FACT CHECK: Distortions rife in health care debate

**HM2VikingRN** · Aug 12, 2009, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by just_cause

"If you read the fine print in the Congressional plans, you'll find that a lot of cherished aspects of the current system would disappear."

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news...ion=2009072410

From CNN special reporting.

Heres one debunking of this article. I posted three others in another post responding to an entire thread about this horsepuckey...

**HM2VikingRN** · Aug 12, 2009, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by TurnLeftSide

I'd like to be able to keep my existing plan and not be unfairly taxed for keeping it and I would like to choose MY doctors, not the doctors chosen for me. I'm not wealthy, just an average citizen. I'm all for health care reform and if it means that I can't keep my current plan at a reasonable premium and choose my docs, I don't want it. I should have a say who gets to provide care to me and my family and so should everyone else. =

The point of reform is to achieve just that goal.....Right now your insurance company dictates your provider. There isn't one single line in the bill that constricts choice of provider for patients. (If anything there will be greater choice at the end of the day......)

**HM2VikingRN** · Aug 12, 2009, 10:02 AM

For a more accessible debunking of the prevarications...

http://healthcarereformmyths.org/Hea...eformMyths.php

StNeotser · Aug 12, 2009, 01:52 PM

Here's an interesting little nugget I just found;

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com....php?ref=recdc

From the article

Investor's Business Daily recently wrote an editorial which contained the following statement:

"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."

The statement has been removed from the editorial since its original publication. Apparently the rigorous research team at IBD didn't realize that Hawking is British and has been the recipient of British health care during the whole time he's lived longer than seemingly any other ALS patient!

Dear oh dear. :chuckle Perhaps they should have checked his nationality first.

*TurnLeftSide* · Aug 12, 2009, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

The point of reform is to achieve just that goal.....Right now your insurance company dictates your provider. There isn't one single line in the bill that constricts choice of provider for patients. (If anything there will be greater choice at the end of the day......)

They don't dictate my provider. I can do a search of providers on the insurance website and choose who I want to provide care to me. I never got anything from my insurance company stating I must see such and such doctor. I'm very happy with my insurance and would rather keep it and see the doctor associated with the hospital where I work instead of going to see another doctor who is not associated with my hospital.

wowza · Aug 12, 2009, 06:38 PM

Talk about manipulating the facts! Obama distorts the amount paid to the surgeon by 100 fold just so he can use doctors as scape goats! You would think the person who is leading this mess would at least make sure he didn't sound like a moron every time he opens his mouth. This is even worse than his tonsil blunder because this was actually scripted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG56B...layer_embedded

Direct quote from OBAMA himself:
"All I am saying is let's take the example of Diabetes.........Right now if a family care physician works with his patient to modify diet, etc they might get reimbursed a pittance, but if that same diabetic ends up getting his foot amputated that's 30, 40, 50 thousand dollars the surgeon is reimbursed."

The truth
Medicare reimbursements for amputations:
Amputation, foot; midtarsal (eg, Chopart type procedure) $493.14
Amputation, foot; transmetatarsal $655.87

$500 dollars, not quite the $50K he was saying. He infers that doctors dont give preventative care because it is more profitable to just do the surgery. So that is where all the money in health care is going... primary care docts are refusing to treat diabetics because they make so much money when they do the surgery. Obama is an idiot. DIFFERENT PEOPLE DO THE SURGERY THAN DO THE PREVENTATIVE CARE!

Furthermore, to actually have an amputation, you have to be wholely non-compliant with all of your treatment. It doesn't happen unless the patient doesnt follow their care plan. Period

*TurnLeftSide* · Aug 12, 2009, 08:28 PM

Another thing is, you can't make all these people be compliant with their meds and diets. So what is Obama gonna do to the docs whose patients are noncompliant diabetics, not pay them? That's not fair at all to the physician.

**NRSKarenRN** · Aug 12, 2009, 11:15 PM

Originally Posted by TurnLeftSide

They don't dictate my provider. I can do a search of providers on the insurance website and choose who I want to provide care to me. I never got anything from my insurance company stating I must see such and such doctor. I'm very happy with my insurance and would rather keep it and see the doctor associated with the hospital where I work instead of going to see another doctor who is not associated with my hospital.

You ARE limited in providers as you must see a doctor that is listed in the insurance companies website.

This is what is proposed in current legislation

Sec. 100. Purpose; table of contents of division; general definitions.
TITLE I—PROTECTIONS AND STANDARDS FOR QUALIFIED
HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS
Subtitle A—General Standards
Sec. 101. Requirements reforming health insurance marketplace.
Sec. 102. Protecting the choice to keep current coverage.

VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6211 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS

6

•HR 3200 IH

Subtitle B—Standards Guaranteeing Access to Affordable Coverage
Sec. 111. Prohibiting pre-existing condition exclusions.
Sec. 112. Guaranteed issue and renewal for insured plans.
Sec. 113. Insurance rating rules.
Sec. 114. Nondiscrimination in benefits; parity in mental health and substance
abuse disorder benefits.
Sec. 115. Ensuring adequacy of provider networks.
Sec. 116. Ensuring value and lower premiums.
Subtitle C—Standards Guaranteeing Access to Essential Benefits
Sec. 121. Coverage of essential benefits package.
Sec. 122. Essential benefits package defined.
Sec. 123. Health Benefits Advisory Committee.
Sec. 124. Process for adoption of recommendations; adoption of benefit standards.
Subtitle D—Additional Consumer Protections
Sec. 131. Requiring fair marketing practices by health insurers.
Sec. 132. Requiring fair grievance and appeals mechanisms.
Sec. 133. Requiring information transparency and plan disclosure.
Sec. 134. Application to qualified health benefits plans not offered through the
Health Insurance Exchange.
Sec. 135. Timely payment of claims.
Sec. 136. Standardized rules for coordination and subrogation of benefits.
Sec. 137. Application of administrative simplification.
Subtitle E—Governance
Sec. 141. Health Choices Administration; Health Choices Commissioner.
Sec. 142. Duties and authority of Commissioner.
Sec. 143. Consultation and coordination.
Sec. 144. Health Insurance Ombudsman.
Subtitle F—Relation to Other Requirements; Miscellaneous
Sec. 151. Relation to other requirements.
Sec. 152. Prohibiting discrimination in health care.
Sec. 153. Whistleblower protection.
Sec. 154. Construction regarding collective bargaining.
Sec. 155. Severability.
Subtitle G—Early Investments
Sec. 161. Ensuring value and lower premiums.
Sec. 162. Ending health insurance rescission abuse.
Sec. 163. Administrative simplification.

Sec. 164. Reinsurance program for retirees.

azhiker96 · Aug 13, 2009, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by NRSKarenRN

You ARE limited in providers as you must see a doctor that is listed in the insurance companies website.
This is what is proposed in current legislation

That's true, insurance companies limit you to doctors who've agreed to take their payments for treatment. That is also true under Medicare. You are limited to doctors who accept Medicare payments for their services. Unless Congress is going to add in a mandate that health care providers must accept their new program, it will have the same limitation.

The new coverage setup by the government is going to start with the same reimbursement rates as Medicare. I'm guessing that docs who currently accept Medicare insurance will also accept the new one. Doctors who don't accept Medicare will probably not accept the new insurance either.

wowza · Aug 13, 2009, 12:01 PM

Medicare is scheduled for a 21% cut in reimbursement. Anyone know it the proposed plan's reimbursement are directly tied to medicare reimbursement?

In otherwords, if the 21% cut in medicare goes through, will there also be a 21% cut in the new gov't plan too?

FACT CHECK: Distortions rife in health care debate

Nursing News

Nurse arrested for slapping quadriplegic patient.

Health Care Costs Hurt the Middle Income Earners

New Focus on Averting Errors: Hospital Culture

Midnight snacks for the elderly

In Hard Times, Lured Into Trade School and Debt

No, Caps Are Not Totally Gone

Sixth sickle cell death in BAHRAIN

Studies indicate intense treatment does not help diabetics

Nursing Articles

10 years later.. Remembering my first clinical patient

Dear nursing student

I am meant to be a nurse.

A Nursing Students’ Convocation Address to Families,...

Eight essential tools and tips for incoming nursing students

Why i have chosen nursing as a career

Patients' Perceptions of Nurses' Skill

Murphy's law experienced

On the Edge

On the other side of the IV

Tagged Topics