[Lies (I have checked them against the bill’s contents), misinterpretation and wilful misunderstanding about the HR3962 bill removed]
Mr. Laurie, please “Fact Check” this for me.
[Moderator’s note: this is not censorship. Whatever MacCube’s opinions, however odious they may be to me and others, are irrelevant. He presents his opinions, in others’ words but rarely his own, as facts when they are not. He has repeatedly made stuff up, been abusive and patronising to several members of this forum.]
Laurie, please provide all of the members here with your results from your fact check. Or must we once again accept your word as the truth? The link that was provided was legitimate and working at the time it was posted. I have no control over our government making information available and then removing said information.
If this is not censorship, then please provide all of us here with an example of what you define as censorship. True, I have offered my opinions, but I have worked hard to provide links to back those opinions up. All of us here are offering their opinions, including yourself. Deal with it. This forum is called World News/Politics/Philosophy. Or is it Liberal World News, Liberal Politics and Liberal Philosophy? All others will be abused and criticized and censored. Find the ignore button beside my name and hit it, thats what it’s there for.
You accuse me of being abusive. Lets go back and check, not only your posts towards me, but also the private messages that were sent. Now that is abuse! What you call patronizing is my attempt to keep this conversation decent. If I were to express my true feeling towards you, then you would have something to censor!
And, in the region I’m in, it’s now unusual to address someone affectionately by using their first name proceeded by Mr. What was I thinking?
Maybe, living half way around the globe, don’t realize that there is a war taking place in this country between conservatism and liberalism and the direction this nation will take. I’m sorry that you disagree with my viewpoints concerning the future of the United States, but until you yourself become a citizen of this country, just butt-out! No, I have a better idea. Put-up a thread concerning New Zealand politics and legislation, and we all can provide our comments concerning your homeland.
You didn’t just provide a link, you provided line after line of direct quote. Here’s the first lie from that quote:
Page 94, Pelosi plan, prohibits the sale of private, individual health insurance policies beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government. In 2013, after the 2012 presidential election. In 2013, there is no private insurance allowed. The sale of it will be prohibited.
Actual contents of page 94:
(c) LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.
(2) SEPARATE, EXCEPTED COVERAGE PERMITTED.—Nothing in—
(A) paragraph (1) shall prevent the offering of excepted benefits described in section 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act so long as such benefits are offered outside the Health Insurance Exchange and are priced separately from health insurance coverage; and
(B) this division shall be construed— (i) to prevent the offering of a stand-alone plan that offers coverage of excepted benefits described in section 2791(c)(2)(A) of the Public Health Service Act (relating to limited scope dental or vision benefits) for individuals and families from a State-licensed dental and vision carrier; or (ii) as applying requirements for a qualified health benefits plan to such a…
I have not altered the contents of page 94, other than to change some of the formatting.
Second lie:
Page 110—Section 222(e) requires the use of federal dollars to fund abortions through the government-run health plan—and, if the Hyde Amendment were ever not renewed, would require the plan to fund elective abortions
Actual contents of page 110:
(3) COVERAGE UNDER PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION.—The public health insurance option shall provide coverage for services described in paragraph (4)(B). Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A).
(4) ABORTION SERVICES.— (A) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS PROHIBITED.—The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.
(B) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED.—The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.
In fact 222(e) is on page 109, and is headed up: ABORTION COVERAGE PROHIBITED AS PART OF MINIMUM BENEFITS PACKAGE. [Italics mine]
You have not tried to back up your copy-and-paste. If it were just opinions your were posting, that’d be fine. I’d still disagree with you, but that’s OK. Others who could be bothered have tried disagreeing with you in the past, but have given up trying. In my foolishness, I have not. You have worked hard, very hard, to quote large amounts of text from elsewhere and place it in these forums, but largely they have been uncritical regurgitations.
The last time you did this with such a large amount of mistruth, the Youtube videos, I pointed out several lies that were supposed quotes directly from the bill. You completely glossed over that and tried to change the subject. You did the same when Bryan called you to task in the other thread you instigated.
I don’t have a problem with conservatism. I like what Zewazir has written and the way he puts it. I may not agree with it, but that doesn’t matter. If a so-called liberal were to post the same sort of uncritical quoting as you have, I would probably be moved to do as I have with your post. You probably don’t believe me; I don’t care.
I entered this general debate by providing examples of how government-sponsored health care can and does work, in this country and in others. I have as much right to continue in this debate as you - no more and no less. But by regurgitating lies from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, you are pushing your privileges too far.
So post your opinions. If you’re going to include facts, check them first. Interpret page 109 on abortion as you will, but note that there is nothing in this bill that would require the funding of elective abortions. Debate. Allow others’ opinions. Go for concision, rather than verbosity, because you may have a better chance of convincing others of your views. Don’t say things like, “Thanks Brian, you are proving most useful in this thread.” That is not an attempt to keep the conversation decent. It’s patronising bullshit.
I know only too well about the division between the left (probably more accurately the centre) and the right in the US. As a news junkie I read a lot of websites and news-sites that cover the overall political spectrum, and try to draw my own conclusions. It doesn’t appear to me that you read anything else other than what you agree with. I will not butt out. I don’t ask you to butt out. I do ask you to say what you want to say, but in a more considered way. Just don’t tell lies.
Now, back to the thread. I think it was to do with health care.
Laurie, replace my deleted post, and we will discuss all of the points that you do not consider to be in error. Is it safe to assume that you agree with me on all other points made, excluding those two? These bills are always changing as the politicians are forced to compromise between what they want and what they can pass. These bills are intensionally made obscure and difficult to follow and understand. Only a fool will blindly accept legislation such as this, without questioning its intent and long reaching ramifications, based simply on its heading.
Removing the link, and list of claims about the health care bill IS censorship. Not only do I have a problem with items being censored which are not in violation of this board’s rules, I have a real problem with someone who can take such actions, and then claim it is not censorship.
Anyway, let’s take a look at the actual language closely. And compare it to the claims. (unfortunately, due to censorship I can only do it with the two provided by the censor.)
The claim:
Pelosi plan, prohibits the sale of private, individual health insurance policies beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government. In 2013, after the 2012 presidential election. In 2013, there is no private insurance allowed. The sale of it will be prohibited. (I am leaving out page numbers, because there are about 8 versions, all with sight differences as changes are made in the legislative process, sometimes altering exactly where things are found.)
The text:
(c) LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.
(2) SEPARATE, EXCEPTED COVERAGE PERMITTED.—Nothing in—
(A) paragraph (1) shall prevent the offering of excepted benefits described in section 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act so long as such benefits are offered outside the Health Insurance Exchange and are priced separately from health insurance coverage; and (B) this division shall be construed— (i) to prevent the offering of a stand-alone plan that offers coverage of excepted benefits described in section 2791(c)(2)(A) of the Public Health Service Act (relating to limited scope dental or vision benefits) for individuals and families from a State-licensed dental and vision carrier; or (ii) as applying requirements for a qualified health benefits plan to such a…
(funny how the censor truncated the last part, isn’t it?)
Anyway, note the bolded parts. First the title of this section blatantly admits it is placing a limit on individual health insurance coverage. Second, note that purchase of private plans, after the cutoff date (which varies slightly between versions I have seen) can ONLY be made through the “Exchange-participating health benefit plan.” What that means is if you already have private health insurance, and want to change your provider, you can do so, but only with the government’s permission, and only if the alternate coverage meets their criteria. However, what this also means is if you are NOT already covered (ie: you are a young adult, out on your own for the first time) then you CANNOT get private coverage, because you will have nothing to “exchange”. That limits anyone who comes into their majority after 2013 will be forced to take the government “option”. (since when is forced acceptance an “option”?) This also means, as new private contracts are forbidden, private insurance will be eroded, since they will not be allowed to take on new clients, but only people with other private coverage. It is, in the end, a literal death sentence for private insurance.
Conclusion: though stated badly, the claim, as posted, is not a “lie” as stated by the censor. While the censored claim does not specify that the limitation only applies to people who do not already have private coverage as of 2013, the claim that sale of private insurance will be prohibited DOES apply to people who are trying to get their own coverage for the first time. So it is inaccurate through omission of an essential detail. But since the proponents of this legislation also leave out the critical detail that only people already covered by private insurance can “exchange” their coverage for different private insurance when they state definitively that this legislation does NOT prohibit private insurance, they are equally (if not more) guilty of lying through omission.
To continue the close comparison of censored claims of opponents to the health care bill with the text of the bill, we look to the much-controversial Abortion section.
The claim:
Section 222(e) requires the use of federal dollars to fund abortions through the government-run health plan—and, if the Hyde Amendment were ever not renewed, would require the plan to fund elective abortions
The text (here I provide a larger, more comprehensive selection, since the censor only included what he wanted to include)
(e) ABORTION COVERAGE PROHIBITED AS PART OF MINIMUM BENEFITS PACKAGE.
(1)PROHIBITION OF REQUIRED COVERAGE.—
The Health Benefits Advisory Committee may not recommend under section 223(b), and the Secretary may not adopt in standards under section 224(b), the services described in paragraph (4)(A) or (4)(B) as part of the essential benefits package and the Commissioner may not require such services for qualified health benefits plans to participate in the Health Insurance Exchange.
(2) VOLUNTARY CHOICE OF COVERAGE BY PLAN.—In the case of a qualified health benefits plan, the plan is not required (or prohibited) under this Act from providing coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A) or (4)(B) and the QHBP offering entity shall determine whether such coverage is provided.
(3) COVERAGE UNDER PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION.—The public health insurance option shall provide coverage for services described in paragraph (4)(B). Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A).
(4) ABORTION SERVICES.—
(A) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS PROHIBITED.—The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.
(B) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED.—The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.
Okay, first, the title “Abortion coverage prohibited as art of minimum benefits package”, if one READS the text (and not rely solely on the misleading titles), refers ONLY to the requirements for PRIVATE insurance in the Health Insurance Exchange. This clause prohibits the government from requiring PRIVATE insurance to offer abortion coverage as part of minimum qualifications to be part of the exchange. (Remember the exchange? Thats the part where government tells us what private insurance we are allowed to buy IF (and only if) we already have private health insurance.) In short, it has NOTHING to do with the public option.
Rather, subsection 4, paragraph A and B apply to the Public Option. So let’s look at Paragraph B first. which quite plainly states that the public option WILL provide coverage for abortions for which federal funds are permitted under current law. Current law (ie: “law that is in effect 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved) provides that federal funds MAY be used to fund abortions that are deemed a medical necessity.
Now for paragraph A: It states that the Public Option may not cover abortions for which current law prohibits the use of public funds. (This law happens to be Hyde Amendment) Note it does not, itself, prohibit the se of public funds for elective abortions, but rather states it may not violate current federal laws that prohibit use of public funds for elective abortions (DUH!!). As such, if the law (ie: the Hyde Amendment) were to be changed, allowing federal (public) funds to be used to pay for elective abortions, then the next plan year, the Public Option health care plan would, indeed, cover elective abortions.
In short, the CLAIM which has been censored because it “is a lie” is 100% accurate. The Public Option WILL cover abortions that are allowed under current law pertaining to the use of federal funds. AND, if the Hyde Amendment is ever repealed, then the Public Option will ALSO cover elective abortions.
Laurie,
It is as plain now as it was when I first answered a Laurie post. You are no moderator. You can’t accept the possibility that your world view is flawed.
MacCube: I shall not replace your post. If anyone wants to read its contents, put the claims through Google and see how many virtually identical copies turn up. They almost always contain every single thing you quoted.
Zewazir: I did not just include the bits I wanted to attempt to refute. The claims referred to pages in the bill, and I reproduced those pages. If the claim truly referred to more than what it did, it should have said something like “Pages 110-111”.
As an aside from the first claim, do you believe that the Government would actually try to remove the whole health insurance industry from existence without a huge outcry? Would it even attempt it? Where is Wellpoint and Aetna’s response to this? Are they saying, “We’re going out of business”? Have their share prices dropped since the bill was announced? As for abortions, I can’t find any way of interpreting from the text that elective abortions will be required to be covered.
I don’t think the large propagation of these claims across many many websites is a conspiracy, but I find it intriguing that they should be so similar. Is it because people believe what they want to believe, that they trust their sources and don’t try to verify them? I don’t have an answer for that.
Danthemason: I don’t think my world view is any more or less flawed than yours. I am humble enough to think that I don’t have all the answers, or even many of them. What really has annoyed me intensely about MacCube’s continual uncritical quoting of large amounts of text is the shear quantity of them. It is virtually impossible to work out from them what the truth is.
I allow that my actions can be perceived as being aggressive. I make no bones about it. On the flip side, it has turned this into more of a debate about this issues, rather than one-sided rhetoric.
MacCube: I shall not replace your post. If anyone wants to read its contents, put the claims through Google and see how many virtually identical copies turn up. They almost always contain every single thing you quoted.
In short, if we want to see it, go elsewhere. And after this post, that is exactly what I am going to do. Censorship of debate is the action of totalitarians.
Zewazir: I did not just include the bits I wanted to attempt to refute. The claims referred to pages in the bill, and I reproduced those pages. If the claim truly referred to more than what it did, it should have said something like “Pages 110-111”.
Heaven forbid you should actually think for yourself and recognize that the section of interest spanned two pages. The critics OBVIOUSLY should have included that fact - even though not all .pdf’s of the legislation have the exact same page breaks - to avoid confusing those who are incapable of independent thought.
]As an aside from the first claim, do you believe that the Government would actually try to remove the whole health insurance industry from existence without a huge outcry? Would it even attempt it? Where is Wellpoint and Aetna’s response to this? Are they saying, “We’re going out of business”? Have their share prices dropped since the bill was announced? As for abortions, I can’t find any way of interpreting from the text that elective abortions will be required to be covered.
Ever heard of the concept of “unintended consequences”? If the public option becomes the ONLY option for people entering the insurance market for the first time, then how are private insurance companies going to find new clients to replace older clients that shift over to Medicare? It is simple: they cannot. And yes, I do believe that there are those in government who understand the consequences of the public option combined with the federal insurance exchange requirement - and that is EXACTLY what they want. It’s another concept known as slipping in through the back door. They know full well a full-fledged all-out move to completely socialize the health industry will never fly. So they set it up in a way that we end up with it using a fancy side slip, under the LIE that they do not intend to ban private insurance.
And yes, insurance companies ARE stating the public option, combined with the exchange, will put them out of business.
Abortion clause: And you talk about people believing what they want to believe in your very next sentence. Try reading it again. I will re-post the relevant sections:
3) COVERAGE UNDER PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION.—The public health insurance option shall provide coverage for services described in paragraph (4)(B).
See, right there, they state DEFINITIVELY they WILL provide coverage for services as described in (4)(B). Right? It’s as clear as a cloudless summer day.
And then (4)(B) states:
ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED. —The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.
Is that not clear enough for you? The SERVICES described the paragraph (4)(B) are ABORTIONS for which the expenditure of federal funds is PERMITTED.
Combine paragraph (3) with paragraph (4)(B) and you get the FACT the the public option SHALL cover abortions for which the expenditure of federal funds is permitted.
Currently, federal funds cannot be used for elective abortions. If that law changes, then (4)(B) will include elective abortions, and then ALL abortions will be covered.
WHERE do you FAIL to find a way of “interpreting” the language stating that the public option will cover abortions? Is it because you cannot read the English language, or is it because you only see what you want to see?
I don’t think the large propagation of these claims across many many websites is a conspiracy, but I find it intriguing that they should be so similar. Is it because people believe what they want to believe, that they trust their sources and don’t try to verify them? I don’t have an answer for that.
And just maybe the similarity is because the analysis is not from a bunch of conspiracy minded rednecks, but rather a people that understand our own government, understand the language of legislation, and are putting the bill into laymans’ terms as much as possible. Yes, there are those who are vastly overstating the situation - such as the claim that as of 2013 private insurance will be prohibited, when in fact it will only be prohibited for people acquiring their own health insurance for the very first time. But others are not so much an exaggeration.
Also, while there are many similarities, not all the sites you refer to are identical. In that manner, how am I supposed to judge the merits of the site posted by MacCube? I can find SIMILAR sites, but they may not contain all the “lies” (as you call them) that MacCube’s site listed. Of course, it has been shown what you call lies are not, in actuality, lies.
Laurie Fleming - 03 November 2009 11:49 PM
I allow that my actions can be perceived as being aggressive. I make no bones about it. On the flip side, it has turned this into more of a debate about this issues, rather than one-sided rhetoric.
So the end justifies the means? It is obvious to me, now, you are using your authority as a moderator to express your antipathy toward MacCube. I have shown that the two examples you did provide from MacCube’s post are not the outright lies you claim them to be. Yet you still maintain you have the right to remove his post? If that is your definition of debate, then I will find elsewhere to debate.
The end doesn’t justify the means. I had no idea it would turn out like it did. In a way I am pleased as far as that goes. I have not attempted to censor the debate at all. MacCube has not shown any attempt at debate, whereas you definitely have.
This is not antipathy towards MacCube. I dislike his opinions, as do others, but were he to present his own I could attempt to counter them. He rarely does. I didn’t censor his debate, I removed someone else’s. Remember, he posted all those claims and goaded me to fact-check them. His post took him minutes to find and seconds to post. For me to check out every one of them would have taken quite some time, and I wasn’t prepared to do that. In short, I didn’t censor the debate, because there was none. Now there is. I’m being attacked, you would say with good reason, but at least we’re discussing the topic.
If you are concerned that I haven’t responded completely to your post, I have to take my dog off to Doggy Day-Care and go to work.
I’m sure this will continue. It’d be nice if MacCube contributed to it. And remember, it’s not about me. Or MacCube.
Zewazir, do not allow Laurie to drive you or Dan or anyone else, from this topic or from this forum. Your wisdom and knowledge are very needed here. The reason our nation is even faced with such decisions as government-run health care or Cap & Trade, is because we believe that logic and reason will turn liberals from these insane ideas of what they think of as a utopian society should be. But liberalism is like a religion to them, and big all encompassing government is their god. Liberalisms greatest enemy is Truth. Most of us spend our lives looking for truth, while liberals spend their lives avoiding truth. They will frame the debate to their advantage, redirect the topic and when you refuse to comply, you will be insulted and finally censored. This is the mentality of an elitist. They will decide what is the truth and what is a lie. They will decide how your income should be spent. What you should/can buy. Which doctors you can see and which treatments you should receive. And they will decide when it is your time to die, no longer a benefit to the state. This is the same mentality that has provided the world with monarchs and dictators. It is a sense of entitlement. A liberals idea of compromise is when everyone agrees with them.
But it is not Laurie that we should try and influence with this debate, but all those that may view this site, but are intimidated into silence, that need to hear the Truth. Laurie accuses me of lying, so I provide links to web sites. Still not satisfied. My posts are too long. But I seldom use the full number character allotted. Never satisfied until I agree with his views. He admits that his information is also derived from the internet, but processed by his superior intellect, to find the truth. So Laurie, please share with all of those viewing this thread, some of your knowledge on the health care issue in congress. Please point out the sections of the bill that you like the best. Could it be the 13 or more new taxes or maybe that abortions should be taxpayer funded even through the taxpayer is against abortion.
Laurie is not the first moderator to abuse their little bit of authority. There was another moderator on the Finance Board that was quick to delete any post he disagreed with. There have been many people that left this site because of his actions. Strangely, he left the site too.
And Laurie, what you have posted about me on your Twitter account, could be considered libel. Maybe you should consider deleting those posts.
Will Federal Health Legislation Cause the Deficit to Soar?
15. With the phase-out of insurance subsidies in some plans, taxpayers with modest incomes will face marginal tax rates of nearly 70 percent, a staggering penalty on upward mobility that will hinder overall economic performance.8
16. To add insult to injury, the Internal Revenue Service would get new enforcement powers to determine if people have acceptable (in the eyes of politicians and bureaucrats) health insurance.
Deficits and debt will skyrocket if government-run healthcare is expanded. This will happen if either the House or Senate plan becomes law. Big increases in federal spending and higher taxes are a bleak combination that would substantially slow U.S. economic growth.
Laurie, do you trust The Cato Institute, or are they also lying? Do you believe that skyrocketing deficits and debt would be a good thing?
And Laurie, what you have posted about me on your Twitter account, could be considered libel. Maybe you should conceder deleting those posts.
Well, golly, I don’t know? Since neither of us have the answer to that question, should we wait for someone who does?
Maybe you meant “consider” in that last sentence? Perhaps you don’t use spellcheck?
Maybe you could stop posting in the interrogative voice when addressing others? Could it be a possibility that others find it annoying, and isn’t an efficient nor terribly effective way to express one’s opinion and thoughts?
Or, is it perhaps better to use winding phrases and rhetorical questions rather than concise and direct declarative statements?
Aren’t questions usually used in reference to things to which we do not have answers? Or do you really love rhetorical questions that much?
Thanks MaxW for pointing out my mistake. I have corrected the error. And spellchecking would not have prevented the error, as the word was spelled correctly, it was just the incorrect word. I was a little upset at the time of that post. I think that most here would find it upsetting to discover that their name, even a false name that relates to an obsolete computer, used insultingly across the internet.
And I do want to wish him the best of luck at his singing engagement.
We noticed you may be running AdBlock on your computer. It takes real money to run this site and to deliver the news, tips, and opinions you love to read.
If you wish to block the ads that pay for the creation of our content, we ask that you instead support TMO Directly, either with a $5 monthly recurring contribution, or a one-time donation of any amount of your choice. Thanks!
J&R ComputerWorld’s Weekend Sale - Sitewide Unbelievable Deals
2nd Gen. Refurbished 32GB iPod touch: $249.00 Delivered
Refurbished 15” MacBook Pro 2.53GHz Intel Core 2 Duo: $1299.00 Delivered
Canon Vixia HF200 Hi Def Flash Memory Camcorder: $499.99 Delivered - $50 Drop
Refurbished MacBook Air 1.6GHz Intel Core 2 Duo $1099.00 Delivered
