’t notice you editorializing against the right-wingers who devised a deliberate strategy aimed at preventing representatives from having a dialog with constituents.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer: It is amazing that to the left everyone is a plant. They can even conceive of the idea that people are opposed to this bill.
As I have said, repeatedly, we have no problem with people being opposed. We do have a problem with people trying to get others to oppose it by spreading misinformation. And with disrupting public meetings rather than allow their fellow citizens to share the discussion.
I don’t expect it to penetrate your skull this time either, but your simpleminded caricatures of “the left” are just ridiculous.
Report comment to moderator
This is copy/past from p. 29. I only did this to see if the things people are saying about this bill are actually in it.
In this case, it really is. I can’t do anything about the breakup of the lines without destroying the original.
ANNUAL LIMITATION.—The cost-shar
ing incurred under the essential benefits pack
6
age with respect to an individual (or family) for
7 a year does not exceed the applicable level spec8
ified in subparagraph (B).
9 (B) APPLICABLE LEVEL.—The applicable
10 level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is
11 $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a
12 family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded
13 to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year
14 by the annual percentage increase in the Con15
sumer Price Index (United States city average).
I’ve tried to read other parts. NJL might understand it, but it’s very difficult. I believe what others have said about it.
Report comment to moderator
Why do Republicans and tea bagg people oppose constituents having a reasoned factual discussion with their Representatives? If the legislation is so blatantly bad, why have they resorted to lying and shouting people down?
Report comment to moderator
Chas-
Congratulations. You’ve just debunked Itsaboutfreedom’s post of lies. What you posted limits your out of pocket expenses. Well done!
From the Politifact link in post 21:
• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed! False: Section 122 outlines broad categories of benefits that must be included in an essential benefits package. It prohibits cost-sharing for preventive care and limits annual out-of-pocket spending to $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family, indexed for inflation. It says nothing about rationing or limiting treatment.
It’s obvious from NJL’s comments that she either hasn’t read the bill, or she is not a lawyer. You decide.
Report comment to moderator
Okay people, instead of countering their propaganda with your propaganda, some one prove your point or disappoint their point with words from the bill. So far Chas is the only one who has tried to do that.
Report comment to moderator
It is fascinating that the all of the left wing news organizations (some bailed out by Obama), the Democratic National Committe, the White House communications office and the most powerful man on the planet cannot accept any dissent. Even worse these powerful people have resorted to name calling and smearing.
Every protest has organizers. Why did no one object about anti-war rallies, pro-abortion rallies, anti-Bush hate rallies, Pro-Palestinian rallies flying Hamas flags that were organized by someone. Focusing on the organizers is a red herring. There is no uncontroversial evidence that Insurance companies have placed plants. And even if Insurance companies were involved so what. George Soros is behind many of the activist rallies on the left. That is not the issue. The subject is the issue.
Report comment to moderator
What it does is limits what the government will allow me to spendon healthcare. It doesn’t talk about deductable.
Report comment to moderator
KBells and Chas: Several of us have tried for the past week to explain to you that the section about “cost-sharing” does NOT refer to rationing care, as World’s summary and several others have said.
It refers to the maximums you can be required TO PAY for co-payments, deductibles, etc. The term “cost-sharing” is defined IN THE BILL (I quoted the definition in the ‘what’s really in the health care bill’ thread).
The misinformation probably remains uncorrected — I have given up checking — but it is misinformation.
You guys are being LIED TO. I really wish you would stop to consider that maybe just this once RPN and I are right about something, and check it out for yourselves rather than relying on what self-interested sources are telling you.
Report comment to moderator
Steve –
We can all read, we have access to the bill – The bill is nothing but a farce, anyone reading it can see for themselves. You haven’t proven a thing.
Report comment to moderator
Chas-
“What it does is limits what the government will allow me to spendon healthcare. It doesn’t talk about deductable.”
Not even close. You weren’t kidding you don’t understand it. The section you are quoting is referring to Cost Sharing. Cost Sharing means: the portion of costs not borne by the insurer or agency. They are limiting your out of pocket expenses to $5000/year for individuals and $10000/year for families.
Here is Cost Sharing defined:
http://www.ahrq.gov/chip/text/content/cost_sharing/cost_sharing.htm
Cost-Sharing Definition: Any contribution consumers make towards the cost of their healthcare as defined in their health insurance policy.
Two types of cost-sharing commonly used in subsidized insurance programs are:
Set fee paid by the consumer “up-front,” such as sliding scale premiums or enrollment fees.
Set fee paid by the consumer “at-time-of-service,” such as copayments or deductibles, in order to obtain specific healthcare services (e.g., office visit or prescription drugs).
Report comment to moderator
So now they are supplying you with web sites for specific arguments? LOL
Report comment to moderator
And the reason we need a government plan instead of opening up competition among the several states is?
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Victoria, as we present a question, they will go running back for an answer.
Report comment to moderator
43-
Why should states to compete? That makes no sense.
The bill creates more competition. Why are Republicans opposed to competition and consumers being able to shop for their insurance?
A Health Insurance Exchange. The new Health Insurance Exchange creates a transparent and functional marketplace for individuals and small employers to comarison shop among private and public insurers.
Report comment to moderator
They have this all worked out as I posted ABOVE in #8 – they probably have a dozens of these sites –
They have a new name – “Obama Derangement Syndrome” was named by one of their own over on #10 on the ‘Taking names’ thread
Report comment to moderator
You really are blind! The states wouldn’t be competing, the private insurers would be competing in interstate commerce. THAT creates more competition.
Report comment to moderator
As usual you come in breathlessly nipping heals and fail to grasp the derangement syndrome applies to you.
1. Obama Derangement Syndrome
The acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the statements — nay — the very existence of President Barack Obama.
Fits you and others here like a glove, Victoria!
Report comment to moderator
NJL-
You suggested competition among states.
“And the reason we need a government plan instead of opening up competition among the several states is?”
Report comment to moderator
Well first of all dearies, the site RPN went “running” to is an official government source of information about what’s really in the legislation.
It would almost be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic. We’re getting our information from the text of the legislation, from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (RPN’s source on the above), and you’re getting yours from right-wing blogs and Rush Limbaugh, and somehow we’re supposedly the ones who don’t know what we’re talking about.
And Victoria, what’s wrong with finding an information source? You always laugh at people who do that … do you think it’s better for people to just make stuff up? I guess that’s what you do? That attitude is just bizarre.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer: Competition among private insurers is one of the key elements of the bill.
Report comment to moderator
NAY RPN, you identified yourselves “Obama Derangement Syndrome” on the ‘Taking names’ thread #10, I was amazed at how you named yourselves “Obama Derangement Syndrome” – it is so appropriate – the groupies have come up with a name that finally fits them.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg as usual you’re taking what you want to take, leaving the rest -
Report comment to moderator
So who has a website that can convince me that this confusing, 1000 page monstrosity will be efficient and affordable. Our lawmakers don’t even know what it says.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
That question to Victoria is unfair. She thinks World Net Daily (aka Birther Headquarters) is a credible news source.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria-
What is your purpose here? To practice your role in disrupting constructive conversations and making a fool out of yourself? Bravo.
Report comment to moderator
You’re going to be fine RPN, just keep slinging this stuff on the WMB, you’ve done it before -
Report comment to moderator
RPN, may be you could go to one of these meeting and just shout out a bunch of anti-Sarah Palin links. That would certainly start up some constructive conversation.
Report comment to moderator
So, let me get this straight:
We can shout people down, keep them from asking questions, and generally stop up their free speech, if:
1) We think they are wrong.
2) We don’t like who some of them are (i.e. insurance company people, Republicans, right wing people, etc.)
3) If they oppose things we think are reasonable.
Whatever happened to the United States of America?
Report comment to moderator
In other words, if you’re a Republican, or work for an insurance company, or question Obama’s qualifications or proposals, then the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to you.
Wow.
Report comment to moderator
TRS – thats IT! – and they don’t blink when they say it -
Report comment to moderator
TRS: Uh huh. Except it was your side who started using those tactics you outline in #59 to disrupt Democratic town halls and attempt to intimidate the lawmakers. There is a memo that documents the strategy, and we’ve been seeing it play out around the country.
Now the Democrats are standing up to it, and NOW you decide it’s wrong?
Unbelievable.
Report comment to moderator
KBells: I don’t think anybody or anything could convince you. You’ve made up your mind and are not interested in the truth.
Report comment to moderator
Steve, I have three choices; Believe the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, believe the DNC or become a lawyer and read this myself.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg, we feel the same way about you.
Report comment to moderator
The insurance companies got rolled. They laid low thinking they would get some of the corporate dole. Nothing altruistic, just seeking sustainable profits by limiting competition with regulation. Now that public support is cratering, they been tossed and vilified. Has anyone heard from big Pharma in the last week or so. Seems too quiet.
Report comment to moderator
KBells: You could try seeking out some sources who don’t have a vested interest in the outcome.
You could also try at least considering that maybe the people who have loyalties to the Republican party are not necessarily unbiased, and maybe when others offer contradictory statements, don’t just shrug them off. Especially not when those who do so are relying on credible sources and the plain language of the legislation.
For example:
WORLD says:
• The government will ration your care: Establish an annual limitation on cost sharing to ensure that “the cost-sharing incurred . . . with respect to an individual (or family) for a year does not exceed the applicable level specified–$5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family.” (29.4-29.16)
The bill says: (4) COST-SHARING- The term `cost-sharing’ includes deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, and similar charges but does not include premiums or any network payment differential for covered services or spending for non-covered services.
(Subtitle D, Part 2, section c(4).
Now, does that sound like “cost-sharing” is a measure of “ration(ing) your care?” Do you have to be lawyer to figure out it’s talking about limitations on what you pay, not on what you get?
Or how about this?
WORLD says: The government will tax individuals unless you are a foreign resident: “Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage…imposed tax equal to 2.5 percent of the [gross income].” (page 167, line 17–page 168, line 4) This “shall not apply to any individual who is a non-resident alien.”
Do you have to be a lawyer to figure out that a “non-resident alien,” which is what the bill specifies, is not the same thing as a “foreign resident?”
Or just go to this thread and look at Serious George’s critique in comment #40. I doubt anyone would mistake SG for a raving liberal.
You don’t have to be a lawyer, KBells, you just have to be able to read plain English and think for yourself rather than swallow what somebody else — left or right — tells you.
Report comment to moderator
KBells: You could try seeking out some sources who don’t have a vested interest in the outcome.
There is no such thing.
Report comment to moderator
think for yourself rather than swallow what somebody else — left or right — tells you.
That is exactly why I got involved in the election in the first place. I got tired of people telling me how I had to vote, or that I wasn’t a Christian if I voted a certain way. PoppyCock!
A ‘good’ Christian needs to have a Biblically informed conscience, pray, and become as informed as reasonably possible before they cast a vote—-NOT tow some party line! It’s not just our right, it’s our responsibility! Playing follow the party leader just doesn’t cut it, IMHO.
Report comment to moderator
TRS — the papers are in fact reporting shout downs and disruptions, but rather (I suppose) inconveniently, these shout-downs are from so-called conservatives. E.g. this article today, from the St. Petersburg Times.
Mickey gets all upset about the organizing of the pro side, but the factual record of disruption, of shout-downs, and even of memos places the OFA document in its proper context, as a defensive move. Indeed, Greg Sargent at the Washington Post had raised this very issue earlier as to whether the Dems were being out hustled. So from Mickey’s perspective it is strictly lose-lose. Dems don’t push back, the noise makers win; if the Dems push back why they are somehow being anti-democratic. That’s not even close to a just argument.
This resort to mob action by the Right does them no favors, and in fact reveals a much darker tendency in their political thinking.
Report comment to moderator
What Harris said.
You guys can defend this on the right and attack it on the left if you like, but that’s hypocritical.
Or you can decry it on the left and pretend it doesn’t happen on the right, but that’s just lying.
Either way, you do yourselves or your faith no credit.
Report comment to moderator
How about I defend it on neither side…hmm?
As for the “but he did it first” argument. I don’t accept that from my kids, and I thought adults well past it.
Wrong is wrong.
Report comment to moderator
As for the “but he did it first” argument. I don’t accept that from my kids, and I thought adults well past it.
Wrong is wrong.
I agree. As I said earlier, (#31), ideally the Town Hall meetings could have been orderly and civil and informative, and allowed for both supporters and opponents to speak, voice their concerns and ask questions.
But since the opponents apparently were not confident that that would be to their advantage, they set out a deliberate strategy of disruption — something World apparently thought was just fine, because there were no posts or threads about that.
Only when the supporters decide that they don’t have to surrender to that does it become a (gasp!) problem.
I oppose it from both sides too, but the fact remains that the supporters would have had no reason to do anything had the opponents not chosen to behave like sixth-graders.
Report comment to moderator
StevG-
I realize you are here in good faith attempting to have a reasoned and fact based discussion on the issues. Unfortunately, I no longer think it possible with most here. Their primary concern is to oppose anything associated with the President. They have no interest in solving the health care problem for working families. That they are so easily misled into lazy thinking is sad, but speaks for itself. We will all be worse off if they have their way. They thrive on being aggrieved. This will not keep me and, I hope, others interested in an honest fact based discussion of the issues from pointing out their lies and misinformation when needed, but the dishonesty and disingenuous approach is disheartening. We are all in this together, and their tantrums and lack of honesty in discourse is not at all constructive or beneficial to moving our nation ahead.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, come on, Steve. And, the Democrats behave above sixth grade when?
Let’s just condemn it from both sides. Let’s condemn poll intimidation when the Dems do it (or Reps, although I can’t think of a particular instance as I can with Dems) and let’s condemn disruption of free discussion when Reps do it or Dems do it.
Let’s just leave off on the justifications. Wrong is wrong. Period.
The first amendment should apply to everyone.
Report comment to moderator
Their primary concern is to oppose anything associated with the President.
******Coming from you, this is sadly laughable.
Hate Palin, hate Palin, hate Palin. Love Obama, love Obama, love Obama.
Report comment to moderator
Notice that in #67, I gave to specific examples of misinformation, and a reference to a post from one of the blog’s conservative Christians detailing more … and nobody has yet denied any of it. Instead, you just attack the messenger or respond to the other part of the post and slide right past the substance.
You’re not interested in the truth. Your minds are so closed that you won’t recognize it even when served to you on a silver platter.
RPN is right. This is a waste of time. I have argued with brick walls that were more reasonable.
Report comment to moderator
Steve-
Don’t go. Truth must prevail.
Report comment to moderator
TRS-
I love VictimSarah© as much as the next middle-aged man, but Alaska is better off without her, and so are the other 49 states. She left Alaska in health care crisis mode. It’s ironic you’d bring her up on this thread? Allow me to update you with news from the Anchorage Daily News you will not find covered by the MSM:
http://www.adn.com/life/health/story/864670.html
Troubled Alaska health programs face federal restriction
July 14th, 2009
The situation is so bad the federal government has forbidden the state to sign up new people until the state makes necessary improvements.
No other state in the nation is under such a moratorium, according to a spokeswoman for the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
The moratorium is expected to last four or five months. State officials estimate about 1,000 Alaskans will be affected.
A particularly alarming finding concerns deaths of adults in the programs. In one 2 1/2 year stretch, 227 adults already getting services died while waiting for a nurse to reassess their needs. Another 27 died waiting for their initial assessment, to see if they qualified for help.
Report comment to moderator
Chas- 33 and 38
Did providing the definition of “Cost Sharing” (post 41) help you to understand the language? You went silent after I replied with the definition, so I assume it clarified your misunderstanding. The real intent of the section you quote is to limit YOUR out of pocket expenses. If you don’t understand, please reply with what it is you’re confused about and we can go from there. Whoever sent you that email should be ashamed.
Cost Sharing means: the portion of costs not borne by the insurer or agency. They are limiting your out of pocket expenses to $5000/year for individuals and $10000/year for families.
Here is Cost Sharing defined:
http://www.ahrq.gov/chip/text/content/cost_sharing/cost_sharing.htm
Cost-Sharing Definition: Any contribution consumers make towards the cost of their healthcare as defined in their health insurance policy.
Report comment to moderator
I would like to thank ITSABOUTFREEDOM (post 9) for recycling his SPAM into an educational opportunity. Please come around more often.
Report comment to moderator
RPN #79: And that disproves TRS how? You just indulged in another Two Minutes Hate.
Report comment to moderator
TJS- “And that disproves TRS how? ”
The question is a non sequitur. TRS wrote nothing to disprove, but she did interject Sarah Palin as VictimSarah© into a health care discussion.
Please explain how I “just indulged in another Two Minutes Hate.” Shall we not indulge trolls interjecting pointless assertions about irrelevant political figures who recently resigned from governing the state temporarily?
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, President Lincoln also said:
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”
DO you agree?
Report comment to moderator
fwiw, there is a remarkable first-person account of a public meeting with Representative John Dingell in Romulus MI, at the Daily Kos (I know, not a place most folks go to, bear with me). What is interesting however, is the writer’s own perspective of these protestors:
Report comment to moderator
Ok, I just realized that I probably should have left off the last line — that’s pretty polemical, isn’t it? The rest, I think quite valid, even useful, in terms of understanding the depth of concern.
Report comment to moderator
Steve writes: “KBells: You could try seeking out some sources who don’t have a vested interest in the outcome.”
So could you.
Report comment to moderator
And all of this denies the fact that there are MANY people who are upset about this legislation and don’t want it. Those people are the ones the Obamessiahites want to disenfranchise, what to keep from being heard. If you label everyone as part of a mob and it sticks, the real dissenters are brushed aside. Just what Obama and his henchmen want.
Report comment to moderator
Can anyone tell me, what’s good, smart, and exciting about the bill? Specifically.
Report comment to moderator
Kwerna –
It’s a big deal for those who want the government to support them, that’s the EXCITING part.
Report comment to moderator
Steve,
I’m agreeing with you an RPN on the point that its cost sharing..
How does still having to pay up to 10k for a family help the poor though?
This 10k is does not subtract any premiums paid, which I assume means taxes youve had to pay as well.
Report comment to moderator
A townhall is a venue that allows government officials to make a presentation and allows the people to tell the officials that they don’t believe them. So far this seems to be working quite nicely.
A blog/forum/threaded discussion is a venue that allows people to make unsupportable claims and other people to launch ad hominem attacks. This, too, seems to be working well…
Oddly,a few contributors here have posted reasonable comments in good faith; incorrigible rebels, no doubt.
I have nothing reasonable to say, but would like to assert, without support, that the Democrats have unwittingly shown their true colors with this fraudulent healthcare reform bill–and even more are showing their cluelessness by the way they are “supporting” it.
Report comment to moderator
So, I checked my employer provided health insurance, to see what real life co-payment and deductible limits look like, since that’s the point that’s being argued – or by some, misrepresented – in this case.
We have a PPO plan, three tiers of coverage with increasing premiums – Basic, Medium, and High. There are different limitations for doctors in the PPO network, and out of it. So of course, I do not have actual freedom of choice in providers already.
In Network:
High:
None
Medium:
$1,500/Member
$4,500/Family
Basic:
$2,500/Member
$7,500/Family
Out of Network:
High:
$2,000/Member
$6,000/Family
Medium:
$3,000/Member
$9,000/Family
Basic:
$4,500/Member
$13,500/Family
So the $10K limit corresponds roughly to what is offered by a very basic plan? Isn’t that the point, though? Establishing a base level – so that the insurance plans have an upper limit on what they make you pay out of pocket.
Say they capped it at $4500 per family, corresponding with the plan that is most widely chosen where I work. It doesn’t seem a stretch to think people opposing the plan would then argue opposite to what you seem to be: The out of pocket max is too low, it’s a cadillac plan requirement, people won’t be paying enough out of pocket, and will thus over-use medical services, insurance companies can’t be profitable if they limit it to such a low level, and so on.
So which way is it to be?
Or should we have NO cap on out of pocket that insurance companies can make you pay?
And of course, to reierate a point to which he hasn’t responded, contra Chas’s misunderstanding in #33 and repetition of the misunderstanding in #38, this does nothing to limit what you can spend on your health care. You can go out and pay on your own for whatever you would like, without asking insurance to pay for it.
But if, as normally, your insurance covers care with a co-payment and/or deductible – ie, they say “We’ll cover this much and you must cover that much” – the most they can make you pay is $10K per year.
It is amazing to me that such a simple thing as capping that out of pocket expense at what looks like a none-too-generous current market value, is so misrepresented and misunderstood.
Harris point in #83 is apt.
The fear that is being expressed at these town-hall meetings is quite real. But it’s based on non-sense, rumor, misreadings and misinterpretations such as the above. My experience in life so far, is that education and understanding go a long way towards overcoming fear. So I really hope those instilling such fear deliberately fail, and that the government succeeds in getting out accurate information and education about what this bill does and does not do.
Report comment to moderator
Are those premiums only the employee contribution or the total cost shared with your employor?
Report comment to moderator
Lost in all this arguing about what the healthcare plan will or won’t do is who is going to pay for this?
The cost is lumped primarily on those who will not be using it, and that just seems unfair to me.
It is the difference from a neighbor coming to me and saying that the guy next door is sick and needs my help from coming and saying I have to help.
So, all you supporters of NHC, how much more in taxes are you going to voluntarily pay next year so that others can have health care.
I would like to see a specific amount. $100 more? $1000 more?
pledge an amount.
Report comment to moderator
NormP
I’m not sure what you mean. Those numbers don’t have anything to do with what it costs to purchase insurance. Those are the out of pocket contribution limits.
So I have some portion each week taken out of my income to purchase insurance, that amount depends on which level of plan I have chosen, and whether it is single employee, or family plan. My employer also pays some portion for the policy (I am not sure off hand how much) which is part of my benefits package.
Now, with this insurance I go to the doctor. Each time I go, there is a $20. co payment. For other medical services, it varies – for hospitalization, for example, the co-payment is 20%.
Going to the doctor, I pay $20. up front. I get an insurance statement that shows Doc charged $100, company allows $60, I paid $20, and they paid doc $40, and doc bill was adjusted by $40. I go to doc 5 times, and I have now paid $100. out of pocket.
If hospitalized, for ex, hospital bills $5000. Insurance statement comes, and says they allow $3750. Hospital bill comes, and they show adjustment of $1250, Insurance company paid $3000 (3750*80%) and my copayment is $750. My out of pocket is now up to $850.
I’m hospitalized again, same thing, $5000 billed, $3750 allowed. My 20% co-payment of $750 would put me at $1600 for the year. But, oops, there’s a $1500 cap. So the hospital bill would be adjusted by $1250, Insurance pays $3100, and I pay $650.
Report comment to moderator
Hold on, Roy-97, Norm will get those numbers for you and explain it just as soon as his puppeteer feeds him the stats and explanation. I’m sure he’s “cutting and pasting” as I type.
Report comment to moderator
You know, why stop at NHC? What about car insurance? Or life insurance? Or homeowners insurance? I mean, why should only some in this great, wealthy, greedy, America have these things and not all? Hmmm?
Report comment to moderator
Ooops. Got that backwards, Norm. I think maybe has the puppetteer.
Sorry about that.
Report comment to moderator
I mean, I think Roy…
oh bother!
Report comment to moderator
Any way, Norm, sorry again.
Report comment to moderator
BrotherDan
What?
I’m trying to explain to Norm P, using some hypothetical yet realistic numbers, how a cap on out of pocket expenses works. It is a fairly standard part of insurance plans, I believe. He seemed, in number 95, to be confusing out of pocket expenses with the premiums my employer and I pay for insurance coverage.
I apologize, if he already understands how a cap on out of pocket expenses functions. Previous posts had been discussing how the proposed legislation sets the cap at $10K per family, and erroneously thinking that this was what the family is allowed to spend on medical care, rather than being the most they can be required by their insurer to contribute for covered services.
Therefor, the example and comparison to an actual plan I know something about (because it is my current insurance plan) seemed apt.
Report comment to moderator
RoyClay,
I don’t know for sure, but my guess as to what Norm might be getting at is that the true total of what my health care costs me is not just what I pay in premiums plus out of pocket, but also what my employer spends on my premiums, because it is part of my total compensation package. If insurance weren’t part of the compensation deal, the employer could be adding that same amount of money to my cash salary. (As I understand it, the only reason insurance got tied to employment was that at one point employers wanted to increase their employees’ compensation and weren’t allowed to do it with cash, so they started paying the employees’ premiums instead.)
Report comment to moderator
Well, Roy and Norm, I must admit that I should have kept quiet. I am very worked up over this issue. In particular, I’m worked up over the way Obama and his administration are inciting violence through union thugs and the way the Democrats in particular are behaving towards the citizenry. This is over the top. People are being beaten up and reported to an United States of America email address for dissenting! In AMERICA!!!!! My forefathers did not fight and die for my freedom and every one else’s here for this kind of behavior from ELECTED SERVANTS! GOOD GRIEF, CHARLIE BROWN!!
Report comment to moderator
Someone up above asked what I thought was good about the bill. I don’t have time to commit to a lengthy discussion today, so flame a way.
-Choice of insurers(some areas currently have only one or two insurers)
-Increases competition between companies through the insurance exchange
-Protects current coverage — keep it if you want
-Public option to keep insurers honest
-Guaranteed coverage
-Coverage for pre-existing conditions
-No lifetime or annual limit on benefits
-Sets a minimum quality standard
-Credits for low and moderate income families
-Small business tax credits
-Caps annual out?of?pocket expenses to help prevent medical bankruptcies
-Prohibition of cost?sharing for preventive services (cost sharing is what you pay, as explained above
Report comment to moderator
RPN: How would choice of insurers increase (unless you mean the addition of a government option)? Also, how will the exchange work?
-Choice of insurers(some areas currently have only one or two insurers)
-Increases competition between companies through the insurance exchange
Report comment to moderator
Norm-
By creating an insurance exchange for consumers, a marketplace is created where we can comparison shop for an appropriate policy. Currently, many areas of the country have only 1 or 2 companies writing policies for individuals. For example, where I live there is only one company offering individual policies, so I have no choice at all. If I want to have health insurance (which I think is extremely foolish not to have) I have no choice but to buy it from them. If I were able to use the exchange I would be able to choose from all the insurers, and would know they meet minimum standards. Right now my monthly premium is just over $1500 for my family, and there is no other company to go to, or to provide a competitive incentive for my company to beocme more efficient. If they are the only game in town, they can charge what they want, and they do. My premiums just went up more than 20% on Aug. 1st.
Report comment to moderator
Good reading:
From the House Ways and Means Comittee:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/hr3200_summary.pdf
Report comment to moderator
RPN
I agree that your situation is wrong. It’s a monopoly. However, I still do not believe that a government option is the answer. I believe that the real threat of a slippery slope to single-payer health care is a valid argument against the government option. I know you know the argument. Will at at least concede to the validity of that argument?
Report comment to moderator
RPN
All they would have to do is remove the restrictions from being able to shop for coverage state to state.
Report comment to moderator
What’s telling is that the majority of Doctors seem to be against this, even as they decry the current system. Why not ask them what is hurting their profession?
Report comment to moderator
Wake up America! It is time to investigate every peaceful means necessary that could be used to remove this man from office, along with Pelosi, Dodd, Reid, Frank, Kennedy. Impeachment? Recall elections? What does it take? Aside from complaints and rants that only incite anger- what can be done? This is no longer a government that serves its people and rules by the consent of the governed.
Report comment to moderator
RPN: like the NYSE including sales transactions?
Report comment to moderator
RPN, what choice will people have if their employer chooses the government program for them?
If all working people do stick with their private insurance plans, how will the government pay for all the non-working people who end up on the government-sponsored plan?
Report comment to moderator
RPN, what choice will people have if their employer chooses the government program for them?
The employer can’t. The bill eliminates the lock on your choices that your employer has by creating a competitive pool. You can choose any plan you like from the pool. Your employer will no longer be able to give you a small range of choices and tell you that’s all you have available.
Report comment to moderator
Isn’t this interesting, someone asks a question as if Steveg has the answer. NJLawyer is right on the other thread “the Brooklyn Bridge” -
Report comment to moderator
Ah obviously a topic which has much resonance.
Let me suggest, however, that while it may have seemed tactically profitable to organize to disrupt the tonew hall meetings, in practice:
- this is a demonstration that the conservative movement is increasingly desparate
- all health reform opponents are now becoming tarred with the badge of being organized disrupters
Certainly this has gotten much press. But I suggest that this press is now working against the health reform opposition.
I suggest that anyone with real concerns about the health reform efforts should be very concerned with these protestors: they are drowning out your opportunity to make a meaningful case for opposition to health care reform.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know what that’s even supposed to mean, Victoria. You’re criticizing me because I know something about what I’m talking about?
Report comment to moderator
No Steveg, you believe you know something about the un-Healthy health bill, but you don’t.
I can see where you would be confused as to what I meant. Just as you’re confused as to what the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin – in the case of the Bible it is your selective choice of what the Bible says, compared to what it clearly states, which you won’t accept – yet you accept what Obama says.
Report comment to moderator
Steve,
Ignore Victoria. You have more knowledge of the facts than she does. She’s trolling for attention.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: you accept what Obama says.
Wrong again. I can read plain English. I can read the language of the legislation. I know it does not say anything like what you think it does.
Report comment to moderator
Sure you can, just like you can read the Bible and dispute GOD’S Word regarding homosexuality and that is plain language, even you can understand it –
If you believe you have the inside scoop on this bill, then give the Section number and page number –
Report comment to moderator
Bro-dan-
I will acknowledge that we disagree, and that’s ok. I hope you can do the same. I thought this might be of interest to you as it relates to your unsupported claim that “the majority of Doctors seem to be against this…”
In the news recently:
American Medical Association endorses Democratic plan.
CHICAGO – The American Medical Association on Thursday endorsed a liberal health overhaul bill that includes a public insurance option, a bold step for a traditionally conservative group with a checkered past on health reforms.
In its strongest action yet signaling support for President Barack Obama’s vow to reform health care, the nation’s largest doctors’ group sent letters to three House committees behind the bill. The letters, signed by AMA’s executive vice president, Dr. Michael Maves, said the AMA appreciates and supports what is being called America’s Affordable Health Choices Act.
The Mayo Clinic endorses the plan and asks it to be even more aggressive in providing better pay for better outcomes
[Mayo Clinic] wholeheartedly support President Obama’s call for healthcare reform, and agree with his position that “the
status quo is the one option that is not on the table”. We applaud the House and the Senate for their ongoing
efforts to obtain universal coverage for all Americans.
We should not put more Americans into the current unsustainable
system.
‘Pay for value’ is the only tactic that will “bend the cost curve” in U.S. health spending, improve the quality of
care that our citizens deserve, and create a long and healthy future for both the American people and the
American healthcare system.
Thank you for your leadership and commitment to health care reform.
American Academy of Family Physicians,
American College of Physicians,
American Osteopathic Association:
On behalf of the over 300,000 physicians and medical students represented by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), American College of Physicians (ACP), and the American Osteopathic Association (AOA), we are writing to express our broad support for the goals of the Tri-Committee draft health reform bill….
We commend you for proposing policies that will ensure all Americans have access to affordable health care. Our organizations are especially pleased that you have taken significant steps to re-align workforce and payment policies to reverse the growing shortage of primary care physicians. We remain committed to working with you to advance these goals and ensure that such policies are enacted into law.
This is a year old, but telling none the less.
Most doctors support national health insurance, new study shows
Reflecting a shift in thinking over the past five years among U.S. physicians, a new study shows a solid majority of doctors – 59 percent – now supports national health insurance.
A study published in today’s Annals of Internal Medicine, a leading medical journal, reports that a survey conducted last year of 2,193 physicians across the United States showed 59 percent of them “support government legislation to establish national health insurance,” while 32 percent oppose it and 9 percent are neutral.
Can you provide some information and statistics in support of your claim that “the majority of Doctors seem to be against this”? Or do you just mean the ones you see on your TV?
Report comment to moderator
If you believe you have the inside scoop on this bill, then give the Section number and page number –
I’ve been discussing the points in the bill with those specific references all through these threads. If you can’t be bothered to pay attention, I’m certainly not obligated to jump through hoops for you.
Report comment to moderator
Your backup has been very factual, Steve. She’s just trolling you to discredit you. Notice she hasn’t even argued a point with anything factual. I believe Victoria is employed by a Pharma corporation if that helps explain things.
Report comment to moderator
As I look over these post it seems that the only oppositon poster making any seruious attempt at working with facts is ItsAboutTruth.
Hwever, to take one instance of hist post, his comment about page 22 audits of all those who self-insure: I suggest that such audits are of course necessarry to ensure that the self-insurance is properly managed. Private health insurers also get audited, and this would seem to merely provide a fair playing field.
We could indeed have such a discussion (although since the pagination of the bill can vary depending on source, I suggest specific references to articles etc. in the bill with a reference link might be preferred), but as we see in this blog we are not.
The conservative cause seems to have become intellecutally bankrupt in thier ability to support issues, and it shows in the lack of specfricity in the arguments against health care both in this blog, and at the town halls.
Report comment to moderator
NOw I sense that it is arguable that the lead in to this discussion is, much like his leadin to the clunkers discusison preceding this, perhaps somewhatmisleading.
In the clunker discussion he does not seem to note that passing the amendment would have effectviely terminated cash for clunkers for the month of August. Crocodile tears regaridng the poor would appear tobe a subrefuge to actually kill the bill.
In this discussion he appears to argue that grass roots organizing to ensure actual discussions at town hall meetings are some how equivalent to what is increasingly being shown as business funded efforts to orgainze disruptions using industry funds. A deep look at the sponsors of:
http://recessrally.com/
is suggestive here.
And I note that this is perhaps consistent wiht Mickey’s historical attempt to make biblical inerrancy a privileged argument in this blog.
I suggest that better questions than the one Mickey posed, and ones consistent it would seem with SteveG’s efforts, are:
- how can we structure a civil fact based debate on healthcare
- what are the critical objectvie aspects of the health care bill whch need to be discussed
One possiblite reason for the failure of the health care opposition to take this tack is that they understand they will lose on the facts.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline,
when you comment:
” (As I understand it, the only reason insurance got tied to employment was that at one point employers wanted to increase their employees’ compensation and weren’t allowed to do it with cash, so they started paying the employees’ premiums instead.) ”
I believe more correctly, the government created a tax structure in which it is advantageous for employers in general to provide health insurance to their employees. My memory suggest that this occurred just post WW II simultaneously with a strong union effort to improve the benefit packages of employees.
The effect is that the in the main the only truly “opne” process in most states for obtaining health care insurance is thorugh employers who are required to cover all employees with preexisting conditions for example.
Which is why as I understand it the health reform bill as it stands now:
- requires coverage for preexisting conditions
restricts the aqbility to adjust premiums basedon preexisting cnditions
- enlarges the non-employer based insurance risk pool to make individual insuyrance more affordable
Report comment to moderator
On item which seems ot be cropping up in this discussion is an inconsistency over what is meant by the Health Care Reform bill.
My understanding is that the only bill which has been judged complete enough to be considered for voting by a chamber is the house bill H.R. 3200 whose text can be found at thomas.gov at:
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:
and whose status can be found at:
HR 3200
Can we agree that this is the bill we are discussing?
If not, then what bill are you discussing, with references?
Report comment to moderator
So in looking at he discussion, it appears that seldom are specic issues raised. Lets start form the beginning perhaps and see if a discusison can be raised. A critical issue occurs in the early material which defines what must be covered by an insurrance progeam:
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c111:./temp/~c111AEiGJA
“SEC. 122. ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED
(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, including emergency department 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 in institutional settings, physician offices, patients’ homes or place of residence, or other settings, as appropriate.
(5) Prescription drugs.
(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.
(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.
(8) Preventive services, including those services recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services and those vaccines recommended for use by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
(9) Maternity care.
(10) Well baby and well child care and oral health, vision, and hearing services, equipment, and supplies at least for children under 21 years of age.”
This provides what appears to be a Federal standard about what services must be covered. Further it would appear that this will require coverage of all medically necessary services in these areas of coverage.
Now from a Christian Conservatvie perspectvie, what are the issues surround this kind of federally established standard?
Report comment to moderator
Isn’t the argument about the specific coverage falling under points one through four (i.e. sex-change surgery, abortion, conscience clause, end-of-life decisions)? And the impact to cost, innovation, competiveness and control?
Report comment to moderator
Wagus: I don’t see any of those things specifically required in those points.
The purpose here is to forbid insurers to leave any essential services uncovered. You won’t be in a situation where you need something on the essential list and are told you have to pay for it yourself because your insurance doesn’t cover it.
Report comment to moderator
Surely it’s not open-ended? Sign me up if it includes cosmetic surgery and teeth whitening? I’m only pointing out that the content of these posted specifics are not all that clear.
Report comment to moderator
RPN-124
The fact is, only ten to fifteen percent of actual doctors are members of any of those organizations. THE MAJORITY OF DOCTORS ARE OPPOSED!
Report comment to moderator
Today the percentage is estimated at 19 percent –
This subject comes up frequently among doctor’s and those in the medical community -
Report comment to moderator
The American Medical Association (AMA) only represents about 20% (if that) of physcians today – their numbers have shrunk greatly in 35 years.
Report comment to moderator
wagus,
interesting observation.
I don’t see either dentists or cosmetic surgery except perhaps under rehabilitative and restorative services.
But you are possibly circling an important consideration: as it reads it would appear that this would cover medical procedures which are considered efficacious in addressing medical necessity.
The key issues would seem to be we are honogenizing what is considerd standard coverage.
Report comment to moderator
Brotherdan,
and you are sure a majority of doctors oppose health care reform based on what data?
Report comment to moderator
Musing, most physicians do oppose this bill – the AMA represents a very small minority of doctors in the U.S. in fact the number is just about 20% to 25% of all physcians. Those who do not support the new health plan, for the MOST PART are not members of the AMA, that would account for about 550,00 doctors –
As you can see, most physcians do not agree with the health plan Obama wants.
Report comment to moderator
victori,
note that I am not challenging your AMA assertions.
But if you assert that:
“most physicians do oppose this bill”
I am merely asking for your data to support this.
And your data?
Report comment to moderator
So since many get exasperated when I demand data for an assertion whithout providng my own data, I will offer the following:
1) I am not aware of a reliably and scientifically valid poll which confirms whether doctors as a whole are for or against health care reform as presented
2) what data we have for doctor’s opinions on health care reform (AMA etc.) suggest that doctors are in favor of health care reform but are not definitive
Which suggest that the initial supporting evidence suggests that doctors support health care reform as presented, but further research is required to confirm whether this is true for doctors as a whole.
Report comment to moderator
“THE MAJORITY OF DOCTORS ARE OPPOSED! ”
No one has been able to support this claim, and it is pretty unbelievable. Let’s see your data, Victoria and Dan.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!