I know there are intelligent conservatives out there, so I’m not trying to generalize here. However, I think this does say something about Glenn Beck’s effect on political discourse on the right side of the aisle. It’s scary, actually.

At Blue Dog Rep. Mike Ross’ town hall, he was shouted down by a woman insisting Obama supports a single-payer (government) insurance plan, which is simply not true. Another woman began sobbing, talking about what her country has become, ending, “I’m scared!” They’re being terrified by false claims that Obama is promoting mandatory end-of-life “counseling” (read assisted suicide), mandatory gender-change surgery (!) and aiming to eliminate private insurance.

Some of the misinformation I’ve encountered on the internet is a result of the work of a man named Peter Fleckenstein. Apparently, he has been causing quite a stir about how the current health care bill in the House is a horrendous idea, by tweeting about specific sections in the bill that would be, in his view, particularly damaging to our way of life. These tweets then made it onto a couple of small time conservative blogs, and from there, they spread all around teh intertubez. It seems that they’re everywhere.

Well, I’ve taken the time to compare all of these tweets to the actual bill, and what I found was very interesting. Apparently, every single one is wrong. In EVERY case, Fleckenstein either didn’t understand what he was looking at, or he deliberately misrepresented the section of the bill being addressed. So, in an effort to stem the tide of ignorance that is quickly sweeping the web, I’ve provided my responses to Fleckenstein’s tweets. Feel free to copy and paste at any location where you see the original tweets. Also, feel free to compare these tweets to the bill for yourself.

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill – YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!

If you go to pg 29, lines 4-16, you’ll see that this section is discussing limits on cost sharing. Scroll up to pgs 8 and 9 for a definition: “The term ‘cost-sharing’ includes deductibles, coinsurance, copayments and similar charges but does not include premiums or any network payment differential for covered services or spending for non-covered services”.

So, if cost sharing is the amount that you have to pay for services, then a section on a limitation of cost sharing is setting a limit on the amount you have to fork out, NOT on the amount of coverage you receive. Therefore this is NOT about rationing your health care.

Pg 42 of HC Bill – The Health Choices Commissioner will choose UR HC Benefits 4 you. U have no choice!

This section is about the establishment of a Health Choices Administration, and the duties of its Commissioner. To understand this section, you must understand that this bill will set up a “Health Insurance Exchange”, in which private insurance companies will compete with each other and with the public option. In this exchange, there will be three or four standard plans that must be offered, so that everyone is on the same level, and to help reduce confusion over benefits being offered by competing plans. So, this section sets the Commissioner’s duties, one of which is to help determine what those standard plans offered in the exchange should look like.

This has nothing to do with a reduction in choice. You can still choose the level of coverage that is right for you, and most importantly, if you already have coverage that you like, you keep it and none of this applies to you.

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access 2 ur banks accts 4 elect. funds transfer

Okay, this page falls under Section 1173A of the bill, which discusses the standardization of “electronic administrative transactions”, and is an amendment to a section of the Social Security Act. I see no mention in this section, much less that particular page, of the government have direct access to your bank accounts. Rather, the lines in question seem to be about enabling electronic funds transfers between the government and health care providers. This must be viewed in the context of the entire section, which is about standardizing the attempt to streamline the various processes involved electronically, in an effort to save money. This isn’t an attempt to steal your money.

PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan 4 retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).

Section 164 simply makes no mention of unions or community orgs, much less ACORN. This was made up.

Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange 2 bring priv HC plans under Govt control.

This is an assumption of intent. The bill sets up an exchange in which any private health insurance companies can compete with each other and with the public option for your business. In order to work properly, there must be certain standard plans available, so that consumers can easily compare plans to determine the best price for them. Now, if you have insurance under your current employer that you are happy with, nothing changes for you. This is clearly either a misunderstanding of, or an attempt to mislead the public about, this bill.

PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill – Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs 4 priv. HC plans in the Exchange

As explained above, the creation of a functioning marketplace necessitates the standardization of several plan options. It reduces confusion over the plan choices, and allows for consumers to make better value-based decisions.

PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill – Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration ur Healthcare!

This point seems to be the result of a breakdown in logic. The creation of these standard plans does not mean that your health care will be rationed. Besides, if you stay with your current coverage, nothing changes for you.

PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill – Govt mandates linguistic approp svcs. Example – Translation 4 illegal aliens

Like it or not (and for the record, I don’t), there are LEGAL citizens in this country who dno’t speak english. The requirement that there not be cultural or linguistic barriers to obtaining coverage does not have anything to do with illegals.

I’m starting to notice a trend, btw. The author seems to be inserting his own talking points, making something of nothing.

Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps 2 sign up indiv. for Govt HC plan

Again, the author adds details (”ACORN”, etc.) not located in the bill, as a scare tactic. This is simply a statement that people should be informed of the new system.

-PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill – Medicaid Eligible Indiv. will b automat.enrolled in Medicaid. No choice

Here, the author has turned a positive into a negative. The goal is to ensure that everyone has coverage. In the referenced section of the bill, it states that a Medicaid-eligible individual who “has not elected to enroll in an exchange-participating health benefits plan” will be enrolled in Medicaid. This prevents a lack of coverage as a result of someone simply not knowing how to obtain it. If they are not enrolled in Medicaid, they would have no coverage. Who does that benefit? So they can choose to enroll in a plan, but if they don’t, they’ll be covered by Medicaid. Again, not a lack of choice.

pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No “judicial review” against Govt Monop

Another misinterpretation. Pg 124 falls under section 223, which discusses the establishment of payment rates for the public option. These rates that are paid to providers will be based on the rates for similar services under Medicare. The lines referenced simply state that these are not subject to review. This has nothing to do with the rates that consumers are charged, and especially nothing to do with a monopoly.

pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill – Doctors/ #AMA – The Govt will tell YOU what u can make.

This is section 225, which discusses the payment of providers under the public option. The lines in question simply establish to classes of participation for providers in this option. This is no different than providers who accept Medicare payments.

Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into pub opt plan. NO CHOICE

These lines in question are only describing which employers have to abide by the rules set forth in this section on employer contributions. One of the requirements is that they offer autoenrollment “in accordance with subsection (c)”. Scrolling down to subsection (c), paragraph (2), you will find that employees are clearly given the choice to opt-out of employer coverage. So much for “NO CHOICE”. Maybe the author should’ve given this more than a skim.

Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay 4 HC 4 part time employees AND their families.

Typo. Should be pg 146. However, this does not mention families. It discusses the minimum employer contributions for part-time employees, which is set to the rate of a full-time employee, but prorated by the average weekly hours worked.

Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Emplyr w payroll 400k & above who does not prov. pub opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll

This doesn’t make sense AND lies. Employers would never provide the public option. That is provided by the government. What this section is saying is that if an employee opts out of employer-provided coverage, and the employer has payroll over $400,000, the employer must pay 8% of the AVERAGE wages in the company. This basically ensures that the company is still contributing some amount, even if the employee gets coverage in the exchange.

pg 150 Lines 9-13 Biz w payroll btw 251k & 400k who doesnt prov. pub. opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll

Same as above. This is a contribution equal to a certain percent of the AVERAGE wages, for ONE employee, if they choose to get insurance in the exchange. More lies.

Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesnt have acceptable HC accrdng 2 Govt will be taxed 2.5% of inc

This is the first one I’ve seen that is actually correct. However, the purpose of this section must be clearly understood. For an example, I’ll use auto insurance. Now, all drivers are required by law to carry at least a minimum amount of coverage, in order to prevent any unforeseen expenses on the part of other parties. The same sort of logic is applied here. The more people we have insured, the lower our collective rates will be. Studies have shown that insurance premiums are currently approx. $1,000 higher because of the cost of care provided to those that don’t have insurance. So, a tax is imposed on those who can afford it, but don’t get insurance. The tax is 2.5% of adjusted gross income, but not larger than the average insurance plan. So, it’s basically an incentive. If you know that you’re going to be charged a tax that is equal to a premium, you’d just be sure you had insurance. Problem solved.

Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from indiv. taxes. (Americans will pay)

Not quite. This section states that people who are visiting from other countries are not required to have insurance. This has nothing to do with American’s paying.

Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access 2 ALL Americans finan/pers recs

Wrong again. This page states that the admin can have access to certain limited information about you, strictly for the purposes of determining if you qualify for gov’t subsidies. This limitation is spelled out in the next page.

PG 203 Line 14-15 HC – “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax” Yes, it says that

True, but taken out of context. This section is an addendum to the IRS tax code. The subparagraph in question states that the tax won’t be treated as a tax “for the purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter”.

Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Govt will reduce physician svcs 4 Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected

This section discusses adjusting the way that the target growth rate is computed. This has nothing to do with reducing physician services.

Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill – Doctors, doesnt matter what specialty u have, you’ll all be paid the same

Again, this is about computing the target growth rate, not about physicians’ pay. The previous paragraph establishes new service categories for this purpose, and the statement in question simply says that these apply, without regard to specialty.

PG 253 Line 10-18 Govt sets value of Dr’s time, prof judg, etc. Literally value of humans.

In this instance, the author has attempted to make it sound like the gov’t will set the pay for all doctors, which is not the case. This section is very specifically about the identification of misvalued codes in the system, and what to do when they are found. This will actually increase the efficiency of Medicare and the public option, which should be a good thing for conservatives, right?

PG 265 Sec 1131Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries

This section is about adjusting the Medicare market basket to account for productivity updates. In other words, if health care providers incorporate cost-savings measures, such as moving to electronic records keeping, they will be rewarded. This creates an incentive to save the government money. Once again, probably something that conservatives should be happy about. However, you guys get scared by claims of “socialized medicine”, so you close your eyes, plug your ears, and scream about the sky falling.

PG 268 Sec 1141 Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs

What?! This is a section that is already covered by Medicare, and it’s just being tweaked. In some cases, under Medicare, these are paid for, so yes, there must be regulations as to when and how this is allowed.

PG 272 SEC. 1145. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS – Cancer patients – welcome to rationing!

This is just dumb. The author randomly inserts the word “rationing” everywhere to apply to various aspects of health care. This section is simply about the adjustment of costs for cancer hospitals, regarding ambulatory services.

Page 280 Sec 1151 The Govt will penalize hospitals 4 what Govt deems preventable readmissions.

This is sort of correct. The adjustments are based on each hospital’s percentage of potentially preventable Medicare readmissions for 3 conditions with risk adjusted readmission measures endorsed by the National Quality Forum. This helps to increase the effeciency of Medicare, thereby reducing costs. Again, something conservatives ought to stand behind.

Pg 298 Lines 9-11 Drs, treat a patient during initial admiss that results in a readmiss-Govt will penalize u.

Taken out of context (again). The beginning of this subsection (d) states that a study will be conducted within the first year after this bill is passed that will determine “how the readmissions policy described in the previous subsections could be applied to physicians”. It then goes on to describe various options, of which this penalty is one. I assume if the study finds that this is the best option, that could happen at some point in the future, but conservatives would want to institute cost-cutting measures, which reward those who are the most efficient and effective, right? That’s a market-based strategy

Pg 317 L 13-20 OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Drs. what/how much they can own.

This section does not prevent ownership. It closes a loophole, which allows physicians to refer patients to hospitals in which they have a direct financial interest. This is a clear example of how the author didn’t understand what he was looking at.

Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand

First of all, this prohibition is established as a requirement to qualify for certain exceptions to the self-referral prohibition mentioned earlier in the bill. Secondly, if one were to scroll down to pages 321-326, one would find a little over four pages of exceptions to this prohibition. Bottom line: Goverment is NOT flatly mandating hospitals can’t expand as part of this bill.

pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have oppt to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can u say ACORN?!!

Why is it that any time a conservative sees the word “community”, they think of ACORN? Clause (ii) in subparagraph (A) means that ANYONE in the community can voice their opinions on a proposed expansion. That means me, you, ACORN, Sean Hannity, Jesse Jackson, ANYBODY! We should all go! It’ll be like a huge party! YEAH!!

Pg335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339 – Govt mandates estab. of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing

This isn’t about general health care. It’s an amendment to the Social Security Act, to add “Quality Based Payment Adjustments”, which are intended to improve the quality of care in that program.

Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Govt has authority 2 disqual Medicare Adv Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing peeps in2 Govt plan

What?! This page is still under section 1162, which is about quality bonus payments to various Medicare Advantage plans. The only disqualification here, would be in respect to whether a plan would be eligible to receive bonus payments.

Pg 354 Sec 1177 – Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs ppl! WTF. My sis has down syndrome!!

Ugh.,, The government already restricts enrollment to specialized Medicare Advantage plans annual, coordinated enrollment periods, prior to a certain date. This simply moves that date back, which has the opposite effect of what the author thought.

Pg 379 Sec 1191 Govt creates more bureaucracy – Telehealth Advisory Cmtte. Can u say HC by phone?

Telehealth services already exist. This creates a committee that meets twice a year, to help determine how to more effectively provide the telehealth services. This is intended to INCREASE efficiency, which is again, something one would think that conservatives would be for, not against.

PG 425 Lines 4-12 Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life

This section says nothing about mandating any such consultation.

Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory!

Again, this isn’t mandatory. It’s a direction on the things that should be discussed in a requested advanced care planning consultation, if one hasn’t been given in the last five years.

PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Govt provides apprvd list of end of life resources, guiding u in death

It says no such thing.

PG 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program 4 orders 4 end of life. The Govt has a say in how ur life ends

First of all, this is about orders for “life sustaining treatment”. Secondly, this is still in the section about the “advanced care planning consultation”, and what it should cover, once requested, if the patient hasn’t had one in five years. So, this is about a talk with a doctor, not a government mandate on providing a service.

Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An “adv. care planning consult” will b used frequently as patients health deteriorates

One must remember that this is under the Medicare section. This is about how often such consultations are covered, not when they are mandated.

PG 429 Lines 10-12 “adv. care consultation” may incl an ORDER 4 end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV

No, an order from the patient’s doctor, if deemed necessary BY THE DOCTOR. The order, by the way, is for “life sustaining treatment”.

Pg 429 Lines 13-25 – The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.

This does no such thing. It describes the qualifications of an acceptable “order regarding life sustaining treatment”.

PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment u will have at end of life

This section simply states that the level of treatment may vary, not that the government will decide anything. This is up to the patient’s doctor.

Pg 469 – Community Based Home Medical Services=Non profit orgs. Hello, ACORN Medical Svcs here!!?

Wow. Just insert “ACORN” wherever possible ’cause it’s SCARY!! BOO!!! Last time I checked, ACORN was not an organization that “provides beneficiaries with medical home services”, or assists in “teaching self-care skills for managing chronic illnesses, transitional care services, care plan setting, medication therapy mgmt services for patients with multiple chronic diseases, etc.”.

Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG. 1 monthly payment 2 a community-based org. Like ACORN?

Ugh. Teh stupid is making my head hurt! This dude sees “community-based org.”, and immediately thinks “ACORN”, as if they’re the only community org.

PG 489 Sec 1308 The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt in2 ur marriage

Um, no. The two key things to note here, are that we are still under the Medicare section of the bill, and the word “coverage”. This only means that if you qualify for Medicare, and need marriage and family therapy, those might be paid for by your Medicare plan.

Pg 494-498 Govt will cover Mental Health Svcs including defining, creating, rationing those svcs

Again, this is under changes to Medicare, so this has nothing to do with the public option or the health insurance exchange. Therefore, this is only about what will be covered by Medicare.