View Full Version : Something I don't understand about the Health Care Debate
andrewc24301
Jul 30, 2009, 04:23 AM
Hello:
There are a couple of things I don't understand about the health care debate.
1) Everyone is talking about what happens if you don't have insurance. And everyone seems to think the government is going to offer their own version. I have heard this too.
Yet, nobody is talking about what type of plan the government will offer.
Simple questions such as:
What will the monthly premium be?
How much will the deductible be?
Will there be an out of pocket maximum, and if so, what will it be?
Will there be a prescription plan, and if so, how much will they cost?
What will the co-insurance rate be? (i.e. 20%)?
Can we see doctors we choose?
Will we need a referral to see a specialist?
What's not covered?
Furthermore, and this may not apply to everyone, but if anyone out there is opposed to any medical health plan provided by the government for the uninsured (what ever that health plan may be) and yet you are on social security and medicare (disabled and retired) then
SIT DOWN and BE QUIET.
There is a member of my family who hates Obama with a passion, and complains about his every move. And of course, this health care thing is on the top of his list.
Yet he is on disability and medicare, with humama.
Sorry, how can he debate this, when he himself brags about his wonderful health care plan, that is 100 times better and cheaper than my private plan at work.
I'm not saying that government run health care isn't socialist. I am saying that so is social security and medicare, yet nobody is complaining about that. The only thing they complain about is the fact that social security and medicare might not be around much longer due to lack of funds...
HUH??
Just come out and say it medicare people- you're fine with you're socialist health care plan, but you don't wan't younger, healthier uninured people to have it?
Before the 30's there was no social security. You worked, until you could work no more, and if you were lucky, you stashed a little money away somewhere to live off, most just moved in with one of the kids for them to take care of.
I have insurance now, but it wasn't long ago, I remember not having insurance, and it was that way for many years. Once I got very sick one October, while making $5.15 per hour. Dealth with that for 5 days, once my temprature got up to 104.5. But never went to the doctor. And fewer and fewer employers are offering health care to their employee's. At least I have been hard pressed to find one that does.
I'mm worried about this new government health care because I don't know enough about it, nobody is saying how much it will cost me. No one is giving any details, other than "it's socialist".
My official posistion:
If I can get a better plan through the government for my entire family at a cost of less than $800 per month, then sign me up, because that's what I'm paying Anthem for a $2000 deductable plan.
tomder55
Jul 30, 2009, 04:34 AM
Both Medicare and Social Security are in essence bankrupt. When you come of age either they will have changed their eligibilty age ,and /or will consume much more of the income of your children funding this transfer of wealth from the young to the old. Both are ponzi schemes .
The rest of your question about the details cannot be addressed because no one knows in reality what is being proposed . Jon Conyers said :
"What good is reading the [health care] bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?" Conyers thinks it's an antiquated notion that congressmen actually read legislation,and has made it clear he intends to vote on the bill without reading it. He is one of the leading proponents of the reform... but doesn't know what it contains.
No one denies that there are issues with our current system. But so far ,the cure appears to me to be worse than the disease.
ETWolverine
Jul 30, 2009, 06:45 AM
You bring up several good points.
1) We don't know how the government will pay for all of this. We know it won't be through premiums... it will be through increased taxes. But it amounts to the same thing. But nobody in the Obama government is willing to come out and say how much our taxes will go up because of it. They're afraid to, because they know that if they are honest about it, nobody would back the plan.
2) I agree with you about Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security. They are socialist programs. Actually, they are worse... they're Ponzi schemes, which if done by anyone else would make them illegal. Money being paid by me today is going to service people who are current beneficiaries. When I become a beneficiary, someone else's money will be paying for my benefits. A ponzi scheme is when money invested by one person is used to pay off another person's investment rather than being used to make money for the person who paid it in. Sounds pretty much the same to me.
I have been against Social Security forever. I backed Bush's idea of retirement savings plans. I'm also in favor of medical savings plans as an alternative to Medicare and Mediaid. I think that Americans do a better job of investing their money than the government does... and the government has proven that fact by taking all the money out of the Social Security Trust Fund and using it for other purposes.
So the point that I'm making is that I (and I believe the other Conservatives on this board who similarly support RSAs and MSAs) are pretty consistent in our beliefs that the government should stop taking our money "for our benefit" and let us handle our retirement and medical coverage issues ourselves.
Elliot
NeedKarma
Jul 30, 2009, 06:51 AM
I backed Bush's idea of retirement savings plans. You mean like we have here in socialist Canada?
I think that Americans do a better job of investing their money than the government does...No they don't. Given the alternative of willingly save money for the future or spend it now the average american will spend today's money and tomorrow's money as well as referenced by the crushing personal debt that most americans are willing to carry to get the consumer goods they thing they so deserve.
tomder55
Jul 30, 2009, 07:02 AM
It is said that much of the plan being debated is modelled after the Massachusetts system.
Both Forbes and the Washington Compost wrote about the Mass. Plan.
MAss Disaster - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/29/health-reform-massachusetts-opinions-contributors-obama-insurance.html)
The Ticker - Mass. Treasurer Rips Mandated Health Insurance - Economy Watch (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/economy-watch/2009/07/mass_treasurer_rips_mandated_h.html)
In fact ;according to the State's Treasurer the plan has been a disaster ,chock full of unintended consequences...
– The program has so far cost 30 percent more than anticipated.
– It already has a $9 billion shortfall projected over the next two years.
– Costs have risen 41 percent since the program's inception, well outpacing the rise in healthcare costs nationwide, which stands at 18 percent.
– We thought this program would mean fewer people would go to hospitals, which is the highest cost any insurance plan has to pay. In fact, fewer people are not going to hospitals.
– A Harvard study shows 60 percent of state residents are unhappy with the plan. The most unhappy? Those whom it should be helping the most — those making $25,000 to $50,000 per year.
– To cut costs, the program is now having to kick out legal immigrants.
And unfulfilled promises .
They were promised affordable coverage. The plans were so expensive that 20% of the uninsured were exempted from having to purchase them. … Bay Staters were told they wouldn't have their current arrangements disrupted. Yet thousands of residents have had to purchase more expensive coverage after the new bureaucracy deemed their existing plans inadequate. … three years in, the successor uncompensated care pool is still spending hundreds of millions of dollars. Emergency rooms are more crowded than ever. …
This plan was bi-partisan and current Governor Deval Patrick (and occasional author of the President's best remembered speechs) will have political problems because of the way the plan has performed .But Mitt Romney will also take a hit on his national asperations over the failure of the plan because he also touts it as a possible model for national reform(alleged improved access at lower costs ) .
If this is the model for national health care reform then no thank you .
N0help4u
Jul 30, 2009, 07:03 AM
Exxactly Andrew I am worried because we know nothing about it and once it is in government control they can keep switching things to their liking and we have no say or no choice. I don't want them to say I have to pay $200. For their plan because they force me to have insurance when if I wanted insurance I could go get something that is already available for cheaper.
One good thing so far is that the longer they take revising it I am hoping the revisions are for the better (ON our behalf)
I don't know why they don't go with the fair tax and the retirement plans and things like Costa Rica has because it sounds fairer than anything we got. I heard around a year or two ago that Costa Rica is now the spot Americans are flocking to because of their retirement plans, taxation method and so forth.
NeedKarma
Jul 30, 2009, 07:07 AM
It is said that much of the plan being debated is modelled after the Massachusetts system. No, this is not being said.
ETWolverine
Jul 30, 2009, 07:11 AM
You mean like we have here in socialist Canada?
No they don't. Given the alternative of willingly save money for the future or spend it now the average american will spend today's money and tomorrow's money as well as referenced by the crushing personal debt that most americans are willing to carry to get the consumer goods they thing they so deserve.
So you think everyone is as stupid as you are.
Sorry, not all people are short sighted. Not even most people are. Some people actually can see past today's lunch and plan for the future. That's why over 60% of Americans own retirement investment accounts in addition to Social Security... even though it isn't mandated. They are planning for their futures. Something which you don't think they are capable of.
Wrong again... as usual.
NeedKarma
Jul 30, 2009, 07:14 AM
So you think everyone is as stupid as you are.
.............
Wrong again... as usual.Oh eliot, you are such a bundle of fun. You must have LOTS of friends!
tomder55
Jul 30, 2009, 07:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55 https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/amhd_imgs/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/something-dont-understand-about-health-care-debate-381468.html#post1890819)
It is said that much of the plan being debated is modelled after the Massachusetts system.
No, this is not being said.
As ususal you are right again .
Obama Eyes Massachusetts Health Care - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1912662,00.html)
NeedKarma
Jul 30, 2009, 07:36 AM
As ususal you are right again .
Obama Eyes Massachusetts Health Care - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1912662,00.html)
He's not modeling his plan after it, he's looking at the do's and don'ts by examining what is good and what is bad with MA's version.
tomder55
Jul 30, 2009, 07:56 AM
You are aware that the author of the Senate version of the bill is fat Teddy Kennedy .
Health bill would fix what's broken - The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/05/28/health_bill_would_fix_whats_broken/)
Included in the national bill is the mandatory coverage provision that the Mass . Plan has. That is one of many simularities . I'm right you're wrong . move on .
NeedKarma
Jul 30, 2009, 08:05 AM
Included in the national bill is the mandatory coverage provision that the Mass . plan has.That's a do.
What does Senator's kennedy's weigh have do with any of this? Oh yes, he's a democrat and you're full of hatred for them so you throw in a little insult.
tomder55
Jul 30, 2009, 08:10 AM
I almost called him the swimmer also .
NeedKarma
Jul 30, 2009, 08:13 AM
Wow, making light of the death of someone is not beneath you.
ETWolverine
Jul 30, 2009, 08:41 AM
I agree with NK on this one.
We should all honor Mary-Jo Kopekni. I think that the date of her death should be declared a national holiday. Her sacrifice helped this country greatly by guaranteeing that Ted Kennedy would never be elected President.
tomder55
Jul 30, 2009, 08:43 AM
She should've been honored years ago with the drumming of that disgusting person out of the Senate in a frog march .
NeedKarma
Jul 30, 2009, 08:45 AM
Class acts.
twinkiedooter
Jul 30, 2009, 07:07 PM
I don't like the fact about what is not set forth with this upcoming health care plan. It is no plan as far as I can see except to deny medical care due to a lot of red tape in order to qualify. Also the granny killing or should I say withholding treatment for dimentia patients amongst other things. Also what really rankles me is they keep saying that 40 million Americans don't have health insurance. Since when are only 40 million effected by this? It's more like 140+ million Americans not having health insurance. You must count all the illegal aliens and the poor folks and the unemployed. Who the blazes can afford $800 for a family a month for insurance? That's downright obscene if you ask me. $9,600 a year AND a $2,000 deductible on top of that besides. Yeow! I am quite sure you could have put that money towards something better other than insurance.
When I'm 65 and they want to cram Medicare down my throat and take out $100 of my old people's monthly check I'm going to tell them a big fat NO THANK YOU. I'll keep my money as I'm sure I'll have more important things to buy such as electricity at a bazillion dollars a month if Obama has his way and taxes the electric companies out of existence.
That health plan needs to be stopped dead in it's tracks before it's way too late. The same with the Cap and Trade. They both need to be stopped now before America has no money and we are all reduced to being peasants (or should I say slaves) for the government.
The politicians talk, talk, talk and don't bother giving Americans the little details such as how it's going to be paid for, paid for by whom, what it will cost monthly (or yearly or whatever) and if any American can walk into any doctor's office and get medical care - and will they have to prove they are American citizens and not illegal aliens? Other countries don't stand for illegal aliens being treated for free by doctors or hospitals - why does America literally cater to these people and actually encourage them to use the Emergency Rooms as family doctor's offices? They never pay one cent for ER visits - ever! But just let an American who has a home, good job, etc make an ER visit and wham they will get slammed with a huge ER bill that they must pay or get sued in court.
Back in 1974 I went to the ER in Florida for smoke inhalation from a house fire. I spent 4 hours in the hospital and my only "treatment" was inhaling oxygen, no meds, virtually nothing else, and no ambulance ride either. No X-Rays, nothing. For that treatment I received a bill for $450! (and this was in 1974!) I was not seen by a doctor either, just an intern. At that rate the cost of such treatment in an ER at today's rate would be $4,500!
andrewc24301
Jul 30, 2009, 07:52 PM
IWho the blazes can afford $800 for a family a month for insurance? That's downright obscene if you ask me. $9,600 a year AND a $2,000 deductible on top of that besides. Yeow!! I am quite sure you could have put that money towards something better other than insurance.
Well, my cost is about $240 every two weeks. It cost my employer about $800 per month. $240X26=$6,240/12= $520 per month of my own expense. But I can think of better things I'd like to do with the money.
My employer pays me well, and I have a low cost of living. (cheap house, all my cars are paid for $500 clunkers)
But I remember my first factory job (before they all went overseas) and I had good insurance for $25 weekly.
jenniepepsi
Jul 30, 2009, 08:07 PM
Why throw stones at a man who no feels them? Will your words change anything that happened in the past? Will it change the future?
Wow... childish is all I can say. Name calling...
ETWolverine
Jul 31, 2009, 06:47 AM
I don't like the fact about what is not set forth with this upcoming health care plan. It is no plan as far as I can see except to deny medical care due to a lot of red tape in order to qualify. Also the granny killing or should I say withholding treatment for dimentia patients amongst other things. Also what really rankles me is they keep saying that 40 million Americans don't have health insurance. Since when are only 40 million effected by this? It's more like 140+ million Americans not having health insurance. You must count all the illegal aliens and the poor folks and the unemployed. Who the blazes can afford $800 for a family a month for insurance? That's downright obscene if you ask me. $9,600 a year AND a $2,000 deductible on top of that besides. Yeow! I am quite sure you could have put that money towards something better other than insurance.
Actually, Twink, that is all taken into consideration in the 46 million figure.
There are approximately 10-12 million illegal aliens that are uninsured.
There are approximately 10 million uninsured people who have CHOSEN not to be insured and wish to use their money for something else.
There are approximately 15 million Americans who lose jobs and become uninsured until they find a new job... usually within 4 months.
There are another 10 million Americans who are uninsured for MORE THAN 4 MONTHS through no choice of their own.
There's your 46 million uninsured.
These numbers are taken from the national census.
Now... here's some questions.
Why should we be taxed so that people who are here illegally can be insured? They are here ILLEGALLY. They should not be given the same services as those who are here legally.
Why should you and I be responsible to pay for healthcare for people who have the means to buy health insurance but shoose not to? If someone chooses to buy a flat-screen TV or a new BMW instead of paying for medical insurance, why should you or I be held responsible for their decision?
Those who are uninsured for 4 months or less really aren't a problem. They will be insured shortly. Do we really need to set up an entirely new nationalized health care system in order to cover those who are only going to be uninsured for a couple of months? Isn't there a more cost-effective way to help these people get through those 4 months than spending $23 trillion over the next 10 years on nationalized health care?
The real issue is with the 10 million or so Americans who are uninsured for longer periods. This is less than 3% of the population. Do we need to set up an entirely new system, at a cost of $23 trillion over 10 years, to cover 10 million people? If we just handed them each $1500 per month to pay for their own health care, the cost per year would only be $180 billion... much less than the $2.3 trillion per year that we would be paying for nationalized health care.
I am curious... where did you get your 145 million uninsured figure from? Do you really think that 45% of Americans are uninsured? That doesn't jive with any numbers I have seen.
When I'm 65 and they want to cram Medicare down my throat and take out $100 of my old people's monthly check I'm going to tell them a big fat NO THANK YOU. I'll keep my money as I'm sure I'll have more important things to buy such as electricity at a bazillion dollars a month if Obama has his way and taxes the electric companies out of existence.
If health care is nationalized, you won't have a choice. That money will be taken from you and you WILL be on the government medical system, whether you like it or not.
That health plan needs to be stopped dead in it's tracks before it's way too late. The same with the Cap and Trade. They both need to be stopped now before America has no money and we are all reduced to being peasants (or should I say slaves) for the government.
The politicians talk, talk, talk and don't bother giving Americans the little details such as how it's going to be paid for, paid for by whom, what it will cost monthly (or yearly or whatever) and if any American can walk into any doctor's office and get medical care - and will they have to prove they are American citizens and not illegal aliens? Other countries don't stand for illegal aliens being treated for free by doctors or hospitals - why does America literally cater to these people and actually encourage them to use the Emergency Rooms as family doctor's offices? They never pay one cent for ER visits - ever! But just let an American who has a home, good job, etc make an ER visit and wham they will get slammed with a huge ER bill that they must pay or get sued in court.
Back in 1974 I went to the ER in Florida for smoke inhalation from a house fire. I spent 4 hours in the hospital and my only "treatment" was inhaling oxygen, no meds, virtually nothing else, and no ambulance ride either. No X-Rays, nothing. For that treatment I received a bill for $450! (and this was in 1974!) I was not seen by a doctor either, just an intern. At that rate the cost of such treatment in an ER at today's rate would be $4,500!
Yep.
Elliot
ETWolverine
Jul 31, 2009, 06:54 AM
Well, my cost is about $240 every two weeks. It cost my employer about $800 per month. $240X26=$6,240/12= $520 per month of my own expense. But I can think of better things I'd like to do with the money.
We all could. Buying medical insurance is a CHOICE. You can spend the money on that, or you can spend it on something else. That's the advantage of private health care. Under Obama's plan, you would have no choice... you would be FORCED to be in the system, whether you want to or not. And you will pay for it in taxes, whether you want it or not.
BTW, if you think that $520/month is expensive, how much do you think the government will have to tax you in order to cover the cost of nationalized health care. I can guarantee you, based on what other countries have to charge for nationalized health care, it's more than $520/month. And the service won't be as good.
My employer pays me well, and I have a low cost of living. (cheap house, all my cars are paid for $500 clunkers)
But I remember my first factory job (before they all went overseas) and I had good insurance for $25 weekly.
I remember when I paid $45/month for medical insurance (I was single at the time). I had a generous employer.
But that was then and this is now.
excon
Jul 31, 2009, 07:15 AM
Why should we be taxed so that people who are here illegally can be insured? They are here ILLEGALLY. They should not be given the same services as those who are here legally.
Why should you and I be responsible to pay for healthcare for people who have the means to buy health insurance but shoose not to? If someone chooses to buy a flat-screen TV or a new BMW instead of paying for medical insurance, why should you or I be held responsible for their decision?Hello El:
Good questions. We should provide them with care, because we do anyway, as you've mentioned before, in our emergency rooms. So, it would be CHEAPER if we bought them insurance instead...
Now, if you're saying that these people shouldn't get treated at ALL, then we can have THAT conversation... (Yes, it's true - I know you think they should go without, and I'm just waiting to pounce.)
excon
excon
Jul 31, 2009, 07:20 AM
BTW, if you think that $520/month is expensive, how much do you think the government will have to tax you in order to cover the cost of nationalized health care. Hello again, El:
Well, we've done the math before, but suffice to say, when TRUE universal health care is offered, we'll be able to apply the TRILLIONS of dollars that the health insurance industry is now making as profits, to Andrews monthly bill.
I don't know. With TRILLIONS of $$$'s available, I think the government, even as bad as it'll manage the system, will STILL save Andrew money, and give him better services too.
excon
ETWolverine
Jul 31, 2009, 08:29 AM
Hello El:
Good questions. We should provide them with care, because we do anyway, as you've mentioned before, in our emergency rooms. So, it would be CHEAPER if we bought them insurance instead...
Now, if you're saying that these people shouldn't get treated at ALL, then we can have THAT conversation.... (Yes, it's true - I know you think they should go without, and I'm just waiting to pounce.)
excon
Actually, what I think is that they should pay out of pocket. If you can afford insurance and CHOOSE not to buy it, then you should pay out of pocket. I sure as heck shouldn't be the one paying for it.
And if I said that if he doesn't pay for it but can afford it, then yes, he should go without... then what?
What exactly happens when he goes without? He dies?
His choice, not mine. See my signature below... "Your life, your funeral."
Cold? Hard? Unforgiving? Heartless?
Yep.
So what?
I find it cold, hard, heartless and unforgiving for someone to say that I OWE THEM MY MONEY TO PAY FOR THE HEALTH CARE THAT THEY CAN AFFORD FOR THEMSELVES.
If you can afford health care and CHOOSE not to pay for it and expect ME (or the government with my money, or the hospital by charging me more) to pay for it for you, well, I got nothing for you.
If you die because you didn't buy the insurance you can afford or refuse to pay out of pocket even though you an afford to do so, frankly, it wouldn't bother me in the least, and it would in fact be beneficial for the rest of us who AREN'T feeding at the public trough.
So if you want to jump on me for saying that, feel free. 'Cause I got nothing for the jerk who makes a decent living, can afford medical care, and chooses not to pay for it because he knows that he's covered anyway. He's a leech and I got no compassion for him whatsoever.
My question is why you DO feel compassion for such a person. Why do you feel that this person is OWED something? WHy do you treat him like a victim, when he's the perpetrator, the guy who's taking YOUR MONEY when he doesn't have to?
So... go ahead. Jump, froggy, jump.
Elliot
ETWolverine
Jul 31, 2009, 08:35 AM
Hello again, El:
Well, we've done the math before, but suffice to say, when TRUE universal health care is offered, we'll be able to apply the TRILLIONS of dollars that the health insurance industry is now making as profits, to Andrews monthly bill.
I dunno. With TRILLIONS of $$$'s available, I think the government, even as bad as it'll manage the system, will STILL save Andrew money, and give him better services too.
excon
And where will these trillions come from?
They don't exist now. The medical insurance companies don't have trillions of dollars. Combined together they MIGHT have about $1 trillion. They sure as heck don't have the $2.3 trillion that it will cost to nationalize health care. So where will that money come from?
From us, dummy. That's where.
So... in order for this plan to work, we need to take the trillion or so dollars that the insurance companies make, plus all the money for medicare and medicaid, plus either print more money (something that you have claimed you don't support) or tax us for it, in order to get the $2.3 trillion to get the system working for 1 year.
And then do it again next year. And the year after that.
Have you ever lived in a country with a 70% or 80% tax rate?
If this goes through, you will.
Elliot
excon
Jul 31, 2009, 08:50 AM
My question is why you DO feel compassion for such a person. Why do you feel that this person is OWED something? WHy do you treat him like a victim, when he's the perpetrator, the guy who's taking YOUR MONEY when he doesn't have to?
So... go ahead. Jump, froggy, jump.Hello again, El:
We disagree only in our description of the un-insured... You call him a perp. And, while I don't doubt there are perps amongst them, most ARE victims.
The difference between us, is that you're willing to let the victims go uninsured just to make certain that the perps don't get something for free... ME?? I'm willing to let a perp get over on me, as long as the victims are taken care of.
Now, we can argue about what percentage of the uninsured are victims as opposed to perps. But, I'll bet you'll call them ALL perps - even the innocent children of perps are perps in your eyes. Not mine.
excon
ETWolverine
Jul 31, 2009, 09:00 AM
Hello again, El:
We disagree only in our description of the un-insured.... You call him a perp. And, while I don't doubt there are perps amongst them, most ARE victims.
The difference between us, is that you're willing to let the victims go uninsured just to make certain that the perps don't get something for free... ME??? I'm willing to let a perp get over on me, as long as the victims are taken care of.
Now, we can argue about what percentage of the uninsured are victims as opposed to perps. But, I'll bet you'll call them ALL perps - even the innocent children of perps are perps in your eyes. Not mine.
excon
I was very careful to choose what I said.
I was talking abouty the guy who can afford his health care, but chooses NOT to. That is a perpetrator. He is perpetrating a scam on the public to get us to pay for his health care. And if you look at my breakdown of the number of total uninsured in this country, the number of people who choose not to be insured but can afford it anyway is roughly equal to the number of people who are uninsured through no fault of their own. The breakdown is roughly 10 million of each type of uninsured.
Now... you want me to have compassion for the guy who really can't afford insurance and isn't covered? Got that. Count me it. Let's get him covered. We can debate how, and it doesn't require nationalization of health care.
But the guy who is uninsured because he chooses to be? Tough $h!t. Pay for your medical care yourself or buy a policy. Or die. I really don't care which. But I ain't paying for it. He ain't a victim. If he's exoecting us to cover his medical needs, he's a leech stealing OUR MONEY. He's a perp, just as much as the mugger or the purse snatcher. He just uses a different technique.
Elliot
excon
Jul 31, 2009, 09:36 AM
But the guy who is uninsured because he chooses to be? Tough $h!t. Pay for your medical care yourself or buy a policy. Or die. I really don't care which. But I ain't paying for it. He ain't a victim. If he's exoecting us to cover his medical needs, he's a leech stealing OUR MONEY. He's a perp, just as much as the mugger or the purse snatcher. He just uses a different technique.Hello again, El:
We don't disagree. We only disagree on how many of the uninsured fit that category. I don't think we're going to agree on what that number is.
Why?? I refer you to something Joe Conason wrote that, I believe, accurately describes our debate:
"If the current effort to reform American healthcare ends in frustration, much of the blame rests on our political culture's empowerment of deception and ignorance. Fake erudition is revered, every hoax is deemed brilliant, and prejudice is presented as knowledge, while actual expertise is disregarded or devalued."
excon
ETWolverine
Jul 31, 2009, 10:16 AM
Hello again, El:
We don't disagree. We only disagree on how many of the uninsured fit that category. I don't think we're gonna agree on what that number is.
Why???? I refer you to something Joe Conason wrote that, I believe, accurately describes our debate:
"If the current effort to reform American healthcare ends in frustration, much of the blame rests on our political culture's empowerment of deception and ignorance. Fake erudition is revered, every hoax is deemed brilliant, and prejudice is presented as knowledge, while actual expertise is disregarded or devalued."
excon
Are you describing your side of the debate or mine?
I can show evidence to back up my numbers based on an analysis of the census data. You may not like the Heritage Foundation, but they do great analytical work.
Can you show any evidence for your numbers?
Evidence... THAT, my friend is the difference between "fake erudition" and facts.
Elliot
speechlesstx
Jul 31, 2009, 11:03 AM
We disagree only in our description of the un-insured.... You call him a perp. And, while I don't doubt there are perps amongst them, most ARE victims.
The difference between us, is that you're willing to let the victims go uninsured just to make certain that the perps don't get something for free... ME??? I'm willing to let a perp get over on me, as long as the victims are taken care of.
Now, we can argue about what percentage of the uninsured are victims as opposed to perps. But, I'll bet you'll call them ALL perps - even the innocent children of perps are perps in your eyes. Not mine.
Here comes the 'closet liberal' in me again I suppose. They're here and we have to treat them one way or another - be they illegal or not. OK? But I also agree with Elliot that those who can pay should.
But like I've said before, we do things a little differently here I guess in that our city sold the municipal hospital to Universal Health Care some years back. Part of the sale agreement was the hospital had to provide care for the indigent. This hospital has implemented a separate clinic inside the ER for non-emergencies and operates a large clinic on the other side of town for regular care.
So I'm just curious, with all the billions of dollars we spend on this type of care how many clinics of this type could be built and operated, with those who are able at least paying a percentage of the cost. It would free up ER's for emergencies and provide a place for those who fall through the cracks to get regular care. I don't know what it would cost but maybe that could be part of a multifaceted solution without completely remaking the health care and insurance industries and turning millions of ordinary Americans into health care peasants - while the haves, including these lawmakers who would exempt themselves from the plan, continue to be able to choose whatever they want or need.
andrewc24301
Aug 2, 2009, 03:17 PM
Jumping tracks for a moment here..
LINK (http://start.verizon.net/vznisp/portal/NewsChannel.aspx?ArticleID=D99QVHO80&CatID=TopHeadlines)
Looks like Obama wrote a bunch of checks his butt can't cash.
But honestly, did anyone really expect any kind of health care bill without some tax increases across the board. I have already stated, that as long as it doesn't cost me over $520 per month, then I can only say I've done better.
The only trouble with an "across the board" tax to fund health care is that it would also tax those who are on a private insurer, they are already paying their own premium, yet they also have to pay a tax for others who don't have insurance.
Tricky, tricky. If I didn't have insurance right now, then I'd be backing this 100% But then, I would expect people who are comfortably insured to have somewhat of a bias on this whole thing.
Those who choose not to have insurance in today's world of high health care cost are playing a real gamble, and they can't have any prospects for a successful future, for surely they will be filing for bankruptcy every time something major happens at a hospital.
You can be perfectly healthy, mowing your grass one day, one slip up and your foot goes under the mower and chops half you foot off. You're looking at a $30,000 bill easy, much more if there are complications. Risky risky...
Why not just charge those using the government plan a premium instead of levying a tax on everyone. Doesn't that sound fair?
speechlesstx
Aug 3, 2009, 07:04 AM
Today's examples of quality universal health care...
Patients forced to live in agony after NHS refuses to pay for painkilling injections (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5955840/Patients-forced-to-live-in-agony-after-NHS-refuses-to-pay-for-painkilling-injections.html)
By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent
Published: 7:45AM BST 02 Aug 2009
Tens of thousands with chronic back pain will be forced to live in agony after a decision to slash the number of painkilling injections issued on the NHS, doctors have warned.
Cuts to treatments would save the NHS £33 million. Photo: ANDREW CROWLEY
The Government's drug rationing watchdog says "therapeutic" injections of steroids, such as cortisone, which are used to reduce inflammation, should no longer be offered to patients suffering from persistent lower back pain when the cause is not known.
Instead the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is ordering doctors to offer patients remedies like acupuncture and osteopathy.
Specialists fear tens of thousands of people, mainly the elderly and frail, will be left to suffer excruciating levels of pain or pay as much as £500 each for private treatment.
Now let's move closer to home...
Letter noting assisted suicide raises questions (http://www.katu.com/news/26119539.html?video=YHI&t=a)
A Springfield woman's doctor hoped a new chemotherapy drug would help her but the Oregon Health Plan told her the treatment was not approved. Instead, the state would pay for assisted suicide. "I'm not ready, I'm not ready to die," the Springfield woman said.
I love liberal compassion, don't you? Or is that what Obama means by "social justice," since we can't pay for everyone's chemo we'll gladly offer a lethal cocktail on the state's dime?
ETWolverine
Aug 3, 2009, 07:54 AM
Jumping tracks for a moment here..
LINK (http://start.verizon.net/vznisp/portal/NewsChannel.aspx?ArticleID=D99QVHO80&CatID=TopHeadlines)
Looks like Obama wrote a bunch of checks his butt can't cash.
But honestly, did anyone really expect any kind of health care bill without some tax increases across the board. I have already stated, that as long as it doesn't cost me over $520 per month, then I can only say I've done better.
The only trouble with an "across the board" tax to fund health care is that it would also tax those who are on a private insurer, they are already paying their own premium, yet they also have to pay a tax for others who don't have insurance.
Tricky, tricky. If I didn't have insurance right now, then I'd be backing this 100% But then, I would expect people who are comfortably insured to have somewhat of a bias on this whole thing.
Those who choose not to have insurance in today's world of high health care cost are playing a real gamble, and they can't have any prospects for a sucessfull future, for surley they will be filing for bankruptcy every time something major happens at a hospital.
You can be perfectly healthy, mowing your grass one day, one slip up and your foot goes under the mower and chops half you foot off. You're looking at a $30,000 bill easy, much more if there are complications. Risky risky....
Why not just charge those using the government plan a premium instead of levying a tax on everyone. Doesn't that sound fair?
Yes it does sound fair. And if that were what was proposed, then great, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
The only problem is that those who cannot afford to pay a premium to as private insurer also can't afford to pay a premium to a government insurer. Which means that we're back to funding this program via taxation of those who can afford it... and are already paying their own premiums for their own health care.
The other problem is that the goal of Obama is not to have a "public option", but rather have a single-payer system that everyone has to join. His goal is to get rid of private coverage. He doesn't want a public option, he wants a single-payer public system mandate. One that people would pay into based on their means via taxation, but that would provide the same services regardless of contribution.
Which comes back the basic unfairness of such a system.
Elliot
excon
Aug 3, 2009, 08:12 AM
Which comes back the basic unfairness of such a system.Hello again, El:
Let me see. Single payer, where EVERYBODY is covered whether they have money or not, which allows for the wealthy to purchase additional insurance if they want to, is basically unfair??
Dude!
It's unfair to the health insurance executive who won't be able to put his children through private school off the backs of the sick... But, I'm not going to feel too bad for him. It's not like single payer gets rid of insurance... There's still plenty left... I'll bet those health insurance people can find jobs...
But, if it comes down to THEIR jobs or the solvency of the system, I vote for solvency. As a righty, it would seem you would too... But, for some reason you want to see us go broke. That isn't very conservative of you...
In any case, single payer is VERY FAIR to everybody else... By the way, single payer will SAVE money and EXPAND services too. Just ask the people who have it. Oh, that's right. You don't believe 'em.
excon
ETWolverine
Aug 3, 2009, 08:25 AM
Hello again, El:
Let me see. Single payer, where EVERYBODY is covered whether they have money or not, which allows for the wealthy to purchase additional insurance if they want to, is basically unfair??
Yep.
Any system, where those who put in NOTHING get the same benefits as those who pay their fair share is UNFAIR.
Dude!
Dude yourself.
It's unfair to the health insurance executive who won't be able to put his children through private school off the backs of the sick... But, I'm not going to feel too bad for him. It's not like single payer gets rid of insurance... There's still plenty left... I'll bet those health insurance people can find jobs...
But, if it comes down to THEIR jobs or the solvency of the system, I vote for solvency. As a righty, it would seem you would too... But, for some reason you want to see us go broke. That isn't very conservative of you...
So you see nothing unfair about the person who pays NOTHING into the system getting the same services as you do? You're OK with being FORCED to pay your full share while someone else benefits from your hard earned money? That's fair to you?
In any case, single payer is VERY FAIR to everybody else...
Except to the guy who's paying into the system while someone else who doesn't benefits from his work.
By the way, single payer will SAVE money and EXPAND services too. Just ask the people who have it. Oh, that's right. You don't believe 'em.
Excon
The people who have it have clearly said that their governments have limited their services and driven costs up. The governments that have those systems admit it. Their own government reports have shown it. Their own government-run polls of the beneficiaries of the system have shown it. It is YOU who don't believe 'em.
You seem to be the only person in the world who believes that you can expand health care by 46 million people, expand services to everyone, and have it cost less. Experts in the field, including those who are in favor of the system, have stated that the math doesn't work. But I guess you know better than all of 'em.
Elliot
excon
Aug 3, 2009, 08:37 AM
Experts in the field, including those who are in favor of the system, have stated that the math doesn't work. But I guess you know better than all of 'em.Hello again, El:
It's a thankless job, but somebody's got to do it.
excon
amdeist
Aug 5, 2009, 01:39 PM
No system of health insurance will work. As long as capitalists working for a profit are involved, you will have excessive costs. The Federal Government handles military health care and there are low to no legal costs, because you can't sue the government unless it wants to be sued. That also limits costs on excessive testing, since civilian doctors go overboard to protect themselves against a malpractice lawsuit. The military uses computers to track medical records, which is also a significant savings. And, if you think quality of medicine is not as good as civilian hospitals, think again. Military medicine has a licensure and credentialing process that all but eliminates quacks from performing medicine. I was in the system for 20 years, and still use it, and for every person who has been injured in military medicine, you will find significantly more in the civilian sector.
amdeist
Aug 5, 2009, 01:46 PM
Charles Hugh Smith at
[email protected] says it best when he writes;
The “Impossible” Healthcare Solution: Go Back to Cash
The expansion of health insurance and government entitlements created “free money” and thus the explosion of healthcare costs. The solution is simple and “impossible”: we all pay cash.
Here’s why healthcare (a.k.a. sick-care) costs cannot be reduced; the entire system is based on vast pools of “free money.” The corporate-America or union/government employee who goes to the doctor pays a few dollars for a visit and drugs; the “real cost” is of no concern. Ditto the “real costs” charged to Medicare and Medicaid.
The link between the “consumer” of healthcare and the provider has been broken for decades. There is no “free market” in healthcare — there isn’t any market at all. We live in a Kafka-esque nightmare system in which “some are more equal than others” and hundreds of thousands of dollars are lavished on worthless tests, procedures and medications for two reasons:
1. Because there’s “free money” to pay the bills
2. So-called “defensive medicine” in which worthless tests are administered to stave off random (sometimes valid, sometimes nuisance) malpractice lawsuits.
There is a solution so simple and so radical that it is “impossible” (and of course you’re reading it here): shut down insurance and all government entitlements, and return to the “golden era” of the 1950s when everyone paid cash for healthcare. Here are the costs of childbirth as of 1952 at one of the finest hospitals on the West Coast, The Santa Monica Hospital:
And here are the obstetrical rates:
Having a baby cost $30, which is today’s dollars is $244. A private deluxe room cost $23 or $187 in today’s dollars. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s inflation calculator, $1 in 1952 is $8.14 in 2009 dollars.
What does it cost to have a baby now? $10,000? Or is it $25,000? Who even knows?
I know all the reasons “costs had to skyrocket”: we’re getting so much better care now, right? Actually, as measured by death rates and any other metric you want to select, there is simply no way to justify a 40-fold increase (or is it 100-fold?) in medical care costs. The returns on all the “miracles of modern medicine” are in fact exceedingly marginal — but nobody wants to talk about that.
In 1952, if something awful happened and a patient died, here was the response: “We’re very sorry.” Families weren’t outraged; they expected people to die and interventions were not expected to be miraculous every single time. Doctor Kildaire and all his imitators on TV had not brainwashed the public into reckoning that if someone died, a mistake had been made. They also hadn’t been brainwashed by the mental disorder known as “the American Legal System” into thinking that in every possible circumstance in life, there is liability, and the only question is where to pin it for the big bucks jackpot.
Stories about people suing doctors and hospitals for 5 times the value of a house ($1 million in today’s money would have been $120,000 in 1952, when you could buy a nice house for $20,000) simply did not exist in the 1950s. The cultural mindset that someone somewhere must be at fault and it’s a “right” to go after them did not exist. Since insurance was limited, there was no “free money jackpot” to go after, either.
ETWolverine
Aug 5, 2009, 02:22 PM
Charles Hugh Smith at
[email protected] says it best when he writes;
The “Impossible” Healthcare Solution: Go Back to Cash
The expansion of health insurance and government entitlements created “free money” and thus the explosion of healthcare costs. The solution is simple and “impossible”: we all pay cash.
Here’s why healthcare (a.k.a. sick-care) costs cannot be reduced; the entire system is based on vast pools of “free money.” The corporate-America or union/government employee who goes to the doctor pays a few dollars for a visit and drugs; the “real cost” is of no concern. Ditto the “real costs” charged to Medicare and Medicaid.
The link between the “consumer” of healthcare and the provider has been broken for decades. There is no “free market” in healthcare — there isn’t any market at all. We live in a Kafka-esque nightmare system in which “some are more equal than others” and hundreds of thousands of dollars are lavished on worthless tests, procedures and medications for two reasons:
1. Because there’s “free money” to pay the bills
2. So-called “defensive medicine” in which worthless tests are administered to stave off random (sometimes valid, sometimes nuisance) malpractice lawsuits.
There is a solution so simple and so radical that it is “impossible” (and of course you’re reading it here): shut down insurance and all government entitlements, and return to the “golden era” of the 1950s when everyone paid cash for healthcare. Here are the costs of childbirth as of 1952 at one of the finest hospitals on the West Coast, The Santa Monica Hospital:
And here are the obstetrical rates:
Having a baby cost $30, which is today’s dollars is $244. A private deluxe room cost $23 or $187 in today’s dollars. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s inflation calculator, $1 in 1952 is $8.14 in 2009 dollars.
What does it cost to have a baby now? $10,000? Or is it $25,000? Who even knows?
I know all the reasons why “costs had to skyrocket”: we’re getting so much better care now, right? Actually, as measured by death rates and any other metric you want to select, there is simply no way to justify a 40-fold increase (or is it 100-fold?) in medical care costs. The returns on all the “miracles of modern medicine” are in fact exceedingly marginal — but nobody wants to talk about that.
In 1952, if something awful happened and a patient died, here was the response: “We’re very sorry.” Families weren’t outraged; they expected people to die and interventions were not expected to be miraculous every single time. Doctor Kildaire and all his imitators on TV had not brainwashed the public into reckoning that if someone died, a mistake had been made. They also hadn’t been brainwashed by the mental disorder known as “the American Legal System” into thinking that in every possible circumstance in life, there is liability, and the only question is where to pin it for the big bucks jackpot.
Stories about people suing doctors and hospitals for 5 times the value of a house ($1 million in today’s money would have been $120,000 in 1952, when you could buy a nice house for $20,000) simply did not exist in the 1950s. The cultural mindset that someone somewhere must be at fault and it’s a “right” to go after them did not exist. Since insurance was limited, there was no “free money jackpot” to go after, either.
A lot of good points here.
There is one thing I would dispute, however. He says that "The returns on all the “miracles of modern medicine” are in fact exceedingly marginal — but nobody wants to talk about that. "
I'll talk about it. It's factually incorrect. Literally millions of lives have been saved due to breakthroughs in cancer treatments, heart treatments, etc. People who had NO CHANCE at survival 50 years ago are surviving after outpatient treatments today. The invention of the heart stent alone has prevented thousands of heart attack-related deaths. Chemotherapies and radiotherapies that didn't exist 50 years ago are de-rigure today and save thousands of lives. The existence of transplantation technologies that didn't exist 50 years ago save thousands of people every year today. The existence of blood-presssure meds and cholestoral lowering meds save thousands of lives every year.
Each one of these techniques, therapies or meds, cost about a billion dollars to develop. And for each one that is successfully developed, there are hundreds of meds, therapies, and techniques that fail... but still cost money to investigate and study. I've posted the costs of developing a single medicine here before. I'm not just pulling that billion dollar number out of a hat.
The higher cost of medicine today than in the 1950s is justified on that basis alone. And the differences between the quality of care today and the quality of care in the 1950s are HUGE.
So I dispute that point.
The rest of what he said has some validity... in fact more than some, in most cases.
Elliot
amdeist
Aug 5, 2009, 03:50 PM
A lot of good points here.
There is one thing I would dispute, however. He says that "The returns on all the “miracles of modern medicine” are in fact exceedingly marginal — but nobody wants to talk about that. "
I'll talk about it. It's factually incorrect. Literally millions of lives have been saved due to breakthroughs in cancer treatments, heart treatments, etc. People who had NO CHANCE at survival 50 years ago are surviving after outpatient treatments today. The invention of the heart stent alone has prevented thousands of heart attack-related deaths. Chemotherapies and radiotherapies that didn't exist 50 years ago are de-rigure today and save thousands of lives. The existence of transplantation technologies that didn't exist 50 years ago save thousands of people every year today. The existence of blood-presssure meds and cholestoral lowering meds save thousands of lives every year.
Each one of these techniques, therapies or meds, cost about a billion dollars to develop. And for each one that is successfully developed, there are hundreds of meds, therapies, and techniques that fail... but still cost money to investigate and study. I've posted the costs of developing a single medicine here before. I'm not just pulling that billion dollar number out of a hat.
The higher cost of medicine today than in the 1950s is justified on that basis alone. And the differences between the quality of care today and the quality of care in the 1950s are HUGE.
So I dispute that point.
The rest of what he said has some validity... in fact more than some, in most cases.
Elliot
I think what he means by the returns being marginal are the increasing costs of keeping people alive. Yes, without doubt, modern medicine has extended life, but at what cost? We have an increasing elderly population, of which I am one, that daily add to the burden on society for healthcare, social security, medicare, retirement funds, etc. We simply have too many people on earth today, and another major war is inevitable. Look how many people in our society have health, social, emotional or psychological problems. I certainly wouldn't advocate eliminating anyone, but to keep finding new ways to extend life without quality of life borders on what I would call insane!
inthebox
Aug 5, 2009, 04:33 PM
Charles Hugh Smith at
[email protected] says it best when he writes;
The “Impossible” Healthcare Solution: Go Back to Cash
The expansion of health insurance and government entitlements created “free money” and thus the explosion of healthcare costs. The solution is simple and “impossible”: we all pay cash.
Here’s why healthcare (a.k.a. sick-care) costs cannot be reduced; the entire system is based on vast pools of “free money.” The corporate-America or union/government employee who goes to the doctor pays a few dollars for a visit and drugs; the “real cost” is of no concern. Ditto the “real costs” charged to Medicare and Medicaid.
The link between the “consumer” of healthcare and the provider has been broken for decades. There is no “free market” in healthcare — there isn’t any market at all. We live in a Kafka-esque nightmare system in which “some are more equal than others” and hundreds of thousands of dollars are lavished on worthless tests, procedures and medications for two reasons:
1. Because there’s “free money” to pay the bills
2. So-called “defensive medicine” in which worthless tests are administered to stave off random (sometimes valid, sometimes nuisance) malpractice lawsuits.
There is a solution so simple and so radical that it is “impossible” (and of course you’re reading it here): shut down insurance and all government entitlements, and return to the “golden era” of the 1950s when everyone paid cash for healthcare. Here are the costs of childbirth as of 1952 at one of the finest hospitals on the West Coast, The Santa Monica Hospital:
And here are the obstetrical rates:
Having a baby cost $30, which is today’s dollars is $244. A private deluxe room cost $23 or $187 in today’s dollars. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s inflation calculator, $1 in 1952 is $8.14 in 2009 dollars.
What does it cost to have a baby now? $10,000? Or is it $25,000? Who even knows?
I know all the reasons why “costs had to skyrocket”: we’re getting so much better care now, right? Actually, as measured by death rates and any other metric you want to select, there is simply no way to justify a 40-fold increase (or is it 100-fold?) in medical care costs. The returns on all the “miracles of modern medicine” are in fact exceedingly marginal — but nobody wants to talk about that.
In 1952, if something awful happened and a patient died, here was the response: “We’re very sorry.” Families weren’t outraged; they expected people to die and interventions were not expected to be miraculous every single time. Doctor Kildaire and all his imitators on TV had not brainwashed the public into reckoning that if someone died, a mistake had been made. They also hadn’t been brainwashed by the mental disorder known as “the American Legal System” into thinking that in every possible circumstance in life, there is liability, and the only question is where to pin it for the big bucks jackpot.
Stories about people suing doctors and hospitals for 5 times the value of a house ($1 million in today’s money would have been $120,000 in 1952, when you could buy a nice house for $20,000) simply did not exist in the 1950s. The cultural mindset that someone somewhere must be at fault and it’s a “right” to go after them did not exist. Since insurance was limited, there was no “free money jackpot” to go after, either.
I agree with the cash part - as an out patient. The prices of laser eye surgery and botox have come down [ relatively speaking ] compared to when they first came out.
Let that side of it be truly free market. However I doubt physicians, and health insurance companies will not want to compete based purely on suppply, demand, service , value.
I'm not sure about the acute care / hospital side of healthcare. Technology costs. Can people afford it? A motor vehicle accident causing multiple trauma and multiple organ system involvement can easily cost thousands of dollars a day. It is easy to see why. You have hospital costs , labor [ physicians, nurses, phlebotomists, transporters etc.. ] material costs [ medications, the ivs, the repsirator, the bed, the Mri, cat scans ] etc.
This is where the US healthcare system IS BETTER than others... I think thisarea of healthcare will still be via third party [ whether gov and or insurance co ] . Just watch " trauma: life in the ER " and any of the reality medical shows and ask yourself how much does it costs or how does it get paid?
G&P
tomder55
Aug 6, 2009, 03:52 AM
amdeist ,yes to contain costs eliminating a bunch of infirmed would do the trick . The Dems seem to have the culture of death covered in both ends of this deal. Advise seniors to opt for early death ,and increase funding for abortion services.
Once those ends are optimized and costs are still out of control can eugenics be far behind ?
SS and Medicare are supposedly funded by us when we are young and working contributors to society .They in liberal theory are self funded .
The fact that our lives contribute to a burden to these programs is a gross distortion of the problem . The real problem is that they are government run programs that have been pilfered by our elected representatives for years .The real problem is that like most government programs they are poorly managed.
N0help4u
Aug 6, 2009, 04:19 AM
Quinn and Rose just read the outline of the healthcare plan. Pages 29 to 200+
29 talks about it being mandated
If you choose your own plan they will go through it with a fine tooth comb and try to insist you switch.
Further on
It talks about free health care for the illegal aliens
How medicare/medicaid will simply just become a part of the national health care.
The national ID for the national health care (toward the mark)
How there will be a board to determine if you qualify for life saving care and surgery.
That there will be NO appealing if they turn you down for care.
excon
Aug 6, 2009, 06:40 AM
That there will be NO appealing if they turn you down for care.Good morning, N0:
Do you remember when George W. Bush said that the Gitmo detainees DIDN'T have habeas corpus rights? He said that he has the power to prevent them from ever having their cases heard in court... Well, of course, they DO have the right to challenge their imprisonment, and their cases ARE in court...
So, when some rightwinger tells you that you can't appeal a government decision, he's either lying, can't read or has an agenda.
Your Constitution says quite clearly in the First Amendment that you have the right to "..petition the government for a redress of grievances...".
excon
N0help4u
Aug 6, 2009, 07:10 AM
This is the left saying IN THEIR health care package that there will be no appealing if they say YOU can not get heart surgery.
Do you think they are going to let the constition or anything stand in their way when they are going for CHANGE that will reframe what our rights are??
Its in THEIR healthcare package plan they are so ready to pass asap
NeedKarma
Aug 6, 2009, 07:38 AM
This is the left saying IN THEIR health care package that there will be no appealing if they say YOU can not get heart surgery. Why would one not get heart surgery? What would be the grounds for refusing that? Where in the bill does it say that?
ETWolverine
Aug 6, 2009, 07:47 AM
Why would one not get heart surgery? What would be the grounds for refusing that? Where in the bill does it say that?
Because the government has decided that this 80-year-old man doesn't have a very long life expectancy anyway, and the Health Benefits Advisory Committee (established on page 30 of the bill for the purpose of determining what benefits will be granted and which will not be) has decided that the cost of providing that operation isn't justified. THAT would be the grounds for denying it. And that is where it is written... pages 30-40 of the Bill.
But of course, you have to have read the bill to know that. And since the President has been trying to get the bill passed without anyone reading it, there's no way you would have known that little fact.
Elliot
N0help4u
Aug 6, 2009, 07:49 AM
Yeah if you have health issues they will say that your quality of life doesn't warrant the expense. ETW has it right it is in pages 30-40 of the bill.
excon
Aug 6, 2009, 07:49 AM
This is the left saying IN THEIR health care package that there will be no appealing if they say YOU can not get heart surgery. Hello again, N0:
I remind you again, that the most powerful man in the world, POTUS, SAID that the detainees won't get hearings... But, they did...
So, I don't care WHO writes down the words "you can't appeal", or who says them to you in the hopes that you'll be frightened by them, they're full of ka ka.
excon
N0help4u
Aug 6, 2009, 07:52 AM
So you are saying Obamas change will be disregarded after it is passed?
We shall see
Let me know in your later years how it goes with your health if you need surgery or life sustaining care and get it.
excon
Aug 6, 2009, 08:09 AM
So you are saying Obamas change will be disregarded after it is passed?Hello again, N0:
What I'm saying is that I highly DOUBT there are such words written into the bill. I think they're just made up by the right to scare people.
Certainly, NO lawmaker is going to propose a law that takes away peoples rights under the Constitution... It's just not going to happen.
I'd be happy to be WRONG, though. Just show me the words in the bill, and I'll back down.
excon
ETWolverine
Aug 6, 2009, 08:13 AM
Hello again, N0:
I remind you again, that the most powerful man in the world, POTUS, SAID that the detainees won't get hearings.... But, they did....
So, I don't care WHO writes down the words "you can't appeal", or who says them to you in the hopes that you'll be frightened by them, they're full of ka ka.
excon
Who would you appeal to? The same guys who made the decision in the first place?
And you think you'll get a fair hearing on said appeal?
Such trust you have in our government!!
Such a drone you've become.
"Government is good... they have your best interests at heart. They'll let you appeal. They only want what's best for you."
Ever try to appeal with the IRS? How far did you get?
That's what we're talking about here... health care run by a cross between the IRS and the DMV. Incompetence AND cold-heartedness rolled into one.
excon
Aug 6, 2009, 08:17 AM
Who would you appeal to? The same guys who made the decision in the first place? Hello again, El:
It's pretty hard to discuss these issues if you don't even have a basic understanding of HOW our country works, and you don't.
excon
N0help4u
Aug 6, 2009, 08:19 AM
LOOK up page 29 line 4-16
I would be interested in knowing the exact wording myself.
If you can find different than 'what you think the righties are making it to say' I would be interested in knowing.
amdeist
Aug 6, 2009, 08:20 AM
amdeist ,yes to contain costs eliminating a bunch of infirmed would do the trick . The Dems seem to have the culture of death covered in both ends of this deal. Advise seniors to opt for early death ,and increase funding for abortion services.
Once those ends are optimized and costs are still out of control can eugenics be far behind ?
SS and Medicare are supposedly funded by us when we are young and working contributors to society .They in liberal theory are self funded .
The fact that our lives contribute to a burden to these programs is a gross distortion of the problem . The real problem is that they are government run programs that have been pilfered by our elected representatives for years .The real problem is that like most government programs they are poorly managed.
After watching the bloodbath that just happened with the non-government financial industry, the automobile industry, and the insurance industry that is yet to come, to say the government run programs are the problem is somewhat misinformed. It is unfortunate that the government got involved with helping any of these companies. Were they to be allowed to fail, millions who would find themselves unemployed without any unemployment payments would wake up and smell the coffee. All that the stimulus has done is pushed forward the demise of capitalism for a short while.
ETWolverine
Aug 6, 2009, 08:43 AM
After watching the bloodbath that just happened with the non-government financial industry, the automobile industry, and the insurance industry that is yet to come, to say the government run programs are the problem is somewhat misinformed.
Actually, it is very well informed. What is misinformed is to say that these financial companies failed of their owen accord. They were pushed by the government.
The mortgage debacle was a direct result of the Community Reinvestment Act and various Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac programs DESIGNED to create a market for sub-prime mortgages. The CRA laws FORCED banks to make 60% of their loans to people who couldn't afford them. I, as a lender, was FORCED to make loans that I knew were bad because if I didn't my bank would be shut down by the Federal Government. The existence of these bad loans was not the fault of the banks. It was the DIRECT RESULT of a government program that interfered with the normal workings of the credit market.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were both DESIGNED to create a guarantee for lenders so that these lenders could make loans to people who would not otherwise be able to afford these loans. That was the reason for their creation. Eventually Fannie and Freddie stopped guaranteeing those loans, and instead began both MAKING them and BUYING them, thus creating a marketplace for these bad loans. If not for the existence of Fannie and Freddie, NONE of the bad mortgage loans would have been made, because there would never have been a market for them. Again, these two government programs, designed specifically for the purpose of interfering with the normal workings of the credit market, were the direct cause of the sub-prime mortgage crisis. If they hadn't existed, those mortgages would never have been made in the first place.
Say what you will about the derivatives markets being the cause of the problem... without the existence of the sub-prime mortgages there never would have been a mortgage derivatives market. And the sub-prime mortgages were the direct result of the existence of CRA, Fannie and Freddie.
So informed people KNOW that the failures we have experienced in the sub-prime mortgage market were the result of GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS that caused the problems, not failures of the financial institutions that made the loans in the first place or traded in derivatives.
Same thing for the auto industry. Government interference in auto manufacture, along with their support for unions over management are what made GM and Chrystler's business models unsustainable. Government regulations, monitoring and café standards drove the costs of manufacture through the roof. Union requirements caused the price of labor to be double or triple what non-union shops were charging. Between these two factors, GM and Chrystler were driven out of the market in terms of pricing. You could by essentially the same vehicle from Toyota or Nissan for 1/3 to 1/2 off the price of a GM or Chrystler vehicle, because the foreign car makers didn't have the same overhead in terms of regulatory costs, café standards, and labor costs. Again, this is a case where government interference caused the problem in the first place. And INFORMED people know that.
It is unfortunate that the government got involved with helping any of these companies. Were they to be allowed to fail, millions who would find themselves unemployed without any unemployment payments would wake up and smell the coffee.
Agreed. They would have realized that belonging to a union and putting your trust in government programs designed for social engineering and weal redistribution are NOT the solutions to making a better life for themselves.
All that the stimulus has done is pushed forward the demise of capitalism for a short while.
Exactly the opposite. Helping those companies only pushed back the inevitable demise of GOVERNMENT Interference in capitalism. A demise that has taken place every time it has been tried throughout history.
Elliot
excon
Aug 6, 2009, 08:52 AM
So informed people KNOW that the failures we have experienced in the sub-prime mortgage market were the result of GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS Hello a:
Actually informed people know the failures were due to greed, a LACK of government oversight and a LACK of regulation...
It's not ME who is saying that... It's the American people, who FIRED the folks who think that way. Because, THAT thinking WAS in play for the last 8 years, and it brought us DISASTER!
excon
ETWolverine
Aug 6, 2009, 09:51 AM
Hello a:
Actually informed people know the failures were due to greed, a LACK of government oversight and a LACK of regulation...
No, that's what uninformed amateurs looking for someone at whom to point a finger and looking for simplistic solutions to complex problems "know". REAL economists and analysts know exactly what I stated. All of which is demonstrable through historical fact.
It's not ME who is saying that... It's the American people, who FIRED the folks who think that way. Because, THAT thinking WAS in play for the last 8 years, and it brought us DISASTER!
Excon
Yep... uninformed Americans made that decision. And now they are learning better. They are becoming more informed.
That's why this health care bill is floundering and Obama is trying to rally his forces to get it moving again.
Elliot
amdeist
Aug 6, 2009, 09:58 AM
Hello a:
Actually informed people know the failures were due to greed, a LACK of government oversight and a LACK of regulation....
It's not ME who is saying that... It's the American people, who FIRED the folks who think that way. Because, THAT thinking WAS in play for the last 8 years, and it brought us DISASTER!
excon
You are right on, but can't communicate with someone who watchs Fox News and lets people like Rush, Sean and Glenn do their thinking for them. The good news is that they are offering nothing but negativity, without solutions. Even Einstein realized that doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is insanity. Now that Americans have removed the old regime, we can watch reality, and don't have to argue about old ideology that has already failed.
N0help4u
Aug 6, 2009, 10:00 AM
LOL that's a good one
Tin foil hat time for the conservatives.
Kool aid
For the right coming right up
ETWolverine
Aug 6, 2009, 11:23 AM
You are right on, but can't communicate with someone who watchs Fox News and lets people like Rush, Sean and Glenn do their thinking for them. The good news is that they are offering nothing but negativity, without solutions. Even Einstein realized that doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is insanity. Now that Americans have removed the old regime, we can watch reality, and don't have to argue about old ideology that has already failed.
Actually, I get my talking points not from FOX, et al. I get them from my professional background in economics and finance.
You might want to try reading a book on something other than Keynsian economics. You might learn something.
We're not talking about trying the same thing again and again. We're talking about trying it for the first time since 1942... a free market system WITHOUT government intervention using the interstate commerce clause as an excuse to regulate every industry under the sun. You ought to try it before you dismiss it.
But you won't.
As for the reality that we're starting to see... That reality includes the highest level of unemployment in 60 years, despite the fact that Obama promissed that if we passed his stimulus bill, unemployment wouldn't go over 8%. We're seeing the highest level of budget deficits in history... quadruple what George Bush left us. We're seeing the national debt double... more debt than all the prior administrations left behind COMBINED. We're seeing two of the top three auto companies, 10 of the top 12 banks, and the largest insurance company in the USA taken over by the government. We're seeing money that was SUPPOSED to be used to buy up "toxic assets" instead used to take over companies. We're seeing the government firing CEOs of private companies and dictating the salaries of employees of private companies. We're seeing the government try to put laws into place that control what we drive, how much gas we use, how much we pay in taxes based on the energy we use (even though that energy is produced by private companies at no cost to the government), and what kinds of lighjtbulbs we can buy. Not to mention what types of toilets we can use.
And on top of that, we're seeing the government try to take over health care.
Yes, you are quite correct. The people voted out the Republicans. Now they are seeing reality.
And they're getting angry at what they see.
THAT'S why your seeing the reactions you're seeing at town hall meetings. Because reality is kicking in... we don't have to argue about the policies of the old regime anymore. We're seeing the reality of the new regime in action.
And it ain't good for the Dems.
Elliot
N0help4u
Aug 6, 2009, 11:28 AM
... I thought I liked your Jewish page replies...
You are a voice of reason in politics too.
:D greenie for ETW
ETWolverine
Aug 6, 2009, 11:35 AM
....I thought I liked your Jewish page replies.....
you are a voice of reason in politics too.
:D greenie for ETW
Why, thank you.
:p
Elliot
amdeist
Aug 6, 2009, 11:38 AM
[QUOTE=ETWolverine;1906713]Actually, I get my talking points not from FOX, et al. I get them from my professional background in economics and finance.
You might want to try reading a book on something other than Keynsian economics. You might learn something.
Can't argue with a self-appointed expert on everything. Not only have I read more books on economics, have two masters degrees from SMU and GW, but have written a book on Amazon.com entitled "What Has Capitalism Done For You." I wrote it in 2004, and predicted in my last chapter exactly what is happening today and will happen in the next couple of years.
NeedKarma
Aug 6, 2009, 11:44 AM
Can't argue with a self-appointed expert on everything. Not only have I read more books on economics, have two masters degrees from SMU and GW, but have written a book on Amazon.com entitled "What Has Capitalism Done For You." I wrote it in 2004, and predicted in my last chapter exactly what is happening today and will happen in the next couple of years.
Damn you showed him. :) Welcome to the site. You'll find that ET has the answer to everything.
ETWolverine
Aug 6, 2009, 11:49 AM
[quote=ETWolverine;1906713]Actually, I get my talking points not from FOX, et al. I get them from my professional background in economics and finance.
You might want to try reading a book on something other than Keynsian economics. You might learn something.
Can't argue with a self-appointed expert on everything. Not only have I read more books on economics, have two masters degrees from SMU and GW, but have written a book on Amazon.com entitled "What Has Capitalism Done For You." I wrote it in 2004, and predicted in my last chapter exactly what is happening today and will happen in the next couple of years.
It took you until 2004 to predict the current state of affairs?
There have been experts in finance predicting this stuff since Jimmy Carter instituted the CRA laws back in the 70s. The ABA has made this their pet project for the past 20 years, since the S&L debacle forewarned us that this was going to happen.
And it took you until 2004? Where the hell have you been?
You've been too busy pushing your idea of Utopia in your book... government programs ubber alles.
Well, it's your government programs, designed to push your Utopian vision, that got us into this mess.
Elliot
NeedKarma
Aug 6, 2009, 11:55 AM
And it took you until 2004? Where the hell have you been?When was your book published?
excon
Aug 6, 2009, 11:57 AM
Can't argue with a self-appointed expert on everything.Hello again, a:
I must speak up for self appointed experts on everything. Some of us actually DO know what we're talking about.
excon
ETWolverine
Aug 6, 2009, 12:07 PM
When was your book published?
Those who can, do. Those who can't write books telling others what to do. I've been "doing" for the past 16 years.
excon
Aug 6, 2009, 12:07 PM
LOOK up page 29 line 4-16
If you can find different than 'what you think the righties are making it to say' I would be interested in knowing.Hello again, N0:
You'll have to link me to the bill you're talking about. I find NOTHING on page 29, lines 4-16 on the bill I examined. That would be the Senate Bill here: http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A84_xml.pdf
excon
ETWolverine
Aug 6, 2009, 12:13 PM
Hello again, N0:
You'll have to link me to the bill you're talking about. I find NOTHING on page 29, lines 4-16 on the bill I examined. That would be the Senate Bill here: http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A84_xml.pdf
excon
Try HR 3200 out of the House.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf
ETWolverine
Aug 6, 2009, 12:28 PM
Interestingly enough, the bill calls for an appeals system for "qualified" private insurance carriers (pages 37 & 38 of the bill), but makes no mention of a similar system for the government health plan.
I find that to be a very telling fact.
Private insurance companies need a way to deal with appeals. But the government doesn't.
Hmmmm...
Elliot
excon
Aug 6, 2009, 12:30 PM
Hello again, El & N0:
4 (A) ANNUAL LIMITATION.—The cost-shar
5 ing incurred under the essential benefits pack-
6 age with respect to an individual (or family) for
7 a year does not exceed the applicable level spec
8 ified in subparagraph (B).
9 (B) APPLICABLE LEVEL.—The applicable
10 level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is
11 $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a
12 family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded
13 to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year
14 by the annual percentage increase in the Con
Nope!! Nothing about not being able to appeal here. Maybe it's on the back of Obama's missing birth certificate.
excon
NeedKarma
Aug 6, 2009, 12:31 PM
Those who can, do. Those who can't write books telling others what to do. I've been "doing" for the past 16 years.All those books published and read, such waste eh? God you love yourself. :p
ETWolverine
Aug 6, 2009, 12:37 PM
Hello again, El & N0:
4 (A) ANNUAL LIMITATION.—The cost-shar
5 ing incurred under the essential benefits pack-
6 age with respect to an individual (or family) for
7 a year does not exceed the applicable level spec
8 ified in subparagraph (B).
9 (B) APPLICABLE LEVEL.—The applicable
10 level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is
11 $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a
12 family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded
13 to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year
14 by the annual percentage increase in the Con
Nope!!! Nothing about not being able to appeal here. Maybe it's on the back of Obama's missing birth certificate.
excon
1) They are setting limitations.
2) They are NOT putting a system in place to appeal those limitations, even though they create such a system for private carriers (who already have appeals processes in place as part of the normal course of business) just a few pages later.
NO's point is pretty much right on the money, whether you wish to admit it or not.
ETWolverine
Aug 6, 2009, 12:39 PM
All those books published and read, such waste eh? God you love yourself. :p
Read by whom? I don't see any reader reviews of AMDEIST's book. Do you?
And yes, I do love myself. Being right all the time just makes me easier to love.
excon
Aug 6, 2009, 12:45 PM
1) They are setting limitations.
2) They are NOT putting a system in place to appeal those limitations,
NO's point is pretty much right on the money, whether you wish to admit it or not.Hello again, El:
The right wing scare points are that there's NO APPEAL. Because they didn't say there is, you say that means there isn't.
Dude! Dude! Dude! Are you listening to yourself??
If health care shouldn't be reformed, you're going to have to come up with better stuff than THAT! The buffoonery your side is presenting as debate, is actually HURTING your cause - not helping it.
DUDE!
excon
ETWolverine
Aug 6, 2009, 12:48 PM
Hello again, El:
The right wing scare points are that there's NO APPEAL. Because they didn't say there is, you say that means there isn't.
Dude! Dude! Dude! Are you listening to yourself???????
If health care shouldn't be reformed, you're gonna have to come up with better stuff than THAT! The buffoonery your side is presenting as debate, is actually HURTING your cause - not helping it.
DUDE!
excon
I asked this question earlier. Who do you appeal to? The same people making the decision in the first place? And you expect a different answer on appeal?
DUDE!!
Once the government makes a decision, that is IT. Try appealing a decision of the IRS if you think I'm wrong.
Elliot
ETWolverine
Aug 6, 2009, 12:58 PM
Hello again, El:
The right wing scare points are that there's NO APPEAL. Because they didn't say there is, you say that means there isn't.
Dude! Dude! Dude! Are you listening to yourself???????
If health care shouldn't be reformed, you're gonna have to come up with better stuff than THAT! The buffoonery your side is presenting as debate, is actually HURTING your cause - not helping it.
DUDE!
excon
This is like your "right to health care" argument. Just because it isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and it comes from the 9th Amendment which doesn't actually create any rights.
This too... just because it doesn't list a method of appeals for the government system, while it DOES list a method of appeals for private insurance, doesn't mean that there ISN'T such an appeals process.
Well then tell me why they left that little thing off the bill? If it is something SO IMPORTANT that it is the very thing that makes most people scared of a government health system, why didn't they list a method of appeals for the government system? Especially since they took the time to list it for the private system.
Dude... your logic is like Swiss cheese. So full of holes.
Elliot
N0help4u
Aug 6, 2009, 01:06 PM
Here is what people that want the government health care don't seem to get.
People complain about welfare moms getting foodstamps out of their tax dollars as it is but with the health care they will also be paying 'tax' dollars for people like me that have to be covered but don't have the income to get health coverage. So with this new system welfare will be forced to cover any one that doesn't qualify under the current qualifications standards. So that's how many million people that will then be put on the welfare medical?
excon
Aug 6, 2009, 01:10 PM
Well then tell me why they left that little thing off the bill? If it is something SO IMPORTANT that it is the very thing that makes most people scared of a government health system, why didn't they list a method of appeals for the goverment system? Hello again, El:
They did. It's in the Constitution, specifically in the First Amendment where it says "...Congress shall make NO LAW PROHIBITING.... the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
It couldn't be clearer. Yet, you think they're going to write a bill that says otherwise...
Of course, they're NOT going to write a bill that says otherwise, and watching you TWIST the language to say they DID is the most fun I've had in decades.
Don't you get tired of grasping at these straws?? But, I'm loving it, for one.
excon
ETWolverine
Aug 6, 2009, 01:27 PM
Hello again, El:
They did. It's in the Constitution, specifically in the First Amendment where it says "...Congress shall make NO LAW PROHIBITING.... the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
It couldn't be clearer. Yet, you think they're gonna write a bill that says otherwise....
Of course, they're NOT gonna write a bill that says otherwise, and watching you TWIST the language to say they DID is the most fun I've had in decades.
Don't you get tired of grasping at these straws???? But, I'm loving it, for one.
excon
They're not straws. Again, go "petition" to the IRS for an appeal of a decision. See what the outcome is.
And again, what is the method of appeals for the government system. They clearly show it for the private insurers, but they make NO MENTION of the method for the "public option". Why not? If it is mandated by the 1st Amendment, as you suggest, why didn't they list the methodology in the bill like they did for the private health insurers?
Were they afraid that this 1000+ page bill was going to be too long and that people wouldn't have time to read it?
Elliot
excon
Aug 6, 2009, 01:35 PM
why didn't they list the methodology in the bill like they did for the private health insurers? Hello again, El:
Why didn't they write something they don't have to write? Is that your question?? Well, I can't answer that one, dude.
excon
speechlesstx
Aug 6, 2009, 01:43 PM
So thats how many million people that will then be put on the welfare medical?
Speaking of welfare medical (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/05/obamas_war_on_health_insurance_97767.html)...
speechlesstx
Aug 6, 2009, 02:05 PM
They did. It's in the Constitution, specifically in the First Amendment where it says "...Congress shall make NO LAW PROHIBITING.... the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Thanks for finally supporting the masses confronting their elected leaders. Now if we can just get all those bloggers, journalists, overpaid actors, the DNC, the Speaker of the House (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/06/pelosi-beware-of-astroturfers-carrying-swastikas/), the Senate Majority Leader and others like Durbin (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25881.html) to support the constitution we might get somewhere.
Now here's another interesting aspect of Obamacare...
Health Care Bill Would Allow Feds To Snoop in Your Checkbook (http://kfyi.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=118695&article=5824042)
Congressman John Shadegg calls the language in the healthcare bill "pretty troubling."
By KFYI News
(KFYI News) Half of Congress is in recess, but debate continues over President Obama's health care program concerning privacy.
Section 163 of the bill states that the government would be allowed real-time access to a person's bank records - including direct access to bank accounts for electronic fund transfers.
Even-though the bill mentions privacy aspects, the fact remains that if approved, Obama's health care plan will give the government permission at any time to your personal bank records.
Arizona Congressman John Shadegg says people have the right to be concerned.
"It's pretty Orwellian, it certainly gets the government pretty darn deeply involved in private matters in our lives."
Are you troubled yet, ex?
ETWolverine
Aug 6, 2009, 02:10 PM
Hello again, El:
Why didn't they write something they don't have to write?? Is that your question??? Well, I can't answer that one, dude.
excon
I know you can't. Which just proves my point.
They didn't HAVE to write it about the private insurance companies either. Every single one of them already has a system of appeals in place.
The government, though... they're starting from scratch. They have NOTHING in place. Don't you think it behooves them to detail the methods by which we will be able to appeal their decisions when nobody knows what it is?
Unless they don't WANT to detail such a system for us. And if not... why not?
If you take the time and effort to list the system of appeals for one, you SHOULD be listing the system of appeals for the other as well. That's just logical. Unless there isn't such a system.
ETWolverine
Aug 6, 2009, 02:23 PM
Thanks for finally supporting the masses confronting their elected leaders. Now if we can just get all those bloggers, journalists, overpaid actors, the DNC, the Speaker of the House (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/06/pelosi-beware-of-astroturfers-carrying-swastikas/), the Senate Majority Leader and others like Durbin (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25881.html) to support the constitution we might get somewhere.
Now here's another interesting aspect of Obamacare...
Health Care Bill Would Allow Feds To Snoop in Your Checkbook (http://kfyi.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=118695&article=5824042)
Are you troubled yet, ex?
For excon's benefit, here's the exact wording:
''(D) enable the real-time (or near real time) determination of an individual's financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card;"
That means they get to check your personal records, including your bank records, employment records, income history, etc. to determine if you are capable of paying for the service, and how much.
And I thought that the whole point of this plan was to make sure that nobody had to worry about paying at the point of service. You pay taxes for a universal health care system so that you don't have to pay anything at the doctor's office.
Yet now we're being told that they're going to look at our private records in order to determine what we can afford to pay, even AFTER we're in the system.
Huh?
What's going on here?
Violations of our privacy and we STILL have to pay for the medical services?
This comprehensive health care reform bill doesn't seem very comprehensive to me.
More like APrehensive.
Or are these lies too? Even though it's straight out of the bill. (Page 58)
Elliot
PS: I'm actually less worried about the idea of a machine-readable medical plan ID card. I already have a driver's license and social security card, so it's a bit late to worry about the government finding me. A card that has my MEDICAL data on it is actually a GOOD idea... good data on ER patients as they are entering the hospital could save lots of lives. I'm actually good with that part. I just wish it wouldn't be the government running the system.
excon
Aug 6, 2009, 02:42 PM
They didn't HAVE to write it about the private insurance companies either. Every single one of them already has a system of appeals in place.Hello again, El:
Please pay attention. I don't know how you missed civics 101, but let's review... The Bill of Rights grants CITIZENS rights. It does NOT grant corporations rights. Therefore, if they wanted an appeal system for CORPORATIONS, they most certainly DID have to write it in.
But, I'm here, diligently catching all the BS you can throw. Let me ask you this again. IF you have such GOOD arguments about why health care needs to be defeated, why do you need to make stuff up all the time??
Go ahead, do like tom did. Tell us how the Democrats want this bill so they can kill old people... Go on. I dare you!
excon
inthebox
Aug 6, 2009, 03:56 PM
Ex - I'll tell you how - neglect and paperwork.
I use to work in the VA system, and primary care, preventitive care, elctronic medical records is above par.
But when it comes to working up a problem or take care of an emergency, the VA farmed it out to local private hospitals. The veterans in this particular area HAD TO GO TO St Louis - a 3 hour drive away, versus Nashville- 2 hours or Memphis 2 hours for routine specailty care. I've never been to the VA in St Louis, but a good percentage of veterans [ some of them combat vets ] would not risk their lives going to the St Louis VA. And then there is a the delays because the system is overwhelmed, and there are not enough specialists around [ low pay ]. When someone has an abnormality that indicates cancer you can't wait 6 months because by then it may have spread and become incurable. This stuff unfortunantly happens.
Remember earlier this year when Obama wanted the vet's private health insurance to pay the bills even for service connected condtions.
Imagine how US healthcare is going to be without the CHOICE of private health insurance ?
G&P
ETWolverine
Aug 7, 2009, 06:11 AM
Hello again, El:
Please pay attention. I dunno how you missed civics 101, but let's review.... The Bill of Rights grants CITIZENS rights. It does NOT grant corporations rights. Therefore, if they wanted an appeal system for CORPORATIONS, they most certainly DID have to write it in.
But, I'm here, diligently catching all the BS you can throw. Lemme ask you this again. IF you have such GOOD arguments about why health care needs to be defeated, why do you need to make stuff up all the time???
Go ahead, do like tom did. Tell us how the Democrats want this bill so they can kill old people... Go on. I dare ya!
excon
Nah... they don't want to kill old people. They just don't want to spend any money to save them.
So you're telling me that they put the methods of how people could appeal to the insurance companies into the bill, even though every insurance company has such a method in place already, and customer service telephone number are available to avail ourselves of the appeals process. It HAD to be put into law, even though it already exists and is already used on a regular basis and is common knowledge.
But they decided NOT to put the methods of how people could appeal to the government health plan into the bill, even though no such methodology exists, people don't know how to do it, and the government itself doesn't know how it is going to work.
And you buy that?
They took the OBVIOUS and put it in the bill, but left out the not-so-obvious?
And you find that to make perfect sense?
No wonder you think health care is a right. With logic like that, I'd be able to pull stuff out of the air too.
Elliot
NeedKarma
Aug 7, 2009, 06:13 AM
Can someone show me a current example where an elderly person was denied some heart surgery by an insurance company and the person called the customer service line and got the denial reversed?
ETWolverine
Aug 7, 2009, 06:43 AM
Can someone show me a current example where an elderly person was denied some heart surgery by an insurance company and the person called the customer service line and got the denial reversed?
Yes. I can. My grandfather was denied for surgery about 7 years ago. They wanted him to get a stent instead. He appealed, his doctor spoke to the insurance company and told them that the surgery would make a significant difference in his quality of life, a stent would only help for a few months whereas surgery would be a long-term fix, and the decision was reversed in about two days. He had the surgery and lived for 7 more years until this past March when he passed away at the age of 92.
I have been denied certain care as well, and my practitioners and I have appealed and gotten additional coverage for the services I needed.
Within private insurance, denials are appealed and reversed all the time. Usually within a day or two. Sometimes the denials stand, but often they are reversed.
I am aware that you wouldn't know this because you have no experience with private health insurance companies. But it does happen rather frequently.
But the key point is that even if the denial stands, I can still pay for the service out of pocket. That's permitted in a private health care setting. Even if insurance denies my claim, I still have options.
But in a single payer system, if the government denies my claim, and if I can't get it reversed on appeal (assuming that there's an appeals process at all), I cannot then pay out of pocket for my care. If the government denies it, I can't get it. I'm not allowed to pay out of pocket.
Here's a perfect example. A few weeks ago I went in to the drug store to fill some perscriptions. I found out that one of the perscriptions wasn't covered by my insurance. I asked the pharmacist how much the medicine cost, and he informed me that it was $8 for the bottle. Naturally, I paid out of pocket for it... $8 bucks is pretty cheap for 90 pills.
In the same scenario, if I had been covered under a single payer system, and I was denied for that medicine, I would have been screwed. Because even though the medicine is only $8 per bottle, I would not have been allowed to buy it out of pocket. That is, in fact, the definition of a "single-payer system". There is only one payer, and that is the US Government.
So the issue isn't whether a medicine or a procedure can be denied and then the denial overturned in private insurance (which it often is). The issue is that even if denied, there are still other options for obtaining it. Whereas under a government single-payer system there is no other option.
Elliot
NeedKarma
Aug 7, 2009, 06:54 AM
But in a single payer system, if the government denies my claimYou say that but it really does not happen. Same with the pills, you get a prescription for the medicine you need, any prescription given by a Canadian doctor is by definition not denied so your point is irrelevant.
ETWolverine
Aug 7, 2009, 07:00 AM
You say that but it really does not happen. Same with the pills, you get a prescription for the medicine you need, any prescription given by a Canadian doctor is by definition not denied so your point is irrelevant.
So what you are saying is that doctors can only prescribe what the government approves ahead of time. If it isn't approved already, the doctor can't prescribe it.
Thanks for proving my point that decisions of health care will be made by government bureaucrats that have no knowledge of your particular situation.
Elliot
excon
Aug 7, 2009, 07:06 AM
The issue is that even if denied, there are still other options for obtaining it. Whereas under a government single-payer system there is no other option.Hello El:
Do you remember the conversation we had yesterday when I referred you to the FIRST AMENDMENT which gives citizens options you say above they don't have? What happened to you overnight. Do you need to be retrained every day?
In other words, you believe the rightwing mantra instead of the Constitution... And, you call yourself an American... You ought to be ashamed misspeaking so badly. But, you're not.
excon
NeedKarma
Aug 7, 2009, 07:20 AM
So what you are saying is that doctors can only prescribe what the government approves ahead of time. If it isn't approved already, the doctor can't prescribe it.Yep, government doctors. You try to make people think it's a guy at a desk but you know that's a lie.
You can read more here: Health Canada Drug Product Database (DPD) (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/databasdon/index-eng.php)
And this too: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/acces/index-eng.php
KISS
Aug 7, 2009, 07:25 AM
Devils advocate:
Who say we have a choice of healthcare now? Your employer usually picks the plan. Maybe 2, maybe 3 to choose from depending on the company size. If your luckly you have a PPO and HMO to choose from. One of 2.
If your company offers a prescription plan, you may have 1 to choose from.
Is this choice?
Secondly why do procedures cost an abundant amount of money if your uninsured? Say $500 if uninsured, $200 if insured under X plan.
Why the caps on cost that an insurance will pay?
ETWolverine
Aug 7, 2009, 07:29 AM
Hello El:
Do you remember the conversation we had yesterday when I referred you to the FIRST AMENDMENT which gives citizens options you say above they don't have? What happened to you overnight. Do you need to be retrained every day?
In other words, you believe the rightwing mantra instead of the Constitution... And, you call yourself an American.... You ought to be ashamed misspeaking so badly. But, you're not.
excon
A statement in the Constitution that there is a right to dissent does not mean that the government is setting up an appeals process within a government health care system. What is the method of appeal, please? If you cannot answer that question, it is because such a method has not been created. WHY NOT?? WHY WOULD THE GOVERNMENT DELIBERATELY LEAVE OUT A DESCRIPTION OF A METHOD OF APPEALS WHEN THAT IS THE SINGLE GREATEST CONCERN OF MOST AMERICANS REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT'S PLAN?
If
NeedKarma
Aug 7, 2009, 07:38 AM
WHY NOT??? WHY WOULD THE GOVERNMENT DELIBERATELY LEAVE OUT A DESCRIPTION OF A METHOD OF APPEALS WHEN THAT IS THE SINGLE GREATEST CONCERN OF MOST AMERICANS REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT'S PLAN?Calm down, take a chill pill. It isn't "THE SINGLE GREATEST CONCERN OF MOST AMERICANS REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT'S PLAN" it's a manufactured concern by you silly neocons to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt.
ETWolverine
Aug 7, 2009, 07:40 AM
Hello El:
Do you remember the conversation we had yesterday when I referred you to the FIRST AMENDMENT which gives citizens options you say above they don't have? What happened to you overnight. Do you need to be retrained every day?
In other words, you believe the rightwing mantra instead of the Constitution... And, you call yourself an American.... You ought to be ashamed misspeaking so badly. But, you're not.
excon
A statement in the Constitution that there is a right to dissent does not mean that the government is setting up an appeals process within a government health care system. What is the method of appeal, please? If you cannot answer that question, it is because such a method has not been created. WHY NOT?? WHY WOULD THE GOVERNMENT DELIBERATELY LEAVE OUT A DESCRIPTION OF A METHOD OF APPEALS WHEN THAT IS THE SINGLE GREATEST CONCERN OF MOST AMERICANS REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT'S PLAN?
If you were a politician trying to pass this very contested piece of legislation, and you KNEW that this was the biggest concern of most people, would you deliberately leave it out of the bill? Especially when you deliberately put it into the bill for private insurance companies that already have such systems in place?
C'mon, excon. Saying that the Constitution provides for it doesn't mean that a system is set up for it. It clearly isn't or it would have been put into the bill.
They were hoping to pass this abortion without giving anyone time to read it and ask these questions. They thought it wouldn't matter if there was no appeals process put in place. Once the bill was passed and the system was up and running, there would be nothing anyone could do about it. They tried to ram it down our throats.
But we weren't swallowing it.
Now they've been caught with their pants down, and they have to answer questions about the bill that they can't answer. And statements like yours don't adequately answer basice procedural questions about this bill. And these blithe statements that don't answer the questions are starting to pi$$ of regular Americans, who are showing their anger at town hall meetings. The more you try to convince people with your witticisms about the Constitution, the less they trust the procedures of the bill.
You are making the same mistakes that the Dem politicians are making. You are trying to just put out enough of an answer to cover your backside. But the American people want better answers than "The Constitution says so" or "We have to make quick decisions" or "There's an emergency and we need to pass this now without debate". Americans want real answers to their questions. And neither the politicians nor you are supplying them.
That's why the bill is going to fail.
Elliot
excon
Aug 7, 2009, 07:41 AM
A statement in the Constitution that there is a right to dissent does not mean that the government is setting up an appeals process Hello again, El:
"Congress shall make NO law... prohibiting the right of the people to peaceably assemble AND to petition the government for a redress of grievances".
I guess you DO need daily retraining... The First Amendment is not a statement... It is a RIGHT, and you only read PART of it, and cite the WRONG part. I don't know why. (Yes I do. Deflection is a way of life for you wrongies.)
It's meaning is CLEAR to any English speaking adult, ceptin you folks. Bummer.
excon
excon
Aug 7, 2009, 07:49 AM
C'mon, excon. Saying that the Constitution provides for it doesn't mean that a system is set up for it. It clearly isn't or it would have been put into the bill.Hello again, El:
So, in THIS country, we have no system set up for people to retain their rights. That's your story, and you're sticking to it, huh??
Okee doakee.
excon
ETWolverine
Aug 7, 2009, 07:59 AM
Hello again, El:
"Congress shall make NO law... prohibiting the right of the people to peaceably assemble AND to petition the government for a redress of grievances".
I guess you DO need daily retraining.....The First Amendment is not a statement... It is a RIGHT, and you only read PART of it, and cite the WRONG part. I dunno why. (Yes I do. Deflection is a way of life for you wrongies.)
It's meaning is CLEAR to any English speaking adult, ceptin you folks. Bummer.
excon
Again, how does one go about redressing grievances in this medical system?
Can you answer this basic question?
If you cannot, then it means there is no system in place. Or at least not one that anybody knows about, which amounts to the same thing.
Yep, there's a RIGHT to redress grievances. But there's not METHOD for redressing grievances.
You are confusing the right with the methodology.
Not surprising, since you are so easily confused by simple things.
Elliot
excon
Aug 7, 2009, 08:04 AM
Again, how does one go about redressing grievances in this medical system?
Can you answer this basic question?Hello again, El:
I could tell that you forgot we have a third branch of government called the judicial. I can also tell that you don't know how to use it, or what it does. But, those of us who took civics 101 know.
Bummer for you guys to have forgotten that.
excon
amdeist
Aug 7, 2009, 09:28 AM
Nah... they don't want to kill old people. They just don't want to spend any money to save em.
No wonder you think health care is a right. With logic like that, I'd be able to pull stuff out of the air too.
Elliot
No, health care isn't a right. Our society just opposes free choice, won't let people choose to die, forces people to stay alive at any cost, be it pain, brain death, etc. But health care is only mandated when the interests of society are concerned. Seems kind of ignorant to let people die because they don't know how to get access to health care, but we allow a system that prevents millions that access. Yes, I know some fool is going to point out that our emergency rooms are open for emergency life saving care, but how many Americans die each year because they don't get non-emergent care? Many medical problems don't get better left untreated.
ETWolverine
Aug 7, 2009, 10:50 AM
[quote=ETWolverine;1908730]Again, how does one go about redressing grievances in this medical system?
Can you answer this basic question?QUOTE]Hello again, El:
I could tell that you forgot we have a third branch of government called the judicial. I can also tell that you don't know how to use it, or what it does. But, those of us who took civics 101 know.
Bummer for you guys to have forgotten that.
excon
So you are saying that every time that someone wants to appeal a decision by the national health care system, they're going to have to file a court case... in our already over-taxed court system. They'll have to wait months to have their cases heard. HOPEFULLY they won't die before then.
This is your appeals process within the national health care system?
Good luck with selling that to the common American. They'll just LOVE knowing that the way to appeal a decision is through the court system.
Elliot
ETWolverine
Aug 7, 2009, 10:57 AM
No, health care isn't a right. Our society just opposes free choice, won't let people choose to die, forces people to stay alive at any cost, be it pain, brain death, etc.
Oh... a right to die fanatic.
So you support killing people rather than trying to save them as a way to save money.
How communist of you.
But health care is only mandated when the interests of society are concerned.
Yep... there's that "good of society" justification used by the Soviets to justify everything. I'm just waiting for you to invoke "The Motherland".
Seems kind of ignorant to let people die because they don't know how to get access to health care, but we allow a system that prevents millions that access.
You mean as opposed to killing them ourselves for the good of the nation as a whole. Yeah... I think I'll choose the system with options, thanks.
Yes, I know some fool is going to point out that our emergency rooms are open for emergency life saving care, but how many Americans die each year because they don't get non-emergent care?
I don't know. Do you?
[/quote]Many medical problems don't get better left untreated.[/quote]
Yep. So... how long are the lines in the UK for specialty care? In Canada? Compared to the USA? Those problems that don't get better with time do worse in nationalized health care systems than they do in the US system.
That's why we have the BEST outcomes in the world for EVERY DISEASE, ILLNESS AND TRAUMA. Our patients have better survival rates and faster recovery times. MOSTLY that's because our patients don't have to wait as long for advanced care. Theirs do.
Elliot
excon
Aug 7, 2009, 11:01 AM
So you are saying that every time that someone wants to appeal a decision by the national health care system, they're going to have to file a court case... in our already over-taxed court system. They'll have to wait months to have their cases heard. HOPEFULLY they won't die before then.
This is your appeals process within the national health care system?Hello again, El:
What you're doing is furthering my argument that you know NOTHING about the judicial system. I can't teach you about it here on these pages, but suffice to say, the courts ARE set up to hear emergency type stuff, and make emergency type rulings... They do it EVERY day. Bummer for you that you didn't know that.
But, let's review. This argument stems from the right wing talking point, that YOU HAVE NO APPEAL. We've spent the better part of several pages discussing it. I'm not going to convince you that the talking point is WRONG.
However, any sane person reading this thread, and still believes the right wing crap, is ALWAYS going to believe the right wing crap. Those who can READ and UNDERSTAND English, however, and BELIEVE in the Constitution will think otherwise...
So, we've harped this to death... You think there's no appeal. Ok, think it. Let's move on to the Democrats want to kill old people. I'm sure we can fill several more pages with that crap. I can't wait.
excon
ETWolverine
Aug 7, 2009, 11:12 AM
Hello again, El:
What you're doing is furthering my argument that you know NOTHING about the judicial system. I can't teach you about it here on these pages, but suffice to say, the courts ARE set up to hear emergency type stuff, and make emergency type rulings... They do it EVERY day. Bummer for you that you didn't know that.
Do you really believe that the courts are set up to hear cases from 300 million people?
If only 1/3 of 1% of the people on this single-payer system have something to appeal every year, that's over 1 million cases to be heard per year. If each case only takes 15 minutes to hear, that's 250,000 hours of court time. With no breaks. If we had 100 judges working on these cases alone, it would take them 2,500 hours to hear all those cases.
There are only 2,080 working hours in a year (assuming a 40-hour work week). It would take over a year to just hear the first year's cases.
You think out court system can handle this level of activity?
You're dreaming.
Like I said, good luck selling this crock of $h!t to the American people.
But, let's review. This argument stems from the right wing talking point, that YOU HAVE NO APPEAL. We've spent the better part of several pages discussing it. I'm not going to convince you that the talking point is WRONG.
That's right. You won't. Because it's not wrong. It is, in fact, exactly what's happening in the UK and Canada and France and Sweden, and everywhere else there's socialist health care, every single day.
However, any sane person reading this thread, and still believes the right wing crap, is ALWAYS going to believe the right wing crap. Those who can READ and UNDERSTAND English, however, and BELIEVE in the Constitution will think otherwise...
Not unless you can show them HOW it would work. Which you can't. You've already proven that.
So, we've harped this to death... You think there's no appeal. Ok, think it. Let's move on to the Democrats want to kill old people. I'm sure we can fill several more pages with that crap. I can't wait.
Excon
Like I said, they don't want to kill 'em. They just don't want to save 'em. It's not in the best interest of "society". Forget the fact that this country was built on individual rights and freedoms. Apparently the good of society trumps all.
Elliot
excon
Aug 7, 2009, 11:49 AM
Do you really believe that the courts are set up to hear cases from 300 million people?Hello again, El:
Do you really believe that all 300 million of us - every man, woman and child in America will be denied services and be forced to appeal?? You DO, don't you? And, you expect to be taken seriously. Dude!
excon
ETWolverine
Aug 7, 2009, 01:50 PM
Hello again, El:
Do you really believe that all 300 million of us - every man, woman and child in America will be denied services and be forced to appeal????? You DO, don't you? And, you expect to be taken seriously. Dude!
excon
You didn't read my post. Not surprising.
I said:
If only 1/3 of 1% (that's 0.33%) of us have issues that need to be appealed, that's over 1 million cases that need to be adjudicated in the court system, according to you.
And if each one of those adjudications takes only 15 minutes each (unlikely, since just the application process would take about that long if everything went well) and if we had 100 dedicated judges who's job was to do nothing but adjudicate those appeals, it would take over a year for every one of those cases to be heard (2500 hours of adjudication time in a 2080-hour work-year). Closer to a year and a quarter.
A year and a quarter during which NEW APPEALS were being filed every day. Creating more backlog in the system.
That's just the result of 1/3 of 1% of the people in the system having an issue that needs to be appealed. That means that the government got it miraculously right 99.66% of the time. The result would STILL be disaster if the court system is the system of appeals.
Do you want to be the guy waiting for that appeal for a year and a quarter?
Oh... I get it, you are so trusting of the abilities and efficiencies of our government that you think that the government is going to handle this perfectly. Despite the fact that the government bankrupted Social Security, screwed up the stimulus bill, has broken the backs of Medicare and Medicaid, and spends $500 on a hammer, you think that the government is so efficient and capable that there aren't going to be any issues whatsoever. And that even if they DO screw up, the court system, which is run by the same government that just screwed up in the first place, is going to be so efficient that it can turn around those appeals in mere minutes, leaving everyone with perfect health coverage.
You do, don't you? And you expect to be taken seriously?
Elliot
inthebox
Aug 7, 2009, 02:34 PM
Devils advocate:
Who say we have a choice of healthcare now? Your employer usually picks the plan. Maybe 2, maybe 3 to choose from depending on the company size. If your luckly you have a PPO and HMO to choose from. One of 2.
If your company offers a prescription plan, you may have 1 to choose from.
Is this choice?
Secondly why do procedures cost an abundant amount of money if your uninsured? Say $500 if uninsured, $200 if insured under X plan.
Why the caps on cost that an insurance will pay?
Because the insurance companies, medicare, medicaid have the power of paying for 10s of thousands of lives or more. This gives them bargaining power.
For example, a couple of years ago my wife had an Echocardiogarm that we were billed the full amount $1100. We had just catastrophic coverage so the $5000 deductible had not been met. Because I work in healthcare I know htat Blue cross reimbursed $800 Medicare $600 Medicaid $400 but if you had no insurance you had to pay the full bill. You as a single individual have no negotiating power to reduce your cost.
Unfortunantly this is the system. Those without health insurance often pay the most because they and the privately insured often subsidize the lower reimbursement of medicare and medicaid.
G&P
inthebox
Aug 7, 2009, 02:48 PM
No, health care isn't a right. Our society just opposes free choice, won't let people choose to die, forces people to stay alive at any cost, be it pain, brain death, etc. But health care is only mandated when the interests of society are concerned. Seems kind of ignorant to let people die because they don't know how to get access to health care, but we allow a system that prevents millions that access. Yes, I know some fool is going to point out that our emergency rooms are open for emergency life saving care, but how many Americans die each year because they don't get non-emergent care? Many medical problems don't get better left untreated.
That is a complete oxymoron. Physiscians and nurse act to HELP the sick and the dying.
Look up Living will or Advance directive, you can state your wishes. That is a CHOICE any competent individual can make. I know at the hospital I work, the question of whether a person has a living will is asked on admission. The default is that someone who does not have a living will is that they are, "full code." If they stop breathing or cannot get enough oxygen they may be placed on a "machine" - mechanically ventilated. If their heart stops or they have an abnormal heart rhythm that causes NO blood pressure, advanced cardiac life support is initiated. [ cpr , defibrillation etc. ]
Is it your contention that certain segments of the population [ like those beyond a certain age ] be have their living will MADE FOR THEM BY THE GOVERNMENT? Are you suggesting that that you are in favor of making certain segments of the population DO NOT RESUSCITATE?
That is awfully arrogant of you to think you know what a specific individual would want, for you to make their end of life decisions for them.
G&P
inthebox
Aug 7, 2009, 02:56 PM
Can someone show me a current example where an elderly person was denied some heart surgery by an insurance company and the person called the customer service line and got the denial reversed?
I can tell you it is a pain in the rear to have someone who is not taking direct care of the patient tell you what your patient's length of stay in the hospital should be. This happens with medicare as well as private insurance.
With medicare they just state they won't cover or pay for additional days. The private health insurers do the same. The chart, the record , has to be documented in the proper way such that care is approved. 99% of the time, no problem.
I have spoken to those on the other end, use to be it wasn't even a physician, to plead the case for the patient. All they are going by is what is on the record or some ivory tower protocol. These days it is usually a physician on the third party payor side, and this has helped them understand medically, not just actuarillly, why someone needs a specific care plan.
Back in the 90s routine child birth was just an overnight stay. Enough of a public outcry was made and this is no longer the case.
G&P
tomder55
Aug 8, 2009, 03:21 AM
After watching the bloodbath that just happened with the non-government financial industry, the automobile industry, and the insurance industry that is yet to come, to say the government run programs are the problem is somewhat misinformed. It is unfortunate that the government got involved with helping any of these companies. Were they to be allowed to fail, millions who would find themselves unemployed without any unemployment payments would wake up and smell the coffee. All that the stimulus has done is pushed forward the demise of capitalism for a short while.
This of course is completely besides the point that you support a program that would put seniors on notice... that in an effort to contain costs they will be sacrificed;and that your final worth will be determined by some nameless bureaucrat looking at a computer generated spread sheet . Do you really think any government should have that much power ? Evidently so .
excon
Aug 8, 2009, 06:24 AM
that in an effort to contain costs they will be sacrificed;and that your final worth will be determined by some nameless bureaucrat looking at a computer generated spread sheet . Do you really think any government should have that much power ? Evidently so .Hello tom:
I don't want my government to have that much power and they won't according the bill I read. Of course, you just listened to the dingbats instead of reading. That's not really like you, but I guess when it comes to health care, people lose their minds...
I don't think the insurance adjusters should have that power over me, either, but they DO NOW under the system YOU support... What have you got against old people?? Do you own stock in the insurance industry?? You ACT like you do.
excon
amdeist
Aug 8, 2009, 08:11 AM
This of course is completely besides the point that you support a program that would put seniors on notice ....that in an effort to contain costs they will be sacrificed;and that your final worth will be determined by some nameless bureaucrat looking at a computer generated spread sheet . Do you really think any government should have that much power ? Evidently so .
Who said anything about supporting the current proposal? I am totally opposed to any health care plan that is capitalist based. Insurance companies are in fact, the reason why medicare and medicaid are going bankrupt. We have a free market economy in health care today, not only has it not worked, but it will bankrupt America if it isn't changed. I am a senior, and I don't buy your Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, etc. BS that senior will be sacrificed. I have a close friend in England who is nearing 90, and they just gave him spinal surgery to correct a non-emergent problem. I won't argue with ignorant people who want to jump on the crazy bandwagon. The good thing about life, is that what goes around comes around. Many of those fools who are being paid by the RNC to disrupt the town hall meetings will suffer the consequences of keeping the existing health care system.
excon
Aug 8, 2009, 09:07 AM
This of course is completely besides the point that you support a program that would put seniors on notice ....Hello again, tom:
I'm sorry. I find that I must respond TWICE to your rightwing claptrap!!
The health insurance system YOU support condemns people to DEATH every day in the name of PROFITS... Since you like it sooo much, I must assume that you're sharing in the profits... If not, you're just a water carrier for those that are making the big bucks.
Shouldn't you at least get a commission??
The above is TRUE, unless you're going to tell me that the insurance companies cover EVERYTHING... And, they DON'T!
excon
tomder55
Aug 9, 2009, 02:37 AM
Ex and amdeist
All I have to say is that if you are indeed reading HR 3200 you are putting blinders on when reading some sections like Section 1233 "Advanced Care Planning" mandatory counseling sessions to recommend "palliative care and hospice." The government can compel more frequent end of life sessions if it declares a "significant change" in the health of the recipient .And this is not just about fatal illness .It includes conditions described as "chronic," "progressive," or "life-limiting."
The 5th Amendment says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. In this case due process will not be in front of a judge and jury of peers. Due process will be determined by a nameless faceless bureaucrat using a computer model constucted to the specifications of Ezekiel Emanuel's ideas about the worth of the individual .
amdeist you have already previously supported the proposition that there are too many people ;especially ailing elderly so I suppose this fits in perfectly with your ideas about population management .
amdeist I also note that you despise capitalism and agree that the plan being considered is anathema to capitalism and fits in perfectly with your socialist agenda.
It is surprising how radical a conversion you have made Excon ,even as you claim that you don't want government to have that much power.
NeedKarma
Aug 9, 2009, 03:33 AM
Don't take tom's word here, he has an agenda. Get the facts, don't believe the extreme right-wing scare tactics:
False Euthanasia Claims | FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/false-euthanasia-claims/)
tomder55
Aug 9, 2009, 04:17 AM
Obama has already made it clear where he stands. He said his grandmother should have chosen pain medication rather than the more costly hip replacement.He also told another women that her mother should take pain medications instead of getting a pacemaker.
Clearly these types of responses are from one who cares more about containing costs then the care of the patient .
NeedKarma
Aug 9, 2009, 04:41 AM
.He also told another women that her mother should take pain medications instead of getting a pacemaker. See, you bought the bad edit that conservatives float around. Let me know if you want the real clip that shows that a) she could keep her plan and b) he said it might have been better to give her the pace-maker sooner.
Here's more of your bull refuted: Will ObamaCare euthanize granny? No. | Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Will-Obama-euthanize-granny-51596737.html)
excon
Aug 9, 2009, 07:27 AM
All I have to say is that if you are indeed reading HR 3200 you are putting blinders on when reading some sections like Section 1233 "Advanced Care Planning" mandatory counseling sessions to recommend "palliative care and hospice." The government can compel more frequent end of life sessions if it declares a "significant change" in the health of the recipient .And this is not just about fatal illness .It includes conditions described as "chronic," "progressive," or "life-limiting." .Hello again, tom:
Here is the pertinent sections of HR 3200. You can read it WITHOUT blinders, as I'm sure everybody will. You COULD say it means what you want it to mean, but it doesn't... I didn't copy ALL of the section, but if you can find a part that says they're going to KILL old people, PLEASE cut and paste it. We're DYING to hear.
-------
Advance care planning consultation
2‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:
‘(
A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.
‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.
‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).
‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.
‘(F)(I) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include--
‘(I) the reasons the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;
‘(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and
‘(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a health care proxy).
------------
excon
ETWolverine
Aug 10, 2009, 06:38 AM
The health insurance system YOU support condemns people to DEATH every day in the name of PROFITS...
No it doesn't.
As has been spelled out several times before, private insurance companies may decide not to pay for your care. BUT THEY CANNOT KEEP YOU FROM OBTAINING THAT CARE ON YOUR OWN.
In a single-payer system, not only can they decide not to pay for your care, but by doing so they deny your ability to obtain it on your own, since they are the only body permitted to pay for the care.
Talk all you want about people's inability to pay... they can mortgage their homes, sell their assets, or borrow money in prder to pay for their health care if they must. But they still have OPTIONS to obtain that care... even if it drives them to bankruptcy. In a government-run system, they have no such options if the government denies their claim.
This is not open for dispute. It is a fact. It is the fact that people live with every day in nationalized health care systems throughout the world. Evidence of this fact has been put forward. If you wish to ignore it, that's your issue. But don't try to confuse YOUR issues with reality.
Since you like it sooo much, I must assume that you're sharing in the profits... If not, you're just a water carrier for those that are making the big bucks.
Shouldn't you at least get a commission??
The above is TRUE, unless you're going to tell me that the insurance companies cover EVERYTHING... And, they DON'T!
Excon
Insurance companies don't cover everything. But they can't DENY your right to purchase anything you wish to purchase on your own. The government can and does all the time.
Elliot
excon
Aug 10, 2009, 06:45 AM
No it doesn't.
As has been spelled out several times before, private insurance companies may decide not to pay for your care. BUT THEY CANNOT KEEP YOU FROM OBTAINING THAT CARE ON YOUR OWN.Hello again, El:
It seems you think that people who were turned down for a life saving operation by their insurance company can just go out and buy it themselves... Really??
Do you ACTUALLY know anybody who could do that?? No, you don't. To argue that someone could is one of the dumbest arguments you've made to date... To think that they can, belies reality. Therefore, the person who is turned down by their insurance company for life saving services, IS sentenced to DEATH, no matter how you try to spin it...
excon
ETWolverine
Aug 10, 2009, 06:55 AM
Hello again, tom:
Here is the pertinent sections of HR 3200. You can read it WITHOUT blinders, as I'm sure everybody will. You COULD say it means what you want it to mean, but it doesn't.... I didn't copy ALL of the section, but if you can find a part that says they're gonna KILL old people, PLEASE cut and paste it. We're DYING to hear.
-------
Advance care planning consultation
2‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:
‘(
A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.
‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.
‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).
‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.
‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include--
‘(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;
‘(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and
‘(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a health care proxy).
------------
excon
Yep. I read that section.
It says that every 5 years, a counselor will meet with the "patient" (who may not even be sick at the time) and explain to them why they need a will, why they need a living will, and why they need to have DNR and DNI orders on file, and why such things are helpful to the family of the patient.
In other words, they are going to sit there and try to convince people to allow themselves to die rather than allow doctors to take actions to save their lives. And they're going to do so in the "best interests of the family". Whether it really is in their best interests or not.
Screw that. It ain't the government's business to convince ANYONE what end of life actions they should be taking.
Just out of curiosity... if this legislation isn't aimed at convincing older patients to die, why aren't they creating similar counseling for EVERY PATIENT. Isn't it a good idea of every patient to have a will and a living will on file in case of accident or traumatic injury or unexpected health crisis? Why is this legislation being targeted at old people?
Answer: it's being targeted at old people in order to convince as many of them as possible that they are no longer needed on this Earth in order to get rid of them in a bid to lower healths costs. That is the ONLY reason that such legislation would required for older people but not younger people.
Elliot
NeedKarma
Aug 10, 2009, 07:00 AM
In other words, they are going to sit there and try to convince people to allow themselves to die rather than allow doctors to take actions to save their lives. And they're going to do so in the "best interests of the family". Whether it really is in their best interests or not.Wow, you read what you want to read. It's simply counselling. My wife works for the Public Trustee office, if this type of counselling were more prevalent then there would less "messes" at the end of someone's life term especially when some form of dementia sets in.
excon
Aug 10, 2009, 07:08 AM
Yep. I read that section.
It says that every 5 years, a counselor will meet with the "patient" (who may not even be sick at the time) and explain to them why they need a will, why they need a living will, and why they need to have DNR and DNI orders on file, and why such things are helpful to the family of the patient. Hello again, El:
So, you actually think the government is going to suggest that the old folks just die to save everybody some trouble...
I can't imagine where you make up that stuff. It certainly ISN'T what I read... But, of course, I read ENGLISH. Remember when I said the above was the dumbest argument you've made... Well, you topped it.
excon
ETWolverine
Aug 10, 2009, 07:48 AM
Hello again, El:
So, you actually think the government is going to suggest that the old folks just die to save everybody some trouble...
Yes I do. So does Obama. And Ezekial Emanuel. They've pretty much said that that is their intent.
Of course if the architects of the plan are saying that this is there intent, that doesn't really mean anything, does it?
I can't imagine where you make up that stuff. It certainly ISN'T what I read... But, of course, I read ENGLISH. Remember when I said the above was the dumbest argument you've made... Well, you topped it.
Excon
Where do I get these interpretations? From their own words.
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03Obama-t.html?pagewanted=5&_r=1
But again, let's not let what they SAID influence us. It doesn't really MEAN anything.
Elliot
excon
Aug 10, 2009, 07:57 AM
Where do I get these interpretations? From their own words.
But again, let's not let what they SAID influence us. It doesn't really MEAN anything. Hello again, El:
Well, I read the "words". I didn't find anything in there that said the government is going to suggest that old people pack it in. Nope - not even an inkling...
I'm sure your reading of those same words gave you a different conclusion. I don't know why. They ARE written in English, after all... But, you're having trouble with that lately. I mean, you guys call a coup the Constitution in action...
Have you seen your doctor?? Or are you afraid they won't cover what you've got??
excon
ETWolverine
Aug 10, 2009, 08:10 AM
Hello again, El:
Well, I read the "words". I didn't find anything in there that said the government is going to suggest that old people pack it in. Nope - not even an inkling...
It's right HERE:
‘(F)(I) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include--
‘(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;
I'm sure your reading of those same words gave you a different conclusion. I don't know why.
Yes you do. You just refuse to acknowledge the stated INTENT of the architects of this legislation.
They ARE written in English, after all... But, you're having trouble with that lately. I mean, you guys call a coup the Constitution in action...
Actually, it IS written in English... of a sort. And it is plain as day what the intent is... especially when taken in context with the statements of those who wrote the bill in the first place.
Have you seen your doctor?? Or are you afraid they won't cover what you've got??
Excon
Yes, I have seen a doctor fairly regularly. I even pay out of pocket, because my insurance doesn't cover it. Y'know... that whole free choice thing. My insurance isn't covering it, but I can STILL get the service anyway. I live what I preach.
What I'm afraid of is that GOVERNMENT insurance won't cover my treatments, and I won't be allowed to pay out of pocket in a single-payer system. Which means that I won't be able to get those services... even if I want to pay out of pocket.
Elliot
excon
Aug 10, 2009, 08:30 AM
It's right HERE:
‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include--
‘(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;
Yes you do. You just refuse to acknowledge the stated INTENT of the architects of this legislation.
Actually, it IS written in English... of a sort. And it is plain as day what the intent is... especially when taken in context with the statements of those who wrote the bill in the first place. Hello again, El:
I read the words very carefully this time. I find NOTHING in there to suggest the horrifying things you find. What you find "plain as day", I don't find AT ALL.
But, Mr. Wolverine, where you and I find ourselves, is a GOOD example of where this THING is right now, nationwide. I would call it a debate, but when the two sides can't agree on what a few English words actually SAY, then there is NO debate. It's just two sides yelling at each other...
Which is EXACTLY what you want. As WRONG as you are, you are WINNING the argument. You've got everybody yelling at each other. The Democrats can't get it together even though they run the show... They need a hammer like you guys had.
But, you're not doing the country any favors... In fact, just saying no will bankrupt us.
excon
tomder55
Aug 10, 2009, 09:21 AM
Yup and we are being called unpatriotic by the Speaker of the House. Concerned citizens are called tea baggers and astroturfers ;an unruly mob;radical crazies. But we are the problem because we have serious reservation over the course the President and the Dems in Congress would lead us in .
Rep. John Fleming has a petition out demanding that Congress give up their taxpayer subsidized benefit to sign onto any legislation they pass. Think they will ? Will the President ? Not likely .
excon
Aug 10, 2009, 09:31 AM
But we are the problem because we have serious reservation over the course the President and the Dems in Congress would lead us in . Hello again, tom:
I AIN'T buying it. If you really HAD serious reservations about the bill, you'd be DISCUSSING them, instead of making up stuff. You don't want a serious discussion. You want to STOP any discussion from taking place.
I say again, just saying no will bankrupt us... It's not very patriotic to want to do that.
excon
ETWolverine
Aug 10, 2009, 09:57 AM
Hello again, tom:
I AIN'T buying it. If you really HAD serious reservations about the bill, you'd be DISCUSSING them, instead of making up stuff. You don't want a serious discussion. You want to STOP any discussion from taking place.
I say again, just saying no will bankrupt us... It's not very patriotic to want to do that.
excon
How many things do we have to list that are wrong with this bill before you will admit that the bill is a piece of cr&p designed to take choice out of the hands of individuals and businesses and put it into the hands of government?
Counseling oldsters to choose to die rather than save themselves every 5 years isn't enough of a problem for you?
Having someone other than you and your doctor deciding what's in your best interest isn't enough of a problem for you?
Tripling the cost of health care for every man woman and child in the USA isn't enough of a problem for you?
Eliminating free choice within health care isn't enough of a problem for you?
Quadrupling the national debt in order to accomplish this abortion isn't enough of a problem for you?
All of these issues have been discussed ad infinitum. But you are still stuck on the idea that there are no issue and we're making it all up to STOP discussion.
That's your stuff, not ours.
Elliot
ETWolverine
Aug 10, 2009, 10:00 AM
Hello again, tom:
I AIN'T buying it. If you really HAD serious reservations about the bill, you'd be DISCUSSING them, instead of making up stuff. You don't want a serious discussion. You want to STOP any discussion from taking place.
I say again, just saying no will bankrupt us... It's not very patriotic to want to do that.
excon
Giving in to communism isn't very patriotic. (And whether you wish to call it that or not, nationalizing health care is COMMUNISM.)
85% of Americans are satisfied with their health care system. 67% of Americans do not want THIS BILL to be passed. MAJORITY RULES is the way DEMOCRACY works. But you want to throw Democracy out the window... THAT isn't very patriotic, excon.
Elliot
NeedKarma
Aug 10, 2009, 10:24 AM
(And whether you wish to call it that or not, nationalizing health care is COMMUNISM.)Dear god you sure are given to hyperbole. You and your hero sarah palin.
Imagine all those communist countries!!
Universal health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care)
Universal health care is implemented in all of the wealthy, industrialized countries, with the exception of the United States.
tomder55
Aug 10, 2009, 10:31 AM
Now if the Dems wanted to talk about ways of reforming health insurance to deal with the small percentage of people who fall through the cracks then there is a worthy debate to be had. What they and you have proposed many times is wholesale takeovers of significant percentages of the GDP by the government. You have said you want govt . Takeover of health care ;energy ,finance . What do you leave for the private sector ? Mom and Pop bodegas ? There really is little to discuss... Not only have I read the bill ;but I have also read the writings of Ezekiel Emanuel and Tom Daschele ;the architects gurus of the plan and I know what they mean when they propose having doctors tell their patients that it would be a better option for you to cash your chips in .
From Emanuel's Lancet article :
The complete lives system discriminates against older people. Age-based allocation is ageism. Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.
Here's another :
"This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity — those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberation — are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.
So don't tell me that they are not going to go after seniors to control costs .I know better.
So if mandatory counseling encouraging doctors to promote end of life option were not the intent it would be easily remedied in the legislation. Remove the ambiguity . Add a provision stating that the counseling is entirely voluntary.State that the patient will not lose benefits if he/she refuses counseling .Remove the threat of refusal of compensation if the doctor does not do the counseling .
speechlesstx
Aug 10, 2009, 10:45 AM
Ex, we HAVE discussed what's in the bill, we've quoted and linked to relevant passages in the bill and we've quoted Obama and others verbatim on Obamacare. What needs to happen now is to stop making stuff up about us making stuff up and for the Democrats to stop lying and whining.
What's most telling about this whole thing is Democrats are waging a war against American citizens (http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2009/08/hey-look-whos-organizing-now.html).
ETWolverine
Aug 10, 2009, 10:46 AM
Dear god you sure are given to hyperbole. You and your hero sarah palin.
Imagine all those communist countries!!!!!!
Universal health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care)
Yep. They are all communist... or at least socialist, which is just a softer version of the same thing. What's your point?
Communism
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
From - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
How's it feel to be living in a communist country?
Elliot
N0help4u
Aug 10, 2009, 10:58 AM
Yep. They are all communist... or at least socialist, which is just a softer version of the same thing. What's your point?
Communism
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
From - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
How's it feel to be living in a communist country?
Elliot
Exactly why I don't understand why so many are for these plans of Obama's
Seems like they think government taking away our freedoms is making us free.
I refuse to drink the Kool Aid. I'm in this messed up system we got with eyes wide open
NeedKarma
Aug 10, 2009, 10:58 AM
Elliot,
Feels great! You should be so lucky!
LOL!
I like people, you like money and corporations. Never the twain shall meet.
tomder55
Aug 10, 2009, 10:59 AM
Nah they're not communist . They are Fabian socialists.
N0help4u
Aug 10, 2009, 11:00 AM
Yep fabian socialists and that does not make for a government for the people, by the people
NOPE
NeedKarma
Aug 10, 2009, 11:00 AM
nah they're not communist . they are Fabian socialists.
Leave him to his belief that the US is the only non-communist country on the planet. We're enjoying the laugh. :)
tomder55
Aug 10, 2009, 11:02 AM
I consider fabian socialism as communist lite.
And we are routinely bombarded with their pablum
Check this out in the Washington Compost by economist Gregory Clark :
The battle will be over how to get the economy's winners to pay for an increasingly costly poor. Last weekend Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers, the director of the White House's National Economic Council, refused to rule out raising taxes. Despite the White House's subsequent denials, this may be an early acknowledgment of an inexorable trend. In a future with higher taxes, the divide between rich and poor would be the central economic challenge. …
So, how do we operate a society in which a large share of the population is socially needy but economically redundant? There is only one answer. You tax the winners — those with the still uniquely human skills, and those owning the capital and land — to provide for the losers. …
The last great hope may be to design a more efficient tax system. … Unfortunately, such measures are only stopgaps. In the end, we may be forced to learn to live in a United States where, by stealth, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” becomes the guiding principle of government — or else confront growing, unattended poverty
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080702043.html
N0help4u
Aug 10, 2009, 11:06 AM
I consider fabian socialism as communist lite.
Exactly
ETWolverine
Aug 10, 2009, 12:16 PM
Leave him to his belief that the US is the only non-communist country on the planet. We're enjoying the laugh. :)
Still waiting to hear how government control of health care (or anything else, for that matter) isn't communism.
And I hate to say it, but what makes you think that I believe that the USA ISN'T communist?
As I have posted before:
The government has taken control of 10 of the 12 largest banks in the USA, two of the top 3 auto makers, the largest insurance company, and the largest home mortgage-makers (Fannie-Mae & Freddie Mac). The government is the single largest debt guarantor to small businesses through the SBA. They regulate every industry under the sun, including lighbulb manufacturing and toilet bowl makers. They control energy production and distribution via regulation and taxation. They control the medical industry through the FDA and the food industry through the FDA and USDA. The US government is the single largest borrower and the single largest lender in the USA. It is the single largest real estate owner and the single largest tenant in the USA. It is the single largest purchaser of goods, and the single largest provider of services (usually redundant or useless ones) in the USA.
In what way is this NOT communism?
I'm just trying to preserve what little is left to the regular joe in this country.
Elliot
N0help4u
Aug 10, 2009, 12:20 PM
.
And I hate to say it, but what makes you think that I believe that the USA ISN'T communist?
As I have posted before:
In what way is this NOT communism?
I'm just trying to preserve what little is left to the regular joe in this country.
Elliot
You beat me to it ETW
NeedKarma
Aug 10, 2009, 12:38 PM
Good luck. You'll be dead and buried before your ideal comes to fruition.
N0help4u
Aug 10, 2009, 12:53 PM
Yep with the government socialist ideals we know that is a fact. I doubt even my grand kids will see any type of freedom
ETWolverine
Aug 10, 2009, 01:23 PM
Good luck. You'll be dead and buried before your ideal comes to fruition.
Probably true.
So what?
Some ideals are worth fighting for, even if you never get to see the fruit of your labors come to pass.
And, hey, if Obama's popularity continues to drop as fast as it has been over the past month or so, there's always the possibility that a new government with real CONSERVATIVES (not Republicans and RINOs) can accomplish it much sooner than anyone would think. We came pretty close under Reagan.
Elliot
galveston
Aug 11, 2009, 02:47 PM
Chuck Norris wrote an article recently dealing with a provision in the House health care bill. It provides for people trained in parenting to come into your home and show you how to raise your children. You like the sound of that?
Anyone who has had any dealings with child protective services know very well what tyrants these people are.
You want to bring these people into every home that has children?
NeedKarma
Aug 11, 2009, 03:09 PM
Chuck Norris wrote an article recently dealing with a provision in the House health care bill. It provides for people trained in parenting to come into your home and show you how to raise your children. You like the sound of that?
Anyone who has had any dealings with child protective services know very well what tyrants these people are.
You want to bring these people into every home that has children?Please quote the provision.
excon
Aug 11, 2009, 03:14 PM
Hello gal:
Chuck Norris has no more credibility on this issue than I do.
excon
earl237
Aug 11, 2009, 03:20 PM
CPS people are totalitarian busibodies who ruin the lives of decent parents because of some minor infraction such as spanking. Reminds me of the old saying "People with no children of their own always tell others how to raise theirs."
excon
Aug 11, 2009, 03:27 PM
CPS people are totalitarian busibodies Hello earl:
That's what people say... until some starving kid is found in a dungeon... Then they ask, where was CPS??
Look. I'm not a supporter of 'em. They're too much like cops... But, sometimes you need cops.
excon
paraclete
Aug 11, 2009, 09:25 PM
Both Medicare and Social Security are ponzi schemes .
I really like your analogy there Tom. Tell me, why do you think it's legal for the government to run a ponzi scheme but illegal for Madoff. Perhaps it is he made off with the money, where we can't find who makes off with the money in these other schemes. It might just be you and me :):)
tomder55
Aug 12, 2009, 03:41 AM
Please quote the provision
PAGE 838 sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill ,under the heading "home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children."
Previously this was the “Education Begins at Home Act” introduced in 2008 by Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL) and Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO)
It was then added into the House plan.
NeedKarma
Aug 12, 2009, 04:38 AM
PAGE 838 sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill ,under the heading "home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children." Where does it say that they are going to tell you how to raise your children?
We already have a program here like that here, where new mothers can have visits from RNs that are specialized in newborn care. The mothers love it and it's a popular program.
tomder55
Aug 12, 2009, 05:38 AM
Glad you like it but you are comparing apples and oranges . This is the nanny state sending in nanny monitors to make sure you are indoctinating your children properly .We don't need the government coming into our homes telling us how to raise our kids.
As ususal it is vaguely worded which leaves it to the bureaucrat to interpret the degree of intrusiveness permitted . The wording of the bill says “well-trained and competent staff” will…provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains…modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices; [and] skills to interact with their child…the state will “prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families or a high incidence of child maltreatment.”
In other words ;the rich may get a pass ;but the poor will not get off so easily . Evidently good parenting is equated with personal finance and income .
NeedKarma
Aug 12, 2009, 05:46 AM
Yea, that's exactly what we have here. They answer parents' questions.
YOU choose to throw the nanny-state and "indoctinating" bullcrap because that's what Limbaugh and Beck tell you. We also have a great 3.5 year old mandatory assessment to see if any children need help with vision, motor skills, etc before the start of kindergarten. All to give them the best chance at success.
tomder55
Aug 12, 2009, 06:09 AM
Lol I guess I'm wasting my time telling you I neither listen to Rush nor have ever seen the Glen Beck show... both are on while I am working . Honestly if I was to add up my time watching and listening to any media I would say it is time spent mostly in the left wing spin outlets. I watch ABC world news and watch Chris Matthews ,Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert when Yank games aren't on.
However if that is what Rush and Beck say I completely agree with them . And of course ,as always ,you are free to believe what you want.
ETWolverine
Aug 12, 2009, 06:20 AM
I've been concentrating on all the other provisions of the bill that I missed the one about nanny-state parenting.
NeedKarma, do you think it is the government's job to tell parents how to raise their kids?
What happens if someone gets a visit from a "parenting counselor" who gives the parent unsolicited "advice" on raising kids, and the parent decides not to take that advice, either for philosophical reasons, or cultural reasons, or religious reasons? Does the government get to take action against that parent?
What if I don't want a visit from a parenting counselor?
Or for that matter, what if I don't want a visit from an "end-of-life counselor"?
Do I get to refuse these services?
Based on what I've read, I HAVE to accept these things. I don't have a choice.
There are plenty of good organizations out there that teach parenting to new mothers and fathers. Why does the government need to get involved?
This is the issue that nobody on the left seems able to answer: Why is this an issue for the government to deal with? Why should the government be involved in parenting at all? I do not want the government involved in determining how I raise my two children, much less telling me that I'm doing it wrong.
When everything is controlled from a centralized government (the economy, health care, parenting, death issues, travel, energy use), what you end up with is NOTHING SHORT OF COMMUNISM.
Also, what does parent-counseling have to do with health care? Why is this provision part of the health care bill at all?
Elliot
speechlesstx
Aug 12, 2009, 06:23 AM
I'm happy for you NK that you trust your government so much. Me, I have a healthy skepticism of a government that wants to delve into providing parents with "knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains…modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices."
With whose values?
NeedKarma
Aug 12, 2009, 06:32 AM
There are plenty of good organizations out there that teach parenting to new mothers and fathers.
Like who?
ETWolverine
Aug 12, 2009, 06:56 AM
Like who?
Just off the top of my head?
Take Five Parenting:
Children's Trust Fund - Celebrating 10 Years (http://www.take5parenting.com/)
They in turn link to:
National Effective Parenting Initiative
https://www.effectiveparentingusa.org
That's two that I found in under 5 minutes. (I already knew about Take 5.) Think there aren't others out there?
NeedKarma
Aug 12, 2009, 07:00 AM
How about nurses?
ETWolverine
Aug 12, 2009, 07:30 AM
How about nurses?
What about nurses? We're talking about organizations that help teach young parents how to parent. You asked what organizations there are. I responded with two good websites. What do nurses have to do with anything?
NeedKarma
Aug 12, 2009, 07:35 AM
They are the ones that offer support services here. I imagine it would be the same in the US plan.
speechlesstx
Aug 12, 2009, 07:39 AM
I always thought the job of nurses was to take care of sick and injured people.
ETWolverine
Aug 12, 2009, 07:52 AM
I always thought the job of nurses was to take care of sick and injured people.
Well, that would make sense... so... no, that's not how things are going to be done by the government.
ETWolverine
Aug 12, 2009, 07:53 AM
They are the ones that offer support services here. I imagine it would be the same in the US plan.
Why should the government be doing it at all? Why is parenting the government's responsibility?
This is the question you need to answer.
NeedKarma
Aug 12, 2009, 07:54 AM
So you view nurses as being the government?
excon
Aug 12, 2009, 08:02 AM
Hello again,
I didn't read the part you guys are talking about... Why should I?? I might as well be as ignorant as YOU guys are on this issue...
The provision you're talking about is free parenting classes... Now, only a right wing jerk would call that a nanny state. Or maybe this is the part where they tell you how to kill your kids... I don't know... You sure can't trust those Dems... Good thing YOU guys are in power... (snicker, snicker)
So, because you guys aren't willing to participate in reasonable debate, this bill is going to be SHOVED down your throats... That's the way people in power DO things. No?
excon
ETWolverine
Aug 12, 2009, 08:10 AM
So you view nurses as being the government?
Only when they're employed by the government and are there to check out your parenting skills at the mandate of the government.
Don't you?
But again, you are avoiding answering the important question.
Why is it the government's job to be involved in parenting?
ETWolverine
Aug 12, 2009, 08:12 AM
Hello again,
I didn't read the part you guys are talking about.... Why should I??? I might as well be as ignorant as YOU guys are on this issue...
The provision you're talking about is free parenting classes... Now, only a right wing jerk would call that a nanny state. Or maybe this is the part where they tell you how to kill your kids.... I dunno... You sure can't trust those Dems.... Good thing YOU guys are in power..... (snicker, snicker)
So, because you guys aren't willing to participate in reasonable debate, this bill is going to be SHOVED down your throats.... That's the way people in power DO things. No?
excon
Well, it's clear you didn't read it. Nor have you read Steve's post on the subject, because he gave you the exact wording of the bill.
But then you've never been one to let facts get in the way of a good anti-Republican rant.
Elliot
NeedKarma
Aug 12, 2009, 08:16 AM
Only when they're employed by the government and are there to check out your parenting skills at the mandate of the government.
Don't you?
But again, you are avoiding answering the important question.
Why is it the government's job to be involved in parenting?Where does it say it is mandatory?
tomder55
Aug 12, 2009, 08:23 AM
It is voluntary like paying income taxes is .
NeedKarma
Aug 12, 2009, 08:23 AM
Directly from the text of the bill:
''(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to im-
Prove the well-being, health, and development of children
By enabling the establishment and expansion of high qual-
Ity programs providing voluntary home visitation for fami-
Lies with young children and families expecting children.
NeedKarma
Aug 12, 2009, 08:24 AM
it is voluntary like paying income taxes is .
See my post. You lie or are ignorant, which one is it? (See? I learned that from you!)
N0help4u
Aug 12, 2009, 08:29 AM
''(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to im-
Prove the well-being, health, and development of children
By enabling the establishment and expansion of high qual-
Ity programs providing voluntary home visitation for fami-
Lies with young children and families expecting children.
So why is anybody going to volunteer wanting this service?
Nobody likes when authorities comes to their house about their kids for whatever reasons.
tomder55
Aug 12, 2009, 08:32 AM
I've seen gvt social workers at work in this country. It can be quite intrusive over the slimmest pretext... often prompted by a complaint by a neighbor with a grudge. . I've seen how voluntary compliance works . I mentioned before that the provision is written vaguely enough that it leaves these gvt. Workers who generally I do not trust ,wide disgression.
Another posting here recently related a story how an IRS flunky tried to intimidate a charitible organization because of it's political views. Who's to say that the same wouldn't apply when some field worker deems parents unworthy ?
I'll ignore your personal attack .
excon
Aug 12, 2009, 08:34 AM
Hello N0:
I agree especially when you realize that the visiting bureaucrat is going to be keeping an eye out for any oldster he can kill.
excon
NeedKarma
Aug 12, 2009, 08:36 AM
Nobody likes when authorities comes to their house about their kids for whatever reasons.
Some people like having a nurse help to show a mother how to help the baby latch on properly or how to bathe a wriggly baby. What bits are you worried about?
excon
Aug 12, 2009, 08:37 AM
Well, it's clear you didn't read it. Nor have you read Steve's post on the subject, because he gave you the exact wording of the bill.Hello again, El:
You say "the exact wording of the bill", as though the exact wording MEANS something to you... How could any sane man think your words mean ANYTHING, when you take end of life consultation to mean "death panels"??
Well, I'm here to tell you, no SANE man would, and I don't.
excon
NeedKarma
Aug 12, 2009, 08:38 AM
Well, it's clear you didn't read it. Nor have you read Steve's post on the subject, because he gave you the exact wording of the bill.He didn't... then he lied.
ETWolverine
Aug 12, 2009, 08:41 AM
He didn't...then he lied.
You keep saying that... but you haven't once been able to show it. Saying that he lied over and over again doesn't make it more true than the first time you said it.
ETWolverine
Aug 12, 2009, 08:43 AM
And, NK, you still haven't answered my question.
Why is it the government's business to get involved in parenting?
I'm going to keep on pointing out that you haven't answered this question until you either answer it or admit that you don't have an answer.
Elliot
NeedKarma
Aug 12, 2009, 08:45 AM
Why is it the government's business to get involved in parenting?
Ok you little spammer :)
It's not the government, it's nurses.
BTW you have issues with conduct on discussion boards. Check out Slashdot.org for what reasoned, respectful discussion looks like. Your posts would be buried deep there.
excon
Aug 12, 2009, 08:46 AM
Why is it the government's business to get involved in parenting?Hello again, El:
I'll answer... Because SOME segments of our society don't believe in teaching their children about real life. They'd rather teach them to pretend... So, the government is going to set them straight, before they grow up to be Republicans.
excon
ETWolverine
Aug 12, 2009, 08:54 AM
Ok you little spammer :)
It's not the government, it's nurses.
Then what's it doing in a government bill?
BTW you have issues with conduct on discussion boards. Check out Slashdot.org for what reasoned, respectful discussion looks like. Your posts would be buried deep there.
I'm not on slashdot. I'm here, and I'm following YOUR lead in terms of ettiquette.
ETWolverine
Aug 12, 2009, 08:55 AM
Hello again, El:
I'll answer.... Because SOME segments of our society don't believe in teaching their children about real life. They'd rather teach them to pretend... So, the government is gonna set them straight, before they grow up to be Republicans.
excon
So you believe that it is the government's job to be involved in thje political indoctrination of our children.
Thought so.
At least you're honest about it. That's more than I can say about NK.
Elliot
excon
Aug 12, 2009, 09:00 AM
So you believe that it is the government's job to be involved in thje political indoctrination of our children.Hello again, El:
Yeahhh... And, if the parent objects, they're going to send 'em to the FEMA DEATH CAMPS that Obama started. They're run by the "brown shirts" who work for ACORN.
I guess you can't tell when I'm ribbing you, huh? Might as well. When words don't mean anything anymore, what's left but BS?
excon
NeedKarma
Aug 12, 2009, 09:00 AM
So you believe that it is the government's job to be involved in thje political indoctrination of our children.I missed the part in that bill where they say they are going to politically indoctrinate the children. Can you point that out for me please?
NeedKarma
Aug 12, 2009, 09:01 AM
Then what's it doing in a government bill?'Cause that's where the funding comes from.
excon
Aug 12, 2009, 09:02 AM
I missed the part in that bill where they say they are going to politically indoctrinate the children. Can you point that out for me please?Hello NK:
It's not in there. I made it up. What?? The righty's are the only ones who can do that??
excon
speechlesstx
Aug 12, 2009, 09:10 AM
He didn't...then he lied.
He lied? No, I make mistakes sometimes but I don't come here and lie. And in this post I quoted tom's excerpt from the bill, you aren't even on the same subject with this pathetic accusation.
speechlesstx
Aug 12, 2009, 09:11 AM
Check out Slashdot.org for what reasoned, respectful discussion looks like. Your posts would be buried deep there.
So you just come here to call people lying SOB's and Nazis...
NeedKarma
Aug 12, 2009, 09:13 AM
The nazi think was imitating what ET does, and yes, you did lie through your teeth, I can't deny that.
Edit to add: over there I wouldn't have had to add the lying bit since the comment would have been buried.
speechlesstx
Aug 12, 2009, 09:37 AM
The nazi think was imitating what ET does, and yes, you did lie through your teeth, I can't deny that.
edit to add: over there I wouldn't have had to add the lying bit since the comment would have been buried.
I trusted a blog site that linked to the ABC article as its source for the quote which was posted under the video. I linked to the ABC article instead of the blog precisely because you're so damned suspicious. It turns out the blog quoted a combination of two paragraphs from the article and one quote from the video. Mainstream media journalists do it every day.
The quote was still accurate in spite of my mistake, but admitting to a mistake - even a mistake that does not adversely affect the veracity of the quote - isn't enough to convince you I'm not a "lying SOB." Let the record show I've twice admitted to this mistake and that you're just pathetic.
speechlesstx
Aug 12, 2009, 10:13 AM
Just for grins, 2 WaPo columnists who are anything but conservative lackeys have now commented on section 1233. First, Charles Lane:
About a third of Americans have living wills or advance-care directives expressing their wishes for end-of-life treatment. When seniors who don't have them arrive in a hospital terminally ill and incapacitated, families and medical workers wrestle with uncertainty -- while life-prolonging machinery runs, often at Medicare's expense. This has consequences for families and for the federal budget.
Enter Section 1233 of the health-care bill drafted in the Democratic-led House, which would pay doctors to give Medicare patients end-of-life counseling every five years -- or sooner if the patient gets a terminal diagnosis.
On the far right, this is being portrayed as a plan to force everyone over 65 to sign his or her own death warrant. That's rubbish. Federal law already bars Medicare from paying for services "the purpose of which is to cause, or assist in causing," suicide, euthanasia or mercy killing. Nothing in Section 1233 would change that.
Still, I was not reassured to read in an Aug. 1 Post article that "Democratic strategists" are "hesitant to give extra attention to the issue by refuting the inaccuracies, but they worry that it will further agitate already-skeptical seniors."
If Section 1233 is innocuous, why would "strategists" want to tip-toe around the subject?
Perhaps because, at least as I read it, Section 1233 is not totally innocuous (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043_pf.html).
Until now, federal law has encouraged end-of-life planning -- gently. In 1990, Congress required health-care institutions (not individual doctors) to give new patients written notice of their rights to make living wills, advance directives and the like -- but also required them to treat patients regardless of whether they have such documents.
The 1997 ban on assisted-suicide support specifically allowed doctors to honor advance directives. And last year, Congress told doctors to offer a brief chat on end-of-life documents to consenting patients during their initial "Welcome to Medicare" physical exam. That mandate took effect this year.
Section 1233, however, addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones. Supporters protest that they're just trying to facilitate choice -- even if patients opt for expensive life-prolonging care. I think they protest too much: If it's all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what's it doing in a measure to "bend the curve" on health-care costs?
Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren't quite "purely voluntary," as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, "purely voluntary" means "not unless the patient requests one." Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that's an incentive to insist.
Eugene Robinson:
We know that there are crazies in the town hall mobs -- paranoid fantasists who imagine they hear the whop-whop-whop of the World Government black helicopters coming closer by the minute. We know that much of the action is being directed from the wings by cynical political operatives, following a script written by Washington lobbyists. But the nut jobs and carpetbaggers are outnumbered by confused and concerned Americans who seem genuinely convinced they're not being told the whole truth about health-care reform.
And they have a point (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002455.html).
Just so there's no misunderstanding, I'm a true believer. It's scandalous and immoral that the richest, most powerful nation on Earth callously ignores the fact that 47 million Americans lack health insurance. I feel strongly that there should be a public option to keep private insurers honest, and I want the government to be able to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies.
Whatever reform package finally emerges -- after it's been mauled by those snarling Blue Dogs -- probably won't go nearly far enough...
The unvarnished truth is that services are ultimately going to have to be curtailed regardless of what happens with reform. We perform more expensive tests, questionable surgeries and high-tech diagnostic scans than we can afford. We spend unsustainable amounts of money on patients during the final year of life.
Yes, it's true that doctors order some questionable procedures defensively, to keep from getting sued. But it's a cop-out to blame the doctors or the tort lawyers. We're the ones who demand these tests, scans and surgeries. And why not? If a technology exists that can prolong life or improve its quality, even for a few weeks or months, why shouldn't we want it?
That's the reason people are so frightened and enraged about the proposed measure that would allow Medicare to pay for end-of-life counseling. If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.
If they can admit we have a point when will you?
tomder55
Aug 12, 2009, 10:21 AM
Steve you got to recognize the MO by now . He spends the day calling us liars and then for good measure tells us about a site where the level of debate is allegedly elevated . Lol
NeedKarma
Aug 12, 2009, 10:25 AM
Steve you gotta recognize the MO by now . He spends the day calling us liars and then for good measure tells us about a site where the level of debate is allegedly elevated . lolI guess you missed the point that on those moderated sites your erroneous comments would never see the light of day... as voted by your peers.
tomder55
Aug 12, 2009, 10:27 AM
I suppose there is no one there to censor your pablum.
speechlesstx
Aug 12, 2009, 10:32 AM
Steve you gotta recognize the MO by now . He spends the day calling us liars and then for good measure tells us about a site where the level of debate is allegedly elevated . lol
Kind of like telling us that invoking Nazis means you're uneducated and don't have an argument and then calling Elliot a Nazi?
NeedKarma
Aug 12, 2009, 10:38 AM
Yea, that's it! Got to go heat up my Pablum.
ETWolverine
Aug 12, 2009, 10:41 AM
Kind of like telling us that invoking Nazis means you're uneducated and don't have an argument and then calling Elliot a Nazi?
Yeah, like that.
paraclete
Aug 12, 2009, 03:28 PM
Yea, that's exactly what we have here. They answer parents' questions.
YOU choose to throw the nanny-state and "indoctinating" bullcrap because that's what Limbaugh and Beck tell you. We also have a great 3.5 year old mandatory assessment to see if any children need help with vision, motor skills, etc before the start of kindergarten. All to give them the best chance at success.
Hey I though you had a "free" country over there:)
tomder55
Aug 13, 2009, 03:32 AM
I really like your analogy there Tom. Tell me, why do you think it's legal for the government to run a ponzi scheme but illegal for Madoff. Perhaps it is he made off with the money, where we can't find who makes off with the money in these other schemes. It might just be you and me :):)
No ;it's a ponzi scheme because the money does not go to a trust fund to manage the program .Instead it gets pooled into general revenues so the government can make it's deficit numbers look better than it really is. It is theft pure and simple. Like a ponzi scheme the early participants are getting a payout from the program but it will indeed be insolvent by the time the next generation's time for a payout is due.
speechlesstx
Aug 13, 2009, 01:14 PM
A small victory?
Finance Committee to drop end-of-life provision (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/finance-committee-to-drop-end-of-life-provision-2009-08-13.html)
"On the Finance Committee, we are working very hard to avoid unintended consequences by methodically working through the complexities of all of these issues and policy options," Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement. "We dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly."
The Finance Committee is the only congressional committee not to report out a preliminary healthcare bill before the August congressional recess, but is expected to unveil its proposal shortly after Labor Day.
Grassley said that bill would hold up better compared to proposals crafted in the House, which he asserted were "poorly cobbled together."
"The bill passed by the House committees is so poorly cobbled together that it will have all kinds of unintended consequences, including making taxpayers fund healthcare subsidies for illegal immigrants," Grassley said. The veteran Iowa lawmaker said the end-of-life provision in those bills would pay physicians to "advise patients about end-of-life care and rate physician quality of care based on the creation of and adherence to orders for end-of-life care.
"Maybe others can defend a bill like the Pelosi bill that leaves major issues open to interpretation, but I can't," Grassley added.
ETWolverine
Aug 13, 2009, 01:42 PM
Not really.
What will happen is going to be similar to what happened with the Omnibus spending bill and the Stimulus bill. Certain things (like the end of life provisions) will be dropped by the Senate Bill and the bill will get approved by the Senate. The House bill will pass as is. And during the bi-cameral negotiations to reconcile the bill, the stuff that gets dropped out of the Senate bill will be put back in by Pelosi and company.
Net gain... ZERO.
Elliot
speechlesstx
Aug 13, 2009, 01:51 PM
Not really.
What will happen is going to be similar to what happened with the Omnibus spending bill and the Stimulus bill. Certain things (like the end of life provisions) will be dropped by the Senate Bill and the bill will get approved by the Senate. The House bill will pass as is. And during the bi-cameral negotiations to reconcile the bill, the stuff that gets dropped out of the Senate bill will be put back in by Pelosi and company.
Net gain... ZERO.
Elliot
That's my prediction as well.
galveston
Aug 13, 2009, 03:52 PM
Here's the thing about this health bill.
Many things can be changed or omitted from the bill by either the House or Senate, but that means NOTHING.
It can be fully reconstituted in COMMITTEE to reconcile the two versions.
If you are a Communist, you probably will love it. At least until you find out how badly it will work in practice.
paraclete
Aug 13, 2009, 03:58 PM
No ;it's a ponzi scheme because the money does not go to a trust fund to manage the program .Instead it gets pooled into general revenues so the government can make it's deficit numbers look better than it really is. It is theft pure and simple. Like a ponzi scheme the early participants are getting a payout from the program but it will indeed be insolvent by the time the next generation's time for a payout is due.
All taxation is theft, Tom, legalised theft. I thought the citizens of the US once understood that better than most. Even if contributions go into a trust fund or pool, they will inevitiably be inadequate because of aging and more people joining the scheme so if a government just gets on with the business of governing whilst meeting the obligation, isn't this what they were elected for?
Making the deficit numbers look better, that's the problem with deficit budgeting which is often brought on by lowering taxes while continuing the largess of government. But you can have lower taxes and the largess of government, it was proven in my own nation up to a couple of years ago, but of course, all that is lost now, when government largess has gone to insane levels.
If you are to have some form of universal health care over there you have to bite the bullet and begin to control the cost side of the equation. The regime of testing to cover off the doctors liability rather than clinical need should be addressed, as should capping liability and restricting the take of the legal profession in medical matters.
andrewc24301
Aug 13, 2009, 06:48 PM
If you are to have some form of universal health care over there you have to bite the bullet and begin to control the cost side of the equation. The regime of testing to cover off the doctors liability rather than clinical need should be addressed, as should capping liability and restricting the take of the legal profession in medical matters.
Well put
tomder55
Aug 14, 2009, 03:27 AM
If you are to have some form of universal health care over there you have to bite the bullet and begin to control the cost side of the equation. The regime of testing to cover off the doctors liability rather than clinical need should be addressed, as should capping liability and restricting the take of the legal profession in medical matters.
yes... ask Excon for his rebuttal . He doesn't think there are unintended consequences when doctors have to allot for "cover your a$$ " (excess expenditures on liability insurance ;too many diagnostic tests performed ) .
The funny thing is that if we ever had single-payer socialists care one of the 1st measures they'd insititute is tort reform because of the cost issue.
ETWolverine
Aug 14, 2009, 06:24 AM
Here's the thing about this health bill.
Many things can be changed or omitted from the bill by either the House or Senate, but that means NOTHING.
It can be fully reconstituted in COMMITTEE to reconcile the two versions.
If you are a Communist, you probably will love it. At least until you find out how badly it will work in practice.
Agreed.
ETWolverine
Aug 14, 2009, 06:36 AM
If you are to have some form of universal health care over there you have to bite the bullet and begin to control the cost side of the equation. The regime of testing to cover off the doctors liability rather than clinical need should be addressed, as should capping liability and restricting the take of the legal profession in medical matters.
I agree.
Interestingly enough, they initiated tort reform at the state level in Texas.
The result was significantly lower medical costs for every procedure and an influx of roughly 7500 doctors into the state because of the favorable business environment for doctors.
As I have said before, medical malpractice insurance, the costs of defense against frivolous lawsuits, the costs of paying out to get rid of nuisance suits, and the costs of unnecessary testing as a CYA measure, make up over 60% of the rise in medical costs over the past 20 years. If we lower these costs, as they did in Tx, we lower the costs of medical care across the board.
It can work. It HAS worked. And it could work again.
But Obama won't try it because it is counterproductive to his REAL goal, which has NOTHING to do with health care reform, and everything to do with grabbing power.
Want more proof of that?
If Obama's goal was to lower medical costs, he could do it by making medical expenses pre-tax. That would automatically lower the effective cost of health care by 15-30% (depending on your tax bracket), and wouldn't cost anyone a dime.
Instead he's contemplating taxing the costs of certain medical procedures and taxing the pre-tax portion of medical insurance paid by employers. He's doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he should be doing to lower the costs of health care.
Clearly lowering health care costs is NOT his goal. Something else is. And the only possibility of what that could be is a power grab. There is NO OTHER POSSIBLE REASON for him to take the actions he is taking.
Elliot
speechlesstx
Aug 14, 2009, 08:54 AM
The Proctologist-in-Chief, the guy that will end doctors cutting off limbs and removing tonsils for fun and profit, has given us the ultimate reason to pass his plan (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Taking-Questions-on-Health-Reform-in-New-Hampshire/):
Now, when we pass health insurance reform, insurance companies will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. And we will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because no one in America should go broke because they get sick. (Applause.)
And finally -- this is important -- we will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies -- (applause) -- because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and prostate cancer on the front end. That makes sense, it saves lives; it also saves money -- and we need to save money in this health care system.
I didn't realize they were doing colonoscopies to check your prostate now but perhaps his plan is something like giving a prostate exam to the country.
According to the Hoover Institute Americans are already screened for such things at a much higher rate than Canadians (http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/49525427.html) already:
4. Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate, and colon cancer:
* Nine out of ten middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to fewer than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
* Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a Pap smear, compared to fewer than 90 percent of Canadians.
* More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a prostatespecific antigen (PSA) test, compared to fewer than one in six Canadians (16 percent).
* Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with fewer than one in twenty Canadians (5 percent).
I'm sure NK will correct them on that, but I believe it's probably accurate and I'd like to know how Obamacare will improve on those numbers?
inthebox
Aug 14, 2009, 04:22 PM
The Proctologist-in-Chief, the guy that will end doctors cutting off limbs and removing tonsils for fun and profit,
News from the American College of Surgeons: Statement from the American College of Surgeons Regarding Recent Comments from President Obama (http://www.facs.org/news/obama081209.html)
When the President makes statements that are incorrect or not based in fact, we think he does a disservice to the American people at a time when they want clear, understandable facts about health care reform. We want to set the record straight.
Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon’s decision to remove a child’s tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do. Surgeons make decisions about recommending operations based on what’s right for the patient.
We agree with the President that the best thing for patients with diabetes is to manage the disease proactively to avoid the bad consequences that can occur, including blindness, stroke, and amputation. But as is the case for a person who has been treated for cancer and still needs to have a tumor removed, or a person who is in a terrible car crash and needs access to a trauma surgeon, there are times when even a perfectly managed diabetic patient needs a surgeon. The President’s remarks are truly alarming and run the risk of damaging the all-important trust between surgeons and their patients.
We assume that the President made these mistakes unintentionally, but we would urge him to have his facts correct before making another inflammatory and incorrect statement about surgeons and surgical care.
First it was the Cambridge cops acting stupidly, now it is the greedy surgeons.
What group will be next in this administrations hit list?
When Sarah Palin made the outrageous "death panel" comment, a lot of folks were taken aback, yet section 1233 of HR 3200 was removed ? The popular media thinks she and those who question Obamacare are spreading "lies," but the reality is Obama cannot even get his facts right. Either Obama is ignorant as to checking the facts or he maliciously makes up things to support his agenda.
G&P
tomder55
Aug 15, 2009, 04:02 AM
A small victory?
Finance Committee to drop end-of-life provision (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/finance-committee-to-drop-end-of-life-provision-2009-08-13.html)
The Death Panel ;as Sarah Palin correctly identifies it is already the law as of the bucket list stimulus bill. They snuck it into the bill .It allocates $1.1 billion for it's funding .
It is called the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The Council is the brain child of Tom Daschle.
I had forgotten about it ;but former NY Lt. Guv. Betsy McCaughey wrote about it in Feb.
Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey - Bloomberg.com (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs)
The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle's book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.
Elderly Hardest Hit
Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.
The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle's book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.
Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration's health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”
So there you have it. They can easily remove the Death Panels from the bill... because it has already been passed into law.
speechlesstx
Aug 15, 2009, 05:44 AM
So there you have it. They can easily remove the Death Panels from the bill.....because it has already been passed into law.
Nice catch tom.
excon
Aug 15, 2009, 08:08 AM
The Death Panel ;as Sarah Palin correctly identifies it is already the law as of the bucket list stimulus bill. Hello tom:
I heard they're changing it a little bit. They're going to kill conservatives instead of old people... I'm going to march on Washington, and yell at my congressman...
excon
excon
Aug 15, 2009, 08:11 AM
Hello again:
Let me conclude my participation in this thread with my final post on the subject.
If you tell a lie enough times, it becomes the truth... I can't debate a lie. If you're going to LIE after you've seen the WORDS, then I can't do nothing for you, except to say that you deserve each other... You're a miserable lot.
excon
galveston
Aug 15, 2009, 08:31 AM
Ex, I think you like a challenge. I can't help wonder if it were an earlier age if you would attack a windmill just for the fun of it.
(All in good humor!)
paraclete
Aug 15, 2009, 03:47 PM
Ex, I think you like a challenge. I can't help wonder if it were an earlier age if you would attack a windmill just for the fun of it.
(All in good humor!)
He doesn't have to go far these days to find a windmill to tilt at, they are back in vogue you know; dirty great things with 50 metre blades standing on the hillsides like something out of War of the Worlds.
Now what was Ex's position on climate change again?
tomder55
Aug 16, 2009, 03:17 AM
Perhaps "death panel" is inflammatory rhetoric, but you can trust that tradeoffs with costs as the driver will be the determining factor to the inevidible rationing of care to the elderly decisions by the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research .
eforbriger
Aug 16, 2009, 09:22 AM
my plan for the uninsured and those willing to ask for help
As Jesus reportedly said, "the poor you will always have with you".
Health treatment and care is expensive. Excellent care is even more expensive, but in many cases it is priceless, kind of like life. No matter what system is adopted, the employed and able and the rich will pay for the health care costs for those who are unable.
They do not have to be forced.
If we are able to protect the system that has resulted in the most technologically advanced, ecologically considerate, and free people in the history of life on earth, then we will also continue to have rich people, lots of 'em, and under this meritocracy we have, most of these people will be the finest individuals to walk the earth.
Our system and evolution of our values and beliefs has resulted in the world's most charitable humans.
At present, in our country, no person is ever denied needed care, but it is often inefficiently provided under our economic system.
Everyone has a pre-existing medical condition of some kind.
And of course, thanks to Al Gore, we have the Interwebs. Social networking (used to be called communication) has evolved to a previously unimaginable level of efficiency and ease of use, The needs of our fellow man can be communicated in great detail to vast numbers of people of all levels of income, knowledge, and passion to be helpful.
This leads me to propose a method to deliver the means of solving health care dilemmas in a way that fits the ideals of limited government that have peacefully revolutionized the world. This method includes a highly secure, Internet based, communication network along the models of Facebook, MySpace, Linkedin, etc.
1. Every person may create an individual health savings investment account (HSIA) that can grow through interest and capital gains tax free. This money may only be spent on legitimate medical expenses, safe and medically effective pharmacueticals, treatments and therapies prescribed by doctors.
2. Every person may make tax deductible charitable donations to their own or any one else's HSIA in any amount.
3. Private for profit health insurance companies may continue to deny coverage for treatment of pre-existing conditions. This will result in the most economical insurance premiums for everyone in a very fair way. The luck of the draw cannot be legislated away.
4. Money in HSIA accounts may be spent on medical care for these un-insured conditions at the choice of the individual.
5. Money in the HSIA may be used to pay premiums on any level of insurance policy desired.
6. Every individual that is accepting donations must allow the donors to view his/her medical history and expense receipts.
7. Within the individuals "page", individuals may present the life conditions that they face and with which they deal, along with appropriate evidence, so that donors may feel confident that they are not being scammed and their money is not better spent elsewhere.
8. At an individual's passing from life, the charitable donations and the accrued interest and gain on those donations that remain in his/her's HSIA after reasonable funeral expenses become the property of a fund that the government uses to initialize and manage HSIA's for helpless people.
This plan is dedicated to the memory of the Honorable Jack Kemp.
It is my hope that persons more intelligent than myself will criticize at will so that together we can maybe make it work.
Regards,
Eric R. Forbriger, P.E.