View Single Post
Old 09-06-2009, 07:46 PM   #4793
Cadaverous Pallor
ohhhh baby
 
Cadaverous Pallor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Parental Bliss
Posts: 12,364
Cadaverous Pallor is the epitome of coolCadaverous Pallor is the epitome of coolCadaverous Pallor is the epitome of coolCadaverous Pallor is the epitome of coolCadaverous Pallor is the epitome of coolCadaverous Pallor is the epitome of coolCadaverous Pallor is the epitome of coolCadaverous Pallor is the epitome of coolCadaverous Pallor is the epitome of coolCadaverous Pallor is the epitome of coolCadaverous Pallor is the epitome of cool
Send a message via AIM to Cadaverous Pallor Send a message via Yahoo to Cadaverous Pallor
Ok, I'm visiting heritage.org. Already I've got something to say.

link
Quote:
The federal government would decide the level of health benefits that Americans would re*ceive through the exchange. These rules would apply to the new national health plan and all par*ticipating private health plans.
From Factcheck.org, a nonpartisan nonprofit:
Quote:
Claim: Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)

False: Actually, the section starting on page 30 sets up a “private-public advisory committee” headed by the U.S. surgeon general and made up of mostly private sector “medical and other experts” selected by the president and the comptroller general. The advisory committee would have only the power “to recommend” what benefits are included in basic, enhanced and premium insurance plans. It would have no power to decide what treatments anybody will get. Its recommendations on benefits might or might not be adopted.

Claim: Page 42: The “Health Choices Commissioner” will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.

False: The new Health Choices Commissioner will oversee a variety of choices to be offered through new insurance exchanges. The bill itself specifies the “minimum services to be covered” in a basic plan, including prescription drugs, mental health services, maternity and well-baby care and certain vaccines and preventive services (pages 27-28). We find nothing in the bill that prevents insurance companies from offering benefits that exceed the minimums. In fact, the legislation allows (page 84) any company that offers an approved basic plan to offer also an “enhanced” plan, a “premium” plan and even a “premium plus” plan that could include vision and dental benefits.
Here's a full Heritage article supposedly about why unions support this bill. This is just a snippet:
Quote:
The most obvious benefit President Obama's health care plan provides to organized labor is a $10 billion taxpayer bailout for underfunded retiree health benefit plans. Many unions negotiate benefit packages that allow workers to retire early and collect health benefits until they qualify for Medicare. Many of these plans they are underfunded because unions mismanaged them.[4]

The healthcare legislation transfers $10 billion to these accounts, in the form of a reinsurance program that pays most of the cost of claims for workers in these plans.[5] Like the GM and Chrysler bailouts, the health care legislation requires all taxpayers--including low income workers without retirement plans--to pay for benefits for already well-compensated union workers.
Again, FactCheck:
Quote:
Claim: Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)

Misleading. Page 65 is the start of a section (SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES) that would set up a new federal reinsurance plan to benefit retirees and spouses covered by any employer plan, not just those run by labor unions or nonprofit groups. Specifically, it covers “retirees and . . . spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees” who are covered by “employment-based plans” that provide health benefits. It’s open to any “group health benefits plan that . . . is maintained by one or more employers, former employers or employee associations,” as well as voluntary employees’ beneficiary associations (page 66). Furthermore, the aim of the fund is to cut premiums, copays and deductibles for the retirees. Payment “shall not be used to reduce the costs of an employer.”
Sorry Leo, but this site is lying to you and misleading you. And that's just the first two things I found...
__________________
The second star to the right
shines in the night for you
Cadaverous Pallor is offline   Submit to Quotes Reply With Quote