|
What world do you live in where doctors and patients can get any procedure/test/drug they want, without paying anything extra? All health care is rationed all the time everywhere. |
|
|
This government is bent on destroying healthcare. Government employees having access to all of our personal records. Government bodies creating a cost benefit analysis that will determine treatment. Government deciding what doctors will make, how many patients they will see and how they will be able to treat these patients. Doesn't that sound wonderful. Depending on the government to decide who shall live and who shall die. Does anyone really trust these clowns to handle something this important. I think not. |
|
|
Thought of the Day: Obama and the Democratic Congress are doing to this country what Michael Jackson did to his face. |
|
...and always will be. Anybody who tells you everybody can have everything is a damned liar.
So, the American people should be able to decide how they want it rationed. Like it is now--free market? Or how it will be under government control?
Of course, a national health care plan is completely unconstitutional and with reasons too numerous to mention.
However, if senior citizens vote to give up care to younger people who now don't have it, I guess we'll have to go along with that.
But everybody should know precisely what we can expect before it's voted in. Make certain BHO follows at least one campaign promise by posting the complete bill on his website for at least five days.
If that were to happen, we would repeat the fiasco of HillaryCare. Once people understood the devilish details, we all said: Hell no. |
|
What world do you live in where doctors and patients can get any procedure/test/drug they want, without paying anything extra?
________________________________________________
Exactly. Why do you think our healthcare is more expensive? We have more access to better procedures than will government run healthcare. |
|
|
I agree the American people should decide how they want to ration. I for one pay a very high monthly premium for my coverage. I give up other things that I could buy with that over seven hundred dollars a month I pay but that is my choice. I do not want the government to make that choice for me. |
|
|
At the present, the cost of medicare and medicaid is an enormous strain on the federal budget. Another losing proposition is Social Security. People retire at 65 then live for another 20 years. The SS system was originally set up for them to live 2 to 3 years after retirement. The easiest fiscal fix is to start killing off the drains. Government rationed health care will reduce medical costs and limit the life span of the senior citizens hence reducing soc. security payments. It's a win/win. |
|
|
Of course this is the plan. SS age limits will be raised. Healthcare for the elderly will be cut. So many who paid into SS will never collect a dime. This rationing is about far more than just insuring everyone. |
|
|
|
|
|
with some edits but it seems worth repeating here on this thread:
"It reminded me of a local situation from a few years ago. A star vollyeball player, +3.0 GPA student, faithful church attender etc one day felt not so great. As the days progressed and no improvement in her health, the trip to the doctor was made. Eventually she was diagnosed with a brain stem tumor. Prognosis was terminal. The family was self-employed But did have their own medical coverage. There were "experiemental" treatments that "might" work, but never tried since those procedures were not insurable. Numerous community fund raisers occured that produced some funding for the experimental procedures but naturally not enough could be generated.
Finally, the familiy's financial resources were depleted and the girl's health care was turned over to Medical. Some exclaimed "At last! Now she'll get the treatment she needs!"
No. The state basically "managed" her death with staples such as as pain killers, a hospital bed, IV's and so on until she died in a drug induced coma.
Obamacare would have done much the same for this girl and her family in the President's own words. It won't change anything with respect to medical advancement, i.e. experimentation if Medical, Medicare, Medicaid are any model. No "experimental" potentially life saving treatments since those could be:
"But here's the problem that we have in our current health care system, is that there is a whole bunch of care that's being provided that every study, every bit of evidence that we have indicates may not be making us healthier."
Yep. Better that she was "better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller." Better for Obamacare perhaps. We may all want painkillers in the end." |
|
"What world do you live in where doctors and patients can get any procedure/test/drug they want, without paying anything extra?
________________________________________________
Exactly. Why do you think our healthcare is more expensive? We have more access to better procedures than will government run healthcare."
That answer is utterly incoherent. |
|
Republicans shout "Government health care means rationing!" When somebody responds, "It's already rationed," you guys respond, "Yes, that's exactly right."
"Obamacare would have done much the same for this girl and her family in the President's own words."
But I thought we had the best health care in the world! Here we have a case of somebody who isn't treated because she's not insured - and the conclusion is, "It'll be the same with universal health care." Huh? Can I have what you guys are drinking? |
|
The demorats have won the election through the stupidity of the Republicans running McCain was worse than when we ran Dole. We need to have some dynamic candidates who can articulate our position not some has been hanging onto their jobs and as an act of graciousness allowed to run as our candidate.
We should see that our system doesn't allow this to ever happen again.
I feel so powerless with what is taking place and I see Obama is following the same destructive path as the demoratic savior FDR did to the same destructive end. I write to my representatives and they answer with form letters telling me how they are helping me. I must admit I believe we need new blood but I do not feel comfortable with any except Jindahl and Palin. Romney should have been our candidate but it might be too late for him in 2012 and his Healthcare plan in Mass. is not doing well.
We need people with strong unyielding conservative views certainly not Obama-lite. Please rise up and show yourself soon. |
|
Obama's mythography: An Orwellian disaster
Buzz up!Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Home Delivery
President Barack Obama's Orwellian rhetoric has become absolutely pathological. And it's become so blatant that you can almost guarantee that the truth is the exact opposite of what he says. To wit:
The president insisted he had no intention of taking over Chrysler and General Motors.
He did.
The president calls "cap-and-trade" environmental legislation a "market-based" approach, based on "sound science."
It is not.
The president claims his health care reform plan is not "socialized medicine."
It is.
He claims it won't harm private insurance.
It will.
He claims service won't be rationed.
But to control costs as he proposes, it must be. (Even top aides concede the point.)
Mr. Obama says he supports "democracy" in Latin America.
How can he? He also supports the Marxist ways of Manuel Zelaya, legally removed from Honduras' presidency by the constitutional actions of the legislative and judicial branches.
And the examples of this president's mythography go on and on.
Some will dismiss Barack Obama's pronouncements merely as "rhetoric" and "posturing." "Everybody does it," they'll say. "It's politics."
But this is different and decidedly more dangerous: The president of the United States says one thing and does another and claims things that cannot possibly be.
Whether by delusion or by design, Barack Obama is being dishonest with the American people. And that is a harbinger of national disaster.
|
|
Exactly. Why do you think our healthcare is more expensive? We have more access to better procedures than will government run healthcare."
That answer is utterly incoherent.
________________________________________________
I keep telling you to take your time and read slower so that you can comprhend.
You say our healthcare is expensive and then state : "What world do you live in where doctors and patients can get any procedure/test/drug they want, without paying anything extra?"
We DO get any procedure/test/drug that we want and yes it does cost more. You answered your own question! |
|
|
What is the important thing here is that we have the ability to pay and get good care. I pay a handsome price but do not get rationed care. I am opposed to any system that would take that away. |
|
"We DO get any procedure/test/drug that we want."
Really? What country DO you live in? |
|
|
I and my wife can and do get any test that my doctor orders without denial. |
|
Really? What country DO you live in?
_______________________________________
I live in the US. Where do you live besides Obamaland or fantasyland?. |
|
|
I believe that within the next few months many who supported Obama or just stayed home because they could not support McCain will start to get together and get behind a good conservative candidate. Obama has shown his hand a bit early and people are starting to realize just what he stands for. Many democrats and independents are become unhappy with his plans for our country. Not to worry. The conservatives will regroup and will come out swinging. Just give it a few more months. |
|
|
You know, if we got serious about border control and expelled a lot of the illegals currently in this country sucking up healthcare resources, clogging the ERs and walk-ins, there'd be more services available for actual CITIZENS and less costs passed on to those PAYING INTO the system. |
|
Let all the currently uninsured (those US citizens just out of college, between jobs, etc.) be insured under Medicare/Medicaid.
When they get real jobs, they can be covered under the employer's plan or choose to stay w Medicare. |
|
|
What you say makes perfect sense but of course no politician does anything sensible. I think that for us to accept rationing of care so that millions of non citizens can be covered is outrageous. |
|
If Suzy Cheesecake can no longer sue for millions when her botox doesn't work as desired and she fails to get the call from Revlon, it will help keep costs from being passed on to the rest of us.
Save the serious damage awards for REAL pain and suffering. |
|
"I live in the US. Where do you live besides Obamaland or fantasyland?"
I'm going to the doctor right now and getting a bunch of new prescriptions and an MRI for my stuffy nose, now that I know that no procedure or drug is ever denied in the U.S. |
|
|
Anyone who thinks that malpractice is not one of the things that seriously affects healthcare costs they are foolish. Frivilous law suits are a huge expense. Yes people who are harmed should be entitled to payment. Today that is not the case as you clearly stated. To even consider changing healthcare without addressing tort reform is moronic. |
|
|
Trying to have a sensible discussion with Vlad is fruitless. Perhaps he is one of those who has choosen to pay less for his health insurance so he can spend on other things and then complains because he doesn't get the best. |
|
I'm going to the doctor right now and getting a bunch of new prescriptions and an MRI for my stuffy nose, now that I know that no procedure or drug is ever denied in the U.S.
_______________________________________________
I'm 63 and have never been turned down for any test or prescription drug written by doctors.
You sure you're living in the US and not in Cuba? |
|
This whole thing is being spun into a treatment vs payment for treatment argument. Insurance is NOT a Constitutional right no matter how you slice it.
As for the rationing of treatment being posed by Mr. Estrogen: Currently a doctor can deny accepting a patient's policy who is on Medicare/Medical. That same patient however can pay for whatever procedure out of pocket for immediate assistance. Most doctors have a limit of how many patients they accept on government insurance because the government does not pay the full cost of the procedure, as private insurance does. The doctor ends up paying to work. Technically that is not rationing care. It is declining business because the person cannot pay for it (they can however go the emergency room for prompt care)
Rationing care will come about when the the patient to doctor ratio significantly increases because everyone will go the doctor for a cold or a stubbed toe. So inevitably, doctors will only perform so may procedures per day/month...etc...which IS the rationing we are concerned about.
|
|
Well, you know my questions and suggestions are rhetorical, anyway.
The government under Obama is not interested in "fixing" anything.
The goal is, of course, to get as much of the economy under government control as possible.
So far, they've got banks and insurance companies, most of GM, then they will try for "climate change"/cap n tax, and then, health care.
Want to see how the government runs things?
Look at the Congressional bank!
Look at the Congressional cafeteria!
Look at the Post Office!
|
|
|
depending on your ability to pay, cars, houses, medical care. Saying that govt care will be rationed is a silly argument...meaningless. My carrier rations my services. |
|
|
You are of course right. This is nothing more than a government grab. What Is most distressing is that those who claim they were so opposed to wire tapes for terrorists are gladly willing to sign on to the government having access to all of your personal information. Patients will surely fail to tell doctors pertinent information that could help their treatment. Many will be afraid that in the future it will be held against them when it comes to how they receive care. I finds this the most troubling of all. |
|
There is one main question asked, the answer determines the kind of health care you will receive:
"Are you a Party member?"
The best care goes to Politburo members, better care goes to the connected, sufficient care goes to the rest of the Party affiliates, and experimental treatments are developed and tested on the rest of us. |
|
|
|
My carrier rations my services.
_________________________________________
Is that the mental health part? Was that a Sears medical card? |
|
There are multiple definitions to the words in the english language. It would be prudent to understand that basing arguments such as "everything in this country is rationed" by using only one definition of the word clouds the point of discussion.
Yes, one definition of "ration" is a portion of the available services. You guys seem to be thinking of that supply and demand sense of the word. When we speak of rationing medical care, it is limiting access to care in a false attempt to control costs. |
|
"Most doctors have a limit of how many patients they accept on government insurance because the government does not pay the full cost of the procedure, as private insurance does. The doctor ends up paying to work. Technically that is not rationing care."
Would you like me to go out and find some stories about people who had medical procedures denied by their private insurance company? It HAS happened from time to time. |
|
...very afraid.
Don't think of the Dem party as just another political party. Think of them as a bunch of criminals and you'll get a clearer vision of what we're dealing with.
Laws, truth, constitutionality, doing what's really best for the country and the people are certainly not on their radar as they consolidate criminal power.
The Pope came out today with an encyclical denouncing greed and wealth for wealth's sake. I sure hope the Dems, Geo. Soros, the BHO administration and ACORN realize the Pope was talking about THEM and will repent. |
|
Would you like me to go out and find some stories about people who had medical procedures denied by their private insurance company? It HAS happened from time to time.
_____________________________________________
Don't deny that it has happened from time to time. But not to me...ever! I have had my doctor GIVE me meds (samples) to save money on purchase. I'm not confident that the government can control anything. Looking at various government run programs, I know that they can't contain costs! |
|
Private medical insurance companies may deny coverage of a certain procedure. I am sure they do. But the doctor will still perform the procedure if the person can pay for it out of pocket. (Oftentimes they can set up payment plans too.)
When medical care starts to be given only to people who can pay for the procedure out of pocket the government WILL make it illegal to do so (check out Canada if you don't believe that). Then doctors will be paid to perform only so many procedures per time period to keep down costs. Doctors will perform only those allotted to be paid, therefore access to procedures is limited in turn meaning RATIONED. |
|
|
It sounds like you have some experience in the healthcare industry. You clearly state the doctors cannot survive soley on the payments that they recieve treating medicare and medicaid patients. One of the reasons that physicians are charging more to the private insurance is to compensate for what they lose on government payments. Couple that with malpractice which has risen drastically over this past five years and you have two of the main reasons for the high cost of healthcare. Asking doctors to maintain a practice by accepting less and seeing more patients will not work. First of all patients will not get the proper care as time will not permit and doctors will become frustrated trying to work long hours just to make a moderate living. We clearly do not have enough physicians in this country to cover the masses that this plan is expected to cover. Many who have been denied procedures or treatment by their insurance are suffering the consequences of HMO policies. When these policies came out many thought they would be wonderful. They would pay for everything and the premiums were cheaper. Unfortuantely, they have found out that the cheaper premium is a result of rationing of care. For those who complain now, just think when you put the extra burden on the physicians and the rationing mandated by the government to keep costs down what care will be like. They have not seen anything yet. I doubt many will be very happy. |
|
|
I agree with you! Well said! |
|
|
Why would a bunch of Godless, heathen Obama-worshippers give a fig what the Pope thinks of them? They don't even care what Christ Himself thinks! |
|
I couldn't agree with you more. I am almost positive it is symantecs but I just want to be sure...you said
"Many who have been denied procedures or treatment by their insurance..."
I argue...insurance CANNOT deny a procedure. It can, however deny, PAYMENT of a procedure. Yes you can allude that by denying payment you are denying the procedure. But, the former statement is still inherently false.
As I said, I couldn't agree with you more.
The thought of 300 million people's lives being disrupted in order to cover a falsified number of 48 million is abhorrent. |
|
Kind of ironic that government provided healthcare was ok for Rep. Bachmann's 23 foster children and more recently herself and family since she has been in Congress
It is simple make Rep. Bachmann's current health care available to all US citizens at the same cost that she has to pay
|
|
MediCare owes his office $300,000.
The government already cannot pay for what they have. SS is going broke much sooner than estimated.
The entire sitution is utterly insane. No different than Michael Jackson spending gazillions while he was already in debt.
Much worse. At least MJ was throwing his own money down a rat hole. The government is throwing ours down the tah-let.
We will pay and pay and pay--and end up with something worse than what we have.
So much for "Do no harm." |
|
Diane writes: Tuesday, July, 07, 2009 11:11 AM
Government employees having access to all of our personal records.
You're right; it is kinda scary to think Rep. Bachmann has access to all of our personal records |
|
|
You are right. The insurance company cannot deny treatment only payment. I have been reading too many posts where people confuse the two. I wonder what your thoughts are on how this will impact the primary care physician. I am of the understanding that all patients must seek their opinion first prior to getting refered to any specialist. This would create an enormous burden on them. Right now with payments as they are primary care physcians must see a substantial amount of patients already. We can hardly train so many more for that field in a hurry. How will these physicians determine how quickly they see a patient. Is the one who calls and may have pneumonia moved up or are they just expected to wait until an appointment is available. How in the world can these physicians be expected to juggle priorities when they are so overloaded. Any thoughts. |
|
|
You should worry that your privacy is being invaded by anyone but you and your doctor having such access. If you were trying to take a cheap shot at Bachmann it is really foolish when so much is at stake. |
|
|
Many doctors will wait to be paid and many will be expected to see more patients than they can treat. Soon those doctors will lose interest and bright young people will shy away from the medical field. This is a disaster in the making. As Sarah said no one verifies these numbers that are thrown out and we are following like sheep. I believe as was said earlier this is going to be a great way for them to control SS and medicare in the future. If anyone thinks this is for the good of the people they are crazy. This is nothing but government doing what it does best screwing things up. |
|
|
|
|
...never sees itself as greedy. The only greedy people are those who would like to keep a little bit of their own hard earned money and spend as THEY choose. How horrible is THAT? |
|
I'm actually trying to compute the point at which an increase in taxation makes it more profitable for me to just stop working (at least "on the books").
|
|
"Don't deny that it has happened from time to time. But not to me...ever!"
You're right. I guess it's just not a problem, and health care isn't rationed. |
|
I hadn't heard that it was going to be a referral based system. Inevitably though that would make sense. There are fewer specialists than general practitioners. That is why HMOs use a referral system. We absolutely cannot matriculate enough doctors through school AND internships to cover the expected surge of patients. The only way to do that would be to lower the standard of doctors' education in order for the number of doctors to increase. Perhaps a larger portion of the burden would be thrust onto nurse practitioner's etc...
or you can go for discount medical treatment from medical students like you do at salons (now that part was a joke)
In the end, what we will see is an influx of people going to the emergency room for care. People won't want to wait for doctors or referrals, etc. That of course will be a burden on hospitals. Bottom line is the whole Medical field is under attack with this proposal. |
|
I had replied to one of your posts earlier (2:04pm)...that should have gone to Mr. Estragon. I was rather surprised when you said you agreed with me..HAHA
Mr. Estragon does not seem to be able to delineate between health care and payment for health care.
Despite the sarcasm...we do have a problem with medical coverage in the United States today: It is called government. There should be some type of cap on medical malpractice lawsuits. There should be restrictions on who can obtain Medicare. (illegals should not be allowed to do so) Services need to be limited to emergency medical care only. Government insurance SHOULD be rationed since the citizens are footing the bill...f you don't like rationed government insurance, go pay for private insurance.
|
|
Despite the sarcasm...we do have a problem with medical coverage in the United States today: It is called government. There should be some type of cap on medical malpractice lawsuits. There should be restrictions on who can obtain Medicare. (illegals should not be allowed to do so) Services need to be limited to emergency medical care only. Government insurance SHOULD be rationed since the citizens are footing the bill...f you don't like rationed government insurance, go pay for private insurance.
______________________________________________
and I agree with you once again!!! LOL |
|
You're right. I guess it's just not a problem, and health care isn't rationed.
______________________________________________
????????????????? Now you make no sense! You mean because it hasn't happened to me that "it is a problem and that I'm really having my healthcare rationed and don't know it"?
The horror!!!!!!!!! |
|
they are because doctors and hospitals mess up.
For decades, doctors would not testify against other doctors. Patients could not recover anything as a result. If doctors and hospitals police themselves more, then there would be fewer suits. |
|
|
I agree with all that you have said and yes the entire health care system is under attack. The thoughts that standards could be lowered for medical school admission or training is frightening. Also I do not believe that we have enough nurse practitioners to handle the over flow. Will they lower the standards for them as well. As you stated in one of your other posts medical malpractice is a huge problem for doctors and hospitals. To think that we can revamp health care and fail to address this issue is moronic. Your analysis regarding illegals receiving medicare and medicaid is spot on. How can this government expect its tax paying citizens to accept lesser care to accommodate them. Emergency care is one thing but to extend full coverage for these people is unrealistic. Really nice to have a dialogue with someone that seems to understand the real problems that exist. So many think that government health care will solve all the problems. What I see is government health care causing more problems than it will solve. |
|
|
You are clueless that is for sure. |
|
"????????????????? Now you make no sense! You mean because it hasn't happened to me that "it is a problem and that I'm really having my healthcare rationed and don't know it"?
What weighs more, a pound of shrimp or a pound of beef? |
|
***Mr. Estragon does not seem to be able to delineate between health care and payment for health care.***
I've been deliberately ignoring that repeated bit of "logic," hoping someone else would realize how absurd it is. Surely you know the stories of people forced to choose which of several severed fingers to reattach, or which ear of a deaf child to treat. "Hey, we'll do the other finger too, for $60,000, but we're not RATIONING your coverage. Nope!" |
|
|
Yes it is nice to have an intelligent conversation with someone else. People do not like to delve into the deeper problems and rather focus on what is surfactory. |
|
|
I look forward to discussing this again. I am sure over the next few weeks we will have much more to discuss as more details come forward. Let us hope that some rational thinking starts to take place in Washington but I am not very hopeful. |
|
|
it is a service that should be available to all. Just as no one in the US should go without housing or food, no one should go without medical care. Period. |
|
RE-attaching a finger falls under major emergency medical. Doctor's do accept payment plans for that type of procedure (And yes, I do know someone who went through that). As for treating someone who is deaf...something like a cochlear implant would be an optional surgery. If you want insurance that covers optional surgeries then you can pay a higher premium.
To ignore a valid argument simply suggests support of that point of fact or that you cannot invalidate it factually. And yes, it was a point of fact and not just something logically deduced. Do you honestly believe that government care will pay for things such as a cochlear implant? In fact Medicare just reduced coverage for something as simple as corrective lenses. Remember the more fingers in the pot, the less for all to eat. Obama's plan will supposedly cost one trillion to initiate and cover 16 million of the alleged 48 million uninsured, but it will also force 100 million off employer provided insurance thereby raising the number of the uninsured to 132 million. It just doesn't seem worth it. |
|
" Surely you know the stories of people forced to choose which of several severed fingers to reattach, or which ear of a deaf child to treat. "Hey, we'll do the other finger too, for $60,000, but we're not RATIONING your coverage. Nope!"
I do not know about you but in all my years working at a healthcare facility I never heard of any doctor in the emergency room asking a patient which finger they can afford to re-attach. In fact in most cases in the emergency room this type of treatment is taken care of immediately and payment is worried about later. Just my experience working at one of the largest medical facilities in the country. |
|
|
That is really sweet...but this is not a commune in a utopia. Everything is business. People want as much as they can get for as little as possible. Think families on welfare for three generations now. People always want a better life, some are willing to work hard while others just want to mooch. Why impede the ones who are working for it and entitling those who haven't? |
|
We've kept a SoCal business going for 35 years. Last Sept. our primary concern was succession and estate planning. Now, the only question is: In the face of all the CA and federal stupidity, will we survive?
If we go down, which is a real possibility since this economy is not coming back for years and years under the Dems, that will mean 50 more families on the dole since there are no jobs for anyone to go to.
How long can they keep killing the Golden Goose before it all comes down?
And Sarah and Diane: With the Dems in charge, there is no rational thinking in terms of what normal people consider rational thinking--as in let's fix the problem.
It's not hard to figure exactly what their end game is. The George Soros-types just want to make billions as they short sell the country, the entitlement class just wants more of other people's money and the governing class just wants the same.
I guess they imagine that they go can on like this and we the people will continue to work our little hearts out for less and less--while they can keep robbing us blind.
At some point, it will all have to give. Maybe by that point they will have stolen buckets of our money and will hide out on some South Pacific Island somewhere and we will be living in caves.
|
|
Vlad said that to me! I didn't say that!!
Like I said doctors accept payment plans, major medical emergencies are performed and then payment is collected through payment plans. Rather than set up payment plans people just declare bankruptcy ~ another reason why medical costs keep going up ~ which I forgot to mention earlier. |
|
|
An added note. Of course cochlear implants will be one of the procedures that will probably not be covered with the new cost benefit analysis guidelines. I also see things like cataracts being considered livable as long as one still has vision in one eye. What people fail to understand is that If the government claims that they can cover so many millions and do so while saving money there is only one way to do that. It can only be done by seriously reducing services. There are not enough people making over $250,000 that they can possibly tax to achieve this goal. Also the idea that they will tax benefits valued over a certain amount will soon go out the window as companies dump their employees onto the government plan. I seriously wonder how they will handle organ transplants. This is a subject near and dear to me as my husband has had two transplants in the past. Luckily we had top notch insurance and every dime was covered. I surely wonder what will happen in the future. |
|
|
Yes I know it was Vlad's statement I was just repeating it to see what you thought. Yes people really give the physicians a bad rap. Most physicians and hospitals as you said will set up payment programs and many could make the payments but they chose to go bankrupt instead. As I have said in all my years in health care I never heard of anyone who was asked in the emergency room which finger they could afford to attach. Sometimes people really go overboard when trying to justify their position. Also one of the things I cannot figure out is how the doctor got to be the bad guy here. They spend a lot of years and a lot of money to become physicians and now we hear they are nothing but greedy pigs. I know lots of physicians and have yet to meet these greedy pigs they talk about. |
|
"RE-attaching a finger falls under major emergency medical. Doctor's do accept payment plans for that type of procedure."
Sorry, I assumed you were familiar with the case. It's gotten a lot of publicity. It was not in the emergency room, but the guy was given a choice of one finger or two, with price tags.
Now, your point is that this is rationing payment, not treatment. Fair enough. From everything that I've read, Obama's proposal will allow you to pay more if you want to - say for a private room.
Either way, health care is NOT being rationed any more or less with the government running it. |
|
Alas, alack, and willy wally...
There is NO WAY to raise enough funds to cover this type of program. Honestly organ transplants probably will go out the window. There will be fewer medical advancements. There will be less money for R&D. The riskier procedures will be cut out for the ones that are considered "safe". Nothing good comes from socialization. |
|
|
I attempted to find the story of the man with the finger choices....did you gain all your information on a government health option from "Michael Moore's Sicko" That is the only reference I can find online. Perhaps you can forward me information on that case. You are aware that Michael Moore he is a left wing liberal and not looking for a balanced presentation of the facts, but rather to castigate those who have earned their way rather than just thought they were entitled to whatever. |
|
|
I don't know how doctors became the bad guys. I understand that the government is trying to paint Insurance as evil big business and that doctors will be the ones to pay for it. Perhaps doctors should just go Galt and stop accepting insurance altogether. They can get together and decide what would be considered a fair cash transaction for services rendered like in the "good 'ol days" before medical insurance. The sad thing is, that if this health care debacle goes through people will be lamenting about how great the system was before the plan and wishing they could go back to it. |
|
The government will own CA soon.
Time to elect leaders that have actually held real jobs in their lives and know somethin about fiscal responsibilty.
Then, elect NO MORE DEMOCRATS, NO MORE RINOS. |
|
"I attempted to find the story of the man with the finger choices....did you gain all your information on a government health option from "Michael Moore's Sicko"
All my information? No, of course not.
"That is the only reference I can find online. Perhaps you can forward me information on that case. You are aware that Michael Moore he is a left wing liberal and not looking for a balanced presentation of the facts."
DUH! You don't say! Does that mean the entire story is made up? |
|
|
Good conversation on Townhall today. I am surprised that it wasn't reduced to name calling, gay agenda or racist comments like most topics end up. Look forward to more good talking in the future. |
|
you said...."DUH! You don't say! Does that mean the entire story is made up?"
No...that doesn't mean the whole story is made up. Why do you think I asked you to forward me the information...
But anyway...time to run. Thanks again. |
|
...w/a brain or integrity in this country. We are held in the clutches of an axis of evil voters: Proud progressive academics, entitlement queens looking for a hand out, loony liberal romantics, labor unions and some Machiavellian puppeeters laughing all the way to the bank.
The American people have sold their birthright for a mess of caca and are as happy as pigs in poo.
Palin was working just fine with the AK Dems until the national Dems gave them orders to take Palin out. They killed her and they are killing the country.
Yet people will continue to vote for them in greater and greater numbers. Most people still believe the crash was the was the greedy bas$tard Pubs' fault for not having enough laws, controls and oversight.
Everything that goes wrong is the fault of the rich, greedy, fat, white Pubs. And only the good, kind, brilliant, compassionate Dems can fix it.
Nothing will change because all the propaganda outlets,--schools, the MSM and the entertainment industry,--are are hard-wired true believers.
I'm convinced that the voters will continue to elect those dedicated to a criminal takover of this country.
We have failed the Founders and our posterity. Wah!
|
|
Of course health care is rationed now...
...and always will be. Anybody who tells you everybody can have everything is a damned liar.
So, the American people should be able to decide how they want it rationed. Like it is now--free market? Or how it will be under government control?
Me- Probably better. Ask seniors their satisfaction with Medicare. Ask veterans their satisfaction with the VA. As most people with single payer their satisfaction with their systems. It's higher than private insurance.
KG- Of course, a national health care plan is completely unconstitutional and with reasons too numerous to mention.
Me- No, it isn't. If it were, they'd have gotten rid of Medicare years ago.
KG-However, if senior citizens vote to give up care to younger people who now don't have it, I guess we'll have to go along with that.
Me- Right. Scare tactics. Of course, if left up to your beloved "market", old people wouldn't get care at all. Who'd insure a 70 year old woman with no income and diabetes?
KG-If that were to happen, we would repeat the fiasco of HillaryCare. Once people understood the devilish details, we all said: Hell no.
Me- Actually, the insurance companies lied their @sses off and people got panicked. Now they aren't getting away with it. Now we have more people uninsured...
|
|
Carol
Of course this is the plan. SS age limits will be raised. Healthcare for the elderly will be cut. So many who paid into SS will never collect a dime. This rationing is about far more than just insuring everyone.
Me- that's one solution. Another is to means test social security- No point in paying social security to Bill Gates when he hits 67. But the simplest solution would be to raise the upper limit on the tax (right now, it's the first $110,000) and limit the maximum payment.
Of course, that would be admitting it is a entitlement program and not a retirement program.
|
|
"Like I said doctors accept payment plans, major medical emergencies are performed and then payment is collected through payment plans. Rather than set up payment plans people just declare bankruptcy ~ another reason why medical costs keep going up ~ which I forgot to mention earlier."
Me- Well, here's the problem. Most people who declare bankruptcy as a result of medical emergencies, most of them HAD insurance when they started.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bil ls/
They concluded that 62.1 percent of the bankruptcies were medically related because the individuals either had more than $5,000 (or 10 percent of their pretax income) in medical bills, mortgaged their home to pay for medical bills, or lost significant income due to an illness. On average, medically bankrupt families had $17,943 in out-of-pocket expenses, including $26,971 for those who lacked insurance and $17,749 who had insurance at some point.
"That was actually the predominant problem in patients in our study -- 78 percent of them had health insurance, but many of them were bankrupted anyway because there were gaps in their coverage like co-payments and deductibles and uncovered services," says Woolhandler. "Other people had private insurance but got so sick that they lost their job and lost their insurance."
This is the wonderful solution you guys support. It puts a million people a year into bankruptcy... |
|
All K.G. posts can be reduced to the following.
"Mine! Mine!Mine!Mine!Mine!Mine!Mine!Mine!Mine!Mine! YOu can't have it. Mine!Mine!Mine!Mine!"
Think Daffy Duck just finding something valuable and beating the crap out of Bugs Bunny. |
|
axe 1 SICK PUPPY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 SICK PUPPY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Obama is NOT the only Political FRAUD! Want to LEGALLY remove Obama from POTUS? Start HERE:
There is an ongoing criminal conspiracy among Obama supporters in Nashville to cover up crimes committed by his campaign in 2007, 2008 and 2009. These crimes include, but are not limited to, VOTER FRAUD, IDENTITY THEFT, COMPUTER THEFT, INVASION OF PRIVACY and petty BURGLARIES similar to WATERGATE.
When Nashville Judge Tom w. Brothers was first INDICTED for Drug Money Laundering Karl Dean was the Public Defender FIXING Cases, his Wife's FIRM, Bass, Berry & Sims.
According to an old Law School friend of mine who was working for the DEA when Tom Brothers was INDICTED for DRUG MONEY Laundering, Bass, Berry & Sims was the biggest Drug Money Laundering FIRM in the Southeast.
My DEA Agent Friend's words were similar to what Phil Williams of http://www.NewsChannel5.com wrote about Russell Brothers. According to Phil Williams, Russell Brothers was a "Giant among Giants" in the Drug Smuggling Business.
Tom Brothers' cover story about where the money that he was "Uncle Russell got the millions from selling insurance for CNA."
|
|
"He coldplaylover...
That is really sweet...but this is not a commune in a utopia. Everything is business. People want as much as they can get for as little as possible. Think families on welfare for three generations now. People always want a better life, some are willing to work hard while others just want to mooch. Why impede the ones who are working for it and entitling those who haven't?"
Me- Quite right. But that applies to greedy Insurance CEO's who get 8 figure salaries for denying care to patients who paid premiums in good faith. What do these guys do to really deserve that?
|
|
axe UR 1 SICK PUPPY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
axe 1 SICK PUPPY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 SICK PUPPY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Obama is NOT the only Political FRAUD! Want to LEGALLY remove Obama from POTUS? Start HERE:
There is an ongoing criminal conspiracy among Obama supporters in Nashville to cover up crimes committed by his campaign in 2007, 2008 and 2009. These crimes include, but are not limited to, VOTER FRAUD, IDENTITY THEFT, COMPUTER THEFT, INVASION OF PRIVACY and petty BURGLARIES similar to WATERGATE.
When Nashville Judge Tom w. Brothers was first INDICTED for Drug Money Laundering Karl Dean was the Public Defender FIXING Cases, his Wife's FIRM, Bass, Berry & Sims.
According to an old Law School friend of mine who was working for the DEA when Tom Brothers was INDICTED for DRUG MONEY Laundering, Bass, Berry & Sims was the biggest Drug Money Laundering FIRM in the Southeast.
My DEA Agent Friend's words were similar to what Phil Williams of http://www.NewsChannel5.com wrote about Russell Brothers. According to Phil Williams, Russell Brothers was a "Giant among Giants" in the Drug Smuggling Business.
Tom Brothers' cover story about where the money that he was "Uncle Russell got the millions from selling insurance for CNA."
|
|
Of course, that would be admitting it is a entitlement program and not a retirement program.
_____________________________________________
Social Security was never a stand along retirement program. It was set up as a "Supplement" to retirement programs. It has since become a "Ponzi scheme" that the Dems created to increase their coffers for entitlement programs. |
|
|
Hold the phone....following that late night vote without reading it first stimulus package to create jobs (we're at 9.6% unemployment now), there is talk about providing a second stimulus package that probably won't be read either. Maybe they're shooting for 15% unemployment! Ya think? |
|
|
We all know that the first package was not a stimulus. It was nothing more than the wish lists that dems had been holding onto for years. If anyone had bothered to read the plan they would see that most of the money would not go out within the first year. Lots of the projects really would not produce very many jobs anyway so I am not sure how they could sell this as stimulus. Now that unemployment is skyrocketing they realize that they need to actually do something. Problem is there is no more money. Perhaps they should recind the original package as most of the money has not been spend and take a look at what is really needed to produce jobs. I listened to Obama yesterday trying to back peddle on what he said back in January. This guy is a real amature. What we need now is some real economists to tell him what needs to be done and the clowns that have been advising thus far need to look for new jobs. |
|
This will be his undoing. He stated emphatically that with this stimulus, unemployment would not go beyond 8%....now at 9.6%. Also, Joe Biden says that the administration wasn't real bright..."they underestimated the economy".
Those and many more excuses will fall by the wayside. No, no...sorry son, this is YOUR economy and you are fk'g it up! |
|
|
You are absolutely right. I think that the bloom is coming off the rose quickly now. Obama is starting to own this and people are starting to see that he does not have a clue what his is doing. I believe that the reason he is in such a hurry with Cap and Trade and Universal Healthcare is that he knows as the economy tanks more he will be nothing more than a lame duck. |
|
Poll numbers on what people think of Congress:
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 6/12 - 6/15 29 57 -28
29% approval.....57% disapproval.
It will get worse! |
|
"29% approval.....57% disapproval.
1. How much emphasis should we place on public opinion polls? Do they only count when they support your point of view?
2. 29% approval is a lot higher than it was when Republicans ran the place.
3. What's a better measure of "approval," a public opinion poll, or the percentage that get re-elected every two years? |
|
"How much emphasis should we place on public opinion polls? Do they only count when they support your point of view?"
Vlad, you must be joking, right? Poll after poll shows that at least 65% of voters do not want thier healthcare to change (reduced or get more expensive) in order to insure the so-called 46 million uninsured.
BTW, of the 46 million: 10 million voluntarily go uninsured; 15 million are illegal aliens; 6 million are between jobs; and 9 million are children who are eligable for SCHIPS, but thier parents for whatever reasons haven't enrolled them.
|
|
2. 29% approval is a lot higher than it was when Republicans ran the place.
_______________________________________________
Actually, the truth of the matter is it's not!
The approval rating for Congress is now "the lowest it has been since Gallup first tracked public opinion of Congress with this measure in 1974," Jeffrey Jones of the Gallup Poll reports today.
According to Jones: "Just 18% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, while 76% disapprove, according to the August 13-16, 2007, Gallup Poll. That 18% job approval rating matches the low recorded in March 1992, when a check-bouncing scandal was one of several scandals besetting Congress."
As he also notes, the Democratic-led Congress has had a very brief honeymoon and stands lower in Americans' eyes than President Bush:
|
|
"Vlad, you must be joking, right? Poll after poll shows that at least 65% of voters do not want thier healthcare to change."
I asked a simple question, how can that be a joke? The question wasn't about health care per so, but about opinion polls in general. From your answer, it seems you believe that the health care system shouldn't change because a poll says people don't want it to change. Therefore you think public opinion polls are an accurate guide to political action - is that correct?
Now, your full quote says, "at least 65% of voters do not want thier healthcare to change (reduced or get more expensive) in order to insure the so-called 46 million uninsured."
It doesn't take a PhD in psychology to see how that question is loaded. Want me to explain? |
|
"The approval rating for Congress is now "the lowest it has been since Gallup first tracked public opinion of Congress with this measure in 1974," Jeffrey Jones of the Gallup Poll reports today."
"Today" being August, 2007, when the Democrats had been back in the majority for some months. What was it in December, 2006, when the Republicans were in control? Bet you a nickel it was a lot lower than 29%. Just as I said. |
|
That 78% ws for the Dems!
The 75% currently disapproving of Congress is just shy of the record-high 78% in March 1992.
|
|
|
When you figure out what you're trying to say, mail me a post card, OK? |
|
My first point is that the post office is run very well. The rise in cost is a result of more communications shifting to free or internet based means of communication. Yet they have a system that delivers a letter any were in the country for less then 50 cents. I do think the government needs an overhauling and updating. But the things that we need to do communally is not subject to profit and loss. We don't go down to the Temp service to hire our police a or firefighter because we only need them when a crime is committed or a house is on fire. In stead the Republican ideal is to determine which kid gets to eat today as a means to pay for the roof repair. but unlike the average person, the government is there to solve the needs of society. It is not solved by being penny wise and pound foolish. SO the solution to health care woes is to cut the few hundred dollars for a medication that will prevent a few hundred thousand dollars in unpaid expenses that would result form an controllable unplanned emergency visit.
My second point is that we already have rationing of health care. Instead of taking care of our fellow Americans needs, we say that your misfortune should be the ruin of you. Getting sick and bankruptcy are like steps 1 & 2 in getting healthy. The model that I propose is we take the model based on every one having a policy. This is the other model for insuring every one. It extends the idea of a risk pool to the entire nation. Instead of excluding the healthy to make cost rise until the cost of it all undermines our resolve to solve the problem of health care cost.
|
|
When you figure out what you're trying to say, mail me a post card, OK?
_______________________________________________
I would but I don't think that you know how to read! |
|
states that the current 29% approval rating for the Democratically controlled congress is still better than the when the Republicans had control of congress.
July 8, 2008
Rasmussen Reports finds that Congress has the lowest approval rating yet recorded: 9%.
You just can't put one over on vlad! |
|
"July 8, 2008. Rasmussen Reports finds that Congress has the lowest approval rating yet recorded: 9%."
My comment, which you keep pasting even though you clearly don't understand it, is comparing DEMOCRATIC ratings with REPUBLICAN ratings. And you keep putting up other DEMOCRATIC ratings. Yes, they used to be lower than 29%.
Hint: the Democrats took control of Congress in January, 2007.
|
|
Hint: the Democrats took control of Congress in January, 2007.
____________________________________________
Wow, nothing get's by you. So then AFTER taking over congress their approval rating dropped to 9% in July of 2008.
Hint: the Democrats were STILL in control at that time! LOL |
|
Yes, but when did the taxi drop off the flowers?
You really don't understand what I'm talking about, do you? |
|
You really don't understand what I'm talking about, do you?
_____________________________________________
Nobody knows what you're talking about including you! LOL |
|