So you just come here to call people lying SOB's and Nazis...Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
|
So you just come here to call people lying SOB's and Nazis...Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
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.
Just for grins, 2 WaPo columnists who are anything but conservative lackeys have now commented on section 1233. First, Charles Lane:
Eugene Robinson:Quote:
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.
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.
If they can admit we have a point when will you?Quote:
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.
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.
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
I 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I suppose there is no one there to censor your pablum.
Kind of like telling us that invoking Nazis means you're uneducated and don't have an argument and then calling Elliot a Nazi?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yea, that's it! Got to go heat up my Pablum.
Yeah, like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hey I though you had a "free" country over there:)Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
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.
A small victory?
Finance Committee to drop end-of-life provision
Quote:
"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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Well put
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 ) .Quote:
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.
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.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
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
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:
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.Quote:
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.
According to the Hoover Institute Americans are already screened for such things at a much higher rate than Canadians already:
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?Quote:
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).
News from the American College of Surgeons: Statement from the American College of Surgeons Regarding Recent Comments from President ObamaQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Quote:
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
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 .Quote:
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
So there you have it. They can easily remove the Death Panels from the bill... because it has already been passed into law.Quote:
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.”
Nice catch tom.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Now what was Ex's position on climate change again?
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 .
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.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:33 PM. |