Congressman Mike Rogers' opening statement on Health Care reform in Washington D

[kidcatfish]

Ok, this is worth every MINUTE (ONLY 4) to watch this! 
 
THIS HITS IT OUT OF THE  BALL  PARK!
 
A HOME RUN!!!!
 
It was taken inside Congress wi th a Congressman… YOU HAVE TO WATCH TH IS…and YOU  MUST  PASS THIS ON!!!
 
 THIS IS IMPERATIVE EVERYONE SEE THIS!!  IT WAS TAKEN OFF THE VIDEO TAPES OF THE FLOOR OF OUR NATIONAL LEGISLATURE…
 
PLEASE  GET THIS OUT TO EVERYONE!!!
 
CLICK HERE  (or copy and paste in web browser if this doesn’t work)

Congressman Mike Rogers' opening statement on Health Care reform in Washington D.C.	powered by Aeva

[Scanner]

This has been gone over before.  Rogers top industry donors for campaign funds are Insurance and Pharma PAC's.

[Duct Tape]

This has been gone over before.  Rogers top industry donors for campaign funds are Insurance and Pharma PAC's.

Okay...Now, refute what he said.  He is dead-on with his comments, regardless of where his campaign funds may come from.  Campaign finance reform is another issue that needs some serious work.

[Scanner]

Where do I start....."Punish those with employer plans"...."Government Run healthcare".....

If you work you pay taxes for Medicare, which, although a recent poll showed 39% of Americans don't know it, is GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTHCARE". 

I get so tired of the BS the insurance companies have scripted for the Repubs to spout.

Why are they so afraid of competition? Why are some people so fond of the Insurance companies?  It is insane.

Every boogyman that they come up with - rationed care, declined claims, health decisions by bureaucrats, not accepted due to pre-existing conditions - every argument they put forth IS ALREADY HAPPENING under the insurance co's.   

The Insurance companies are in it for the profit ONLY.  They have to show their shareholders that they are keeping costs to a minimum. Well, your healthcare IS THE COST that they must keep to minimum. It is that simple.

[Mike in AR]

Seem to me the fix for the whole thing would be for the members of congress and the President to put themselves under the same health care and retirement  programs that they are trying to get the rest of us to approve amd use.

[Puffs Daddy]

This has been gone over before.  Rogers top industry donors for campaign funds are Insurance and Pharma PAC's.

Okay...Now, refute what he said.  He is dead-on with his comments, regardless of where his campaign funds may come from.  Campaign finance reform is another issue that needs some serious work.

OK. Rogers makes two factual claims in the clip. And only two. The rest is BS rhetoric.


(1) Section 141 of the House Health Care bill will give the "Health Choices Commissioner" the power to "disenroll" people from their current health care plans. In fact it does no such thing. What it does do is to carry over existing regulations that assure private health care plans are not fraudulent and that they actually provide the coverage they claim to provide.

Politifact, which won the Pulitzer Prize for its non-partisan fact checking of political claims, does this one with by declaring such claims a "pants on fire" lie.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/30/chain-email/health-choices-commissioner-does-not-decide-your-h/

(2) Congressman Rogers claims that the Canadian single payer system and the British National Health Service (a real "socialized medicine") system do a poorer job of preventing death from cancer than the US.

In fact, since neither the Canadian single payer system nor the British system is being proposed, the comparisons are faulty, at best. But even if one takes them seriously, the claim that cancer survivability IN GENERAL in Canada and Great Britain is worse than the US is simply false. In fact, the US ranks below each nation in terms of overall survivability from cancer as well as in overall life expectancy.

It is possible, of course, to find individual diseases where mortality rates are higher in the US than in Canada and Britain. However, the instance of "breast cancer" cited by Rogers isn't one of them. It turns out that he is selecting out of context a study of mortality of breast cancer patients in Britain who suffer unusually high mortality rates. Who are those patients? MEN. No one knows why exactly, but since breast cancer among men won't affect Grandma, Congressman Rogers can relax.

So there is the "refutation" of the only "facts" the Congressman asserted. Next question?

[Puffs Daddy]

Seem to me the fix for the whole thing would be for the members of congress and the President to put themselves under the same health care and retirement  programs that they are trying to get the rest of us to approve amd use.

That is precisely the "public option" proposed by the Obama initiative. Next question?

[Mike in AR]

You need to do a little more research. The "public option" is for the people, meaning us, to choose the government -run health care. It is not about them, meaning congress, dropping their current health care plan and using the one they are proposing for us. The same goes for their retirement. Let me ask you, will you be receiving the same amount of money when you retire, as you are now? Unless you own the company you work for, I kind of doubt it. I know that I won't be, and I work for the government. I'm not trying to get into a big heated debate with anyone, just voicing my opinion. And that is that if the people proposing this health care plan really have our best interest in mind, then they ought to be willing to join us in it. And, in my opinion mind you, they are not going to do that.

[Puffs Daddy]

You need to do a little more research. The "public option" is for the people, meaning us, to choose the government -run health care. It is not about them, meaning congress, dropping their current health care plan and using the one they are proposing for us. The same goes for their retirement. Let me ask you, will you be receiving the same amount of money when you retire, as you are now? Unless you own the company you work for, I kind of doubt it. I know that I won't be, and I work for the government. I'm not trying to get into a big heated debate with anyone, just voicing my opinion. And that is that if the people proposing this health care plan really have our best interest in mind, then they ought to be willing to join us in it. And, in my opinion mind you, they are not going to do that.

(a) The medical care plan which Congress people receive is a standard though generous plan similar to those received by many other folks. It includes a variety of options, co-payments, limits, etc. It is available as well to many other Federal employees. There is no "health care plan they are proposing for us." There is simply a proposal to provide that same sort of plan to those not covered by private insurance.

(b) The "retirement" plan for Congress has nothing to do with this debate. No more than "our" individual retirement plans do.

(c) It's not me that should do some more research.