(no subject)

[usernamenumber]

PolitiFact, which I generally trust for even-handed fact-checking of political claims just released a summary of the proposed health care changes and the controversies surrounding them, along with a collection of their "greatest hits" of healthcare-related fact checking. I read the summary and it seemed to me, as expected, very concise, straightforward and fair. Well worth looking at.

I've been following PolitiFact (which apparently recently won a Pulitzer-- good for them!) and factcheck.org, which is un-related but has a similar mission, since the primaries and have become a big fan of both.

Comments

[sharkpoof.livejournal.com]

Right off the bat, they were speaking about the so-called "death panels". Sarah Palin is hardly an authoritative source on anything and to say that the "death panels" were meant to euthanize people based on their place in society is wrong but it also completely glosses over the fact that the healthcare reform plan had end-of-life provisions designed to discourage or deny types of care to the elderly on a case by case basis. That care would have been guided by an independent "effectiveness" council which is code speak for people who aren't responsible to the public.

furthermore, the end-of-life section requested that people on medicare meet with their doctor every five years or after being diagnosed with a terminal illness to discuss "end-of-life" planning. these meetings have been proposed as purely voluntary but doctors get to bring these meetings up without mentioning that and get a monetary incentive to get people to go to them.

These sections were voted on by the finance subcommittee because they are intended to be cost saving measures. I read that as we're going to discourage people from getting treatment to extend their lives with terminal diseases to try to save money. This sounds kind of like rationing to me and insurance companies are already good enough at denying treatment.

Luckily, these provisions have been taken out because they are open for gross misinterpretation like Sarah and Newt have done. That said, they weren't taken out before PolitiFact said what they said about them so their assessment just isn't in depth nor even accurate.

I know its only one example, but I just can't call PolitiFact even handed. Just because they say something is false doesn't mean they cover what's truthful behind it. This is just one example. it doesn't speak to how the gov can still take your current health insurance away because it doesn't pass a reviewers judgement as adequate or how painful it will be for small employers. I paid attention to this site too during the primaries and it started out strong, but it's just become a bastion of very fast answers that don't speak to black and white, fact or non-fact issues.