Petsmart and Petmeds funding right-wing lie machine

Click the link and check the ads on the left.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/

An Updated List of What’s Really in the ObamaCare Bill

The Editors

Note: the page references below may change as the bill goes through changes. It is not final yet.

• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure.

• Page 30: A federal government health care advisory committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)

• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer – they say in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance.

• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)

• Page 72: All private Healthcare
plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.

• 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.

• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages for participating plans .

• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8 percent tax on payroll

• Page 167: Any individual who doesn’t have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.

• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).

• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.

• Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that.

• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected.

• Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc.

http://Click.LinkSynergy.com has a very poor trustworthy rating and generates a warning when I try to go there.

But I doubt PetsMeds and Petsmart know they're advertising on the site.

Doesn't mean you can't tell them.

They've been using that affiliate system since 2002 and I get paid through it on time every time.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Thank you for making a completely baseless insult that does nothing more than display your complete ignorance of how Internet advertising works.

Fly by night? In relative terms, Linkshare has been around forever, 1996 to be exact. That's anything but fly by night.

Do you prefer ad hominem attacks to facts?

But you're right. Those ads are from LinkSynergy. I saw the Google block above them and didn't hover the ads.

They don't even know their ad is there, most likely.

ads. Everyone uses Google ads. I used to on my site, but didn't like their choices of ads based on my keywords, so I pulled all the links. Didn't make much from the ads anyhow.

Anyhow, a company can opt not to appear on a particular site, and sites can block ads they don't like, but it's a PITA, so nobody bothers. Still, you could try contacting the companies and ask that they do that. I wouldn't hold out much hope, though. A click-through is a click-through.

But it's important to understand that Google ads on a site don't necessarily mean that the company supports the philosophy of the site, and vice-versa.

But it's ads are on numerous sites that they do not check individually just the same.

Seriously, get a grip and research how affiliate marketing works before making a fool of yourself.

But then again, I don't use one of my first 150 posts to come here and defend some affiliate program.

How is a 10+ year old company that has been one of the big three affiliate management companies for over a decade a fly by night company?

Does 1 + 1 = 3 because I have a low post count?

Really? You know more about it than I do? You've made 1/3 of your living the past six years off of affiliate marketing?

You refer to the company Linkshare as Linksynery because you don't know the difference and yet you still have the balls to claim you know more about it than I do?

But you may be right after all...

There are no complaints using term linksynergy have been found
http://www.complaintsboard.com/?search=linksynergy&sort=natural

But it looks bad when someone uses one of their first 150 posts to defend some company or other. It creates the impression that one is a paid representative of that company.

software that blocks tracking cookies which are used to keep track of affiliate commissions. Do the same thing on a Commission Junction link (or in some cases Amazon) and you'll be told the same thing.

Complaintsboard.com? Really? That's a VERY credible source....

cough... http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/president-obama-c199527.html ...cough
puke... http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/speaker-nancy-pelosi-c9495.html ...puke

...and shows that you truly have a deep understanding of affiliate marketing.

Care to move on past the ad hominem B.S. or is that a vital part of your discussion skills?

means I shouldn't trust them.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Geesh.

You just MISSED an opportunity to properly defend your own business interest by THAT MUCH.

let them know that their ads are showing on this site and that it reflects poorly on them. Since Adwords uses keywords they can probably filter out where their ads show on Google Ads and possibly LinkSynergy.

I hope they get run out of Chicago soon.

If they were honest, and believed that the plan said those things, why did they not link to the plan

They make claims, changing what the bill says with their interpretations, and prove they are deceptive by being afraid of linking to and showing the actual language of what seems to be the house bill they compared to.

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf



------Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure.


STUDY AND REPORTS.—
(1) STUDY.—The Commissioner, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Labor, shall conduct a study of the large group insured and self-insured employer health care markets. Such study shall examine the following:
(A) The types of employers by key characteristics, including size, that purchase insured products versus those that self-insure.
(B) The similarities and differences between typical insured and self-insured health plans.
(C) The financial solvency and capital reserve levels of employers that self-insure by employer size.
(D) The risk of self-insured employers not being able to pay obligations or otherwise becoming financially insolvent.
(E) The extent to which rating rules are likely to cause adverse selection in the large group market or to encourage small and mid size employers to self-insure


------Page 30: A federal government health care advisory committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)

I think they are talking about the SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
page 33
PUBLIC INPUT.—The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall allow for public input as a part of developing recommendations under this subsection.

Appeals mechanisms are in the bill SEC. 132. REQUIRING FAIR GRIEVANCE AND APPEALS MECHANISMS.

Currently insurance companies make the decisions based on non transparent rules set up by Insurance companies to minimize paying of any claims.


------Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer – they say in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance.

(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice;
(D) require timely and transparent claim and denial management processes, including tracking, adjudication, and appeal processing ;
(E) require the use of a standard electronic transaction with which health care providers may quickly and efficiently enroll with a health plan to conduct the other electronic transactions provided for in this part; and
(F) provide for other requirements relating to administrative simplification as identified by the Secretary, in consultation with stakeholders.

That statement seems to be for paying out to health care payments, so it is allowing for payments made to hospitals or people in an efficient fashion. It does not seem any different then any other direct deposit mechanism. It also in that section says

The goals for transactions state, in part, the following.
(B) be authoritative, permitting no additions or constraints for electronic transactions, including companion guides.
(E) enable, where feasible, near real-time adjudication of claims;

This language could be interpreted many ways. But it seems it is meant to not allow industries to add layers in the payment process, to streamline and remove possible bureaucratic(private or public) overhead in the payment process.

It seems they want to cut through the billing and delays of payments for claims, as far as access to peoples accounts it would be for people in a plan for the purpose of deposit. Or hospitals that use such plans. If it was a mandatory system for payment of co-pays or premiums, I would disagree with it also, it does not seem to be the reason for that language.

Currently private sector banks have access to peoples accounts, and anyone can deposit payments into any account right now anyway.

------Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
Not sure how they got that. It does not make sense when comparing the reading of the section.


------Page 72: All private Healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.

Its called regulation, what rules or regulation would be disagreed with would be an argument.
All food processing plants must conform to health laws, all work places must conform to safety laws, all banks must conform to regulations and all trading must conform to laws on trading...(yes you do)

------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.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS FOR SETTING RATES.—Chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code shall apply to the process for the initial establishment of payment rates under this section but not to the specific methodology for establishing such rates or the calculation of such rates.

The section mentioned is the public option, and earlier it says medicare rates will be used to set the pricing.
(2) INITIAL PAYMENT RULES.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph (B) and subsection (b)(1), during Y1, Y2, and Y3, the Secretary shall base the payment rates under this section for services and providers described in paragraph (1) on the payment rates for similar services and providers under parts A and B of Medicare.

But to their point that nobody can change how the government sets prices, currently nobody can change how insurance companies set prices, so what is the difference? How could someone be for an insurance monopoly by calling the government a monopoly? And if the insurance companies were crushed, it might be because they were not giving good service at a good price to their customers, so competition would force them to do those things.

They make the point that monopoly insurance would be crushed, without making a defense of why it should be spending money to vainly name sports centers and parks, pay exorbitant wages and perks to its own members, and not provide quality care to the people it insures. If it is crushed, it would only be because the companies that fail to provide service at a good price should fail, something the private sector should respect. They are spending money to gain societal control, not just provide care to people who pay premiums.

------ Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8 percent tax on payroll

It is not mandatory to offer the public option to employees, that is not true.

SEC. 311. HEALTH COVERAGE PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS.
22 An employer meets the requirements of this section if such employer does all of the following:
(1) OFFER OF COVERAGE.—The employer offers each employee individual and family coverage under a qualified health benefits plan (or under a current employment-based health plan (within the meaning of section 102(b))) in accordance with section 312.
(2) CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS COVERAGE.—If an employee accepts such offer of coverage, the employer makes timely contributions towards such coverage in accordance with section 312.
(3) CONTRIBUTION IN LIEU OF COVERAGE.—
Beginning with Y2, if an employee declines such offer but otherwise obtains coverage in an Exchange participating health benefits plan (other than by reason of being covered by family coverage as a spouse or dependent of the primary insured), the employer shall make a timely contribution to the Health Insurance Exchange with respect to each such employee in accordance with section 313..

------Page 167: Any individual who doesn’t have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
If someone does not fit having health care as defined by bill, then that seems to be the penalty mechanism.


Since I am fairly comfortable they are not credible, after looking at the bill and their statements I did not post other comparisons of what they said it said, and what the bill says.

It's amazing how many lies are being promulgated. Probably funded by the health insurance monopoly afraid of losing its death grip. :)

And she has carried the family insurance. Yes it has gotten more expensive -but compared to my employers in the auto bussines it has been a godsend.

They have tried to mantain employee's VS layoff's etc.

The store has never promoted any political opinion.

Just IMHO stuff but they have been pretty decent while all my employers dove head first for the lowest common denominator.

petsmart...:puke:...not so much.