Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=315319)

  • Feb 9, 2009, 02:50 PM
    speechlesstx
    Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan
    This is one way to force socialized medicine on us, hide it in the "stimulus" package.

    Quote:

    Commentary by Betsy McCaughey

    Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.

    Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.

    Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).

    The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

    But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

    Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

    New Penalties

    Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)

    What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.

    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.

    Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

    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.

    In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.

    Hidden Provisions

    If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

    The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

    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.”

    More Scrutiny Needed

    On Friday, President Obama called it “inexcusable and irresponsible” for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny.

    The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.

    (Betsy McCaughey is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed are her own.)
    As I noted before when tom touched on this, a lot of Americans (myself included) complain of insurance companies determining what treatments they’ll pay for. How do YOU feel about the feds making those decisions?

    As always I think congress should have to live under the rules they make so who’s going to be the first to lead by example and “be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them?” Byrd, Kennedy, Akaka? Who’s ready to sacrifice their mom or grandpa to stimulate the economy, anyone?
  • Feb 9, 2009, 03:44 PM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    a lot of Americans (myself included) complain of insurance companies determining what treatments they’ll pay for. How do YOU feel about the feds making those decisions?

    Hello speech:

    Me? I'd just as soon throw 'em BOTH out of the examination room... Then maybe we could afford health care.

    But, the right wing loves to have their buddies in the insurance industry checking out the diagnosis. I don't know why.

    excon
  • Feb 9, 2009, 04:02 PM
    Fr_Chuck

    There is already a natonal data base of your medical information, if your insurance paid for it,

    MIB ( not joking and no men in black jokes) it is where insurance companies look, just like your credit report, to find out about your health.
  • Feb 9, 2009, 04:08 PM
    Synnen

    I don't QUITE get why the government has to give stimulus checks, anyway.

    There HAS to be a better way to help our economy---maybe making more jobs somehow instead of just handing out money?

    The ENTIRE bill is irresponsible, in my opinion, and this health care reform tucked into it just makes it more so.

    And politicians wonder why we don't trust them.
  • Feb 9, 2009, 04:13 PM
    galveston
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Synnen View Post
    I don't QUITE get why the government has to give stimulus checks, anyway.

    there HAS to be a better way to help our economy---maybe making more jobs somehow instead of just handing out money?

    The ENTIRE bill is irresponsible, in my opinion, and this health care reform tucked into it just makes it more so.

    And politicians wonder why we dont' trust them.

    Excellent, Synnen! And just when you thought I was unreasonable! Just kidding!
  • Feb 9, 2009, 05:35 PM
    N0help4u

    It scares me because I can't even afford the health insurance that my work has which I would have to pay $100. Per month toward.
    I do not want health coverage. I do not need health coverage. I do not need the government mandating that I have health insurance that I am positive they will not make any cheaper for me than the plans that already exist.
  • Feb 9, 2009, 07:31 PM
    inthebox

    Steve:

    Its rationing, whether by government or insurance companies.

    And it will be rationing and inefficient until the third party is eliminated.


    Quote:


    Lowering the Cost of Health Care by Ron Paul


    The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone – doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies – to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high


    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------


    I'd suggest a two tier approach:

    Gov paid, preventative, evidenced based, primary health care
    With an electronic medical record [ like the VA has ].

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    Acute and hospital care via HSA.







    G&P
  • Feb 9, 2009, 07:40 PM
    N0help4u

    Most of the stimulus is benefiting government jobs and other countries,
    They said that most of the 20 million dollars going to electronic technology will provide jobs for other countries, Much of the sex education money will provide abortions and STD teaching for other countries,
  • Feb 9, 2009, 09:16 PM
    George_1950
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by N0help4u View Post
    ...I do not want health coverage. I do not need health coverage....

    I hope you do not own your home, and that you are renting.
  • Feb 10, 2009, 08:13 AM
    tomder55

    #18
    https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...-312404-2.html
  • Feb 10, 2009, 08:39 AM
    Synnen

    Does anyone else ever feel like they're stepping into the pages of "Atlas Shrugged"?
  • Feb 10, 2009, 09:00 AM
    tomder55

    Yes... I'm ready to do a Francisco d'Anconia if they try to seize my 401K .
  • Feb 10, 2009, 09:56 AM
    450donn

    Can there be anyone left in this country that actually believes Mr Nobama after last nights lies and deceit show for the left wing boobs? Especially after the revelation of how much junk and pork is really in this mess. Is this not simply a way for the left to jamb through all the socialistic agenda they have been trying to get for years.
  • Feb 10, 2009, 10:09 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 450donn View Post
    Is this not simply a way for the left to jamb through all the socialistic agenda they have been trying to get for years.

    Hello 450:

    It might be. But if the right hadn't screwed it up so much, the country wouldn't be handing Obama a blank check.

    excon
  • Feb 10, 2009, 02:14 PM
    450donn
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello 450:

    It might be. But if the right hadn't screwed it up so much, the country wouldn't be handing Obama a blank check.

    excon

    EC, For the love of God, PLEASE stop blaming one when clearly ALL had a part in this mess. And to hand the perpetrators of this mess more of our money is really insane!
  • Feb 10, 2009, 02:54 PM
    twinkiedooter

    Hey, I kind of like the idea of the Health Care Rationing (or guidelines for dispensing health or whatever they are going to call it).

    It seems like all these old people who are being kept alive due to milking the Medicare money won't be kept alive any longer. They will have to be happy being dead.

    The old folks who are living in nursing homes will be "evicted". This is now happening in some of the States out West - dumping granny and grandpa out of the nursing home via a hospital and not being allowed back in.

    The overmedicating of the old folks will save tons of dough. Giving them unneeded drugs for more health problems. Maybe they'll actually live longer if they are denied these drugs that cause other health problems. Who knows?

    But one part of the health restrictions I would love to see would be the complete denial of medical benefits (that includes free childbirth) to the illegal aliens. Just think what that would do for the general economy. It would keep the hospitals from having to overcharge the other patients for the deadbeats who don't pay their bills. (But then, that would be too easy, wouldn't it?) This would also curtail the illegal aliens from using the ER's as walk in clinics tying up valuable personnel for a case of the flu.

    It would preclude all unnecessary operations that could possibly save someone's life. It would probably also preclude all the overpriced cancer drugs and cancer operations leaving the cancer patients to actually die or get better. Is a life worth say $1,500 a month in prescription drugs? I don't know, but I'm sure going to find out shortly if this is going to be the case in this country.

    Also, the overmedicating of young children on the "psych" drugs would come to a crashing halt as too much money is being wasted on those programs. That means no more forced medication of the young.

    If the health restrictions were properly carried out and health care was not available free to the illegal aliens now living in this country, possibly they all just might go home to their own country. Now wouldn't that be grand?

    In order to receive any health care under the new rules a person would have to prove their citizenship in America in order to be treated. That's the way it is in Canada, Cuba, Russia and other countries that have Universal Health care from France to Italy. Why shouldn't America be any different in requiring proof of citizenship in order to receive free health care?

    Yes, a lot of people are going to fall through the cracks on this, but actually in the long run it will save money, lots of money. Maybe Big Pharma won't have to charge so much for drugs as they will be getting money directly from the government and not having to overcharge the patients for their prescription drugs.

    Oh, the doctors are not going to like this one iota as they won't be able to drive new Rolls Royces and taking trips on their new motoryachts every other jerk. They will have to live more within their means. But then, they won't have to pay huge malpractice premiums either.

    It would winnow out a lot of the medicare/medicaid fraud though and stop a lot of the doctor shopping that goes on with the drug addicts/drug dealers with the opiates.

    The only drawback I can see to this plan would be dental care. Are the dentists going to be included in this plan or not? If they don't have to belong, then what's going to happen if you can't find a dentist on the plan and have to end up pulling your own teeth like they do over in England because the person can't find a dentist on the NHS plan and has no money for a private dentist? That part really bothers me.

    P.S. It's a sure fire way of population culling in case you haven't figured this out yet.
  • Feb 10, 2009, 03:34 PM
    twinkiedooter
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 450donn View Post
    Can there be anyone left in this country that actually believes Mr Nobama after last nights lies and deceit show for the left wing boobs? Especially after the revelation of how much junk and pork is really in this mess. Is this not simply a way for the left to jamb through all the socialistic agenda they have been trying to get for years.


    Don - I actually had to laugh out loud a few times during the broadcast as his replies were so out of it. I did like the nice touch of the baseball player question. Who cared about him?

    The one part that really got me riled up was when he had the audacity to say that "no one was above the law". I guess that didn't mean him.
  • Feb 10, 2009, 04:03 PM
    N0help4u

    Today on Quinn & Rose they were talking about something even more scary hidden in the stimulus. They said that hidden in the "free" medical plan is a grid that determines IF THEY feel somebody should receive things like surgical procedures. If THEY feel that the amount outweighs your life expectancy then you do not qualify for the operation.
  • Feb 10, 2009, 04:09 PM
    galveston

    Yes, it appears that "1984" will get here at last. Aren't all of you Democrats thrilled?
  • Feb 10, 2009, 07:43 PM
    twinkiedooter
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by N0help4u View Post
    Today on Quinn & Rose they were talking about something even more scary hidden in the stimulus. They said that hidden in the "free" medical plan is a grid that determines IF THEY feel somebody should receive things like surgical procedures. If THEY feel that the amount outweighs your life expectancy then you do not qualify for the operation.

    NH4U - Like I said it's a way of culling the population.
  • Feb 11, 2009, 04:47 AM
    tomder55

    Quote:

    Today on Quinn & Rose they were talking about something even more scary hidden in the stimulus. They said that hidden in the "free" medical plan is a grid that determines IF THEY feel somebody should receive things like surgical procedures. If THEY feel that the amount outweighs your life expectancy then you do not qualify for the operation
    Sapph . I link to that on reply #18
  • Feb 11, 2009, 07:03 AM
    George_1950

    Here's one reason the Repubs are in such trouble today; Specter gets "Idiot of the Week Award" for saying "we need more time on the Stimulus Bill", and then voting for it.
    Video - Senator Specter on Health Care Stimulus - FNC - Congress
  • Feb 11, 2009, 09:33 AM
    tomder55
    He's also sucker of the week .
    House Democrats , on orders from Madame Mimi Pelosi, are working with Obama's staff (Rhambo)to restore many of the cuts made by Senate negotiators .

    They think that Specter and the 2 RINOS from Maine have some cover so they will vote for the revisions made in the Conference Committee.
    Specter ,Collins and Snowe were not notified of the House/White House moves.

    I heard Specter yesterday make what sounded like a line in the sand like comment that he was through and expects the bill to pass the way it came out of the Senate.

    Does that mean he and the Maine Senators will flip in the final vote ? Probably not... but there is still a chance the bill can be torpedoed.
  • Feb 11, 2009, 10:37 AM
    speechlesstx
    1 Attachment(s)
    Well now, that's typical. Just to clarify things for the next time Obama, Pelosi and Reid talk about GOP obstruction, here's what bipartisanship means:

    Quote:

    of, relating to, or involving members of two parties ; specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties
    There is no bipartisanship in this bill, there's been no cooperation from the Dems, to them bipartisanship simply means "whatever we want."

    As I've pointed out before the Democrat "leadership" is even shutting out their own. Reid's spokesman yesterday insulted Heath Shuler for criticizing their "leadership:

    Quote:

    "Let me get this straight - this is coming from a guy who threw more than twice as many interceptions than touchdowns?"
    Yeah, the Dems are all about hopenchange.
  • Feb 11, 2009, 10:51 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    There is no bipartisanship in this bill, there's been no cooperation from the Dem's, to them bipartisanship simply means "whatever we want."

    Hello Steve:

    Yeah, those Dem's should NEVER have raised the specter of bi-partisanship. Silly Dem's, they always stick their feet in their mouth... I WISH they were better than the Republicans, but they're not. Gosh darn.

    But, in our system of government, whatever the majority in congress want, they DO get, as long as they have the votes and the presidency.

    So, that's what is going to happen. The Dem's will get whatever they want... What's the surprise?

    But... didn't you guys get whatever YOU wanted when YOU were in the same position of power?? I think you DID.

    At least you never spoke about bipartisanship. For THAT, you're to be commended. Instead you told the truth about how much you hated the Democrats - certainly Dirk Armey and Tom DeLay did, no?

    So, it's like I told George. I'm not taking your outrage too seriously.

    excon

    PS> Yeah, I know his name isn't Dirk, but you can't say D*ck here. I don't know why. It's a perfecly good word.
  • Feb 11, 2009, 11:25 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello Steve:

    Yeah, those Dem's should NEVER have raised the specter of bi-partisanship. Silly Dem's, they always stick their feet in their mouth... I WISH they were better than the Republicans, but they're not. Gosh darn.

    Ex, it isn't that they're just being typically hypocritical, the ENTIRE Obama campaign was about hope, change, not the same politics as usual, working together, bringing America together again, blah, blah, blah. That didn't even last past his inauguration speech, and for all the screed I've heard the past 8 years I'm not about to give Obama and the Dems a free pass. Yet that's EXACTLY what seems to be expected of us by the same people that screamed for 8 years. So buckle up and get used to it.
  • Feb 11, 2009, 12:03 PM
    Synnen

    This entire thread is why I think we need to get rid of the two party system entirely.

    Nothing ever really gets done, people whine and cry regardless, and it just fosters hate and discontent no matter who is in charge.
  • Feb 11, 2009, 12:15 PM
    tomder55

    Imagine the chaos in a multi-party system ? Debate (whine and cry ) is a good thing .
  • Feb 11, 2009, 01:41 PM
    Synnen

    Imagine the things that could get done when there is more than one party to break the stalemates in Congress.

    Imagine how people would actually feel represented when politicians weren't constrained by party politics.

    I'd take chaos over corruption, any day.
  • Feb 11, 2009, 03:05 PM
    tomder55

    I suppose if there was enough parties involved there would be constant stalemate which may be the biggest favor the political class could give us. I always feel just a little better when Congress in in recess.
  • Feb 11, 2009, 03:09 PM
    twinkiedooter
    1 Attachment(s)
    Attachment 16562



    Well, according to Newsweek we don't have to worry about that problem any longer as We're All Socialists Now. Swell. I guess it's official if Newsweek says so.
  • Feb 11, 2009, 04:17 PM
    N0help4u
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by twinkiedooter View Post
    Attachment 16562



    Well, according to Newsweek we don't have to worry about that problem any longer as We're All Socialists Now. Swell. I guess it's official if Newsweek says so.

    Yeah it seems like it is something we are suppose to be excited about!
    I can't wait until four or five years from now when it all falls apart before their eyes.
  • Feb 12, 2009, 06:24 PM
    twinkiedooter

    Unfortunately, NH4U, it probably won't fall apart. Remember, Russia was "stuck" with socialism for 50+ years. They just recently got out from under this. Marxism is worse than scary. If you would like to see what America is going to look like in a few years, just remember what Russia was like under Stalin and you'll see what I'm talking about.
  • Feb 13, 2009, 04:45 AM
    tomder55

    the state is getting more and more deeply involved in business, even taking controlling interests in some private companies. And the state is even trying to “make policy” for private companies they do not control, but merely “help” with “infusions of capital,” as in the recent call for salary caps for certain CEOs. So state power is growing at the expense of corporations.
    But that's not socialism. Socialism rests on a firm theoretical bedrock: the abolition of private property.

    What is happening now.....is an expansion of the state's role, an increase in public/private joint ventures and partnerships, and much more state regulation of business.

    It's fascism.

    during the great economic crisis of the 1930s, fascism was widely regarded as a possible solution, indeed as the only acceptable solution to a spasm that had shaken the entire First World, and beyond. It was hailed as a “third way” between two failed systems (communism and capitalism), retaining the best of each. Private property was preserved, as the role of the state was expanded. This was necessary because the Great Depression was defined as a crisis “of the system,” not just a glitch “in the system.” And so Mussolini created the “Corporate State,” in which, in theory at least, the big national enterprises were entrusted to state ownership (or substantial state ownership) and of course state management.

    Faster, Please! » We Are All Fascists Now
  • Feb 13, 2009, 11:16 AM
    speechlesstx
    Good news is, our leaders haven't even read the bill yet. Maybe that's how this fascism creeps in, you think?

    Quote:

    When CNSNews.com asked members of both parties on Capitol Hill on Thursday whether they had read the full, final bill, not one member could say, “Yes.”…

    “The Democrats have thrown this at us very last-minute,” said Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.). “That’s why the rule of thumb in the United States Congress should be, ‘When in doubt, vote no,’ because the devil is in the details and that’s why this stimulus is not worthy of support.”

    Rep. John Boozman (R-Ark.) shared that sentiment. “The American public expects for us to get in and know what we’re voting on,” Boozman said. “But there are very few members from Congress that are going to have time to actually read this thing.”
    There oughtta be a law, no bill can be passed if it hasn't been read, no congressman can vote on a bill they haven't read, perhaps even no legislation can be passed prior to being posted in a searchable text document being posted on line. I don't care, read it - every word out loud if you have to - to the entire congress. If for no other reason having not read the bill should be enough to vote no. After all, our president promised transparency and accountability...

    Quote:

    And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account -- to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day -- because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
  • Feb 13, 2009, 11:38 AM
    tomder55
    That won't stop the whole lot of them from voting for it anyway. Maybe if they were compelled to read the legislation they pass it wouldn't be over 1000 pages long.

    Wasn't any new bill supposed to be posted on the internet for 5 days before a vote ? I think I heard the candidate Obama say that .

    Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.
    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/

    He already signed SCHIP without the 5 day rule and he plans on signing this Monday.

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:29 AM.