by Fleckman

Well, it must have been a slow day for FactCheck.org. They say August is a slow news month and that was certainly true for FactCheck. So slow that FactCheck decided to get into the Op-Ed business with an opinion piece entitled “26 Lies about HR 3200“.

FactCheck decides to analyze a mass/chain/spam email and traces “the origins of this collection of claims” back to me. What FactCheck forgot to do was trace the origin of the mass/chain/spam email. They cannot and never will be able to trace the email back to me. I never wrote it.

Perhaps FactCheck forgot their own advice about chain emails – “The author is anonymous. Practically all e-mails we see fall into this category, and anytime an author is unnamed, the public should be skeptical. If the story were true, why would the author not put his or her name on it?” The mass/chain/spam email has no named author. FactCheck – go do some actual fact checking – find out the author of the the chain email and quit attributing something I never wrote to me.

I’ve already debunked Politifacts article here and here. Now it’s time to expose FactCheck as well. Before I do that there needs to be some educational groundwork laid. Particularly in reference to “statutory interpretation”. We must look at Textual Canons of Statutory Interpretation. These “Textual Canons are rules of thumb for understanding the words of the text. Some of the canons are still known by their traditional Latin names.”.

In regards to analyzing and fact checking HR 3200, it is important to be aware of the following textual canons:

Plain Meaning

When writing statutes, the legislature intends to use ordinary English words in their ordinary senses. The United States Supreme Court discussed the plain meaning rule in Caminetti v. U.S., 242 U.S. 470 (1917), reasoning “[i]t is elementary that the meaning of a statute must, in the first instance, be sought in the language in which the act is framed, and if that is plain… the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms.” And if a statute’s language is plain and clear, the Court further warned that “the duty of interpretation does not arise, and the rules which are to aid doubtful meanings need no discussion.”

In no way can any sane person assert that HR 3200’s language is plain and clear.

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius (The express mention of one thing excludes all others)

Items not on the list are assumed not to be covered by the statute. However, sometimes a list in a statute is illustrative, not exclusionary. This is usually indicated by a word such as “includes” or “such as.”

In HR 3200, there are 214 instances of “include”, “includes”, or “included” and 335 instances of “including”. There are 77 instances of “such as” and 2166 instances of “such”. So as we can all see HR 3200 is not exclusionary at all. In fact it is an illustrative bill. As a result, HR 3200 does not exclude items and thus does nothing in the way of specically defining what the government can do. It leaves the door wide open for the government to do as they please.

Noscitur a sociis (A word is known by the company it keeps)

When a word is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined by reference to the rest of the statute.

This textual canon is extremely important. When I tweeted out my list on HR 3200 I read the ENTIRE bill, page by page, line by line. I also researched the other statutes and laws referenced in HR3200 including the Social Security Act, Medicare, the U.S. Tax Code, and the U.S.C.. In other words in order to understand the entire scope of HR3200 and my tweets on it, you must do exactly as I have done – Determine it’s meaning by reference to the rest of the statute.

Now on to FactCheck. I’ve debunked Politifact and a Left wing progressive blogger already in this document here – “Karoli Deceives, Distracts, and Distorts”. I offer this document to debunk FactCheck as well. I don’t need to alter anything for any of these organizations or any of the Left Blogosphere. Truth doesn’t need altering.

Let’s just take one of FactCheck’s blurbs from their op-ed piece and illustrate how completely inept they actually were at fact checking:

Claim: Page 42: The “Health Choices Commissioner” will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.

False: The new Health Choices Commissioner will oversee a variety of choices to be offered through new insurance exchanges. The bill itself specifies the “minimum services to be covered” in a basic plan, including prescription drugs, mental health services, maternity and well-baby care and certain vaccines and preventive services (pages 27-28). We find nothing in the bill that prevents insurance companies from offering benefits that exceed the minimums. In fact, the legislation allows (page 84) any company that offers an approved basic plan to offer also an “enhanced” plan, a “premium” plan and even a “premium plus” plan that could include vision and dental benefits.

So here’s what I actually said – “The Health Choices Commissioner will choose UR HC Benefits 4 you. U have no choice.” Notice I did not have the word “none” in my original tweet. That was from the mass/chain/spam email. I thought FactCheck and others would understand that by me saying the Health Choices Commissioner will choose your health care benefits for you they would have realized the Government will choose your benefits. Therefore, you will have no choice on your own. I guess that was asking to much critical thinking of Fact Check and others.

Now Fact Check goes on to claim that this is false but then confirms exactly what I said. Additionally they go on to try and distract the reader with a claim that they

“find nothing in the bill that prevents insurance companies from offering benefits that exceed the minimums”.

FactCheck goes on:

“the legislation allows (page 84) any company that offers an approved basic plan to offer also an “enhanced” plan, a “premium” plan and even a “premium plus” plan that could include vision and dental benefits.”

Hey Fact Check, you forgot to inform your readers that while the bill doesn’t prevent insurance companies from offering benefits that exceed the minimums and that insurance companies can offer enhanced, premium, and premium plus plans, they must do so according to the the directives and mandates of the Health Choices Commissioner.

In other words, all those plans mentioned by FactCheck are Government Standardized Mandated Plans or “Qualified Benefit Health Plans” (QBHPs) as they like to call them.

In other words, if a person wants to participate in the Government run Health Insurance Exchange or the Government run Public Option within that Exchange, the person must “choose” one of the Government mandated “Qualified Benefit Health Plans”. By the way, if a person does not conform to what the Government wants them to do then they’re penalized with a 2.5 % tax on adjusted gross income.

In other words, a person has no choice. It’s only what the Government tells them what they can have.

I guess Fact Check forgot about the textual canons of Noscitur a sociis and Expressio unius est exclusio alteris above.

So Brooks Jackson, Jess Henig and Lori Robertson of FactCheck.org, instead of writing an op-ed piece based on a mass/chain/spam email, you might want to actually do your job as you proclaim and fact check.

References | Resources | Related Material

• 26 Lies about HR 3200
  http://factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/

• Politifacts Checks a Chain Email, I Check Politifact
  http://blog.flecksoflife.com/2009/07/30/politifacts-checks-a-chain-email-i-check-politifact/

• Check the Person Who Checks Facts
  http://blog.flecksoflife.com/2009/08/06/check-the-person-who-checks-facts/

• Textual Canons of Statutory Interpretation
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation#Textual

• plain meaning rule
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_meaning_rule

• case citation
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citation

• Social Security Act
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29

• Medicare
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29

• Karoli Deceives, Distracts, and Distorts
  http://docs.google.com/View?id=dhnczxvf_31fcvc58dx

• Health Insurance
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance

• Health Care
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care

H.R. 3200 America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009

• http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/show

• http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

• http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3200

• http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200

• http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200

• http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.111hr3200

Source: http://blog.flecksoflife.com/2009/08/29/factcheck-gets-smack-checked/

The ObamaCare Plan is hazardous to the health of every American.

By Dr. Dave Janda

As a physician who has authored books on preventative health care, I was given the opportunity to be the keynote speaker at a Congressional Dinner at The Capitol Building in Washington (7/17).

The presentation was entitled Health Care Reform, The Power & Profit of Prevention, and I was gratified that it was well received.

In preparation for the presentation, I read the latest version of “reform” as authored by The Obama Administration and supported by Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid. Here is the link to the 1,018 page document: AAHCA-BillText-071409

(H.R. 3200 America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 is also available here:  www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text)

Let me summarize just a few salient points of the above plan. First, however, it should be clear that the same warning notice must be placed on The ObamaCare Plan as on a pack of cigarettes: Consuming this product will be hazardous to your health.

The underlying method of cutting costs throughout the plan is based on rationing and denying care. There is no focus on preventing health care need whatever. The plan’s method is the most inhumane and unethical approach to cutting costs I can imagine as a physician.

The rationing of care is implemented through The National Health Care Board, according to the plan. This illustrious Board “will approve or reject treatment for patients based on the cost per treatment divided by the number of years the patient will benefit from the treatment.”

Translation… if you are over 65 or have been recently diagnosed as having an advanced form of cardiac disease or aggressive cancer… dream on if you think you will get treated… pick out your coffin.

Oh, you say this could never happen? Sorry… this is the same model they use in Britain.

The plan mandates that there will be little or no advanced treatments to be available in the future. It creates The Federal Coordinating Council For Comparative Effectiveness Research, the purpose of which is “to slow the development of new medications and technologies in order to reduce costs.” Yes, this is to be the law.

The plan also outlines that doctors and hospitals will be overseen and reviewed by The National Coordinator For Health Information and Technology.

This “coordinator” will “monitor treatments being delivered to make sure doctors and hospitals are strictly following government guidelines that are deemed appropriate.” It goes on to say… “Doctors and hospitals not adhering to guidelines will face penalties.”

According to those in Congress, penalties could include large six figure financial fines and possible imprisonment.

So according to The ObamaCare Plan… if your doctor saves your life you might have to go to the prison to see your doctor for follow-up appointments. I believe this is the same model Stalin used in the former Soviet Union.

Section 102 has the Orwellian title, “Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage.” What this section really mandates is that it is illegal to keep your private insurance if your status changes - e.g., if you lose or change your job, retire from your job and become a senior, graduate from college and get your first job. Yes, illegal. When Mr. Obama hosted a conference call with bloggers urging them to pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible, a blogger from Maine referenced an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance.

He asked: “Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?” Mr. Obama replied: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.”

Then there is Section 1233 of The ObamaCare Plan (pages 425-427), devoted to “Advanced Care Planning.” After each American turns 65 years of age they have to go to a mandated counseling program that is designed to end life sooner.

This session is to occur every 5 years unless the person has developed a chronic illness then it must be done every year. The topics in this session will include, “how to decline hydration, nutrition and how to initiate hospice care.” It is no wonder The Obama Administration does not like my emphasis on Prevention. For Mr. Obama, prevention is the “enemy” as people would live longer.

I rest my case. The ObamaCare Plan is hazardous to the health of every American.

After I finished my Capitol Hill presentation, I was asked by a Congressman in the question-answer session: “I’ll be doing a number of network interviews on the Obama Health Care Plan. If I am asked what is the one word to describe the plan what should I answer.”

The answer is simple, honest, direct, analytical, sad but truthful. I told him that one word is FASCIST.

Then I added, “I hope you’ll have the courage to use that word, Congressman. No other word is more appropriate.”

Dr. Dave Janda, MD, is an orthopedic surgeon and a member of Orthopedic Surgery Associates in Ann Arbor, MI. He graduated Magna Cum Laude with a Bachelor of Arts Degree with majors in Chemistry and Economics from Bucknell University and obtained his M.D. degree from Northwestern University Medical School.

Dr. Janda completed an internship and orthopedic residency at the University of Michigan as well as a fellowship in shoulder reconstructive surgery and sports medicine in London, Ontario, Canada.

After leaving the University of Michigan, Dr. Janda founded the Institute for Preventative Sports Medicine in Ann Arbor, the only health care cost containment organization of its kind in North America. As the Institute’s director, Dr. Janda has brought together leaders in injury prevention and sports medicine to produce high quality work that has an impact on the everyday lives of the public.

Dr. Janda’s groundbreaking research has been acknowledged by the public and medical community, including the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons. He was awarded the clinical research award by the American Orthopedic Society of Sports Medicine. He also received the R. Tait McKenzie Award for outstanding clinical research on an international basis the Canadian Academy of Sports Medicine.

Dr. Janda was appointed to the Board of National Center for Injury Prevention and Control by the previous Bush administration. He was also appointed to the National Institute of Health Trauma Research Task Force. Michigan governor John Engler appointed Dr. Janda to the state’s Council on Health, Fitness and Sports, and also named him Chairman of the Advisory Group on the Prevention of Sports Injuries.

Dr. Janda’s advice and research led the current Bush administration to install breakaway bases on the White House T-ball field.

In his appearances on “The Oprah Show,” “The Today Show,” “Good Morning America,” “CBS This Morning,” “CNN,” “Fox News,” “NBC Nightly News,” and “CBS Evening News,” Dr. Janda has given the public valuable information about preventing sports and recreational injuries.

His website is noinjury.com.

UPDATE 08/29/09: FactCheck Gets Smack Checked
http://endgamenow.com/big-brother-legislation/factcheck-gets-smack-checked/

UPDATE 08/08/09: Politifact Checks a Chain Email, I Check Politifact by Peter Fleckenstein
http://blog.flecksoflife.com/2009/07/30/politifacts-checks-a-chain-email-i-check-politifact/

UPDATE 08/06/09: Doctor’s Summary of HR 3200 Obama Health Care Bill
http://endgamenow.com/big-brother-legislation/doctors-summary-of-hr-3200-obama-health-care-bill/

* * *

By Angie Drobnic Holan
PolitiFact.com

It may be the longest chain e-mail we’ve ever received. A page-by-page analysis of the House health care bill (H.R. 3200 America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009: www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text) argues that reform will end the health care system as we know it: “Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed! … Page 42: The ‘Health Choices Commissioner’ will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. … Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services.”

Most of what the e-mail says is wrong. In fact, it’s a clearinghouse of bad information circulating around the Web about proposed health care changes, so we thought it would be helpful to address a bunch of its claims.

To check this e-mail, we read the health care bill ourselves. Yes, it’s over 1,000 pages long, but that’s not as long as you might think: The document has large margins, so the text only takes up about one third of each page.

We also read the bill’s legislative summary, a report published by the House that explains the bill in greater detail.

Finally, we consulted with Jennifer Tolbert, an independent health care analyst at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan foundation that studies health care reform. Tolbert has read and analyzed all the major health proposals, including those of the Republicans, and the foundation provides point-by-point analyses (http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm) of the plans on its Web site.

We’re hardened, battle-scarred fact-checkers, so false claims in e-mails don’t really surprise us anymore. But we sent Tolbert a copy of the latest from our in-box, and she was none too pleased.

“It’s awful,” she said. “It’s flat-out, blatant lies. It’s unbelievable to me how they can claim to reference the legislation and then make claims that are blatantly false.”

The claim that the bill provides free health care for illegal immigrants is particularly egregious, Tolbert said. “No one’s provided with free health care. That’s ridiculous,” she said.

We looked for promises of free health care for immigrants and found nothing. So we’ve rated this claim Pants on Fire! (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/30/chain-email/no-free-health-care-illegal-immigrants-health-bill/)

Another claim that’s Pants on Fire! (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/30/chain-email/health-choices-commissioner-does-not-decide-your-h/) is the following: “Page 42: The ‘Health Choices Commissioner’ will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.”

To explain this one, we will start with an explanation of the overall bill, which was unveiled July 14, 2009. The bill envisions that everyone will be required to have health insurance. People who get health insurance through work satisfy this requirement right off the bat.

People who don’t get insurance through work or other groups will go to the health care exchange; it’s designed to help people who have to go off on their own to buy health insurance, and for small businesses with few employees. The reason for the exchange is that the government wants to regulate insurers to make sure that health plans clearly explain what they offer, can’t refuse people for pre-existing conditions, and must offer basic levels of service.

“This is designed to protect consumers from plans that have outrageous cost-sharing or really limited benefits,” Tolbert said. “It’s to ensure that they’re actually getting coverage and not a junk policy.”

A key point here is that employer-provided insurance is already subject to this kind of regulation. Employer-provided insurance has to meet certain requirements to win its tax-exempt status.

That’s why, if you get insurance through work, you’re not asked about pre-existing conditions, and you pay the same rate as all of your fellow co-workers.

The bill says that a Health Choices commissioner will run the exchange, and that he or she will make sure that insurers are offering basic benefits and adhering to the regulations. Individuals then choose their own plan from offerings on the exchange. The health commissioner does not “decide health benefits for you.” To the extent that insurance plans have to meet basic requirements, those instructions are ultimately coming from Congress. The commissioner executes the rules.

One of the few claims from the e-mail that is truthful is the statement that “All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.” This was confirmed by our reading of the legislation, and Tolbert agreed with the statement as well. The legislation intends to more closely regulate health insurance, so it requires plans to follow the rules if they want to sell insurance throught the exchange. We rated the statement True.

The e-mail includes almost 50 claims about the health care bill in its original form. (The bill is still in Congress, so it’s expected to change as members negotiate for votes.) We’ve ruled on the first 15 claims below. We wanted to publish our initial findings promptly, and we’re still deciding whether we should proceed with checking all the claims after finding so many problems with the first batch. We’ll make our decision based on reader feedback, so e-mail us your thoughts at truthometer@politifact.com or message us via Twitter @politifact.

The e-mail begins, “Subject: A few highlights from the first 500 pages of the Healthcare bill in congress. Contact your Representatives and let them know how you feel about this. We, as a country, cannot afford another 1000 page bill to go through congress without being read. Another 500 pages to go. I have highlighted a few of the items that are down right unconstitutional.” Below are the e-mail’s assertions, followed by our findings.

• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure! False: Section 113 of the bill requires the Health Choices commissioner to conduct a study to make sure health reform does not unintentionally create incentives for businesses to self-insure or create adverse selection in the risk pools of insured plans. There is no mandated audit.

• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed! False: Section 122 outlines broad categories of benefits that must be included in an essential benefits package. It prohibits cost-sharing for preventive care and limits annual out-of-pocket spending to $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family, indexed for inflation. It says nothing about rationing or limiting treatment.

• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process) Barely True: Section 123 establishes a Health Benefits Advisory Committee that makes recommendations on what types of health insurance coverage will be defined as basic, enhanced or premium. The committee will be chaired by the surgeon general, with members appointed by the president, the comptroller general, and representatives of federal agencies. This committee makes recommendations on insurance regulations, so in that sense it does set standards for benefits. But it does not make decisions about treatments for individuals.

• Page 42: The “Health Choices Commissioner” will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None. Pants on Fire!: Section 142 outlines the duties of the Health Choices commissioner, who is charged with regulating insurers. The commissioner should seek insurers to offer different types of insurance, including basic, enhanced and premium. Individuals will be able to choose among competing insurers who are regulated via the exchange.

• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services. Pants on Fire! Section 152 includes a generic non-discrimination clause, which says insurers may not discriminate with regard to “personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.” It says nothing about “non-US citizens” or immigrants, legal or otherwise. In fact, the legislation specifically states that undocumented aliens will not be eligible for credits to help them buy health insurance, in Section 246 on page 143.

• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard. Barely True: Section 163 sets out goals for electronic health records. It says one goal should be real-time confirmation of which services a person qualifies for and how much they will have to pay. That could be achieved by machine-readable beneficiary cards, according to the legislative language. But the legislation does not require the cards.

• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer. Barely True: Section 163 sets out goals for electronic health records. One of the goals is to include features that “enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation” between payment and billing. The legislative summary says the intent in the section is “to adopt standards for typical transactions” between insurance companies and health care providers. The legislation generically describes typical electronic banking transactions and does not outline any special access privileges.

• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN). Pants on Fire! Section 164 creates a temporary reinsurance program to help employers or employee associations pay for coverage for workers ages 55 to 64. It does not mention labor unions or community organizer groups, though presumably they could qualify for subsidies like any other employee association that previously offered health insurance. The section’s point, however, is to offer subsidies to employer-based insurance programs, not unions or community organizers.

• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange. True. Private health care plans must conform to government rules to participate in the exchange, and this page begins an explanation of exchange rules. However, the requirement that insurance companies must conform to is also presented much earlier in the bill. We spotted an earlier reference on page 15, Section 101.

• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans). Mostly True. Section 203 sets rules saying that plans must offer basic plans before they can offer plans with extra benefits. These extra benefits are defined as enhanced plans and premium plans. (The unstated assumption here is that enhanced and premium plans will be more profitable for the insurance companies.) But this isn’t the page number that requires health plans to participate in the exchange. Technically speaking, private insurance plans are not required to participate. Rather, only insurance sold on the exchange will satisfy the mandate that people have health insurance. In effect, private health plans that want to sell to individuals will have to sell through the exchange, under the terms of the bill.

• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens. Half True. Section 204 outlines more regulations for health insurance plans in the exchange. One of the requirements is that they provide “culturally and linguistically appropriate communication and health services.” Another part of the bill mentions that this includes “effective methods for communicating in plain language.” There is no mention of citizenship status.

• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan. False. Section 205 says the Health Choices commissioner is charged with publicizing the options on the health care exchange. The legislation says the commissioner “may work with other appropriate entities to facilitate the dissemination of information.” The bill does not mention ACORN or Americorps. The bill also says that the commissioner must publicize the “Exchange-participating health benefits plan options,” which would include private insurance plans.

• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter. False. This page describes people who would qualify for Medicaid, a government insurance program for people with very low incomes. It says that individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid only if they have “not elected to enroll in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.” So the auto-enrollment only happens if they have not chosen another plan.

• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No “judicial review” is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed. Barely True. Section 223 discusses how the government will pay doctors under the public option health insurance; they will pay 5 percent more than Medicare pays. It’s true that this section does not set out any sort of judicial review, but it specifically states that health care providers do not have to accept patients under the public option. The bill also says that the Health Choices commissioner has the authority “to correct for payments that are excessive or deficient,” taking into account “amounts paid for similar health care providers and services under other Exchange-participating health benefits plans.” There may be a broader case to be made that the government can out-compete private insurers through the public option, but this section of the plan doesn’t have to do with lawsuits or judicial review.

• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages. Barely True. Section 225 discusses payments for physicians who choose to accept the public option insurance. Again, there may be a broader case to be made that the government can out-compete private insurers through the public option, but this section of the plan only applies to payments to doctors for patients who are part of the public option. The government does not set wages for doctors because doctors are free to decline to see the patients.

Finally, a few words about the e-mail’s origins. It appears that someone out there based it on the work of Peter Fleckenstein, who publishes commentary on the Twitter messaging service under the name Fleckman. (Some of the e-mails we receive credit him, but many do not.) Fleckenstein strongly opposes the Democratic health plan and labels most of his posts #tcot, which stands for “top conservatives on Twitter.” Fleckenstein has also posted the analysis at his blog, Common Sense from a Common Man (http://blog.flecksoflife.com/). Many of the e-mails we received have made changes to Fleckenstein’s original tweets, and the e-mail we’ve checked here has made changes as well

Sources:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/30/e-mail-analysis-health-bill-needs-check-/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/30/e-mail-analysis-health-bill-needs-check-/

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/show
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/show

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3200
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3200

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200

http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.111hr3200
http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.111hr3200

This healthcare legislation MUST be defeated. Tom has said that our Constitution is being burned right before our very eyes. We must, Democrats and Republicans alike, let our “leaders” know that this plan is unacceptable.

Representative Tom Price quotes Speaker Nancy Pelosi telling members of the Chairman’s conference, that “If you talk with Republicans about this, you will be shut out of the room.” When the chairman tries to deny that statement, Tom states that he would be pleased to provide the quote for him from the member of the Chairman’s conference. Although he didn’t have the quote with him, he would be pleased to provide it later. Tom then admonishes the Chairman, “You know this hasn’t been a bipartisan effort. You KNOW that.”

Please share this with everyone you know. There has to be a better way than a government takeover! If the Government takes over, it will be one of the most colossal blunders in the history of this Nation!

Verify for yourself, see H.R. 3200 America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, (also being referred to as Obamacare).

U.S. Representative Tom Price, 6th District on Wednesday. Tom is a member of the House Healthcare Committee, and the video was shot in the Wednesday Committee meeting.

Representative Tom Price of Georgia admonishes the Democrat government-takeover of health care.
(July 16, 2009)

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD_YOlUBoIk
YT User: http://www.youtube.com/user/RepTomPrice