[speechlesstx]

Ok, I'll fix it. Before Obamacare, Americans that needed health care were MOSTLY out of luck, and that is true.

Sorry, I don't buy that either. Problems, yes. Perfect, no. But you don't get an obese citizenry that needs to have potatoes withheld from their diet that has a life span of 77.9 years if people are "MOSTLY out of luck" on health care. We've all said let's make it better, but why do you have to screw mine up to do that?

[tomder55]

But you don't get an obese citizenry that needs to have potatoes withheld from their diet that has a life span of 77.9 years if people are "MOSTLY out of luck" on health care.

Amazing how the life span keeps increasing in this nation of lousy health care.

BTW... Excon's state passed a law in 2008 that gave their death panel it's ultimate weapon... euthanasia.

[excon]

We've all said let's make it better, but why do you have to screw mine up to do that?

Hello again, Steve:

Now we get down to the nuts and bolts... IF we've screwed yours up, then it's a BAD LAW. IF it DOESN'T screw yours up, and DOES what it purports to do, then it's a GOOD LAW. But, tell me truly. Has yours actually BEEN screwed up?

It's that purporting thing I have trouble with. So do you. The fact is, neither of us knows how it's going to work out. I certainly don't trust the Democrats to have written a law that mimics what they purport. And, I certainly don't trust the Republicans to tell me the truth about it, in any case.

Therefore, I suggest that it hasn't panned out yet. It COULD be a monstrosity, or it COULD be a great piece of legislation. Most of the law doesn't take effect till 2014, and the economic results won't be known until later than that.. Until then, we can choose to believe the glass is half full, or half empty. I CHOOSE to believe it's half full - but they've fooled me before.

So far, I LIKE what I see. I LIKE the fact that your insurance company can't drop you if you get sick. I LIKE that you can keep your children on your policy until they turn 26. I LIKE that the doughnut hole is closed for seniors. I LIKE the report from the CBO that says the law will REDUCE the deficit. What's not to like?

excon

[excon]

BTW ....Excon's state passed a law in 2008 that gave their death panel it's ultimate weapon.... euthanasia.

Hello again, tom:

You'd rather have the nanny state tell me when to go? Dude!

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, tom:

You'd rather have the nanny state tell me when to go? Dude!

No one would ever just take it upon themselves to put patients out of their misery would they?

[excon]

No one would ever just put patients out of their misery would they?

Hello again, Steve:

Well, I didn't like the word euthanasia and was going to object, but I thought it was a catchall word that INCLUDED assisted suicide. I now don't think it does, and I should have objected. But, let's be clear here. The law in Washington allows ME to choose the time of MY departure. It doesn't give the nanny state that right, as you suggest... In fact, the law takes that decision OUT of the hands of the nanny state, and puts it squarely in MY hands where it absolutely SHOULD be. No?

I understand your position... You LIKE the fact that the nanny state requires people to die naturally, even though that death might be horrible, painful, and cost an exorbitant amount of money. THIS kind of a nanny state interference is just FINE with you, because of some misbegotten religious mumbo jumbo that I don't subscribe to. I'd like to be FREE of the nanny state. You and tom? Not so much.

excon

[tomder55]

And the "advisory panel" aka the “consulting physician"will not steer them towards "chosing" voluntary suicide? Nahhh that never happens.
Just ask Barbara Wagner of Oregon who's life saving drug was denied by the Oregon system ;but was steered towards assisted suicide.

There are no safeguards in the Washington plan . Next of kin does not have to be notified. Depressed or mentally ill patients can be persuaded... ooops I mean advised to take the lethal dose.All the records are sealed from public view.
Wagner was saved because the evil pharmaceutical company that made the cancer drug heard of her plight and offered it to her for free.

[excon]

There are no safeguards in the Washington plan .

Hello again, tom:

Safeguards = nanny state. I thought you didn't LIKE the nanny state...

excon

[Wondergirl]

Why would a doctor or nursing home kill the cash cows?

[speechlesstx]

Safeguards = nanny state. I thought you didn't LIKE the nanny state..

There's a huge difference between reasonable protections and making us all government sucklings.

[smoothy]

Hello again, Steve:

The law in Washington allows ME to choose the time of MY departure. It doesn't give the nanny state that right, as you suggest... In fact, the law takes that decision OUT of the hands of the nanny state, and puts it squarely in MY hands where it absolutely SHOULD be. No?

Too good to pass up answering that comment

... say you off yourself... what is the state going to do for breaking the law? Hang your corpse from a flagpole for 90 days after you die?

[speechlesstx]

Right about what? The state paying for someone's care?

Kramer explains how this is done...

[Just_Another_Lemming]

Amazing how the life span keeps increasing in this nation of lousy health care.

This triggered thoughts regarding a study I heard about. We have been found to be at the bottom of the life expectancy ladder when compared to a dozen developed countries. Interestingly enough, obesity is not a factor in the death rate. So I guess the nanny state should be allowing those on food stamps to purchase taters. The study actually supports a nanny state when it comes to health care. The other countries that beat us all supply their citizens with universal health insurance. Medical Daily: Life expectancy in America lowest compared developed countries

[tomder55]

So they eliminated other possibilities and came to a conclusion based on a supposition where they provide no evidence of linkage .Sadly ,that is probably what passes for scientific research these days. What is that ? A Sherlock Holmes novel ? Eliminate the obvious and the only thing remaining ;regardless of a lack of evidence ,must be the culprit .
It sounds like the only basis for their conclusion is a pre-determined outcome.
Again... probably the best you can hope for from a scientific community these days .

From their web site :
The mission of The Commonwealth Fund is to promote a high performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable, including low-income people, the uninsured, minority Americans, young children, and elderly adults.

Amazing then that an "independent " study funded by them would support their mission.

Show me in their study where they explored the linkage of the US absorbing up to 1.5 million immigrants annually legal and illegal from various ethnicites and levels of poverty and health . Many of them have brought back into this country diseases that had been eradicated in the country years ago. Just this week a case of dengue fever occurred in Miami . Do they just dismiss this reality because it is an inconvenient truth ?

[Just_Another_Lemming]

LOL. Tom, it does appear they went directly from point A to point M.

[TUT317]

Why isn't health a fundamental right in the U.S. This was the question I posed earlier. The only answer I got was something along the lines of "It just isn't"

In a country that prides itself on the ideals of, 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness' why does someone who needs an expensive drug to save their life, or to promote the quality of their life have to rely on the charity of a drug company to provide it for free or at a greatly reduced price.

This is the bit I still can't figure out.

Tut

[speechlesstx]

Why isn't health a fundamental right in the U.S.? This was the question I posed earlier. The only answer i got was something along the lines of "It just isn't"

I answered it, Tut. Health insurance is not a fundamental right, and no one is denied health care. Ex will argue that, but he's wrong.

[excon]

I answered it, Tut. Health insurance is not a fundamental right, and no one is denied health care. Ex will argue that, but he's wrong.

Hello again, Steve:

You use your own family to prove your point... Well, I have some family too - ME. When I was a young uninsured whipursnapper, I needed a blood test for my cholesterol. I went to the emergency room to get it.. They said no. They said that's not what they do.

Shortly thereafter, in my local supermarket, there was a lab doing FREE cholesterol tests. I got one. My cholesterol was 325 - VERY HIGH. I was a heart attack waiting to happen. I went to the emergency room to get a prescription for a cholesterol lowering drug. They said no. They said that's not what they do. They denied me health care. That's just so.

excon

[TUT317]

I answered it, Tut. Health insurance is not a fundamental right, and no one is denied health care. Ex will argue that, but he's wrong.

Hi Speech,

I will probably go along the claim that no one is denied health care. Even though I saw an interview with a woman who took her daughter to a hospital but was told to go elsewhere because the hospital only deals with insured patients. Unfortunate the girl died before the mother could reach a different hospital.

I am prepared to accept that mistakes can be made in any system. I guess what I am asking is, "Why does wealth determine the quality of health care one receives?"

Regards

Tut

[tomder55]

Tut to use a well worn cliché... the answer to your question is because there is no such thing as a free lunch... You have to take from Peter to give to Paul...

Steve is absolutely right. There is NO denial of care due to economic circumstances.
If people are not getting care then perhaps they don't know the options available for them . Perhaps there is a case that we should do a better job informing the needy about their options .