posted August 28, 2009 01:25 PM         

It claims that a section about "Community-based Home Medical Services" means "more payoffs for ACORN." ACORN does not provide medical home services. The e-mail interprets any reference to the word "community" to be some kind of payoff for ACORN. That’s nonsense.

posted August 28, 2009 01:27 PM         

This chain e-mail claims to give a run-down of what’s in the House health care bill, H.R. 3200. Instead, it shows evidence of a reading comprehension problem on the part of the author. Some of our more enterprising readers have even taken it upon themselves to debunk a few of the assertions, sending us their notes and encouraging us to write about it. We applaud your fact-checking skills and your skepticism. And skepticism is warranted.

posted August 28, 2009 05:33 PM         

I am married to a Leo / OX and unlike Obama he is intelligent, a Soldier / Veteran, he has been deployed more than 3 times and is Military Intelligence. Obama has a conflicted chart. He tries to get by on his charisma but a Leo must always back it up lest he become a Nepolean.

I am sad for you all. The thing you defend for Obama you railed against Bush.

Ask yourselves this..Why are so many Soldiers now dying in Afghanistan? Ask your leaders why we are not allowed to use air power... that is why we led a different war down there than we are doing now.

Thank you Obama... My husband comes home within a few months from this deployment and will go to Afghanistan withing 11 months along with the Regiment I work for...

I appreciate the dims take on things. It is NOT their children downrange- it is the middle class, while republican kids that fight, stay in and subsequently die.

posted September 02, 2009 11:36 AM         

is medicare great? no...do seniors want to give it up? no...

if the new health bill read like that, it would pass. it would also be understandable. people understand medicare.

posted September 25, 2009 09:46 AM         

I listen to CSpan radio allot. The finance committee hearings with the 560 some odd amendments has been at times like listening to paint dry

One of the many stall tactics that the RW has been employing is to make sure that all of the language in the bill be legislative language.
They also asked [it was shot down] that each part be given 72 hours for review in that Legislative language.

Before the vote took place, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) offered a defense of the amendment by arguing that the 72-hour provision was critical because it provides time for senators to consult with health insurance lobbyists:

"All the Senator from Kentucky is asking is for 72 hours to determine the cost. Senator Snowe has spoken eloquently about sunshine, and the openness, and the fact that the American people would support this 90 percent, 95 percent. But the thing that I’m trying to point out is we would have at least 72 hours for the people that the providers have hired to keep up with all of the legislation that we pass around here, and the regulations that we pass around here, to say “hey, wait a minute. Have you considered this?” And that’s all I’m asking for — is not only cost, but also the content of a bill. And that 72 hours, I think, is highly, highly important."

To be clear, Roberts is referring to health insurance lobbyists when he references the “people that the providers have hired to keep up with all of the legislation.”

posted September 25, 2009 10:17 AM         

'The administration didn't attempt to rush Socialist health care through the Congress'?

Are you nuts?

O'Bomber, Pee-Lousy and Dirty Harry Reid tried to get this through BEFORE the congressional recess...passed before any of the nonsense and odious provisions could be read and reacted to by the public.

That didn't work and demoscats got their faces ripped off by their own constituents at town hall meetings.

I don't know what passes for a brain on the left but thoughtful discussion requires more than posting obvious lies.

In another vein, why is it that BUSH was said by leftists to be "RUSHING TO WAR"....after only 12 YEARS OF STALLING BY SADDAM HUSSEIN IN LIVING UP TO THE CEASEFIRE AGREEMENT HE SIGNED...but leftists O'Bomber, Pee-Lousy and Reid were NOT rushing through a disastrous Socialist health care bill in only a few weeks? Huh, can you possibly 'splain that?

Nevertheless, do try out your nonsense on me.

Hi Pid, hope you and Bear are safe and happy...and continue to be so.

posted September 25, 2009 11:44 AM         

sometimes i wonder what people think goes on in washington. a bill is PROPOSED and the media freak out as if it was passed, which is nothing akin to the truth. other bills were PROPOSED too. now all the proposals will be tinkered with some MORE until there is an actual bill to vote on.

in the meantime the lobbyists are spending millions trying to make sure the bill changes NOTHING. and FOX is whining about acorn.

it's similar to ringling bros circus...keep THREE rings going and maybe no one will notice that none of them really are worth watching!!

posted September 25, 2009 04:43 PM         

Opposition to O'Bomber care is holding steady at 56% against and 44% for.

On a different note, fifty-nine percent (59%) of U.S. voters believe that the current level of political anger in the country is higher than it was when George W. Bush was president.

On another note, the highest percentage of Americans recorded in the last 20 years now believe the useless, irrelevant press gets stories wrong, misreports and is biased.

posted September 25, 2009 04:53 PM         

Don't buy O'BomberCare insurance and don't pay the penalty..fine imposed by the IRS and you can go to jail for up to a year OR be fined up to $25,000.

The people writing this Socialist garbage are insane.

September 25, 2009
Categories: Senate

Ensign receives handwritten confirmation
This doesn't happen often enough.

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."

The note was a follow-up to Ensign's questioning at the markup.

posted September 26, 2009 11:13 AM         

The biggest lie of all is that the US health care system needs to be scraped and a government run Socialist health care system needs to be implemented.

This lie flies in the face of reality, statistics and common sense.

But, that's leftists for you; they're irrational, illogical and have not a drop of common sense.

HR 3200 with it's "Public Option is the gateway towards a "Single Payer"...government only Socialist health care system...like Canada, like Britain and other failed health care systems which are killing people in those nations.

Don't believe me? Obama is on record..on video tape agitating for a "Single Payer" system like Canada and like other Socialist health care systems including Britain.

Barney Frank is on record...on video tape announcing that HR 3200 which has the "Government Option, is the pathway to a "Single Payer"...government run health care system.

HR 3200, in it's present form means medical rationing of treatment, long lines..waiting lists, reductions in medical diagnostic equipment, reductions in new drugs and therapies for cures or treatment and "medical murder" where treatment is withheld for some members or groups of members in our society.

We're supposed to scrap the best health care system in the world to take care of the about 8 million people in America out of 320 million who have preexisting medical conditions and those who make too much money to qualify for SDI, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP or other government funded medical care.

Of the 47 million so called uninsured, there are 12-20 million illegal aliens who are not supposed to be in the United States at all.

There are another 10-15 million who can afford health insurance but choose to not buy it but instead, choose a larger house, a new car or other ways to spend their money.

AND

There are another 8 to 10 million who are already eligible for one of the government supported and funded health insurance plans...and therefore eligible for "health care" who have never signed up for any of the many existing programs.

Upwards of 90% of those who have health insurance, in whatever form it takes, are perfectly happy with their medical insurance and medical care in America.

For the sake of about 8 million people out of 320 million in America who do not have medical insurance, can't get it or can't afford it, "WE'RE SUPPOSED TO SCRAP THE BEST HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD. NO SALE.

posted September 26, 2009 11:28 AM         

U.S. Health Care is First-Rate:

Such information also flies in the face of the first-rate care offered throughout the nation — not just at the major medical centers like Johns Hopkins University and the Mayo Clinic. Most Americans live close to a hospital system that provides lifesaving care that is the envy of people in other nations. It is no secret that, even with all the flaws and shortcomings of the U.S. medical establishment, people — close to half a million annually — come to this country from around the world when they need specialized medical care. American doctors and American hospitals provide care that is superior to that found anywhere else, and thousands of people are alive today as testament to that fact. The poorest American citizens have access to care that is far superior to that available to the richest citizens of most nations.

U.S. Leads in Medical Technology:

Advances in medical know-how and technology typically occur here in the United States, where the latest drugs and top specialists are readily accessible. In a recent article, Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard, pointed out the following facts:

· The two most significant innovations for patient care in the past decade are magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computerized tomography (CT).

· The United States has 27 MRI machines per million Americans.

· Canada and Britain have six MRI machines per million.

· The United States has 34 CT scanners per million.

· Canada has 12 per million and Britain only eight.

U.S. Health Care Costs are Low, Results are High:

The average citizen in the U.S. pays less for health care than citizens in Germany, Japan, Canada, and most countries in the E.U. Yet, with illnesses like cancer and heart disease there are significant gaps in the outcomes for patients in other nations as compared to their survival when treated in the U.S. Again, Fred Barnes offers comparative information that was published in the medical journal Lancet Oncology. Clearly, Americans get better care than citizens in other nations, leading to greater survival rates from the most lethal forms of cancer.

· Survival rate for all cancer patients for Americans — 66.3 percent for men and 63.9 for women.

· Survival rate for all cancer patients for Europeans — 47.3 percent for men and 55.9 percent for women.

· Survival rate for prostate cancer for American men — 99 percent

· Survival rate for prostate cancer for European men — 77.5 percent

· Survival rate for colon/rectal cancer for Americans — 65.5 percent

Survival rate for colon/rectal cancer for Europeans — 56.2 percent

· Survival rate for breast cancer patients for Americans — 90.1 percent

· Survival rare for breast cancer patients for Europeans — 79 percent

Citizens also get better care when it comes to heart disease and heart attacks — patients have access to a wide variety of tests, treatments, and drugs, such as cardiac catheterization, angioplasty, stents, by-pass operations and blood-thinning drugs. The progress in treating heart problems is astounding. In 1970, around 500 per 100,000 people died of coronary heart disease. By 1980, it had dropped to under 350. It was down to 250 in 1990, down to 190 in 2000, and by 2007, it was under 140. Likewise, a heart attack used to be fatal; by 1960, less than 40 percent of heart attack victims died. That number is now down to around only six percent.

U.S. Citizens’ Mortality Rates are Low:

If you want to survive catastrophic illnesses, you need to live in America. America’s health care system provides earlier detection, better treatment options, and more potent drug protocols than are available elsewhere. Mammograms are routine, with more than 90 percent of women having an annual Pap smear test to detect ovarian cancer. Over half of American men routinely have the PSA test for prostate cancer, and around 30 percent of Americans have routine colonoscopies to detect colon cancer at its earliest stages. As a result, the statistics show a staggering benefit for living in the United States when it comes to your chances of surviving these common cancers that are so deadly in other nations.

With heart disease, the comparisons are equally dramatic. Ordinary Americans — more than half of whom need them — have access to the drugs that reduce cholesterol. Whereas in nations like Germany, Britain, Italy, Switzerland and the Netherlands, only 15-40 percent of the citizens can get such potent and high-cost preventative care.

America Spends More on Health Care:

Our nation spends almost 20 percent of its annual gross national product on health care, which suggests that citizens’ health is more of a priority here than it is for those who live in other nations. Life expectancy in the United States is far superior to that of other nations because of the quality of care available to citizens, the priority given to medical research, and the availability of technology and drugs for treating the worst illnesses that human beings experience.

It’s strange that so many from the left seem determined to replace a system that is not broken. Granted, there could be improvements in the U.S. system of health care, but the campaign for government-run health care is based on distortions and myths. No wonder citizens from near and far are clamoring to be heard above the President’s incendiary rhetoric. His high pressure techniques remind ordinary Americans of the auto repairman who wants to replace the car’s transmission when nothing but the fan belt needs fixing.

posted September 27, 2009 10:04 AM         

With the index dropping insurance carriers raised an average 7% last quarter!

Yes we have more MRI and CT, do you know what an average MRI costs? Your cost depends on your carrier! You are asked that info before the charge is quoted.
A shoulder MRI can average $1900, and there is a radiologist fee on top of that. Often $400. A stand up MRI can cost more.

People take Medical Vacations in this country.

Just two-pbs.org

posted September 28, 2009 02:30 PM         

Just 41% of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down two points from a week ago and the lowest level of support yet measured.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% are opposed to the plan.
www.rasmussenreports.com

posted October 01, 2009 07:56 AM         

America's low ranking on international comparisons of infant mortality proves other countries' socialist health care systems are better than ours.

America has had a comparatively high infant mortality rate since we've been measuring these things, going back to at least the '20s. This was the case long before European countries adopted their cradle-to-grave welfare schemes and all while the U.S. was the wealthiest country on Earth.

One factor contributing to the U.S.'s infant mortality rate is that blacks have intractably high infant mortality rates -- irrespective of age, education, socioeconomic status and so on. No one knows why.

Neither medical care nor discrimination can explain it: Hispanics in the U.S. have lower infant mortality rates than either blacks or whites. Give Switzerland or Japan our ethnically diverse population and see how they stack up on infant mortality rates.

Even with a higher-risk population, the alleged differences in infant mortality are negligible. We're talking about 7 infant deaths per 1,000 live births in the U.S. compared to 5 deaths per 1,000 for Britain and Canada. This is a rounding error -- perhaps literally when you consider that the U.S. tabulates every birth, even in poor, small and remote areas, while other countries are not always so meticulous.

But the international comparisons in "infant mortality" rates aren't comparing the same thing, anyway. We also count every baby who shows any sign of life, irrespective of size or weight at birth.

By contrast, in much of Europe, babies born before 26 weeks' gestation are not considered "live births." Switzerland only counts babies who are at least 30 centimeters long (11.8 inches) as being born alive. In Canada, Austria and Germany, only babies weighing at least a pound are considered live births.

And of course, in Milan it's not considered living if the baby isn't born within driving distance of the Côte d'Azur.

By excluding the little guys, these countries have simply redefined about one-third of what we call "infant deaths" in America as "miscarriages."

Moreover, many industrialized nations, such as France, Hong Kong and Japan -- the infant mortality champion -- don't count infant deaths that occur in the 24 hours after birth. Almost half of infant deaths in the U.S. occur in the first day.

Also contributing to the higher mortality rate of U.S. newborns: Peter Singer lives here.

But members of Congress, such as Reps. Dennis Kucinich, Jim Moran and John Olver, have all cited the U.S.'s relatively poor ranking in infant mortality among developed nations as proof that our medical care sucks. This is despite the fact that in many countries a baby born the size of Dennis Kucinich would not be considered a live birth.

Apart from the fact that we count -- and try to save -- all our babies, infant mortality is among the worst measures of a nation's medical care because so much of it is tied to lifestyle choices, such as the choice to have children out of wedlock, as teenagers or while addicted to crack.

The main causes of infant mortality -- aside from major birth defects -- are prematurity and low birth-weight. And the main causes of low birth-weight are: smoking, illegitimacy and teenage births. Americans lead most of the developed world in all three categories. Oh, and thank you for that, Britney Spears.

Although we have a lot more low birth-weight and premature babies for both demographic and lifestyle reasons, at-risk newborns are more likely to survive in America than anywhere else in the world. Japan, Norway and the other countries with better infant mortality rates would see them go through the roof if they had to deal with the same pregnancies that American doctors do.

As Nicholas Eberstadt demonstrates in his book "The Tyranny of Numbers: Mismeasurement and Misrule," American hospitals do so well with low birth-weight babies that if Japan had our medical care with their low birth-weight babies, another third of their babies would survive, making it even harder for an American kid to get into MIT.

But I think it's terrific that liberals are finally willing to start looking at outcomes to judge a system. I say we start right away with the public schools!

In international comparisons, American 12th-graders rank in the 14th percentile in math and the 29th percentile in science. The U.S. outperformed only Cyprus and South Africa in general math and science knowledge. Worse, Asian countries didn't participate in the last 12th-grade assessment tests.

Imagine how much worse our public schools would look -- assuming that were possible --if we allowed other countries to exclude one-half of their worst performers!

That's exactly what liberals are doing when they tout America's rotten infant mortality rate compared to other countries. They look for any category that makes our medical care look worse than the rest of the world -- and then neglect to tell us that the rest of the world counts our premature and low birth-weight babies as "miscarriages."

As long as American liberals are going to keep announcing that they're embarrassed for their country, how about being embarrassed by our public schools or by our ridiculous trial lawyer culture that other countries find laughable?

posted October 01, 2009 05:14 PM         

where's my head-scratching dumfounded smilie when i want it?

"Neither medical care nor discrimination can explain it: Hispanics in the U.S. have lower infant mortality rates than either blacks or whites. Give Switzerland or Japan our ethnically diverse population and see how they stack up on infant mortality rates."

i'll give her one thing, she throws every excuse she can think of at the question

posted October 01, 2009 06:53 PM         

For reading the Coulter posts...I stopped awhile back.
I find her psycho babble to be toxic.

Though Coulter writing can be viewed as political satire and humor.

I think some men are still thinking about what a great three way they could have w/ Paling ~~and~~ Fly Monkees Fly! Coulter.

Check what some college students do with free time:

Name Ann Coulter's Next Book - The Winners
Check out our coverage in The Washington Post!

CampusProgress.org is proud to announce the winner of our “Name Ann Coulter’s Next Book” contest.

In the spirit of Coulter’s previous masterpieces such as Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right and Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, CampusProgress.org turned to its community of young people to craft the title for her next work of fiction.

The rules for the contest were simple: The book title had to be the same format as Coulter’s books—a single word, followed by an explanatory subtitle.

While the entires were all creative—truly as unique and delicate as Ms. Coulter herself—there could be only one winner. And that distinctive honor goes to 26-year-old UNCC graduate Ryan Sniatecki of Baltimore, Maryland, for his suggestion:

“Roosevelt: Wheelchair-riding, America-hating terrorist”

For his efforts, Ryan will receive the grand prize—his very own talking Ann Coulter Action Figure.

Everyone here at Campus Progress expresses their utmost gratitude to Ryan, not only for participating but for the fact that the doll scares the hell out of us and we’re anxious to get the thing out of our office.

posted October 01, 2009 11:57 PM         

but the analogy she used there, jwhop, was typical of her jump-to-conclusions-and-ring- every-drop-of-garbage-out-of-a-statistic style.

our large hispanic population, by her own criteria, would give us a BETTER life expectancy than the largely white swiss and oriental japanese populations. if they weren't here our rating would be even WORSE.

of course if murder is, as often claimed, the main reason we come out so poorly on that list, the hispanics could be a detriment to our statistic.

isn't it wonderful to have a high murder count as an excuse for poor health ratings?

and apparently it is britney spears' fault we have high teenage pregnancy counts. even though that count was higher BEFORE she started breeding AND she was over 21 when she had her first...