The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Alex]

I liked the half or so that I watched. But calling that an angry mob (as the page title does) is really unfair -- unless things got a lot worse in the 3 minutes at the end I didn't watch.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Ok, I'm visiting heritage.org. Already I've got something to say.

link

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:

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:

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:

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...

[scaeagles]

He says it somewhere around 55 seconds of this video clip.

He is trying to say how private insurance companies won't be run out of business, and ends up completely indicting the government run one. However, I will say that he's quite homnest in what he says. It is the government run one of the three that is running over budget and can't control costs.

[BarTopDancer]

I started looking at the Heritage Foundation link and CP did a much better job than I summarizing and linking up than I can do this late. But I'll look at it later.

I do have to say though, it appears that it's just another "outrage" site spinning incorrect information.

[Strangler Lewis]

"My ancestors didn't come to this country and sacrifice for their children so that some smartass from Indonesia could tell my children they're supposed to be better than me."

[Gemini Cricket]

I just read Obama's speech. Despite being long-winded, I thought it was a great message for kids to hear.

[BarTopDancer]

It's totally going to turn kids into Socialists and will be directly related to the failure of America. Oh and look! He admitted he lived in Indonesia when he was a kid. He must not be a US Citizen.


I see kids tuning out about a third of the way through.

[Alex]

Well, in a surprising turn of events, Obama's speech contains content I don't consider particularly appropriate for the classroom.

I'm sure it isn't hard to guess which part (not that I am so offended that I'd protest the speech).

[scaeagles]

For full disclosure, I did get this link off of the Drudge report. I guess politics gets played on both sides of the aisle, with Dems even holding hearings into GHW Bush's speech to students.

I have read Obama's speech and don't find anything in it really problematic. My concern now is the political spin that will be obvious (both directions, though I suspect that most teachers do lean left) in the lessons surrounding the speech.

[BarTopDancer]

Newt Gingrich was on the Today show this morning saying it was a good speech and all kids should listen/read it.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I have read Obama's speech and don't find anything in it really problematic. My concern now is the political spin that will be obvious (both directions, though I suspect that most teachers do lean left) in the lessons surrounding the speech.

It must be exhausting being so paranoid all the time.

I couldn't tell you what way ANY of my teachers leaned and we had political integration in school (I was in school during election years and we discussed it).