Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Obamas Healthcare Plan (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=412092)

  • Nov 12, 2009, 12:44 PM
    tomder55
    This is what the CBO wrote in 1994 when Hillarycare would've done the same thing as Pelosi-care's mandatory purchase does.
    A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”


    The people at CNS News has been asking the people in Congress where is the Constitutional mandate for forcing people to buy health insurance.

    The answers have varied from admissions they they have never read the Constitution ;to dismissals like Madame Mimi did (Are you serious? );to silly comments about setting speed limits... and vague comparisons to Congress' authority to raise an Army by using the draft.

    The truth is that never before has Congress ever mandated the purchase of a service for the purpose of lawfull residency in the country .

    They can claim broad authority all they want under Article 1 Sec 8 necessary and proper clause ;the abuse of the commerce clause;or even under a vaguer claim of providing for the general welfare .But that doesn't make it so.

    If there is no limits to what power they can claim under that Section then their powers are unlimitted instead of few and enumerated and NOTHING would be outside Congressional authority.
  • Nov 12, 2009, 01:59 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    .

    This is actually an interesting development, could Obama's healthcare plan be "the mark of the beast" and is Obama the beast?
  • Nov 12, 2009, 02:01 PM
    speechlesstx
    And that's what amazes me about a guy like ex being so intent on passing this disaster. I guess all those years of whining about Bush destroying our liberties were just for show.

    By the way Ex, is this what you mean by saving money? Americans for Tax Reform listed the new taxes attached to Pelosi's Christmas present that will send us free people to jail if we refuse to buy her 'gift' (can we possibly get any more Orwellian than what the Dems are pawing on us this year?). They missed one new tax though:

    Quote:

    House Democrats are funding their new entitlement with a 5.4% surtax on incomes above $500,000 for individuals and above $1 million for joint filers. The surcharge is intended to snag the greatest number of taxpayers to raise some $460.5 billion, and so the House has written it to apply to modified adjusted gross income. That means it includes both capital gains and dividends.

    That surtax takes effect on January 1, 2011, or the day the Bush tax rates of 2001 and 2003 expire. Today's capital gains tax rate of 15% would bounce back to 20% because of the Bush repeal and then to 25.4% with the surtax. That's a 69% increase, overnight.
    Tell us again how this is going to save money? That light at the end of the tunnel you see is a train.

    http://www.spoiltvictorianchild.co.u...log/Tunnel.jpg
  • Nov 12, 2009, 03:49 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post

    That light at the end of the tunnel you see is a train.

    http://www.spoiltvictorianchild.co.u...log/Tunnel.jpg

    But what is the government to do? No Money, spending programs, where else do you get it but to tax the rich and anyone who can make a capital gain in this environment should be taxed for exploitation. The time has come for those who benefit to pay the bill, no more robbing from the poor to pay the rich, perhaps someone has truly seen the light:)
  • Nov 12, 2009, 03:58 PM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    But what is the government to do? No Money, spending programs, where else do you get it but to tax the rich and anyone who can make a capital gain in this environment should be taxed for exploitation. The time has come for those who benefit to pay the bill, no more robbing from the poor to pay the rich, perhaps someone has truly seen the light:)

    Tax the rich to feed the poor, till there are no rich no more...

    Brilliant.
  • Nov 12, 2009, 05:37 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    Tax the rich to feed the poor,

    Brilliant.

    Yes it is absolutely brilliant and look what it did for the Soviet Union. How does it go?

    "sic semper tyrannus" and that includes the rich.

    You can always tax the rich without killing them. The object is to fleece the sheep with the minimum of bleeting. If you guys kept sheep over there you would understand the principle
  • Nov 13, 2009, 12:57 AM
    phlanx

    I believe taxing the rich for the poor is and always has been a terrible idea, rather provide them tax breaks for employing more people

    This will provide the rich with an oppurtunity to choose from while at the same time increase the number of jobs available and therefore reduce the social fund

    But then this would require government intervention and we all know where Elliot lies with this
  • Nov 13, 2009, 01:09 AM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by phlanx View Post
    I believe taxing the rich for the poor is and always has been a terrible idea, rather provide them tax breaks for employing more poeple

    This will provide teh rich with an oppurtunity to choose from while at the same time increase the number of jobs available and therefore reduce the social fund

    But then this would require government intervention and we all know where Elliot lies with this

    What a stupid idea, the rich will always act in their own interest so you suggest subsidising employment, you may as well have the government nationalise industries and run them. Would you like to tell me why governments flee the idea of nationalised industries so popular in the UK of the past.

    The burden of taxation should fall on those who derive the greatest benefit, who is this if not the rich. People are not cannon fodder for industry, so how do we tax the rich and provide more jobs, we don't give them tax breaks we impose tarriffs on cheap imports until there is no price advantage to importing and not making locally. This is called by some protectionism but it solves the problem of outsourcing to low cost countries and stops the migration of industries.
  • Nov 13, 2009, 03:41 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    The burden of taxation should fall on those who derive the greatest benefit, who is this if not the rich.
    See my post about NY State . There is a wealth flight out of the state that is making the overall fiscal problems in the state much worse.
    Maybe you have read 'Atlas Shrugged' .Eventually the rich and the productive people flocked to Galt's Gulch away from the Sheriff of Nottinghams who run the government .
  • Nov 13, 2009, 04:36 AM
    inthebox
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    But what is the government to do? No Money, spending programs, where else do you get it but to tax the rich and anyone who can make a capital gain in this environment should be taxed for exploitation. The time has come for those who benefit to pay the bill, no more robbing from the poor to pay the rich, perhaps someone has truly seen the light:)

    The Top 10 Percent of Income Earners Paid 71 Percent of Federal Income Tax

    Clete, your ignorance of the American tax system is truly astounding:


    Quote:


    The top 1 percent of income earners paid 40 percent of all federal income taxes in 2006, while the bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent. Further, 32 percent of all tax returns with positive adjusted gross incomeTotal income (before subtracting deductions or taxes) minus deductions. 43 million total, filed in 2006 were from people who paid no federal income tax at all.




    Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What

    Bottom 50% pay 3% of taxes, the top 50% pay 97%





    G&P
  • Nov 13, 2009, 08:49 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    Yes it is absolutely brilliant and look what it did for the Soviet Union. How does it go?

    "sic semper tyrannus" and that includes the rich.

    You can always tax the rich without killing them. The object is to fleece the sheep with the minimum of bleeting. If you guys kept sheep over there you would understand the principle

    Yeah... cause fleecing the sheep is a great way of creating new jobs and getting the economy back on its feet.

    I have never seen a poor person who created a job. Rich people create jobs. But if you tax them MORE (aka "fleece them"), they create FEWER jobs. And since the priority for the economy should be job creation, taxing the rich more is what is known in economic circles as a Bad Idea.

    Elliot
  • Nov 13, 2009, 08:53 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by phlanx View Post
    I believe taxing the rich for the poor is and always has been a terrible idea, rather provide them tax breaks for employing more poeple

    This will provide teh rich with an oppurtunity to choose from while at the same time increase the number of jobs available and therefore reduce the social fund

    But then this would require government intervention and we all know where Elliot lies with this

    They don't need to provide tax breaks for employing more people. They just need to lower taxes across the board... in other words, they need to DECREASE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION VIA TAXATION.

    Government intervention in either direction (either pro business or against business) is equally wrong.

    You almost had it right...

    Elliot
  • Nov 13, 2009, 10:07 AM
    phlanx

    Trade Issues Key To Obama's Asia Trip Agenda - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 2009

    So the government shouldn't intervene or encourage - then why is the president going to asia?
  • Nov 13, 2009, 10:13 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by phlanx View Post
    Trade Issues Key To Obama's Asia Trip Agenda - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 2009

    So the government shouldnt intervene or encourage - then why is the president going to asia?

    My understanding is that he's there to "shore up our alliances with foreign governments". At least that's what he's saying officially.

    Unofficially? He's going there to make sure that Japan and China continue to lend us money so that he can continue to spend it on his assinine ideas about domestic wealth redistribution.

    Government intervention strikes again.

    Elliot
  • Nov 13, 2009, 10:20 AM
    phlanx

    So why would the president do that if government intervention is bad in your eyes?

    Is it a case that your opinons not suit the modern world of market and trade?
  • Nov 13, 2009, 11:41 AM
    speechlesstx

    "More Americans now say it is not the federal government's responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage (50%) than say it is (47%)."

    And yet, the push continues...
  • Nov 13, 2009, 01:36 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by inthebox View Post
    The Top 10 Percent of Income Earners Paid 71 Percent of Federal Income Tax

    Clete, your ignorance of the American tax system is truly astounding:


    Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What

    Bottom 50% pay 3% of taxes, the top 50% pay 97%


    G&P

    Maybe you haven't heard of the 80-20 rule but it holds generally true of any population but you cannot increase the taxation on the low end because those with the ability to pay don't like paying
  • Nov 15, 2009, 11:36 AM
    amdeist
    No healthcare plan that involves trial lawyers, fraud, waste, capitalist insurance companies, capitalist pharmaceutical companies, healthcare lobbyists, uncontrollable costs, etc. can ever be implemented without bankrupting America. It would be wonderful if every American could have access to primary health care, but that is not a viable alternative, if for no other reason, that there aren't enough primary health care providers to meet the needs of our population. Although many Americans, including beneficiaries of the government health care system, believe that it is a bad system, there is almost no fraud, few trial lawyers, very controllable costs, and none of the capitalism that exists in our civilian system. Implementing a system where pre-existing conditions are covered will cause insurance companies to be selective about who they insure, just as we do in the auto and home insurance industries. Until we are ready to bite the bullet and get insurance companies out of our health care system, there is nothing our leaders can do to fix our current problems, they can only put band aids on what has become a gaping chest wound.
  • Nov 15, 2009, 10:09 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    Yeah... cause fleecing the sheep is a great way of creating new jobs and getting the economy back on its feet.

    I have never seen a poor person who created a job. Rich people create jobs. But if you tax them MORE (aka "fleece them"), they create FEWER jobs. And since the priority for the economy should be job creation, taxing the rich more is what is known in economic circles as a Bad Idea.

    Elliot

    You don't get it Elliot, tax doesn't drive the business, that's the second rule of business, the first rule is get as much as you can. So long as tax isn't 100% you are ahead. Look at the stupid ideas you have where employers pay for health care, that can't be good for business, just government abdicating their responsibility. Employers will only add to the payroll if it produces more profit and to do that you have to produce more sales which is determined by the market not the government. For heaven sake put you head in an economics text book for a change. What is needed is to remove all the barriers to employment not just lower taxes
  • Nov 16, 2009, 08:18 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by phlanx View Post
    So why would the president do that if government intervention is bad in your eyes?

    Because he's a socialist. A statist. A Marxist. He is NOT a supporter of the Constitution and never has been. He has been in favor of wealth redistribution from the start, despit the fact that the Constitution prohibits the seizure of private assets for the purpose of giving those assets to other private individuals (which is the form of wealth redistribution that he favors). That is what we on the right have been saying for close to a year now. Why are you having trouble understanding this fact?

    Just because Obama is doing it doesn't make him right.

    Elliot
  • Nov 16, 2009, 08:31 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    You don't get it Elliot, tax doesn't drive the business, that's the second rule of business, the first rule is get as much as you can. so long as tax isn't 100% you are ahead. Look at the stupid ideas you have where employers pay for health care, that can't be good for business, just government abdicating their responsibility. Employers will only add to the payroll if it produces more profit and to do that you have to produce more sales which is determined by the market not the government. For heaven sake put you head in an economics text book for a change. What is needed is to remove all the barriers to employment not just lower taxes

    Really?

    Can you name a single business in the United States that isn't affected by tax policy?

    Can you name a single business that hires MORE people when taxes go up?

    Of course businesses are out to make as much as they can for themselves. But they do so by PRODUCING AND SELLING PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. The more product they can sell, the more that they need to produce. The lower the taxes, the more that they can sell, and the more people they hire to produce.

    This is simple supply-and-demand economics. The more money people have in their pockets, the more stuff they buy, thus increasing demand. The more the demand, the more that suppliers have the produce to meet the demand. The more they have to produce, the more people they need to hire to meet production demands. The more people they hire, the more people that can afford to buy more stuff... which increases demand all the more. The more that people and businesses earn, the more the government takes in taxes... even when rates are lower, the government ends up making more.

    To say that tax policy doesn't drive businesses is foolish. You are quite correct that it won't drive a single business... but tax policy drives the ECONOMY AS A WHOLE, and that economic movement drives individual businesses.

    Elliot
  • Nov 16, 2009, 01:08 PM
    phlanx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ;
    Extract from bbc blog - today Monday

    Do we need a new name for the kind of economy we live in today? I ask because it's becoming a bit of an issue.

    20th anniversary celebrations of the fall of the Berlin WallWe started the week celebrating the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. It was, everyone agreed, ironic to be marking the fall of communism, when less than a year ago capitalism itself had seemed to be on its knees.

    Capitalism has survived. But it's not the capitalism we thought we had. When you consider the scale and scope of government involvement in most of the advanced economies right now, "free market capitalism" seems a bit of a stretch.

    Today we had confirmation that the eurozone economy had moved out of recession in the third quarter. But the public sector was almost entirely responsible for the modest growth that the major European countries have achieved since the spring.

    The last 20 years were supposed to be about the end of the era of big government. And yet, public borrowing in the leading "free market" economies - Britain and the US - has never been as high as it is today, outside times of war.

    You might see that as the statistical counterpart to the intellectual journey that economists have been forced to make as a result of the crisis, which I discussed on my radio programme last week (Analysis: The Economist's New Clothes).

    Mainstream economists didn't assume that markets - or their participants - were perfect. But for decades they did assume, in effect, that they were good enough: that markets were competitive enough, and people were rational and well-informed enough, for market-led outcome usually to turn out best. Especially in matters of finance.

    Now, it turns out that real-life financial markets were much, much, messier than they thought - and much much worse at self-regulation. The biggest short-term consequence of that mistake is that the government has suddenly become responsible for most of our economic growth.

    In the US, economists agree that without the federal stimulus package, the US would still technically be in recession.

    We're getting used to this post-crisis landscape. But don't forget to be surprised that decades of the "free market" have ended up here.

    John Cassidy tells the story in How Markets Fail: the Logic of Economics Calamities. There have been plenty of books about the crisis landing on my desk in recent weeks, but Cassidy's is the only one I've seen that pulls together the what and the why quite so clearly. He covers some of the same ground as my programme, but in much more depth.

    Adam SmithHe reminds us that Adam Smith himself was very sceptical about leaving the financial system to its own devices. So was another fan of free markets, John Stuart Mill.

    As Cassidy comments:

    "[T]he combination of a Fed that can print money, deposit insurance, and a Congress that can authorize bailouts provides an extensive safety net for big financial firms. In such an environment, pursuing a policy of easy money plus deregulation doesn't amount to free market economics: it's a form of crony capitalism."

    The outcome, he says, it's not just unfair - it doesn't work.

    John Lanchester, the London Review of Books' chronicler of the crisis, said recently that "bankocracy" might be a better name for the current system.

    If you think that sounds inflammatory, remember that Mervyn King, Lord Turner and Martin Wolf of the FT have all made essentially the same point. Unless the rules of the game change fundamentally, it's not really capitalism that we have today. Especially not for banks.

    Any other ideas for a new name?
  • Nov 16, 2009, 02:03 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    Really?

    Can you name a single business in the United States that isn't affected by tax policy?

    Can you name a single business that hires MORE people when taxes go up?


    Elliot do you work at being obtruse? It is not a question of whether a business is subject to taxes, but whether they devote themselves to minimising taxes or growing the business. Tax affects the flow of cash to investors but unless you are in a down turn shouldn't affect the business persee, and the business should not devote itsself to managing the tax position to the exclusion of more important considerations

    Quote:

    Of course businesses are out to make as much as they can for themselves. But they do so by PRODUCING AND SELLING PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. The more product they can sell, the more that they need to produce. The lower the taxes, the more that they can sell, and the more people they hire to produce.
    Do you really believe that if there were no taxes there would be higher sales? I expect that is what comes of living in a consumption mad economy. The reality is that people buy stuff for a reason, not just because it is there, so if tax rates are adjusted you might get a small flush of demand but once demand is satisfied...


    Quote:

    To say that tax policy doesn't drive businesses is foolish. You are quite correct that it won't drive a single business... but tax policy drives the ECONOMY AS A WHOLE, and that economic movement drives individual businesses.

    Elliot
    Yes tax policy drives the economy, it is one of the fiscal measures a government uses to modify demand. Sadly politicians have taken this tool away by capriciously lowering tax rates and limiting the way this tool can be used. Tax policy shouldn't drive business investment decisions but some governments have given incentives for business to invest in assets as part of their stimulus. This is what I mean by tax shouldn't drive the business. The decision to invest should be made for reasons other than there is a tax advantage. It should be made because there is a real need to help the company meet demand and compete.

    You have mixed up the considerations of what will drive consumer demand with what impact tax policy will have on an individual business. Tax doesn't create business and neither does lack of tax. In my own economy I have seen politicians claim that implementation of the Goods and Service Tax created more than a million jobs when all it did was replace an inefficient tax system with a simpler and more efficient one. The only jobs it created were for accountants, it didn't create demand.
  • Nov 16, 2009, 02:35 PM
    inthebox

    Quote:


    Do you really believe that if there were no taxes there would be higher sales? I expect that is what comes of living in a consumption mad economy. The reality is that people buy stuff for a reason, not just because it is there, so if tax rates are adjusted you might get a small flush of demand but once demand is satisfied...

    And most people buy something based on price and perceived value. Ideally, producers of goods and services would never have to worry about tax issues, but we do. First, I'm not going to produce something or give a service if there is no demand. Demand is in part created by price, the more expensive the less demand, the less expensive the more the demand. Price is affected by the cost to produce or give a service. If taxes increase the cost to produce or give a service, it will increase the price of that good and service and decrease demand.

    I'm no ceo, but what business does not take tax into consideration, or only looks at the tax angle? What of management, production, marketing, financing? Tax is just one part of a whole host of factors to consider. If you ignore it though, you will not be in business, but you can bet your last dollar that your competitors are considering tax issues.

    On the consumption side of the equation:
    if there were no income tax, no sales tax, I would have 50% more money, and so would a lot of people. Hmmmmm what am I going to do with all that extra money? Consume, save, invest. And so would many others. This alone would increase sales.



    G&P
  • Nov 16, 2009, 03:08 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    Yes tax policy drives the economy, it is one of the fiscal measures a government uses to modify demand. Sadly politicians have taken this tool away by capriciously lowering tax rates and limiting the way this tool can be used.

    The unintended (or perhaps it is intended) consequence of government intervention is generally higher taxes AND higher prices. Drug companies are already raising prices on drugs ahead of Obamacare. Businesses will pass on any tax increase to the consumer, and when the cost of goods increases while our income decreases that leaves us in a huge mess... but it certainly "modifies demand."
  • Nov 17, 2009, 12:02 AM
    rosemcs

    As of July 1, 2009, Medi Cal (Denti Cal) does not cover dental work to be done on anyone over the age of 21... unless you want a tooth pulled or are pregnant. Have you seen how expensive dental work is? How will a lower paid citizen afford these bills now?

    Hmm, oral hygiene is not even an issue for the current governor of CA... they don't have the $$$... and if the federal government doesn't have the $$$ to give CA right now, how will they get it later?

    There is only one place for them to get the $$$ for healthcare. Our pockets.
  • Nov 17, 2009, 09:38 AM
    speechlesstx

    It begins - federal panel recommends reducing mammograms.

    Quote:

    Women in their 40s should stop routinely having annual mammograms and older women should cut back to one scheduled exam every other year, an influential federal task force has concluded, challenging the use of one of the most common medical tests.

    In its first reevaluation of breast cancer screening since 2002, the independent government-appointed panel recommended the changes, citing evidence that the potential harm to women having annual exams beginning at age 40 outweighs the benefit.

    Coming amid a highly charged national debate over health-care reform and simmering suspicions about the possibility of rationing medical services, the recommendations immediately became enveloped in controversy.

    "We're not saying women shouldn't get screened. Screening does saves lives," said Diana B. Petitti, vice chairman of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which released the recommendations Monday in a paper being published in Tuesday's Annals of Internal Medicine. "But we are recommending against routine screening. There are important and serious negatives or harms that need to be considered carefully."

    Several patient advocacy groups and many breast cancer experts welcomed the new guidelines, saying they represent a growing recognition that more testing, exams and treatment are not always beneficial and, in fact, can harm patients. Mammograms produce false-positive results in about 10 percent of cases, causing anxiety and often prompting women to undergo unnecessary follow-up tests, sometimes-disfiguring biopsies and unneeded treatment, including surgery, radiation and chemotherapy.

    But the American Cancer Society, the American College of Radiology and other experts condemned the change, saying the benefits of routine mammography have been clearly demonstrated and play a key role in reducing the number of mastectomies and the death toll from one of the most common cancers.

    "Tens of thousands of lives are being saved by mammography screening, and these idiots want to do away with it," said Daniel B. Kopans, a radiology professor at Harvard Medical School. "It's crazy -- unethical, really."

    The new guidelines also recommend against teaching women to do regular self-exams and concluded that there is insufficient evidence to recommend that doctors do the exams or to continue routine mammograms beyond age 74...

    While annual mammography for all women beginning at age 40 reduced the death rate from breast cancer by at least 15 percent, the modeling studies indicated that the added benefit of starting before age 50 was modest, the researchers concluded.

    For every 1,000 women screened beginning at age 40, the modeling suggested that just about 0.7 deaths from breast cancer would be prevented, while about 470 additional women would receive a false-positive result and about 33 more would undergo unnecessary biopsies.
    What? I thought we were going to save billions of dollars with preventive medicine under Obamacare, now they don't even want women to bother with self-exams? When a woman reaches 74 does her risk of breast cancer just disappear? Is your grandma or that one in a thousand woman under 50 not worth saving? How does health care 'modeling' work, is it anywhere near as accurate as climate change 'modeling?'
  • Nov 17, 2009, 10:05 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    It begins - federal panel recommends reducing mammograms....

    now they don't even want women to bother with self-exams?

    Hello again, Steve:

    Hmmm.. I see now how you turned end of life counseling into death panels...

    excon
  • Nov 17, 2009, 10:23 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, Steve:

    Hmmm.. I see now how you turned end of life counseling into death panels...

    excon

    No, what you are seeing is how the GOVERNMENT is going to turn life counseling into death panels. Speech just happens to be one of the guys pointing it out.

    Keep in mind that these changes in mamograms were determined via computer modeling... brought to you by the same people who brought us computer modeling on global warming. With about the same level of accuracy. Which is to say NONE AT ALL.

    So... we now have a health bill that talks about the government determining what procedures, therapies and medicines it will cover based on age, cost, and anything OTHER THAN THE ACTUAL NEEDS OF THE PATIENT.

    We have evidence from foreign governments that THEY determine what they will cover based on age, cost and anything other than the actual needs of the patients, ei: NICE in the UK.

    We have the words of the architects of the health care bill talking about limiting what the government will cover based on age, cost and anything other than the acutal needs of the patients.

    And NOW we have the government actually putting out a study limiting mamograms based on age, cost and anything other than the actual needs of the patients.

    In the face of this overwhelming evidence of what the government is doing and what it plans to do, how can anyone argue that these AREN'T DEATH PANELS?

    Elliot
  • Nov 17, 2009, 10:25 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, Steve:

    Hmmm.. I see now how you turned end of life counseling into death panels...

    I can't help if it you can't see the logical result of Obamacare.

    "The core problem with government-run health care is that it doesn't make decisions in the best interests of patients, but in the best interests of government."
  • Nov 17, 2009, 10:43 AM
    excon

    Hello again, Righty's:

    The point I was trying to make is that words DO count. They actually convey a particular meaning. If I say black, and you say I said white, it wouldn't be correct.

    When the report said that mammograms should be conducted every two years instead of one, it DIDN'T say that a woman shouldn't do self exams...

    If somebody said that the report says that, they wouldn't be correct.

    Now, if you want to MAKE UP what it says, that's cool. I'm used to that. But, you're going to get called on it.

    excon

    PS> Wouldn't you rather talk about politics instead of 9th grade English?
  • Nov 17, 2009, 11:02 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    The point I was trying to make is that words DO count. They actually convey a particular meaning. If I say black, and you say I said white, it wouldn't be correct.

    You mean words like "comparative effectiveness," "overseas contingency operations," and the new euphemism for terrorism, “man-caused disasters?” When was the last time Congress passed an unambiguous bill? Thankfully you have us to read between the lines for you.

    Quote:

    When the report said that mammograms should be conducted every two years instead of one, it DIDN'T say that a woman shouldn't do self exams...

    If somebody said that the report says that, they wouldn't be correct.
    "The new guidelines also recommend against teaching women to do regular self-exams "

    You now stand corrected.
  • Nov 17, 2009, 12:38 PM
    ETWolverine

    And that, excon, is why you should try reading what we post. Yes, yes, I know it's so monotonous to have to read this stuff. But when the alternative is being wrong as often as you are...
  • Nov 17, 2009, 12:46 PM
    inthebox

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/712473

    This is a physician site so I'm not sure if you will see it but I will quote it


    Quote:


    The new USPSTF recommendations are in opposition to other existing breast cancer screening guidelines from organizations such as the American Cancer Society and the American College of Radiology, which have both criticized the new document. Several agencies and organizations, such as the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, have said they will continue to follow the American Cancer Society guidelines

    The USPTF's primary criteria is cost effectiveness. ACS is an organization that specifically deals with cancer and the people with cancer. You can see why their recommendations vary.



    Quote:


    Current evidence is now insufficient to evaluate additional benefits and harms of clinical breast examination (CBE) for women aged at least 40 years. This recommendation is a change from the 2002 statement, which endorsed mammography screening, with or without CBE, annually or biennially for women 40 years or older.



    Based on "insufficient evidence" they counter prior recommendations? When you think of it a breast self exam is 1] does not cost the patient or the taxpayor anything, so why rrecommend against it? 2] BSE may not be the most sensitive test for breast cancer but the fact that it empowers people to take an active role in their healthcare is a positive. Why discourage this?



    Quote:



    Specific Recommendations

    Specific recommendations of the USPSTF, and the accompanying strength of recommendations, were as follows:

    The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. Based on patient context, including patient values concerning specific benefits and harms, individual decisions should be made regarding starting regular, biennial screening mammography before age 50 years (grade C recommendation).
    Women aged 50 to 74 years should undergo biennial screening mammography (grade B recommendation).
    Current evidence is insufficient to determine additional benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older (I statement).
    In women 40 years or older, current evidence is insufficient to determine the additional benefits and harms of CBE beyond screening mammography (I statement).
    The USPSTF recommends against clinicians teaching women the technique of BSE (grade D recommendation).
    Current evidence is insufficient to determine additional benefits and harms of either digital mammography or MRI vs film mammography as screening modalities for breast cancer (I statement).




    . The reviewers found that for women aged 39 to 49 years, mammography screening was associated with a 15% decrease in breast cancer mortality rates(relative risk, 0.85; 95% credible interval, 0.75 - 0.96; 8 trials). However, data are lacking for women 70 years or older.

    Radiation exposure from mammography is low, and adverse experiences are common but transient and do not alter screening practices. The estimated rate of overdiagnosis from screening ranges from 1% to 10%. Compared with older women, younger women have more false-positive mammography results and additional imaging but fewer biopsies
  • Nov 17, 2009, 01:02 PM
    inthebox

    {continued}

    So despite acknowledging a 15% decrease in MORTALITY [ less death ] they recommend against it?

    CDC - Breast Cancer Rates by Age

    1.4% of women that are 40 will have breast cancer in the next 10 years


    To put the numbers more succinctly :

    Interpreting the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations for the General Population

    Quote:


    U.S. Census data demonstrate that there were 22,327,592 women aged 40-49 years in the United States as of July 1, 2008. Based on Surveillance Epidemiology and Results Program (SEER) data, breast cancer deaths expected over 10 years were estimated at 204 deaths per 100,000 women aged 40-49 years (including both screen-detected and nonscreen-detected breast cancer). This 10-year death rate leads to an estimate of 45,492 deaths of U.S. women aged 40-49 years from breast cancer over 10 years. With a relative risk of 0.85 for breast cancer mortality for women in their 40s screened by mammography, an estimated 38,668 deaths would occur in a screened population over 10 years, approximately 6,800 fewer deaths than expected with the 10-year death rate. The fewer deaths expected with screening compared to the predicted deaths demonstrates the significant benefit of screening on mortality in this age group.


    USPSTF is stating the "harm" caused by false positive [ positive test, no disease ] mamograms in this age group [ anxiety, repeat mamograms, biopsies ] is more than the DEATHS OF 6800 people? Remember men can get breast cancer also.


    So there you have it a "death panel"


    Notice how these recommendations are made, for or against, based on percentages and risks and odds. This applies to a population, statistically measured in the tens of thousands or more, but TO THE INDIVIDUAL the percentage is zero [ healthy ] or 100 % [ cancer ].





    G&P
  • Nov 17, 2009, 01:27 PM
    speechlesstx

    Here is the list of task force members. Not one of them is listed as an oncologist.
  • Nov 18, 2009, 11:34 AM
    speechlesstx

    Check out the winning video for the Obama permanent campaign's ad for Obamacare.



    By all means let's not try to get support on the merits, let's exploit children to dramatize fictional scenarios and win on emotion. Pathetic.
  • Nov 19, 2009, 08:25 AM
    speechlesstx
    As has become the norm (except for when it comes to actual public support for Obamacare itself), the Obama administration has backtracked and distanced itself from their panel's mammogram recommendations... but not before a gratuitous - and misdirected - attack on Fox News. Their "reality check" should have begun at the Washington Post, whose story is the one that generated the heat and the story I cited in this thread.

    HHS Sec Sebelius stated that the panel does not "set federal policy and they don’t determine what services are covered by the federal government.“

    WaPo disagreed, "under health-care reform legislation pending in Congress, the conclusions of the 16-member task force would set standards for what preventive services insurance plans would be required to cover at little or no cost.”

    I agree with WaPo and believe it shows that this administration continues to waffle, obfuscate and otherwise betray the American public just to get their 'signature' policy agendas passed. In other words, they don't care about you. ANY health care reform should have the patient's best interest at heart first, no? What, beyond providing insurance coverage to a few million people is in Obamcare that demonstrates the patient is most important?

    The argument for Obamacare seems to me to be it has to be done "just because." Nothing illustrates this better than the Rev. Jesse Jackson who criticized Rep. Artur Davis with, "you can't vote against health care and call yourself a black man."

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:56 PM.