Jump to content

Featured Replies

Posted

Obama is running a fear mongering campaign trying to ram this S%&T down our throats without debate.

 

Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan

 

"Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama?s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.

 

Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.

 

Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).

 

The bill?s health rules will affect ?every individual in the United States? (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

 

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and ?guide? your doctor?s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, ?Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.? According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and ?learn to operate less like solo practitioners.?

It's amazing how so much crap was thrown in under the radar that has nothing to do with a short term boost to the economy. This medical tracking thing or the $20 million to install a kayak launch pad in Morningside (Miami neighborhood) may all be good but it should be debated.

  • Author

idk how they can do this medical stuff with HIPPA laws. It goes against the grain with that and it really bothers me.

  • Author

^that fact that this would allow them to say it will not be cost effective to help you live so we will not do the operation is not what people thought probably. I feel bad for people who are oblivious to what he says because they listen to his catch phrases and not what he says.

I have no problem with standardizing medical records electronically. Obama spoke in favor of this throughout the campaign and the debates. It's something that would decrease medical malpractice and reduce medical errors, which are a major concern. I just hope that these medical records are not accessible by all insurance companies, because we have known for years that the insurance industry wants to implement things like genetic testing in order to deny coverage for people who have an increase likelihood of a certain disease, say cancer. If they ever end up being allowed to do those things, very few people are going to have medical insurance anymore, since just about every person has a family history of some disease, or a genetic predisposition to something or other. THAT'S the 'Big Brother' thing I'm concerned about.

These claims are wrong, by the way, as debunked below:

 

from MediaMatters.org-

 

Rush's Voice Leads Conservative Echo Chamber

 

Talk radio host spearheads rapid spread of health IT falsehood

 

Washington, DC - In taking on one of the latest examples of misinformation about the economic recovery package, Media Matters for America has documented Rush Limbaugh leading several conservative media outlets in parroting former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey's falsehood that a provision in the House-passed version of the bill grants the government authority to "monitor treatments" and "make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate."

 

In fact, the provision Limbaugh and others referenced merely establishes an electronic records system that would provide doctors with complete, accurate information about their patients "to guide medical decisions at the time and place of care." MSNBC's David Shuster debunked Limbaugh's myth on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, noting that the government "will not be empowered to monitor doctors or require them to do anything."

 

CNN additionally reported that when asked about where her claim actually appeared in the bill, McCaughey pointed to language that "didn't actually say that." Even Fox News contributor Mort Kondracke debunked the claim that the bill contains anything that requires health-care "rationing."

 

"Once again, conservatives in the media are showing an utter disregard for fact in their pursuit of a Limbaugh-hyped myth of the day about the economic recovery package," said Erikka Knuti, a spokesperson for Media Matters. "As the story traveled from Rush to Drudge to segments on Fox News, several media figures ignored the issue of whether the provisions were substantively valid in favor of baseless political rhetoric disguised as truth."

 

On February 9, Limbaugh repeated a falsehood that originally appeared in a Bloomberg "commentary" by McCaughey. McCaughey claimed that under provisions in the economic recovery bill passed by House Democrats, "[o]ne new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and 'guide' your doctor's decisions."

 

The Limbaugh-promoted falsehood quickly popped up on the Drudge Report as well as in segments on Fox News, where Wall Street Journal senior economics writer Stephen Moore credited Limbaugh for bringing it to his attention. By February 10, McCaughey was invited on both CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight and Fox News' Glenn Beck to peddle false claims about the bill.

 

Limbaugh even took credit for spreading the story, saying "Betsy McCaughey writing at Bloomberg, I found it. I detailed it for you, and now it's all over mainstream media. Well, it's -- it headlined Drudge for a while last night and today. Fox News is talking about it."

 

Media Matters recently documented how Limbaugh's misrepresentations about the economic recovery package are promoted concurrently with Republicans in Congress, Sean Hannity, and other conservative media figures.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Limbaugh repeats health IT falsehood from Bloomberg "commentary" on House recovery bill

 

http://mediamatters.org/items/200902100001

 

Rush Limbaugh repeated a falsehood in a Bloomberg "commentary" by Betsy McCaughey that claimed that under a provision in the House-passed economic recovery bill, "[o]ne new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and 'guide' your doctor's decisions." In fact, the provisions McCaughey referenced address establishing an electronic records system such that doctors would have information about their patients "to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care."

 

Echo chamber: Bloomberg "commentary" health IT falsehood goes from Limbaugh to WSJ's Moore and Fox, back to Limbaugh

 

http://mediamatters.org/items/200902100031

 

The Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore and Fox News anchors Bill Hemmer and Megyn Kelly promoted the falsehood -- which first appeared in a Bloomberg "commentary" by Betsy McCaughey and was subsequently promoted by Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge -- that the economic recovery bill includes a provision that would, in Moore's words, "hav[e] the government essentially dictate treatments." Limbaugh later took credit for spreading this story.

 

Dobbs, Beck allow McCaughey to advance health IT falsehood

 

http://mediamatters.org/items/200902110012

 

On Lou Dobbs Tonight and Glenn Beck, Dobbs and Beck allowed Betsy McCaughey to advance the false claim that provisions in the economic recovery act would permit the government to control health care. In fact, the provisions she cited address establishing an electronic records system in part for the purpose of "reduc[ing] health care costs resulting from inefficiency, medical errors, inappropriate care, duplicative care, and incomplete information." It does not say that the federal government will determine what constitutes "unnecessary care."

 

Link

 

It also doesn't help that Betsy McCaughey works for the Hudson Institute, which is a think tank funded by the pharmaceutical industry....

These claims are wrong, by the way, as debunked below:

 

from MediaMatters.org-

 

Rush's Voice Leads Conservative Echo Chamber

 

Talk radio host spearheads rapid spread of health IT falsehood

 

Washington, DC - In taking on one of the latest examples of misinformation about the economic recovery package, Media Matters for America has documented Rush Limbaugh leading several conservative media outlets in parroting former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey's falsehood that a provision in the House-passed version of the bill grants the government authority to "monitor treatments" and "make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate."

 

In fact, the provision Limbaugh and others referenced merely establishes an electronic records system that would provide doctors with complete, accurate information about their patients "to guide medical decisions at the time and place of care." MSNBC's David Shuster debunked Limbaugh's myth on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, noting that the government "will not be empowered to monitor doctors or require them to do anything."

 

CNN additionally reported that when asked about where her claim actually appeared in the bill, McCaughey pointed to language that "didn't actually say that." Even Fox News contributor Mort Kondracke debunked the claim that the bill contains anything that requires health-care "rationing."

 

"Once again, conservatives in the media are showing an utter disregard for fact in their pursuit of a Limbaugh-hyped myth of the day about the economic recovery package," said Erikka Knuti, a spokesperson for Media Matters. "As the story traveled from Rush to Drudge to segments on Fox News, several media figures ignored the issue of whether the provisions were substantively valid in favor of baseless political rhetoric disguised as truth."

 

On February 9, Limbaugh repeated a falsehood that originally appeared in a Bloomberg "commentary" by McCaughey. McCaughey claimed that under provisions in the economic recovery bill passed by House Democrats, "[o]ne new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and 'guide' your doctor's decisions."

 

The Limbaugh-promoted falsehood quickly popped up on the Drudge Report as well as in segments on Fox News, where Wall Street Journal senior economics writer Stephen Moore credited Limbaugh for bringing it to his attention. By February 10, McCaughey was invited on both CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight and Fox News' Glenn Beck to peddle false claims about the bill.

 

Limbaugh even took credit for spreading the story, saying "Betsy McCaughey writing at Bloomberg, I found it. I detailed it for you, and now it's all over mainstream media. Well, it's -- it headlined Drudge for a while last night and today. Fox News is talking about it."

 

Media Matters recently documented how Limbaugh's misrepresentations about the economic recovery package are promoted concurrently with Republicans in Congress, Sean Hannity, and other conservative media figures.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Limbaugh repeats health IT falsehood from Bloomberg "commentary" on House recovery bill

 

http://mediamatters.org/items/200902100001

 

Rush Limbaugh repeated a falsehood in a Bloomberg "commentary" by Betsy McCaughey that claimed that under a provision in the House-passed economic recovery bill, "[o]ne new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and 'guide' your doctor's decisions." In fact, the provisions McCaughey referenced address establishing an electronic records system such that doctors would have information about their patients "to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care."

 

Echo chamber: Bloomberg "commentary" health IT falsehood goes from Limbaugh to WSJ's Moore and Fox, back to Limbaugh

 

http://mediamatters.org/items/200902100031

 

The Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore and Fox News anchors Bill Hemmer and Megyn Kelly promoted the falsehood -- which first appeared in a Bloomberg "commentary" by Betsy McCaughey and was subsequently promoted by Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge -- that the economic recovery bill includes a provision that would, in Moore's words, "hav[e] the government essentially dictate treatments." Limbaugh later took credit for spreading this story.

 

Dobbs, Beck allow McCaughey to advance health IT falsehood

 

http://mediamatters.org/items/200902110012

 

On Lou Dobbs Tonight and Glenn Beck, Dobbs and Beck allowed Betsy McCaughey to advance the false claim that provisions in the economic recovery act would permit the government to control health care. In fact, the provisions she cited address establishing an electronic records system in part for the purpose of "reduc[ing] health care costs resulting from inefficiency, medical errors, inappropriate care, duplicative care, and incomplete information." It does not say that the federal government will determine what constitutes "unnecessary care."

 

Link

 

It also doesn't help that Betsy McCaughey works for the Hudson Institute, which is a think tank funded by the pharmaceutical industry....

Don't you undercut your argument by citing liberal activist groups like media matters as your sources :)

You are the first person I have heard call Media Matters liberal. During the election they debunked various myths by both candidates about their platforms.

This might sound biased but I don't see Mc.Cain improving the situation more than Obama were he elected.

This might sound biased but I don't see Mc.Cain improving the situation more than Obama were he elected.

 

And this is the reason why you don't think most of the media is liberal, because you live in a place that is left of the USSR. if you live in Broward or Palm Beach, middle of the road American opinion is going to sound like dictates from the Mullahs.

 

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501?(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

 

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation ? news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda ? every day, in real time.

 

Using the website www.mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.

 

That is thier own "about us" page. They are a self-identified progressive (liberal) organization.

Alright, but why have conservatives been using Media Matters to attack Democrats then? It was going on during the election.

Alright, but why have conservatives been using Media Matters to attack Democrats then? It was going on during the election.

 

"Even media matters says" is an easy to say: "you can't claim to be a centrist when the leftist organization says you are too far left on this" or "even your supporters admit this is less than truthful"

You are the first person I have heard call Media Matters liberal. During the election they debunked various myths by both candidates about their platforms.

 

 

Are you serious ?

 

http://mediamatters.org/about_us/

 

 

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501©(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Well, nobody corrected me in the past.

 

Still, when you read through what they came up with, it is hard to believe some of the things Betsy McCaughey is coming up with. It's hard to say she's not biased either when she works for a think tank funded primarily by the medical insurance industry.

Well, nobody corrected me in the past.

 

Still, when you read through what they came up with, it is hard to believe some of the things Betsy McCaughey is coming up with. It's hard to say she's not biased either when she works for a think tank funded primarily by the medical insurance industry.

Why can't the medical insurance industry be right? Just for argument's sake - why does someone's association with them invalidate anything they say?

Well, nobody corrected me in the past.

 

Still, when you read through what they came up with, it is hard to believe some of the things Betsy McCaughey is coming up with. It's hard to say she's not biased either when she works for a think tank funded primarily by the medical insurance industry.

Why can't the medical insurance industry be right? Just for argument's sake - why does someone's association with them invalidate anything they say?

 

It doesn't have to invalidate anything they say, but I would take whatever they say with a grain of salt. If Betsy were to make arguments that went against the interests of the medical insurance industry, why would the industry continue to support the think tank or Betsy? You aren't seriously saying that these organizations fund think tanks and other organizations out of pure goodness, are you?

Well, nobody corrected me in the past.

 

Still, when you read through what they came up with, it is hard to believe some of the things Betsy McCaughey is coming up with. It's hard to say she's not biased either when she works for a think tank funded primarily by the medical insurance industry.

Why can't the medical insurance industry be right? Just for argument's sake - why does someone's association with them invalidate anything they say?

 

It doesn't have to invalidate anything they say, but I would take whatever they say with a grain of salt. If Betsy were to make arguments that went against the interests of the medical insurance industry, why would the industry continue to support the think tank or Betsy? You aren't seriously saying that these organizations fund think tanks and other organizations out of pure goodness, are you?

Of course not, but it doesn't negate the possibility that they could be right. And I also wonder why we don't look at this as being an issue when government finds "problems" that require more government intervention and "assistance" which in turn leads to larger budgets and bigger spending which involves the hiring of fleets of new bureaucrats and the promotion of those who found the "problems"?

 

Still, I think it's silly to be arguing this point rather than actually having a debate on the substance. Because at the end of the day, whether or not Ms. McCaughey's argument is legitimate or not has nothing at all to do with who is paying her. I mean if she's wrong, why can't opponents simply explain why she's wrong rather than simply say "Don't listen to her, she works for people who have an interest here" ?

Well, nobody corrected me in the past.

 

Still, when you read through what they came up with, it is hard to believe some of the things Betsy McCaughey is coming up with. It's hard to say she's not biased either when she works for a think tank funded primarily by the medical insurance industry.

Why can't the medical insurance industry be right? Just for argument's sake - why does someone's association with them invalidate anything they say?

 

It doesn't have to invalidate anything they say, but I would take whatever they say with a grain of salt. If Betsy were to make arguments that went against the interests of the medical insurance industry, why would the industry continue to support the think tank or Betsy? You aren't seriously saying that these organizations fund think tanks and other organizations out of pure goodness, are you?

Of course not, but it doesn't negate the possibility that they could be right. And I also wonder why we don't look at this as being an issue when government finds "problems" that require more government intervention and "assistance" which in turn leads to larger budgets and bigger spending which involves the hiring of fleets of new bureaucrats and the promotion of those who found the "problems"?

 

Still, I think it's silly to be arguing this point rather than actually having a debate on the substance. Because at the end of the day, whether or not Ms. McCaughey's argument is legitimate or not has nothing at all to do with who is paying her. I mean if she's wrong, why can't opponents simply explain why she's wrong rather than simply say "Don't listen to her, she works for people who have an interest here" ?

 

I agree with both your points.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.