Aa
Obamacare public information effort has Republicans in hissy fit
How much taxpayer money did President George W. Bush request to fund an advertising campaign to tout the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act (MMA), the big giveaway to drug makers and insurance companies? At least $154.3 million. How was that money spent?
[A]n investigation by the Government Accountability Office and HHS’s own inspector General concluded that the federally funded campaign was “misleading” and “may also have illegally used public money to make what in effect were fake news reports about the law that did amount to propaganda.” (emphasis mine)
Why does this matter now? Because the Obama administration has signed a $20 millon contract with a public relations firm to create materials informing and educating people about how to stay healthy and how the Affordable Care Act can help. As Think Progress's Igor Volsky writes, the dimwit Right is having a major hissy fit about it.
– SARAH PALIN: “This is one of the stupidest things I’ve heard coming out of the Obama administration. Not only is this, of course, pending in court, and I think it will be deemed unconstitutional, but this is a propaganda piece, which I think violates many of the procurement laws and other laws applicable to government contracts. This is propaganda. It’s just promoting ‘ObamaCare.’” [Fox News, 5/22/2012]
– SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ): “Outrageous waste of taxpayer $ to promote #Obamacare – ‘HHS signs $20M PR contract to promote healthcare law’ [Twitter, 5/22/2012]
– SEN. ROY BLUNT (R-MO): “It’s unacceptable that Pres Obama intends to waste $20M on the taxpayer’s dime to sell U.S. on unpopular #ObamaCare” [Twitter, 5/22/2012]
– SEN. RON JOHNSON (R-WI): “$20M for marketing #ObamaCare? This is a wasteful & inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars.” [Twitter, 5/22/2012] (emphasis in original)
For the record: fake news reports = propaganda; a "multimedia ad campaign" = advertising. That's a distinction Palin would be too dumb to understand and McCain too duplicitous to acknowledge. Nonetheless, let's just reiterate the facts. What Bush did was probably illegal use of taxpayer money. The GAO said so. What Obama is doing is simple advertising. .
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/23/1094157/-Obamacare-public-information-effort-has-Republicans-in-hissy-fit-
[A]n investigation by the Government Accountability Office and HHS’s own inspector General concluded that the federally funded campaign was “misleading” and “may also have illegally used public money to make what in effect were fake news reports about the law that did amount to propaganda.” (emphasis mine)
Why does this matter now? Because the Obama administration has signed a $20 millon contract with a public relations firm to create materials informing and educating people about how to stay healthy and how the Affordable Care Act can help. As Think Progress's Igor Volsky writes, the dimwit Right is having a major hissy fit about it.
– SARAH PALIN: “This is one of the stupidest things I’ve heard coming out of the Obama administration. Not only is this, of course, pending in court, and I think it will be deemed unconstitutional, but this is a propaganda piece, which I think violates many of the procurement laws and other laws applicable to government contracts. This is propaganda. It’s just promoting ‘ObamaCare.’” [Fox News, 5/22/2012]
– SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ): “Outrageous waste of taxpayer $ to promote #Obamacare – ‘HHS signs $20M PR contract to promote healthcare law’ [Twitter, 5/22/2012]
– SEN. ROY BLUNT (R-MO): “It’s unacceptable that Pres Obama intends to waste $20M on the taxpayer’s dime to sell U.S. on unpopular #ObamaCare” [Twitter, 5/22/2012]
– SEN. RON JOHNSON (R-WI): “$20M for marketing #ObamaCare? This is a wasteful & inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars.” [Twitter, 5/22/2012] (emphasis in original)
For the record: fake news reports = propaganda; a "multimedia ad campaign" = advertising. That's a distinction Palin would be too dumb to understand and McCain too duplicitous to acknowledge. Nonetheless, let's just reiterate the facts. What Bush did was probably illegal use of taxpayer money. The GAO said so. What Obama is doing is simple advertising. .
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/23/1094157/-Obamacare-public-information-effort-has-Republicans-in-hissy-fit-
Possibly, but I think with the amount of people without insurance and growing all the time, it just wasnt feasable? Anyway, try to catch the special and I hope I am right on the date. Im pretty sure I am. Im sure you all will let me know if Im not! LOL
It was lengthy but I really enjoyed reading it. I almost didn’t because it started off “In each case, determined opposition led by physicians, big business, and Republican lawmakers blocked the proposals.” The truth is, it didn’t have Democratic support either. I almost wrote it off as just another Left, Biased, article. It turned out to be very balanced and informative (other than the opening statements).
I especially liked this part.
“Perhaps it would have been better to seek reform in steps, starting with such popular items as covering children and providing portability of health care benefits. In this way, he could have broken a huge subject down into manageable pieces that could be understood by the American people in the course of a public debate that might have taken several years.”
Maybe if this approach was taken instead of the all or nothing approach, Health Care Reform would have more support.
I especially liked this part.
“Perhaps it would have been better to seek reform in steps, starting with such popular items as covering children and providing portability of health care benefits. In this way, he could have broken a huge subject down into manageable pieces that could be understood by the American people in the course of a public debate that might have taken several years.”
Maybe if this approach was taken instead of the all or nothing approach, Health Care Reform would have more support.
Ah, Crap! The special is on CNN.
If my memory serves me, there is a special on at 8pm this evening. Sunday? Regarding the healthcare, hopefully some of you can catch it and get some of your answers you seek.
Pelosi's remarks celebrate aspects such as a ban on denying health coverage because of a pre-existing conditions, “robust support for public health infrastructure,” more spending on community health centers and reductions in uncompensated care by hospitals. Pelosi also says in the speech that the plan won't require anyone to pay a deductible for preventive health care doctor visits.
She summarizes: “It’s going to be very, very exciting.”
Pelosi adds: “But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.”
Pelosi's remarks celebrate aspects such as a ban on denying health coverage because of a pre-existing conditions, “robust support for public health infrastructure,” more spending on community health centers and reductions in uncompensated care by hospitals. Pelosi also says in the speech that the plan won't require anyone to pay a deductible for preventive health care doctor visits.
She summarizes: “It’s going to be very, very exciting.”
Pelosi adds: “But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.”
Both sides used the threat of "gloom and doom", in both situations and I, for one, think the politicians have done the American people a HUGE disservice -- that's BOTH sides, not just one or the other.
The Dems by not being forthright with provisions of the bill.
Pelosi's quote: "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it". What kind of nonsense is that?
On the other hand the Republicans fed the fear of having our care taken over by the government, by declaring that there would be "death panels", that we'd not get necessary treatments, etc.
I, personally, don't want the government involved in my care, whether it be telling me what treatments I can or can't get or paying the bill, but that's just me. If I didn't have insurance (costly, though it is), or couldn't get it, I might feel differently.
I have had minimal trouble with my insurance company regarding testing/treatments or medication (notice I said "minimal", not "no" trouble). Problem with insurance is the cost....... but how do we know an insurance provided by the government would be any cheaper?
Then, I have ask - who determines what "affordable" is? What I can afford, on SS and a pension, is way different from what President Obama or Mitt Romney can afford....... I don't care what party they're from, IMO, politicians are too far removed from the man on the street to even have a clue as to what "affordable" is.
The only person who should be able to determine "affordable" for me, is me!!
Maybe they should put insurance policies up for auction and let us bid on them?...A product or service is only worth what someone is willing to pay......... That way we get to decide what we want/can pay for. Of course that would never work, but it's an interesting concept.
The Dems by not being forthright with provisions of the bill.
Pelosi's quote: "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it". What kind of nonsense is that?
On the other hand the Republicans fed the fear of having our care taken over by the government, by declaring that there would be "death panels", that we'd not get necessary treatments, etc.
I, personally, don't want the government involved in my care, whether it be telling me what treatments I can or can't get or paying the bill, but that's just me. If I didn't have insurance (costly, though it is), or couldn't get it, I might feel differently.
I have had minimal trouble with my insurance company regarding testing/treatments or medication (notice I said "minimal", not "no" trouble). Problem with insurance is the cost....... but how do we know an insurance provided by the government would be any cheaper?
Then, I have ask - who determines what "affordable" is? What I can afford, on SS and a pension, is way different from what President Obama or Mitt Romney can afford....... I don't care what party they're from, IMO, politicians are too far removed from the man on the street to even have a clue as to what "affordable" is.
The only person who should be able to determine "affordable" for me, is me!!
Maybe they should put insurance policies up for auction and let us bid on them?...A product or service is only worth what someone is willing to pay......... That way we get to decide what we want/can pay for. Of course that would never work, but it's an interesting concept.
Here is a snippet out of the article. Sound familiar? Yes, this is what is happening now.
Interest groups spent large sums communicating with the public, but most of these efforts seemed designed less to inform than to arouse latent fears and anxieties. "This plan forces us to buy our insurance through those new mandatory government health alliances, " complained a prototypical wife, Louise, in a celebrated series of TV ads paid for by the Health Insurance Association of America. "Run by tens of thousands of new bureaucrats, " added husband Harry. "Having choices we don't like is no choice at all, " replied Louise. "They choose, we lose, " both concluded with evident disapproval.
According to a study by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School of Communications, 59 percent of all the television ads were misleading. In addition, most of the broadcast health reform ads concentrated on attacking a position rather than advocating one. A high percentage of the ads "impugn[ed] the good will and integrity of those on the other side of the issue. " Again and again, the same exaggerated themes were repeated. According to one side, the Clinton Plan amounted to "involuntary euthanasia" and deprived families of their choice of a doctor. According to the other, "Unless the Clinton Plan is passed, millions of Americans will have no access to health care. "
Interest groups spent large sums communicating with the public, but most of these efforts seemed designed less to inform than to arouse latent fears and anxieties. "This plan forces us to buy our insurance through those new mandatory government health alliances, " complained a prototypical wife, Louise, in a celebrated series of TV ads paid for by the Health Insurance Association of America. "Run by tens of thousands of new bureaucrats, " added husband Harry. "Having choices we don't like is no choice at all, " replied Louise. "They choose, we lose, " both concluded with evident disapproval.
According to a study by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School of Communications, 59 percent of all the television ads were misleading. In addition, most of the broadcast health reform ads concentrated on attacking a position rather than advocating one. A high percentage of the ads "impugn[ed] the good will and integrity of those on the other side of the issue. " Again and again, the same exaggerated themes were repeated. According to one side, the Clinton Plan amounted to "involuntary euthanasia" and deprived families of their choice of a doctor. According to the other, "Unless the Clinton Plan is passed, millions of Americans will have no access to health care. "
I suppose it would help if I provided the link? Sorry!
http://www.upenn.edu/pnc/ptbok.html
http://www.upenn.edu/pnc/ptbok.html
Same thing that happened when Clinton tried to pass healthcare. Remember?
The Great Health Care Debate of 1993-94
This article concerns what happened and why that failed. It will tell you what happened here as well. Ever hear the old saying same sh*t different day? Same thing is happening with this ACA
The Great Health Care Debate of 1993-94
This article concerns what happened and why that failed. It will tell you what happened here as well. Ever hear the old saying same sh*t different day? Same thing is happening with this ACA
Pondering point for me:
1. If this plan were indeed so wonderful, why wasn't it completely explained in the beginning, erasing all potential doubt?
1. If this plan were indeed so wonderful, why wasn't it completely explained in the beginning, erasing all potential doubt?
What is obamacare? What is your take on what it is and how it works if I may ask?
I loathe this topic, but what bothers me most (well mostly most), is the way in which this bill was passed - congressmen literally being bought off for their vote - the Nebraska and Missouri reps; closed door meetings, some at 3:00 am - dems only need attend, etc.
My personal favorite -
Pelosi's quote: "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it".
It's also on youtube for those who haven't seen it played out in 2010 about a million times.
We can certainly make changes to our current healthcare system - I think Medicaid cuts would be a great start. (If they're going to cut Medicare, then they can stop taking it out of my paycheck). I wish they would stop taking social security out as well - I'd rather invest that money on my own, since it will be gone by the time I'm ready to retire. But I digress.
A single payer system IMO, is NOT the way to go. Considering the way our government handles everything else it touches, do you REALLY want them to be in charge of your healthcare? Hell NO! Not to mention what would happen to the quality of healthcare - I like my private insurer just fine, but I firmly believe that if employers have the choice to opt out of insuring their employees, they are going to do so. Why wouldn't they? No premiums to pay. My company pays for 90% of my insurance premiums.
I would like to see a repeal of Obamacare in whole, but would be happy to see an overhaul at the very least. Just my opinion ♦
As far as the emergency room goes, do what about half of the people do when they go there.... don't pay! That is a big thing here in our sleepy little community. We have quite a large transient population that is seasonal. Some people come for summer, some for winter. If they get sick or injured, they head in to the emergency room and 3 months later, they are out of here.....
Regardless of what we do with insurance, fraud will be there. The only way to get rid of fraud is to get rid of the human element. How would we go about that?
I welcome anything better than what we've got, but I think it is a pipe dream.
Regardless of what we do with insurance, fraud will be there. The only way to get rid of fraud is to get rid of the human element. How would we go about that?
I welcome anything better than what we've got, but I think it is a pipe dream.
The person in B.C. was told by both the doctor's office and a lab, that certain tests and/or treatments aren't allowed under the guidelines. Keep in mind, this all I know about the situation and there may be more to the story.
As far as UK, we've had many members who can't get proper testing/treatment because of the NHS guidelines. If they can afford it, some of them go private, but many can't afford to do that.
As far as UK, we've had many members who can't get proper testing/treatment because of the NHS guidelines. If they can afford it, some of them go private, but many can't afford to do that.
The FAT BILL will come in the form of higher taxes.
See, good binformation can go a long way...I am all for Universal Health care......Besides, no one EVER gets turned down if they go to the emergency room, they just get a FAT bill in the mail....I say why not eliminate the FAT BILL......
Adgal. Personally I wish we had what you have. One of the biggest misconceptions of this healthcare or the ACA is that it is universal health care and that is not true. The president said that if he was starting a healthcare system from scratch he would opt for Universal or Single payor. Many of us wanted him to do just. Instead the president said it made more sense to improve upon the system that we already have, which is what was done.
The main thing about this obamacare and how it works is on the same premise of what we had, exchanges will be set up and people can choose their insurance from those exchanges. If they want to keep their employered sponsered insurance they can, but if they do not there will be other options. The mandate of carrying insurance insures that the pools are large enuff that everyone can not only get care but affordable care and if you lose your job or quit or for whatever reason lose your current insurance you will have an affordable option. Lots of things are in progress to bring this all about. They are updating medical onto computers so that no matter what doctor you go to, they can access your medical history and continue to treat you. Measures are being taken with the existing insurers to make sure no caps can be put on one getting care, pre existing is going bye bye and I can go on and on. Fraud and waste in the system is being gleened out. If they rule the mandate unconstitutional none of this will happen and we may end up with a one payor system afterall. Would not hurt my feelings if that happened at all.
The main thing about this obamacare and how it works is on the same premise of what we had, exchanges will be set up and people can choose their insurance from those exchanges. If they want to keep their employered sponsered insurance they can, but if they do not there will be other options. The mandate of carrying insurance insures that the pools are large enuff that everyone can not only get care but affordable care and if you lose your job or quit or for whatever reason lose your current insurance you will have an affordable option. Lots of things are in progress to bring this all about. They are updating medical onto computers so that no matter what doctor you go to, they can access your medical history and continue to treat you. Measures are being taken with the existing insurers to make sure no caps can be put on one getting care, pre existing is going bye bye and I can go on and on. Fraud and waste in the system is being gleened out. If they rule the mandate unconstitutional none of this will happen and we may end up with a one payor system afterall. Would not hurt my feelings if that happened at all.
Ok, well, if you don't mind then. I can honestly say I don't know anything about how the UK operates. So I cannot make any comment there. I can only speak for our system. I have a huge family, many of whom have experienced serious medical issues (my mom has a pretty serious heart condition for one). I have never ever heard of anyone being denied any sort of medical treatment. I have however heard of bad Dr's. They exist here just like they do everywhere else. So for the person in BC having trouble, I would probably suggest a different Dr. I know for certain our gov't does not dictate what kind of medical treatment anyone receives.
I also CL a few communities, all revolving around pregnancy related issues. I have met countless women living in the US who were having complications during pregnancy, but because they could not afford insurance, could not seek proper medical treatment. That includes a women who developed gestational diabetes. This is not an uncommon occurence, but for some reason her insurance company decided that diabetes was a preexisting condition and would not help her seek treatment for it. The biggest thing I hear is that the Insurance Companies dictate how many ultrasounds a women should get.....her Dr. doesn't seem to have any say in it. That is not the case here. Again, no idea about the UK, just speaking for our system here.
I also CL a few communities, all revolving around pregnancy related issues. I have met countless women living in the US who were having complications during pregnancy, but because they could not afford insurance, could not seek proper medical treatment. That includes a women who developed gestational diabetes. This is not an uncommon occurence, but for some reason her insurance company decided that diabetes was a preexisting condition and would not help her seek treatment for it. The biggest thing I hear is that the Insurance Companies dictate how many ultrasounds a women should get.....her Dr. doesn't seem to have any say in it. That is not the case here. Again, no idea about the UK, just speaking for our system here.
No debate from me and I wasn't worried about the "off topic"; just wanted to let you know of first hand experience with people on Universal Health Care that can't get care under certain circumstances.
Agreed. LOL
I think Barb covered it.
How is this health care debacle "sustainable"? I asked that a little bit ago above...
I'm insured, so is my family. We have jobs that were mandated to offer insurance some time back.... next question.
I know, I went off topic so I shan't get into the debate here....although I will admit this is always a fun one to debate with you!! lol.
I don't know enough about the real topic to comment. Reading it is interesting though!
I don't know enough about the real topic to comment. Reading it is interesting though!
Back to the title topic -- if the brochures have truthful information, I agree with teko, that people don't know enough about the plan to be for, or against.
"People do not understand it for the most part and the education is lacking while the rhetoric is all that we hear."
This is true for both sides... I don't think politicians would know the truth, anymore, if it slapped them upside the head.
"People do not understand it for the most part and the education is lacking while the rhetoric is all that we hear."
This is true for both sides... I don't think politicians would know the truth, anymore, if it slapped them upside the head.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
