[speechlesstx]

In retrospect, Nancy Pelosi had a point. She said they'd have to pass Obamacare so we could know what was in it and she was right. The Dems didn't know it may not cover children until 2014, and now we're finding out sn alleged $5.4 billion revenue source for Obamacare will likely be negated by companies dropping prescription drug coverage for millions of retirees.

And who is going to suffer the consequences? All those seniors who will be thrown into Medicare part D. Oh well, whatever it it takes to pass your agenda, right Claire McCaskill?

McCaskill: Dems 'overpromising' on healthcare
By Eric Zimmermann - 03/26/10 10:22 AM ET

Democrats are "overpromising" about the benefits of healthcare, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said this morning.

The Missouri Democrat said her party has probably oversold the legislation that just became law.

"The side on which I'm on, that voted for the bill, probably is overpromising, [has] not been clear enough about the fact that this is going to be an incremental approach over time, [and] the benefits aren't going to be felt by most Americans immediately," McCaskill told MSNBC's Mornine Joe.

[speechlesstx]

Hurry and Get your free Barack Obama commemorative health care reform certificate today!

Sheesh, how many Americans already have health insurance? How does that make health care "the privilege of a few" as this self-serving certificate says?

[tomder55]

Questions reflecting confusion have flooded insurance companies, doctors' offices, human resources departments and business groups.

"They're saying, 'Where do we get the free Obama care, and how do I sign up for that?' " said Carrie McLean, a licensed agent for eHealthInsurance.com. The California-based company sells coverage from 185 health insurance carriers in 50 states.

Health care overhaul spawns mass confusion for public | McClatchy

[excon]

Health care overhaul spawns mass confusion for public

Hello again, tom:

With the Democrats inability to explain it, and the Republicans lying about it, who's surprised?

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, tom:

With the Democrats inability to explain it,

They can't explain something they haven't read.

and the Republicans lying about it, who's surprised?

As if the Dems have been open and honest?

[excon]

As if the Dems have been open and honest?

Hello again, Steve:

Do you remember how lurch couldn't answer a simple question? It wasn't because he wasn't open and honest. It was because he couldn't speak plainly. The Republicans, even if what they spoke was a lie, spoke it plainly. Death panels is only two words - but it conveys sooooo much.

excon

[tomder55]

Guess they had trouble explaining their stimulus plan also

YouTube - Obama Money - Where Did it Come From?

[speechlesstx]

Do you remember how lurch couldn't answer a simple question? It wasn't because he wasn't open and honest. It was because he couldn't speak plainly.

I realize Democrats have trouble speaking plainly at times, Obama just uttered one sentence that was a mind-numbing 304 words long - but Pelosi was very plain when she said they'd have to pass the bill so we could know what was in it.

[excon]

YouTube - Obama Money - Where Did it Come From?

Hello again, tom:

You and Steve's penchant for finding boobs on the internet doesn't forward your arguments much. In fact, it diminishes from them if you need to use idiots to make your points.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, tom:

You and Steve's penchant for finding boobs on the internet doesn't forward your arguments much. In fact, it diminishes from them if you need to use idiots to make your points.

A few boobs? Insurance companies are reporting on the boobs, people calling and asking "'Where do we get the free Obama care, and how do I sign up for that?'"

[speechlesstx]

Gee ex, you're having a bad run lately with timely info coming out to refute your arguments. Although it doesn't say "death panels," a NY Times article today gets to the point we've been making, How can we learn to say no?

We came to the same conclusions long before Obamacare passed while the enablers like the Times denied any such thing. Now that it has passed they're admitting the inevitable, what they've known all along but wouldn't say BEFORE the legislation passed... all those things you mocked us for as liars.

Aside from "learning how to say no," we're also hearing how taxes are going to have to be raised to pay for this in spite of all of O's promises not to, and that this would not only magically pay for itself, but save money and reduce the deficit. The WH is already hinting at a VAT. Welcome to the United States of Europe.

[NeedKarma]

Although it doesn't say "death panels," a NY Times article today gets to the point we've been making, How can we learn to say no?

Actually if you read the article it says nothing of the sort. The article is written to showcase that insurance companies would order often unnecassary treatments to elevate their profits and americans have come to view this as normal. This will likely come to an end. Here's an excerpt:

We want the best possible care, no matter what. Yet we often do not get it because the current system tends to deliver more care even when it means worse care.

It’s not just CT scans. Caesarean births have become more common, with little benefit to babies and significant burden to mothers. Men who would never have died from prostate cancer have been treated for it and left incontinent or impotent. Cardiac stenting and bypasses, with all their side effects, have become popular partly because people believe they reduce heart attacks. For many patients, the evidence suggests, that’s not true.

[tomder55]

The same Slimes that writes that paragraph does little to address tort reform ;which is the real reason excessive testing and procedures are conducted .


It is not the insurance companies ordering them.. that doesn't even make sense. The last thing they want to do is cover unnecessary treatment . I thought the big belly -ache with the insurance companies was the denial of services... and not ordering more they would have to cover.

[speechlesstx]

Actually if you read the article it says nothing of the sort. The article is written to showcase that insurance companies would order often unnecassary treatments to elevate their profits and americans have come to view this as normal. This will likely come to an end. Here's an excerpt:

You might want to rethink that. If an insurance company pays for more tests and treatments it certainly doesn't elevate their profits.

No matter how the Times spins this, the fact is the government will now be more and more involved in treatment decisions, and necessarily because of the cost, more denials.

[inthebox]

Actually if you read the article it says nothing of the sort. The article is written to showcase that insurance companies would order often unnecassary treatments to elevate their profits and americans have come to view this as normal. This will likely come to an end. Here's an excerpt:

It is the doctors that order tests, and often times they have to get "approval" from the insurance company before certain tests or procedures are ordered. The writer is clearly not in the medical field.

If you read and analyze any good clinical trial - the conclusions are nuanced and subpopulation data are analyzed. To say that cardiac bypass or stenting does not save lives or prevent heart attacks or a worse heart attack is clearly a gross misrepresentation of the procedure.

The link to the "Courage " trial clearly state that in STABLE coronary artery disease... someone who is having symptoms of an ACUTE heart attack or UNSTABLE heart disease is going to BENEFIT from intervention. But the NYT article does not mention this.

This is why the professionals [ doctors ] : not the politicians, not the accountants, not the insurance companies, not the lawyers, not the journalists, not the drug companies, and certainly not thousands of pages of legalese should, in partnership with the patient, determine what is best.




G&P

[NeedKarma]

This is why the professionals [ doctors ] : not the politicians, not the accountants, not the insurance companies, not the lawyers, not the journalists, not the drug companies, and certainly not thousands of pages of legalese should, in partnership with the patient, determine what is best.

This is how we have it in Canada. No legalese, just us and our doctor.
Remember, it's Speech who submitted that newspaper article as representative of what they were saying so take up it's validity with him not me.

[tomder55]

A day before the McClatchy story ran, the Financial Times reported that the "demand for free medicines in the U.S. has increased sharply following the 2008 economic crisis."

Rich Sagall, creator of NeedyMeds.org, a clearinghouse that helps patients find free medication, told the Times that he is "receiving 14,000 inquiries a day, up from 10,000 in late 2008."

This is happening at a time when "pharmaceutical companies say they have expanded donations through 'patient assistance programs' by typically 15% to 25%."

The United States was once a nation of proudly independent people. But now Americans in large numbers think they deserve free access to the Web, no-cost college educations, and jobs they don't deserve and can't be fired from. They believe others should be responsible for their mortgages and feel they have a right to early, cushy retirements at someone else's expense.

This unsustainable condition is perpetuated by a federal tax code that is forcing a shrinking number of taxpayers to fund the government while removing a growing number of Americans from the income tax rolls.

According to the Tax Foundation, 60% of U.S. households were taking in more in benefits and services from government six years ago than they paid out in taxes. That will rise to 70% or more under President Obama's spending hikes.

At some point, there won't be enough independent and productive citizens to keep the freeloaders living in the luxury to which they've become accustomed. That won't be the end of America, but we'll be able to see it from there.

'I Want My Free M.D.' - IBD - Investors.com

[NeedKarma]

But now Americans in large numbers think they deserve free access to the Web, no-cost college educations, and jobs they don't deserve and can't be fired from. They believe others should be responsible for their mortgages and feel they have a right to early, cushy retirements at someone else's expense.

Where does he get his data to come up with that conclusion?

[excon]

But now Americans in large numbers think they deserve free access to the Web, no-cost college educations, and jobs they don't deserve and can't be fired from. They believe others should be responsible for their mortgages and feel they have a right to early, cushy retirements at someone else's expense.

Hello again, tom:

I'm just guessing here, but when Americans see corporate America getting subsidy's they don't deserve, bailouts they don't get, government guaranteeing their investments, and a genuine distaste by lawmakers to hold them accountable for the billions they ripped us off for, Americans just want their share. I don't blame 'em.

They DID, did they not, just witness a HUGE giveaway of their money to the health insurance industry and big pharma??

excon

[speechlesstx]

This is how we have it in Canada. No legalese, just us and our doctor.
Remember, it's Speech who submitted that newspaper article as representative of what they were saying so take up it's validity with him not me.

Yep, the doc may think knee replacement surgery is the answer and you agree... and 293 days later you can have one at the Kingston General Hospital.