Fox News viewers overwhelmingly misinformed about health care reform proposals.
- Thread starter WhatsHisNuts
- Start date
I didn't realize that there was a final BILL, thought it was still being prepared by the SEIU.
:sadwave:
What's this all about?
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/...rops-death-panel-provisions-from-senate-bill/
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/...rops-death-panel-provisions-from-senate-bill/
This is priceless. You say there is no bill, when the issue deals with proposals in the original post.
Let me ask you this - since there is no bill yet, are you for it or against it? Are you telling me you aren't against the bill that Harry Reid will bring to the floor?
:mj07:
What Health Reform Will Do to My Insurance
Congress wants the nation to adopt the same rules that have made coverage expensive in New York
By ANDREW R. HEINZE
I'm a registered Democrat living in New York City, and I buy my own health insurance. But now, having seen the health-care reform bill that passed the House, I'm preparing for life without health insurance. And unless I'm the only person covered under the Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield "Tradition Plus" plan, a lot of other people will end up just like me, uninsured.
I will gain one thing, though?an annual fine for losing my insurance. The exact amount of that fine isn't clear yet, but so far it looks like I'll be paying about the same amount?$2,000 a year?for having no insurance as I do now for having it.
Let's get specific. What is the "Tradition Plus" plan that I've purchased each year since moving to New York in 2006? It's a hospitalization plan. If an accident or illness puts me in the hospital, all my hospital expenses are covered. Why is it so affordable? Because it covers only hospital expenses. Any fees from a physician who is not a hospital employee (i.e., who bills the patient privately) I would pay out of pocket.
Before I come to the big question?why will I lose this insurance plan if anything like the House bill becomes law??I want to address a smaller one. Why do I choose the Empire "Tradition Plus" plan instead of a comprehensive HMO-type plan that covers physician fees, prescriptions, etc.? Because, unlike other states, New York already mandates two things that the current federal health-care reform will mandate. The first mandate prohibits insurers from denying coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition. The second mandate prohibits insurers from denying coverage, or determining prices, based on age. The result is that HMO plans in the state are now very expensive. The price of Empire's basic, least expensive HMO plan is more than $13,000 a year for an individual, more than $26,000 a year for a married couple, and more than $39,000 a year for a family with children. Empire is a reputable firm and those prices are typical of what's available to New York City residents. Upstate New Yorkers pay slightly less.
The only less expensive alternative is the "Tradition Plus" plan. That's why I buy it. The money I save by not buying the basic HMO plan?roughly $11,000 a year?I can draw on to pay for any doctor visits I choose to make.
The House health-care reform bill hinges on what it calls a "qualified" health-care plan. Individuals will be required by law either to buy a plan that meets the criteria of a qualified health-care plan or pay a fine. What are those criteria? They're the basic components of a comprehensive HMO-type plan, which means that Empire's "Tradition Plus" will not qualify because it covers only hospital costs. In other words, if President Obama signs into law the kind of health-care reform bill that is currently on the table, I will have only two choices: buy an expensive qualified plan or pay a fine for being uninsured.
And there is nothing in any of the pending health-care legislation that will make the cost of a qualified plan significantly lower than it is in New York now. On the contrary, once the health-insurance mandates that already exist in New York become the law of the land, insurance premiums everywhere else will rise as they did here. What I can't figure out is why Congress would want to prohibit someone like me from keeping an affordable hospitalization plan. It works for me and it works for the hospital. I guess that's the problem. It's simple, it's easy to understand, and it works.
I realize that we who buy our own health insurance are a fairly small percentage of the market, but there are millions of us. Millions more may have an employer-based plan today, but not tomorrow. So, as I prepare for the winter of my disinsurance, at least I'm not alone.
--as with gentle above-
Lets see I pay $88 a month for dependent coverage and wife's is free under her Fruit of the Loom Group coverage.
Do I want change-- -same as bulk of rest of population.
I going to take a wild stab and guess most here that are- pro healthcare reform are not part of the 60%+ of americans covered under an employer paid health program.
Lets see I pay $88 a month for dependent coverage and wife's is free under her Fruit of the Loom Group coverage.
Do I want change--
-same as bulk of rest of population.I going to take a wild stab and guess most here that are- pro healthcare reform are not part of the 60%+ of americans covered under an employer paid health program.
Wayne: I think you missed the point of the article I posted. It is about which viewership is the most confused/misinformed.
That would depend on whom you ask--
Somehow I have difficult time believing that those want higher taxes--higher capital gains-more foods/welfare--more spending on social programs-- are the most informed.
--and appears your Messiah will be adding 12 more million to your--"informed-gov dependent base"
--and here's a little "info" for you from DTB
-When "The grifter" told you he wouldn't cover those 12 mill illegals under heathcare reform- and per below--can you figure out the con--or are you "confused".
White House Plan on Immigration Includes Legal Status
By JULIA PRESTON
</NYT_BYLINE>Published: November 13, 2009
<!--NYT_INLINE_IMAGE_POSITION1 --><NYT_TEXT>The Obama administration will insist on measures to give legal status to an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants as it pushes early next year for legislation to overhaul the immigration system, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on Friday.
That would depend on whom you ask--
Somehow I have difficult time believing that those want higher taxes--higher capital gains-more foods/welfare--more spending on social programs-- are the most informed.
--and appears your Messiah will be adding 12 more million to your--"informed-gov dependent base"
--and here's a little "info" for you from DTB
-When "The grifter" told you he wouldn't cover those 12 mill illegals under heathcare reform- and per below--can you figure out the con--or are you "confused".
White House Plan on Immigration Includes Legal Status
By JULIA PRESTON
Published: November 13, 2009
<!--NYT_INLINE_IMAGE_POSITION1 --><nyt_text>The Obama administration will insist on measures to give legal status to an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants as it pushes early next year for legislation to overhaul the immigration system, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on Friday.
I like how you tie an immigration system overhaul to the article in my first post, as if to say, "see, we knew illegals would get covered under the health care bill". You're right Wayne, I guess I am the confused one.
PS: I don't care for Obama, I didn't vote for him, and I won't vote for him in 2012. Why you call him my messiah is beyond me. I've stated these facts several times, but then again, you're not good with facts.
</nyt_text>
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
I believe this is contained in your post --isn't it??
Here?s another way to look at the misinformation: In our poll, 72% of self-identified FOX News viewers believe the health-care plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, 79% of them say it will lead to a government takeover, 69% think that it will use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, and 75% believe that it will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the elderly. But it would be incorrect to suggest that this is ONLY coming from conservative viewers who tune in to FOX. In fact, 41% of CNN/MSNBC viewers believe the misinformation about illegal immigrants, 39% believe the government takeover stuff, 40% believe the abortion misperception, and 30% believe the stuff about pulling the plug on grandma. What?s more, a good chunk of folks who get their news from broadcast TV (NBC, ABC, CBS) believe these things, too. This is about credible messengers using the media to get some of this misinformation out there, not as much about the filter itself. These numbers should worry Democratic operatives, as well as the news media that have been covering this story.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Read their 1st line of bold print in article--
I was just pointing out your source from Think Progress is "uniformed" and I believe he is 1st on the left -below
You are proving my point, Wayne. You can't seperate one story from another, yet I am the crazy one.
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
I believe this is contained in your post --isn't it??
Here?s another way to look at the misinformation: In our poll, 72% of self-identified FOX News viewers believe the health-care plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, 79% of them say it will lead to a government takeover, 69% think that it will use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, and 75% believe that it will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the elderly. But it would be incorrect to suggest that this is ONLY coming from conservative viewers who tune in to FOX. In fact, 41% of CNN/MSNBC viewers believe the misinformation about illegal immigrants, 39% believe the government takeover stuff, 40% believe the abortion misperception, and 30% believe the stuff about pulling the plug on grandma. What?s more, a good chunk of folks who get their news from broadcast TV (NBC, ABC, CBS) believe these things, too. This is about credible messengers using the media to get some of this misinformation out there, not as much about the filter itself. These numbers should worry Democratic operatives, as well as the news media that have been covering this story.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Read their 1st line of bold print in article--
I was just pointing out your source from Think Progress is "uniformed" and I believe he is 1st on the left -below
I like this picture of Da Base.
JMHO FWIW
:mj07:
Gary I was just pointing out the think progress appeared to be the uninformed reporting on the uninformed.
So far--Think Progress
Illegals-=clueless
The other areas per your link
Tax payor abortions--they had to change language per GOP demand
Making decision on care for elderly/or anyone else for that matter--is correct.
On their elderly--they will cut Medicare advantange which is cutting senior benefits--would you like to go into detail.
--and while on the issue per Gumby/Admin/Think Progress and others--"We will not cut benefits of seniors"
Could you get explaination from them for "we uninformed" how they are going to cut bout 500 billion from medicare but NOT cut benefits--enquiring minds would like to know--
To be fair--here is article which pretty well states what I told you the grifters intention have been all along--to cut benefits from those that paid their dues--medicare ssn--and go on spending spree for the unproductive (Da Base) Medicaid/Welfare social programs.
Morning Bell: A Deathblow for Obamacare
Health Care Costs Increase: ?In aggregate, we estimate that for calendar years 2010 through 2019 [national health expenditures (NHE)] would increase by $289 billion, or 0.8 percent, over the updates baseline projection that was released on June 29, 2009.? In other words, Obamacare bends the cost curve up, not down.
Millions Lose Existing Private Coverage: ?However, a number of workers who currently have employer coverage would likely become enrolled in the expanded Medicaid program or receive subsidized coverage through the Exchange. For example, some smaller employers would be inclined to terminate their existing coverage, and companies with low average salaries might find it to their - and their employees? - advantage to end their plans ? We estimate that such actions would collectively reduce the number of people with employer-sponsored health coverage by about 12 million.? In other words, Obamacare will cause millions of Americans to lose their existing private coverage.
Millions Pay Fines Yet Remain Uncovered: ?18 million are estimated to choose not to be insured and to pay the penalty associated with the individual mandate. For the most part, these would be individuals with relatively low health care expenses for whom the individual or family insurance premium would be significantly in excess of the penalty and their anticipated health benefit value.? In other words, 18 million Americans will either face jail time or be forced to pay a new tax they will receive no benefit from.
Millions Lose Medicare Advantage: ?Section 1161 of Division B of H.R. 3962 would set Medicare Advantage capitation benchmarks ? We estimate that in 2014 when the MA provisions would be fully phased in, enrollment in MA plans would decreased by 64 percent (from its projected level of 13.2 million under current law to 4.7 million under the proposal).? In other words, 8.5 million seniors who currently get such services as coordinated care for chronic conditions, routine eye and hearing examinations, and preventive-care services would lose their existing private coverage.
Millions Placed on Welfare: ?Of the additional 34 million who are estimated to be insured in 2019 as a result of H.R. 3962, about three-fifths (21 million) would receive Medicaid coverage due to the expansion of eligibility to those adults under 150 percent of the FPL.? In other words, more than half the people who gain health insurance will receive it through the welfare program Medicaid.
Seniors Access to Care Jeopardized: ?H.R. 3962 would introduce permanent annual productivity adjustments to price updates for institutional providers? Over time, a sustained reduction in payment updates, based on productivity expectations that are difficult to attain, would cause Medicare payment rates to grow more slowly than and in a way that was unrelated to, the providers? costs of furnishing services to beneficiaries. Thus, providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries).? In other words, the Medicare cuts in the House bill are so out of touch with reality that hospitals currently serving Medicare patients might be forced to stop doing so. Thus making it much more difficult for seniors to get health care.
Poor?s Access Problems Exacerbated: ?In practice, supply constraints might interfere with providing the services by the additional 34 million insured persons. ?providers might tend to accept more patients who have private insurance (with relatively attractive payment rates) and fewer Medicaid patients, exacerbating existing access problems for the latter group.? In other words, those 21 million people who are gaining health insurance through Medicaid are going to have a very tough time finding a doctor who will treat them.
Reacting in part to Friday?s CMS report, Robert J. Samuelson writes in today?s Washington Post:
So far--Think Progress
Illegals-=clueless
The other areas per your link
Tax payor abortions--they had to change language per GOP demand
Making decision on care for elderly/or anyone else for that matter--is correct.
On their elderly--they will cut Medicare advantange which is cutting senior benefits--would you like to go into detail.
--and while on the issue per Gumby/Admin/Think Progress and others--"We will not cut benefits of seniors"
Could you get explaination from them for "we uninformed" how they are going to cut bout 500 billion from medicare but NOT cut benefits--enquiring minds would like to know--
To be fair--here is article which pretty well states what I told you the grifters intention have been all along--to cut benefits from those that paid their dues--medicare ssn--and go on spending spree for the unproductive (Da Base) Medicaid/Welfare social programs.
Morning Bell: A Deathblow for Obamacare
-
Posted November 16th, 2009 at 9.45am in Health Care.
Health Care Costs Increase: ?In aggregate, we estimate that for calendar years 2010 through 2019 [national health expenditures (NHE)] would increase by $289 billion, or 0.8 percent, over the updates baseline projection that was released on June 29, 2009.? In other words, Obamacare bends the cost curve up, not down.
Millions Lose Existing Private Coverage: ?However, a number of workers who currently have employer coverage would likely become enrolled in the expanded Medicaid program or receive subsidized coverage through the Exchange. For example, some smaller employers would be inclined to terminate their existing coverage, and companies with low average salaries might find it to their - and their employees? - advantage to end their plans ? We estimate that such actions would collectively reduce the number of people with employer-sponsored health coverage by about 12 million.? In other words, Obamacare will cause millions of Americans to lose their existing private coverage.
Millions Pay Fines Yet Remain Uncovered: ?18 million are estimated to choose not to be insured and to pay the penalty associated with the individual mandate. For the most part, these would be individuals with relatively low health care expenses for whom the individual or family insurance premium would be significantly in excess of the penalty and their anticipated health benefit value.? In other words, 18 million Americans will either face jail time or be forced to pay a new tax they will receive no benefit from.
Millions Lose Medicare Advantage: ?Section 1161 of Division B of H.R. 3962 would set Medicare Advantage capitation benchmarks ? We estimate that in 2014 when the MA provisions would be fully phased in, enrollment in MA plans would decreased by 64 percent (from its projected level of 13.2 million under current law to 4.7 million under the proposal).? In other words, 8.5 million seniors who currently get such services as coordinated care for chronic conditions, routine eye and hearing examinations, and preventive-care services would lose their existing private coverage.
Millions Placed on Welfare: ?Of the additional 34 million who are estimated to be insured in 2019 as a result of H.R. 3962, about three-fifths (21 million) would receive Medicaid coverage due to the expansion of eligibility to those adults under 150 percent of the FPL.? In other words, more than half the people who gain health insurance will receive it through the welfare program Medicaid.
Seniors Access to Care Jeopardized: ?H.R. 3962 would introduce permanent annual productivity adjustments to price updates for institutional providers? Over time, a sustained reduction in payment updates, based on productivity expectations that are difficult to attain, would cause Medicare payment rates to grow more slowly than and in a way that was unrelated to, the providers? costs of furnishing services to beneficiaries. Thus, providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries).? In other words, the Medicare cuts in the House bill are so out of touch with reality that hospitals currently serving Medicare patients might be forced to stop doing so. Thus making it much more difficult for seniors to get health care.
Poor?s Access Problems Exacerbated: ?In practice, supply constraints might interfere with providing the services by the additional 34 million insured persons. ?providers might tend to accept more patients who have private insurance (with relatively attractive payment rates) and fewer Medicaid patients, exacerbating existing access problems for the latter group.? In other words, those 21 million people who are gaining health insurance through Medicaid are going to have a very tough time finding a doctor who will treat them.
Reacting in part to Friday?s CMS report, Robert J. Samuelson writes in today?s Washington Post:
