determine what treatment you get. My father died in hospice because he was terminal. He didn't want to put my mother in deeper debt (they were already up to their necks in medical bills) just to prolong his pain, etc. So, he died in peace. My mother wanted to spend as much as could be spent, no matter what it would cost her in the end, but he said no.
No one will be forced to choose hospice, but so long as the cost of medical is paid unfairly by those of us with insurance (and those without or with insufficient insurance never pay their bills off), the entire system will collapse. |
|
is the biggest outrage ever attempted by Big Nanny on the American People. All we need do is let our Liberty & Freedoms--unique on this planet--be vastly diminished.
Happily, it looks like EVEN the Demowits are seeing the probable political suicide this would bring them. And, if there's something more important to the punks tan The Bamma's wishes.. it's their hides. |
|
|
agrees with you, that nutter, nut. |
|
You're ignoring that it was your father's choice. Under a universal standard of care, your father would have had no choice. No matter how much he may wanted to live a bit longer, it would have just been too bad.
And if he would still have been able to buy the treatment under a universal system, it would necessarily be more expensive than it is now, as it would be disruptive to rationing and seen as an 'unnecessary' treatment.
It's great that it was ultimately a peaceful decision for your family, but that does not mean everyone should conform to the same decision or outlook on life and death. Some people want to leave despite the pain and suffering. That's self-determination.
You characterize the system as heading toward "collapse" based on the fact that...insurance operates as insurance - where one group serves largely to compensate another. Insurance systems don't just collapse.
We should all be able to decide the care we want. Freedom is expensive, but it's worth every penny. |
|
|
"leave" should read "live" |
|
|
|
|
I find this kind of rhetoric quite encouraging. When wingnuts start running around screaming "they're going to kill all the old people!!" it's pretty clear all their more rational arguments have failed. |
|
Someone should tell the seniors about this. I wonder how many of the more senior of our citizens voted for Obama because they believed he had their best interests, comfort and quality of life in mind.
But then, anyone who could vote to throw a born alive infant in the dumptster because he believes that what the mother would want is capable of just about anything. |
|
"My father died in hospice because he was terminal."
My (step-) father did much the same thing. We had one last (early) birthday party with the whole extended family there -- he was not quite 85 -- then he was moved over to the hospice and died in the night.
We videotaped that last party, but I haven't been able to bring myself to even glance at the tapes, three years later.
"Under a universal standard of care, your father would have had no choice."
Utter nonsense. |
|
Section 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE
(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED
—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
(1) Limitation on New Enrollment -
(A) IN GENERAL.-Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect
the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.
(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.
http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAH CA-BillText-071409.pdf |
|
"When wingnuts start running around screaming "they're going to kill all the old people!!" it's pretty clear all their more rational arguments have failed."
Good thing we wingnuts are so irrelevant now, huh? I think I'll have Mrs. Wingnut post this article in the nursing home where she works.
heh heh heh
|
|
Don’t let Section 102’s title fool you.
No one who is not a dependent of someone who is already covered under an existing private plan, on the date the bill goes into effect, will be able to ever again get private health insurance.
Without the ability to enroll new members other than dependents, private health insurance will become extinct within one, or at most two, generations.
Who is the United States Congress to tell anyone that they no longer have the right to enroll in a private health plan? There’s certainly no provision in the Constitution to end private health plan enrollment.
And if you don’t sign up for Obamacare, or already have another government “accepted” plan, you will be fined 2.5 percent of your modified adjusted gross income. They call these “shared responsibility payments.” For higher earners, these fines will be in the thousands of dollars. (section 59b)
If the American people knew what was in this bill it would never get to the floor for a vote. |
|
Your reading comprehension skills are lacking if you think us to be the wingnuts. Emanuel is calling for doctors to treat their patients based not on what is best for that patient.
You've long surpassed my age, but that only means you probably need more health care than I do. OBVIOUSLY giving preferential treatment to young and robust people will save money, since there are far fewer young and robust people needing treatment.
Health care should not take on the quality of eugenics or a survival of the fittest. Health care should serve to heal our ailments, regardless of our 'usefulnes.'
Your reflexive declaration of "nonsense" means as little in this debate as in any other we've had. |
|
"Your reflexive declaration of "nonsense" means as little in this debate as in any other we've had."
Pfui. Your reflexive declaration that "Under a universal standard of care, your father would have had no choice" is equally unfounded in fact. The idea that care will be rationed for any age group more than it is currently is pure speculation on your part, with no basis.
This whole site is lit up today with cries of panic from the wingnuts. "Mandatory meetings with federal counselors on how to end their own lives!" "Euthanasia for everyone over 65!!" "The complete extinction of private health insurance!!1!" It's all nonsense. |
|
"We should all be able to decide the care we want. Freedom is expensive, but it's worth every penny."
what the flying f' are you talking about? So you want socialized medicine? How else do we pay for all that care, dear? Or are you only for 'freedom' if you can afford it?
You make no sense if you mean it literally, because the TH types want the irresponsible ones who cannot afford healthcare to do without it except maybe, just maybe, on an emergency basis.
Bob Munck, yes, I can imagine how sad that was. My dad wasn't very old, only 75, sick, diabetes, leg amputated, another one about to go. But he was also watching the bills eat up just about all that he and my mother had saved up, even with medicare, etc. But I guess Crispian thinks we should all get whatever we want because we are 'free'. |
|
"Health care should not take on the quality of eugenics or a survival of the fittest. Health care should serve to heal our ailments, regardless of our 'usefulnes.'"
So, we should all get whatever healthcare we want, correct? Paid for by our fellow citizens, right? |
|
"You make no sense if you mean it literally, because the TH types want the irresponsible ones who cannot afford healthcare to do without it except maybe, just maybe, on an emergency basis."
I want it to be affordable enough to pay out of pocket. I also want the FREEDOM to self-diagnose and self-treat. The only insurance anybody should be compelled by responsibility to purchase is catastrophic insurance.
Quit subsidizing the industry, and the costs of healthcare will decrease to what the market will bear.
|
|
that's why every other industrialized country has a state based healthcare plan. Every one. Because it is medicare that causes all of these costs, right?
|
|
Mrs Wingnut is going to pass this article around. I'll be faxing it to all of the nursing homes and home health companies in Rep Markey's (D-CO, CD4) district, along with info on how to contact our 9-12 and Tea Party groups.
heh heh heh
Critical mass. |
|
"Your reflexive declaration that "Under a universal standard of care, your father would have had no choice" is equally unfounded in fact."
Maybe not readily apparent to you, but not unfounded. If you read the article in question, the one we are here responding to, Emanuel is calling exactly for less choices. To not treat people with dementia and other conditions. It is Emanuel saying old people won't get care, not us "wingnuts."
"The idea that care will be rationed for any age group more than it is currently is pure speculation on your part, with no basis."
Ah, you seem to take this tact often. You argue that things won't be the way the policy makers want them to be/they won't be that bad (again, Emanuel wants certain people to receive less care). It is an abundance of faith on your part on how things could actually end up. I'm responding to Emanuel's policy views, not your clairvoyance.
"This whole site is lit up today with cries of panic from the wingnuts. "Mandatory meetings with federal counselors on how to end their own lives!" "Euthanasia for everyone over 65!!" "The complete extinction of private health insurance!!1!" It's all nonsense."
Again, I'm responding to wingnut Emanuel's comments, his writings. I certainly hope his vision doesn't come to fruition, but I'm not going to just sit back and scoff as you do. |
|
that's why every other industrialized country has a state based healthcare plan. Every one. Because it is medicare that causes all of these costs, right?
______________________________________________
and that's why those in UK and Canada are switching to more private care options. |
|
If you don't think we should ration care by age or condition(as you contend Emanuel suggess), then how do we pay for unlimited care for all? BK, you contend that publicly funded care doesn't work, but private care only works for those who can afford it. That's what we have now. That's why when I hurt my shoulder swimming last week, I went to my private orthopedist the same day I called, and why my assistant is still waiting to go to her HMO. that's what we have now.
So, if we are going to do hip replacements for those with advanced dementia, or lasik surgery for those with metastasized pancreatic cancer, or kidney replacement for someone who has brain cancer and is in a coma (because we don't want to keep anyone from having whatever medical care their family may want, right), how do you fund all that? Do you give a heart transplant to someone who is a 5 pack a day smoker? Do you ever limit care based on conduct, or is it only based on money, meaning if you have money, you get the care, and if you don't, f'off? Compassionate conservatives, right, so long as you have the bucks, right?
|
|
Subsidizing any industry causes costs to outstrip the inflation rate. Subsidization also creates monopolies. Nobody in their right mind would pay $7 for a bandaid or $20 for an aspirin. Monopolies can charge this amount because govt (not being of sound mind) will pay.
True healthcare reform will be recognized when healthcare providers are hawking their services like furniture salesmen.
I don't see what other countries, industrialized or not, have to do with the US. We are the greatest country on Earth simply because of our liberty, why would we want to emulate those who aren't? |
|
Me: "We should all be able to decide the care we want. Freedom is expensive, but it's worth every penny."
You: "what the flying f' are you talking about? So you want socialized medicine? How else do we pay for all that care, dear? Or are you only for 'freedom' if you can afford it?"
The expenses associated with our current system gives the freedom to receive the care each person needs for the benefit of their own personal welfare. The government does not give freedom.
"You make no sense if you mean it literally, because the TH types want the irresponsible ones who cannot afford healthcare to do without it except maybe, just maybe, on an emergency basis."
I am one of those irresponsible ones. If I need it on an emergency basis I shall get it.
"But I guess Crispian thinks we should all get whatever we want because we are 'free'."
No, I just don't think the government should decide what we deserve. The fact that it is not 'free' means we do not get "whatever we want." Sad when "whatever we want" refers to our personal health and welfare. We're not talking about everyone getting a free pony.
Right now we get health care tailored to our needs. My grandmother who is nearing 90 has an appointment coming up with a cardiologist to determine whether heart surgery should be pursued. She is fine now, but there could be a problem in the future. She is fully independent.
Under Emanuel's scheme, a doctor wouldn't even bother pursuing the matter. Perhaps you think this doctor is being frivolous. I doubt it would be based on your expert medical opinion, however. |
|
"Emanuel wants certain people to receive less care). It is an abundance of faith on your part on how things could actually end up."
That's because I agree with the things he actually said, not with the wild-eyed interpretation and extrapolation of the hysterical rightwing. A person on Medicare who is in the condition that Terri Schiavo was in should NOT receive continuing government-funded health care. Doctors today do often over-react with extreme (and extremely expensive) attempts to save people who are terminal
Are there easy answers to those situations? No. But we have to talk about the problem.
The right wing is waving their hands in the air and screaming "Euthanasia!" And they're doing it not because they actually think it's true, but because they don't want this bill to pass. |
|
the greatest country on earth even though we have abject poverty, 40 million without health insurance, etc?
You sound like you want to do some price fixing. |
|
"but private care only works for those who can afford it. That's what we have now."
No, there hasn't been a free market in healthcare for about 45 years.
"So, if we are going to do hip replacements..."
So, you think those options should be decided by bureaucrats instead of patients and their doctors? |
|
Compassionate conservatives, right, so long as you have the bucks, right?
__________________________________________
and you believe that Government Medical is going to change this? Boy are you naive. I guess you have been ignoring those nightmares from Canada and the UK. Now the UK is raising taxes because they can't afford their system...so is Canada.
So, you want to eliminate choice altogether? You choose not to have insurance...not an option. Small business can't afford to provide healthcare for employees...not an option. You want to switch insurance companies...not an option.
I think you people better wake up before it's too late for everyone. You don't think that these politicians really care about people, do you.....bwahahahahahahaha! It's simply about the control.
They believe that you are to stupid to handle your own affairs...only they can do it for you! |
|
without the public option, and I bet Pelosi pulls the House together on that point too, to pass it all before the recess.
Insurance companies call the shots now. If I am 85 and need a hip replacement, and my insurer declines it because it is beyond my coverage, the only way I get that is if I can pay for it. You are the ones who want to deny the hip replacement to those who cannot afford it.
We have a broken system. It will be significantly fixed soon. |
|
"the greatest country on earth even though we have abject poverty, 40 million without health insurance, etc?"
I've been all over this country and many others. I've never seen a baby with a bloated belly due to starvation on the streets of the US. We have no "abject poverty" in this country. Those that are poor can have more by simply working harder and/or smarter IF they want.
And IF they want, they can buy health insurance. I'd prefer that the option be left available to citizens to choose for themselves what they do with the industry of their labor. I'd also like to see healthcare costs reduced to market levels so that the poor can afford healthcare out of pocket so that they can use their meager incomes to take care of more immediate needs like food and housing.
|
|
"If I am 85 and need a hip replacement, and my insurer declines it because it is beyond my coverage, the only way I get that is if I can pay for it. You are the ones who want to deny the hip replacement to those who cannot afford it."
Now read the article which the blog post refers. |
|
The utter and complete selfishness of your 5:13 pm post reveals you for what you are, a selfish, self-interested person who has all the compassion of a Gila Monster! To explain hospice care and a doctor's care to someone like you is a task in futility.
Bob Munck you are the same pretentious twit you have revealed here and you mirror Kaboom's selfishness. Both of you show a remarkable lack of compassion and sympathy; but that is to be expected from your previous rants. Neither of you understand or can ever grasp what hospice care and a doctor's care really represent, for you two it is dollars and cents! |
|
actually the Senate may pass the bill
without the public option, and I bet Pelosi pulls the House together on that point too, to pass it all before the recess.
____________________________________________
Pelosi was just on TV and said that she is happy with the progress but has more work to do. Reid won't even put it up for a vote. Once these senators and congressmen go back home, they will be bombarded with all the negative aspects of this horendous bill.
Right now, Americans are becoming extremely negative about this legislation and it's cost...and it won't even cover everyone. Best thing that could happen would be to throw this trash out and start all over with something more "AMERICAN" and workable. |
|
"That's because I agree with the things he actually said, not with the wild-eyed interpretation and extrapolation of the hysterical rightwing."
He said that he thinks doctors should conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the patient's value to society in order to decide how or whether to care for that person.
AIDS patients put a significant strain on our health care system. Prolonging the lives of AIDS patients only means an increased opportunity to spread the virus. We should not guarantee their care, according to Emanuel's logic.
You talk about Terri Schiavo, Emanuel talks about "patients with dementia." The two are not that parallel. Again, you are reading into it what you want to see. I am pointing out his exact language.
You: "The right wing is waving their hands in the air and screaming "Euthanasia!" And they're doing it not because they actually think it's true, but because they don't want this bill to pass."
You read hysteria into everything conservatives write but are unable to see the plain language used by the left. I'm not commenting about the legislation, I'm commenting on Emanuel's words on health care generally. Though I certainly hope his medical philosophy is not an integral part of the bill. |
|
Interesting that Lasic surgery was mentioned. There are a couple of types of surgeries or medical procedures whose cost has come down in recent years:
plastic surgery
Lasic
lap band
Plastic surgery and Lasic are almost NEVER covered by insurance and the lap band rarely (although it is getting more common)
Doesn't that say that when you let it, the free market does, indeed, bring prices down?
I think the answer to our current health care "crisis" lays somewhere between what we have now and the free market; not where we are now and universal heath care where the government is involved.
Let nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurses, etc into the market. They could be picking up a lot of the slack
And for the 47th million time: JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE DOESN'T MEAN YOU DON'T GET HEALTH CARE! |
|
The GOP and Rep. Bachmann's mantra; when in doubt scare the elderly
Kind of funny that her mother has been on Medicare for well over a decade and managed to thrive
|
|
|
Just because you have health insurance (now) doesn’t mean you get healthcare that you need |
|
educate yourself: read the entire bill:
all 1,ooo pages, it is in there: ACORN will pressure anyone over 55 and all health challenged people to END THEIR LIVES !
they will get ZERO HC under evil OBAMA's death care plan, his population control plan
as sinister: pure evil:
READ the friggin bill folks:
Take a peek at the full report, or look at some of the highlights here:
Pg 22 of the HC Bill mandates the Government will audit books of all employers that self insure. Can you imagine what that will do to small businesses? Every one will abandon “self insurance” and go on Government insurance. So when Obama says that there will still be private health care, it’s simply a lie: this mandate will force employers to abandon their private plans.
Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill – a Government committee (good luck with that!) will decide what treatments/benefits a person may receive.
Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill – YOUR HEALTHCARE WILL BE RATIONED! (We all knew this, because health care is rationed in Canada and Britain, but Obama kept saying it would not be).
Pg 42 of HC Bill – The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you. You will have no choice!
PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill – HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise.
Pg 58 HC Bill – Government will have real-time access to individual’s finances and a National ID Healthcard will be issued!
Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Government will have direct access to your bank accts for election funds transfer
|
|
"An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."
That was not the GOP or Bachmann's statement. That is a member of the Obama administration. |
|
At 5:13pm:
" My father died in hospice because he was terminal. He didn't want to put my mother in deeper debt (they were already up to their necks in medical bills)"
Isn't this about the point where you remind us all just how rich you are?
At 7:55pm:
"That's why when I hurt my shoulder swimming last week, I went to my private orthopedist the same day I called, and why my assistant is still waiting to go to her HMO."
Oh there it is...knew your classless a$$ couldn't get through a thread with reminding us what a snob you are. So, how come your "assistant" has such sucky health insurance...you provide it for her by any chance? Or are you just too rich to have to do with what the "help" gets? |
|
"He said that he thinks doctors should conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the patient's value to society in order to decide how or whether to care for that person."
Show me the actual words in which he says that, and I'll give them serious thought.
Do you think that a person who has been drinking heavily for years and continues to do so should be given a liver transplant ahead of a person (same age, same general level of health) who doesn't drink? Should a 3-pack-a-day smoker get a lung transplant ahead of someone who doesn't smoke? In both cases, aren't you making a judgement about the two patients' relative worth to society and the likely success of the transplant? The cost of the transplant -- using up a rare transplantable liver or lung -- against the benefit -- the long-term success of the operation and survival of the patient.
If it's that kind of decision that Emanuel is calling for, and from what I've seen it is, then I agree with him. Those kinds of judgments are made every day.
"AIDS patients put a significant strain on our health care system. Prolonging the lives of AIDS patients only means an increased opportunity to spread the virus. We should not guarantee their care, according to Emanuel's logic."
Did he actually say that about AIDS patients? Or are you extrapolating what you think his logic is to an extreme position? |
|
"educate yourself: read the entire bill:
all 1,ooo pages, it is in there: ACORN will pressure anyone over 55 and all health challenged people to END THEIR LIVES"
I have. You're lying. |
|
There's a word that I didn't used to let my teenagers say to me, but here, with you, I can find no alternative. You are truly impervious to logic.
Whatever. |
|
|
|
When they openly admit that the goal is to do away with private health insurance,
you’ve exposed their agenda.
|
|
"In both cases, aren't you making a judgement about the two patients' relative worth to society and the likely success of the transplant? The cost of the transplant -- using up a rare transplantable liver or lung -- against the benefit -- the long-term success of the operation and survival of the patient."
No, and neither are you, and neither is some damned bureaucrat in DC. It is, and should be the patient's and the doctor's business, nobody elses.
|
|
"If it's that kind of decision that Emanuel is calling for, and from what I've seen it is, then I agree with him. Those kinds of judgments are made every day."
Seig heil, MFer.
|
|
"It is, and should be the patient's and the doctor's business, nobody elses."
If there's one liver or lung available, as I postulated, then you have two patients and probably two doctors. What if both patient/doctor pairs decide that they get the transplant? Who decides? |
|
The doctors, the deceased's relatives, the organ bank, the patients,...
Regardless, it's none of YOUR business, and none of the government's business. |
|
"Regardless, it's none of YOUR business, and none of the government's business."
You're not understanding the question. The transplant scenario is just a metaphor for the larger question where the government controls the resources that have to be allocated, and someone has to decide how to allocate them. If you want, you can substitute "the health insurance industry" for "the government" in that; same question in either case.
Who decides, and how do they make the decision? |
|
I must get to sleep, as I have an exam tomorrow, but I did read the ending of page 13 concerning the above quoted statements.
Perhaps you are hanging your hat on the non-basic/basic services dichotomy, implying all health services are to be available, but some will be guaranteed.
This still begs the question, who is to decide? I say it should be the doctor who looks solely at the patient before him. I would consider the treatment of dementia to be "basic." It's certainly not cosmetic.
You bring up the necessary limitations on organ donations to people with substance abuse issues. However, such limitations have nothing to do with a person's usefulness or youth.
Bob: "In both cases [of a smoker and a drinker], aren't you making a judgement about the two patients' relative worth to society and the likely success of the transplant?"
No. Likely success of an operation is always taken into consideration when a doctor makes a decision. But it is a judgment based on the individual's circumstance, not on his worth to society.
Emanuel's assertions are not akin to the decisions relating to organ transplants. Emanuel is referring to the 'non-basic' treatment of dementia with the 'basic' treatment of learning disabilities (p.14). It is based on a concept of usefulness divorced from the actual patient.
Bob: "Did he actually say that about AIDS patients? Or are you extrapolating what you think his logic is to an extreme position?"
I am extrapolating, and is no more extreme than to say people with dementia should not be guaranteed care. Both are degenerative conditions without a cure. All we can do is stave off both conditions for awhile.
I say neither the infallible Mr. Munck nor the irrepressible Crispian decide who deserves care. The doctor already decides what is the proper course of treatment for a patient. He need not choose between the dyslexic child and the increasingly confused retiree. |
|
hey, you fools voted for the
messiah, well thats what you get, a trip into hell! |
|
"who is to decide? I say it should be the doctor who looks solely at the patient before him."
The doctor will, in all but the extreme cases, decide in favor of the patient before him. How could he be anything but biased in favor of the actual person he can see over an unseen, anonymous, faceless mass of theoretical patients? Forcing the doctor occasionally to decide AGAINST his patient is a terrible solution.
"such limitations have nothing to do with a person's usefulness or youth. ... But it is a judgment based on the individual's circumstance, not on his worth to society."
No, it's always based at least in part on his worth to society AFTER THE OPERATION. If the operation is unlikely to succeed and the patient almost certain to die, the patient's worth to society has a very low expected value.
"I say neither the infallible Mr. Munck nor the irrepressible Crispian decide who deserves care."
Those are certainly among the worst possible solutions to the problem.
"The doctor already decides what is the proper course of treatment for a patient. He need not choose between the dyslexic child and the increasingly confused retiree."
The problem with that is that it isn't one doctor making such a choice. It's two doctors miles apart, one with a dyslexic child in front of him and the other with a confused retiree. Now generalize from that; who decides? Someone has to. |
|
Some people here have done a great job pointing out the imperfections with our current health system (two different doctors; two different patients: one heart)
and others have spent their time pointing out the obvious faults that lay within the 1,000 page healthcare reform bill, or whatever they call it. (who gets the limited resources? demented 75-year old? AIDS patient? dyslexic kid?)
Bottom line: I think any sane person would rather deal with something closer to our current system: thousands of imperfect people and imperfect patients and imperfect doctors trying to do their best.
As opposed the ONE BIG GOVERNMENT making decisions based upon some creepy matrix or rule book. Usefulness to society? Anyone want a government employee making that decision or determination?
Aside from the military, I find it hard to be happy with the job the Feds do on ANYTHING; they ruin almost everything they touch. So when Bob says "someone has to" decide, I sure as heck don't want it being someone on government payroll. (And yes, Bob, I'll take my chances on the insurance bast***. At least I can sue his a**)
So I hope they don't touch the health care of the American people. We deserve better.
|
|
He was mentioned in the blog Saturday. Hard to not at least hear a mention in the news this last week, fan or not...
He was a great racer pre-cancer. Ironically, he got sick during a tour.The cancer had spread far when it was found. He went into immediate and new treatments. He wasn't ever supposed to be able to race again. He won all 7 after that...
Another irony...BHO espouses empathy often. Like in our scotus. Yet this WHs approach could cool the AGW issue they preach? (maybe thats their game?).
I wonder if we'd be talking about another Lance in a few years time with all this in place? God knows? (btw left, Armstrong is athiest leaning and on your side).... |
|
In previous posts Kaboom writes that her father is a doctor who helps many of her family members get care when their HMO's withhold that care. Now she writes
"My father died in hospice because he was terminal. He didn't want to put my mother in deeper debt (they were already up to their necks in medical bills) just to prolong his pain, etc. So, he died in peace. My mother wanted to spend as much as could be spent, no matter what it would cost her in the end, but he said no."
Kaboom is nothing but a liar. I would venture to say that every post that this moron writes is a lie. You know like being rich, lawyer, etc. My husband always says that you must have a very good memory when you lie. It is easy to remember the truth but very hard to remember what you have said in the past when you lie. |
|
"government controls the resources that have to be allocated"
Therein lies the problem. Govt SHOULDN'T control the "resources". Normal people pray that they never have to make these types of decisions. Normal people feel sorry for those who are put into these situations. Normal people wouldn't even consider making those decisions for people they don't even know.
Not so the statist. Interjecting themselves into life and death decisions is the Holy Grail for statists. Statists have no problem letting Nancy Pelosi or Ezekiel Emanuel decide the value of a person's life. Ironically, these same people will give welfare checks, govt cheese, and housing to able-bodied people whose value to society is even less than that of someone like Terry Schivo.
Only through court action should government be involved in medical decisions. Otherwise, the decisions should be a private matter, to be resolved only by those affected. Somebody will lose, somebody will win, but the winner shouldn't be chosen by a bureaucrat or a voter, be the voter a next door neighbor or one a thousand miles away. |
|
|
They verbiage in this bill gives the government so much power as to who they will and will not treat. When implementing the various sections of the bill the government board will interpret the bill as they choose. With language that is so subject to interpretation is will be easy for the government to claim that the intent of the bill is this or that. Believe me they will deny coverage for as much as possible knowing that there will never be enough money to cover all these people they propose to insure. The elderly will be hit particularly hard and we know it. Both Daschel and Emanuel have clearly stated that the elderly must accept less care. Both are involved in the structuring of the bill. Enough said. |
|
As we write, my wife is passing this article around to every healthcare professional in the nursing home in which she works.
She was shocked when she read it, as it is her job to help elderly folks be as independent as possible. There is dignity in independence, and many of the residents object to being placed into a nursing home because of the lost dignity which occurs as a result.
Statists seek to destroy independence, be it a small business owner, or a person rehabing from a stroke relearning to button a shirt.
It is fascism, pure and simple. |
|
|
|
Kaboom writes: Wednesday, July, 15, 2009 4:58 PM
Diane--that jumping to conclusions thing
is soooo silly.
As I said, I don't belong to an HMO. My 75 year old second cousin belongs to Kaiser. He waits. My family has our own very expensive policy (medical costs in LA area are very expensive--).
"My husband's firm does provide access to HMO because they had a few employees who had very serious illnesses and the cost for the firm PPO was way higher than the private policy we have. I don't wait for appointments as one of our doctors is our next door neighbor, and our other doctors are likewise family friends. My dad is also a doctor (not in LA) and that tends to help my siblings get treated quite promptly. He is a family practice doctor who is quite reasonable. He actually supports President Obama because he thinks all the specialization, drug costs, etc, are caused by profit concerns, not satisfying a doctor's loyalty to the hippocratic oath. "
This is what Kaboom wrote on July 15th. Apparently her father became very sick and spend a lot of money in the past two weeks. Went from helping family members to the grave in two short weeks. I believe that this proves that this fool is truly a liar.
|
|
|
what these nursing home residents also need to be aware of is that there will be staff cuts for these facilities as they are considered part of cost cutting. Less staff means less care. |
|
Back in 2004, then Senator Obama made a big issue about Bush pushing through legislation "in to fast a time" and not allowing opposition time to "read" it.
Seems like the shoe is on the other foot now!!!!
conservativebrawler.blogspot.com/.../what-obama-said-when-legislation-was.html |
|
|
Bachman is correct ,Obamas plan will ration care and cut out those they deem marginal. Kiss your grandmas goodbye |
|
|
Just think these guys are multi tasking. Getting rid the the elderly helps save money in both SS benefits and health care. |
|
Thanks for the link to that interview "outtake" with Randi Rhodes.
Obummer certainly provides insight on that one.
WOW.
>:^D |
|
|
Saw that clip this morning. This is the stuff that the conservatives need to show on a daily basis exposing this clown for what he is. |
|
is the Republican Party? Could this be another reason the libs hate Palin? This thing should be on the front page of every newspaper, all over T.V.
It's also another reason I'm unhappy with the party. No direction or leadership.
|
|
|
Yes the repubs should be all over the TV, except that most of the MSM will not give them that opportunity. They should be using e-mail as a way of getting information out. Once I contributed to McCain I received repeated e-mails for more money. Why are they not using that e-mail list to get the word out. |
|
was reportedly given contract to build massive detention centers across the country or so the rumour goes. I would not put this past BHO with his Marxist policies.
Now Haliburton may be given the contract for the mass Euthanasia Centers that will be needed with this new health care.
Read Brave New World, 1984 and watch Solent Green. We are headed that way. In Huxley's Brave New World nobody lives past 60 and in Solent Green the elderly are helped with end of life decisions: doctor assisted suicide like in those Socialized countries and Oregon and Washington State.
This is a true struggle between the forces of good and true evil. Evil is in charge.
BTW does everyone know that AARP is all for Obamascare! |
|
|
Remember AARP has always been a left leaning organization. They are also involved in many businesses that are making them lots of money including car insurance, investments, etc. The government could easily cause them lots of problems if they do not comply. Keep in mind the Chicago thugs are in charge, I am willing to bet blackmail is prevalent. |
|
and is blowing his smoke obfuscations.
This time munckey's lie is that Terry Schiavo was terminal. She was not terminal other than in the sense that every living being is terminal. |
|
Competition is the best way to contain costs.
Government involvement is worst way to encourage competition.
How ignorant of economics must a person be to not know that the way prices are set is by supply and demand (unless an ignorant government becomes involved).
Increase supply (more doctors, nurses and hospitals) and cost goes down.
Decrease demand (healthier lifestyles, earlier detection, etc.) and cost goes down.
the ignorance kaboom is spewing recognizes that decreasing demand lowers costs, but relies on the rationing of medical care by the federal government at gun point.
It is beyond ignorant and stupid, it is evil, to deny people medical treatment when there are other options.
Just because the Dems and obama, the kenyan, do not want to explore other options does not mean they do not exist.
There are many other options that can be explored before rationing is considered. |
|
|
...if you just simply eliminate all health insurance except catastrophic/long term. All these false arguments about the costs of health care, poof, gone. 'Course, that would give the Marxist crapheads one less way to control your life, wouldn't it? |
|
private medical records!!!!
The government wants to take my personal medical information and use it against me!!!
That is what the kenyan wants and that is what the SF botox wants. |
|
Not sure you read my post regarding Kaboom today. Last night she gave the details of how her father chose hospice to die as he was smart enough to save money. The following is what she wrote on July 15th:
Kaboom writes: Wednesday, July, 15, 2009 4:58 PM
Diane--that jumping to conclusions thing
is soooo silly.
As I said, I don't belong to an HMO. My 75 year old second cousin belongs to Kaiser. He waits. My family has our own very expensive policy (medical costs in LA area are very expensive--).
"My husband's firm does provide access to HMO because they had a few employees who had very serious illnesses and the cost for the firm PPO was way higher than the private policy we have. I don't wait for appointments as one of our doctors is our next door neighbor, and our other doctors are likewise family friends. My dad is also a doctor (not in LA) and that tends to help my siblings get treated quite promptly. He is a family practice doctor who is quite reasonable. He actually supports President Obama because he thinks all the specialization, drug costs, etc, are caused by profit concerns, not satisfying a doctor's loyalty to the hippocratic oath. "
I guess this shows how much credibility we should give to any post written by kaboom.
|
|
"She was not terminal other than in the sense that every living being is terminal."
No, Schiavo died in 1990. After that, her body was used as a kind of meat puppet by right-wing extremists to push their beliefs. |
|
it also goes away if the federal government is prohibited from involving itself in private medical decisions.
the ignorant keep talking about european and canadian medical systems. they are too stupid to realize that the central governments of european countries and the central government of canada are not made of sovereign states as we are here in the U.S.A.
the federal government has NO BUSINESS involving itself in private medical decisions. that is the essence of slavery.
|
|
to every senior citizen, every disabled citizen, and to every parent of a disabled child that they know.
I know of no American who would support the federal government rationing medical care and deciding who is entitled to medical care.
When you are prohibited from making your own medical decisions, you are nothing more than a slave!!!! |
|
If we legally remove BO from POTUS.
We need to focus on Local Red County Grand Jury Indictments for crimes committed by Obama campaign in 2007, 2008 and 2009.
Simple Steps to Legally Remove Obama:
1) Advertise and Promote the Fact that you are forming a Grand Jury in Blogs, Local Newspapers and Community Organizations.
2) Form the Grand Jury and select a Foreman.
3) Select a Private Attorney General to make Presentments to Grand Jury, if local DA refuses to make presentments.
4) Select a convenient Meeting Place.
5) Communicate with all Citizens who have criminal information to present.
6) Schedule presentments by said Citizens.
7) Subpoena documents from Government Offices and Officials.
8) Schedule presentment of said Documents to Grand Jury by Grand Jury Attorney General.
9. Have Grand Jury Attorney General present said Documents to Grand Jury.
10) After investigation and deliberation is completed, vote and issue a True Bill (Indictment) or No True Bill.
11 Announce all Indictments to the Press.
12) Serve the Indictment on the Judiciary for the Issuance of Arrest Warrants.
|
|
"No, Schiavo died in 1990. After that, her body was used as a kind of meat puppet by right-wing extremists to push their beliefs."
So I take it you believe that the right-wing extremists should have minded their own business and left the life and death decision to the family? |
|
|
Yah, I guess Obama didn't have staff to read his bills for him...he wanted to read them hisself! |
|
|
Your point about the medical records is very important. People will be afraid to tell their doctors information that is very important when it comes to their treatment. It is so important that a physician know all the information they need to make a good diagnosis. I will bet that most will never admit to things like smoking, depression in their past or other things that they thing the government will use against them when it comes to what care they will receive. |
|
"So I take it you believe that the right-wing extremists should have minded their own business and left the life and death decision to the family?"
Yes. Her husband was the person in the proper moral and legal position to make the decision, and he should have been allowed to do so.
Note, however, that it wasn't a "life and death decision;" she was already dead. |
|
|
That was then and this is now. Obama is making up the rules as he goes along. Remember he is the messiah he can change his mind no matter what. |
|
This article provides more hysterical nonsense. First, physicians and patients often (already, right now, today, this hour) make the decision against aggressive treatment of life-threatening illness based on the patient's age and condition. Radical surgery or chemotherapy may be more than the patient's already failing body can tolerate. He/she might not survive the treatment. Treatment might make the patient sicker or even result in death. And sometimes, the patient has, finally, just had enough and is ready to go. (And the reality is that sometimes a gung-ho young doctor who doesn't want to quit has to be persuaded and restrained by the patient and family who are saying, "Let this be over".
Second, insurance companies ALREADY make many of our health care decisions---there is nothing new here. Some plans tell your doctor how long he can spend with you. Insurance is behind the same-day surgery that has become so popular---patients used to be allowed to rest quietly in the hospital the night before an operation and recovery quietly in bed after one. No more: now we have to report at 5 AM, no matter if we live 100 miles away, and often are asked to climb off the OR table and go find a way home, literally. And these changes were not made for the good of the patient, but for the profit-margin of the insurance company.
But based on the logic in this article, I fully expect to see townhall taking the position that hospice = euthanasia.
Also, these crazy predictions of what "will" happen under Obamacare don't take into account that doctors have professional ethics. Do you folks actually believe that America's doctors would go along with forced abortion and mandatory euthanasia? Or that society would? No society will tolerate a law that is counter to its values.
|
|
"Her husband was the person in the proper moral and legal position to make the decision, and he should have been allowed to do so."
Now, keep Nancy Pelosi, Ezekiel Emanuel, and Barry Soetoro away from me and everybody else who didn't vote for them. It is afterall the "proper moral and legal" thing to do.
|
|
Last night Rachel Maddow ran an interesting bit. First she showed about a dozen quick clips of Republican lawmakers defending their anti-Obamacare position based on data provided by "The Lewin Group"---over and over, they quoted The Lewin Group as they pointed out all the reasons that Obamacare would be terrible. Then Maddow exposed The Lewin Group for what it is---very directly, a health care information consulting firm that exists as, serves, and is part of the commercial health insurance industry.
Here's how the thing works: 1) Health care in the USA is now controlled by the commercial health insurance industry. 2) They make lots of money. 3) Under Obamacare they may lose money and they certainly will lose power---right now they are running the show, much moreso than doctors or hospitals. 4) So they are in a frenzy to stop Obamacare---this is all about their protection of power and income. 5) Thus, they are using every marketing tool to SCARE you so that you will raise your voices in protest, hopefully stopping the health care bill in Congress.
When you see their stuff on TV or the Internet, pay attention. Most of it is worded in the future tense: Obama WILL do something, he COULD, he MIGHT. Or TV commentators say, "This is what folks are concerned about, this is what my email is full of, I don't know but this is what folks are saying." This is rumor-mongering of the highest degree. It is the health insurance industry that is behind the words that scare you. And it's not about YOUR medical care---it's all about THEIR money. |
|
In your own post you state that doctors and patients make decisions on how much care. That is the point this should be done between the doctor, the patient and the family, not the government.
Also insurance companies have had to cut services as they currently subsidize medicare, medicaid and illegals. Read and you will find out just how much private insurance has had to pay to cover the shortfall of the government plans and the illegals. The only way any government plan can survive without private insurance picking up the tab is rationing of care. You are quite foolish if you think that what private insurance does right now will even compare to what the government will do when it comes to rationing. |
|
|
I would look to a more reputable source of media to watch. Maddow is clearly a far left loon who will follow Obama off a cliff. Read some information from places like the Mayo clinic, Cleveland Clinic and other fine institutions who can give you a far more responsible view of the health care problems. |
|
"No society will tolerate a law that is counter to its values."
They will if there is a gun at their head.
|
|
Has it not occurred to you that having your medical records in the computer might actually HELP you? My husband and I have all of our medical care at a large university medical center that keeps all records in the computer---they are "paperless". When you see the doctor, he/she doesn't write notes on a paper chart but taps them into the computer. When you have a blood test, CAT scan, X-ray, or any other test, the results go immediately into the computer. Results of surgery: into the computer. What medications you're on: in the computer. Are you allergic to penicillin or latex gloves? It's in the computer.
This means that when you show up in the emergency room, gasping for breath or screaming in pain, at 3 AM, you don't have to try and explain your medical history because the doctors and nurses already have it right before them. If your own doctor is unavailable and you see a strange doctor, he/she already knows what meds you are taking, what your allergies are, whether you've had this problem before, and all the rest of the long and complicated story. And this works to the benefit of the patient.
Eddie, why do you think everybody is out to get you?
|
|
For openers, let's get over the idea that anyone who disagrees with you politically is either crazy or stupid. Rachel Maddow has a PhD in political science from Oxford University, and is neither crazy nor stupid. Her presentations are from the Democratic point of view, but that doesn't mean that they are not well-researched.
Please look at the example I gave. 1) If she showed a dozen film clips of Republicans citing The Lewin Group, that is factual: she couldn't make that up, since we saw their faces and heard their speech. 2) If The Lewin Group was set up by another company, which she named, you are perfectly free to take notes and check that out---you will find the Internet an invaluable research tool. 3) If it all turns out to be true, then look at that---the insurance industry is working like hell to stop government insurance. Draw your own conclusions. Do you think business is motivated by altruism? That they are doing this marketing extravaganza out of concern for YOU? No fear.
150 years ago John Stuart Mill advised people to find the best spokesman for the opposition and go to school to him "because this will teach us the weaknesses in our own argument". Wanting to understand all facets of the situation is what brings me to townhall. Why don't you try listening to DOCTOR Maddow with an open mind? Unlike Rush Limbaughl, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck, who never went to school and rely on propaganda and blowhard opinion, Maddow and her staff actually back up their statements with research. You might learn something.
|
|
|
Suppose that some of your information is wrong. Do you ever wonder what the ramifications that would have. My husband had his records on the computer in a large medical facility as well. Cautiously I checked on a continuous basis as to the validity of those records. Amongst the many errors I found was that his records revealed that he was a 34 year old on methadone for drug addiction, nicotine patch for smoking and antidepressants for severe depression. If I had not caught this my husband who was very ill would have been dead. By the way my husband was 58 years old, never smoked, never did drugs and never suffered from depression. These records are subject to many errors. |
|
|
Please tell us just how far left Maddow leans. I do not care what her education is. I have watched her report things that were clearly not valid and were only reflective of her views. Please stop trying to justify your far left aqenda with reports from Maddow. |
|
"Now, keep Nancy Pelosi, Ezekiel Emanuel, and Barry Soetoro away from me and everybody else who didn't vote for them."
OK. Why would they want to go to wherever you live anyway? |
|
"Why don't you try listening to DOCTOR Maddow with an open mind?"
You'll find that Diane and many others here won't accept as valid anything that they don't already believe. They are the very antithesis of the concept of an open mind. The only sources of information that they will consider are people like Limbaugh, Palin, O'Reilly, Gingrich, and, lord help us, Michele Bachmann. |
|
he died about 2 weeks ago in a hospice. He tried to practice through all of his treatment, but once they said his second leg had to come off, and the congestive heart failure felled him one day at the office, he chose hospice.
It has wiped my parents out financially. He lived in the state where my siblings lived, not in CA. But just having a doctor as a parent tends to get you special treatment from other doctors. Heck, when my oldest son was born, a similac rep showed up at my door with 6 months supply of formula. |
|
|
When you cannot support you ridiculous posts you play the game of politics. Perhaps you should watch and read some additional information by those who do know. This bill is about much more than politics. It will mean the future of our health care in this country and our ability to get that care. Please read a little of what has driven costs up. You know like malpractice, defensive medicine to avoid malpractice, private insurance subsidizing medicare and medicaid for years. Read some real information as opposed to your loony left talking points. |
|
I cannot recall ever posting anything about electronic medical records. They may be more efficient.
I object to the federal government having access to my private medical records and history. |
|
ask your Dem friends in the House to add a regulation that nothing in this bill (3200) can, will, or may be read, interpreted or construed to give the federal government, its employees or its representatives access to the private medical records and the private medical histories of American citizens.
That regulation is the most essential change that could come out of 3200. |
|
|
Right good catch. Your post of July 15th talks about how he helps your family members with HMO's. You talk about how he believes in the Obama plan and now on July 27th you claim he died in hospice. Funny how you have had so much time to post here with your father dying and you know doing things like helping your mother with the funeral. I doubt that you would have failed to mention this with your many posts. I also doubt that anyone who was dealing with the death of a parent would have so much time to spend on townhall. You have been caught for the liar you are Kaboom. Knew it was just a matter of time. As my husband always said he never lies because he does not have that good a memory. When something is true it is not hard to remember, when one repeatedly lies it is difficult to remember what they said to who. Apparently you do not have a good memory. |
|
another regulation might be expressed in the negative.
Try getting your Dem friends (since Repubs are prohibit from speaking about 3200) to add a regulation that states explicity that the federal government is prohibited from accessing the medical records and medical histories of American citizens. |
|
another regulation might be expressed in the negative.
Try getting your Dem friends (since Repubs are prohibit from speaking about 3200) to add a regulation that states explicity that "the federal government its employees, representatives and agents are prohibited from accessing the medical records and medical histories of individual American citizens. This shall not prevent the federal government from collecting anonymous health information from citizens' records and histories for the purpose of medical research. |
|
|
with all that money you claim to have I certainly hope you are helping your Mom. Oh and by the way one who claims to be so compassionate I would have thought you would have jumped in to help your dad, you know going to work with one leg and all like he had to do. I can say I would have certainly made sure my dad did not have to work under those circumstances. I would have happily paid their bills and made my father's end of life much better. Please let me hear about how you keep that housekeeper again. |
|
"Please read a little of what has driven costs up. You know like malpractice, defensive medicine to avoid malpractice, private insurance subsidizing medicare and medicaid for years."
Yes, those things do. But so do massive profits for health insurance companies, literally billions of dollars in salaries for their CEOs and other executives, pharmaceutical companies charging us sky-high prices so they can sell much more cheaply to the rest of the world, insurance lawyers being paid $500/hour to go through your medical records and original application with a fine-toothed comb to find a reason to deny you coverage, etc.
The 23 largest health insurance companies paid their CEOs a total of $1.5 billion over five years. That's just TWENTY-THREE GUYS.
United Healthcare paid their CEO $125 million in 2005. That's enough to pay for 833 general internists at current prices, or to run one mid-sized community hospital for a year. Somewhere a town didn't have a hospital or the patients that 833 doctors could have served didn't have doctors, because of this one guy. |
|
|
with all that money you claim to have I certainly hope you are helping your Mom. Oh and by the way one who claims to be so compassionate I would have thought you would have jumped in to help your dad, you know going to work with one leg and all like he had to do. I can say I would have certainly made sure my dad did not have to work under those circumstances. I would have happily paid their bills and made my father's end of life much better. Please let me hear about how you generously keep that housekeeper again. |
|
|
Please tell me again how much Obama got paid for his books. Capitalism is about making money. Insurance is a business but it serves a purpose. I happily pay my premiums and get great care. I believe you should check on exactly how much care is denied. You should check if some of that care is not denied because people took lessor policies and then wanted better coverage when they needed it. Perhaps you might check how many sign up for policies only after they are diagnosed with a problem and pay a few premiums and expect the insurance company to pay a big chunk. Get some facts together and get back to me. Oh by the way one can fight the insurance company, you think that will work with the government. Execs are paid for performance, I guess you have a problem with that. I wonder how you base your charges for your work? |
|
Does any of this surprise you? Liberal = liar. There is no separating the two.
If kaboom were telling the truth, she would still be nothing but another limousine-liberal telling the REST of us how we must live, while herself doing something entirely different. (Think Ted Kennedy).
Of course, being just another lefty in mommy's basement, the anonymity of the internet gives her the opportunity to live out some fantasies without her real identity (think Gladys Krump from Bewitched), revealed.... |
|
|
If we didn't have Medicare, Medicaid, or health insurance except long term/catastrophic, all that money would have flowed directly between doctor and patient, instead of middlemen. And just think, it'd be a fraction of what was spent, 'cause the prices would be substantially lower. Just think. |
|
"Please tell me again how much Obama got paid for his books."
The $5 million or so that Obama got didn't come out of anyone's health care.
"I wonder how you base your charges for your work?"
Essentially, I chose $125/hour because it's easy to calculate the bill for an 8-hour day. It's also pretty close to what I made working for a company. The CEO of United Healthcare made about $60,000/hour. How long does it take you to make that much? |
|
|
Fortunately, liars always expose themselves. The more they write the more chance they will trip themselves up. These libs are so sad. Kaboom desperately wants to be a limousine-liberal unfortunately what she has proven is that she is just a loony lib liar trying desperately to push her opinion. |
|
|
Gee seems those execs in the insurance industry are much smarter than you. Sounds like you are jealous Bob. Looks like all that education you tout is doing much for you. Oh and please tell me how Obama's talent writing books is better than the CEO's running the insurance companies. |
|
I am writing to express my overwhelming concern regarding the "Health Care Reform" that President Obama is attempting to force onto the people of the United States.
I am originally from Canada, and my entire family is from Great Britain. Therefore, I know EXACTLY how socialized/nationalized health care works and how it has broken the back of every country that has adopted such a program.
Further, such "reform" would overwhelmingly reduce the quality of medical care, inhibit incentives for further medical/pharmaceutical research and development, limit the doctor/patient relationship and result in an number of increased illnesses and/or deaths while people wait in line for treatment (that often never comes).
The tax burden that will result from this plan will be overwhelming, untenable and irrevocable. We are already trillions of dollars in deficit as a result of the so-called "stimulus" package; this would quite simply be the death knell for the United States.
Quite simply, Mr. Obama is factually incorrect and sorely misleading when he states that the quality of care in countries with nationalized health plans is "better" than that found in the United States. To the contrary, the care in this country is the finest, most cutting-edge, and the envy of the rest of the world.
President Obama should perhaps take note of the fact that there are no Americans traveling to either Canada or Great Britain for medical treatment. Rather, those individuals come to the United States in droves seeking (often life-saving) treatment they cannot receive in their own countries under a nationalized plan.
I would therefore ask all Americans to strongly oppose and table the plan proposed by President Obama (which is being spearheaded and strong-armed by politicians like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Henry Waxman, et. al.).
|
|
|
You have said it all. Thanks. |
|
"Gee seems those execs in the insurance industry are much smarter than you."
So is Bernie Madoff, apparently. That doesn't mean that I or anyone should want to be like him. Do you think that someone who makes a great deal of money is intrinsically good, no matter how they make it?
"please tell me how Obama's talent writing books is better than the CEO's running the insurance companies."
Assuming the book took about a year to write, that CEO is making twenty-five times as much money. And as I pointed out, it comes out of the health care provided to his company's customers. It's not impossible that people died to pay his salary. |
|
|
Your shovel is working overtime today and your holed is getting deeper. It has been fun though. Now I will go on to discussions with ones that are far more sensible than you. Still believe that you are very jealous of the insurance execs. Looks like with all that education you tout they are doing so much better financially than you. Jealousy can be a dangerous think Muncky. So long sucker. |
|
Me: "Now, keep Nancy Pelosi, Ezekiel Emanuel, and Barry Soetoro away from me and everybody else who didn't vote for them."
You: OK. Why would they want to go to wherever you live anyway?
Well Bob, I take it by your glib answer that you know that you are a hypocrite, and that you don't care. You have no problem ridiculing "right-wing extremists" with regard to their actions vis-a-vis Terry Schivo, but you reserve ridicule to, and even condone, those Left-wing extremists who advocate positions which are not only more radical, but stink of fascism.
tsk, tsk
|
|
"You have no problem ridiculing "right-wing extremists" with regard to their actions vis-a-vis Terry Schivo"
Do you think their actions were justified? |
|
|
I have come to the conclusion that Munck has no redeeming qualities. That is the fact. He touts his lack of morality like a badge of honor. Definitely not one you would want to sit down and have a cup of coffee with. |
|
It's a free market. I have no business saying an insurance exec makes too much money, that Bob makes too much money or my parents made too much profit on their home sale.
If you think an insurance exec makes too much, might I suggest you buy some stock in the company. The exec's salary then it becomes your business.
Until then, the salaries paid are no more our business than your salary, Bob.
It's a free country, a free market and a capitalist system. If you don't like it, there are plenty of countries to move to. Quit trying to change mine. |
|
|
It is nice to hear someone back our free market system. It has worked well for many years. Yes there will always be some that will take advantage but as a whole it is what has given us the edge over the socialist countries for many years People having the ability to better themselves is quite a motivator. |
|
I prefer that DC stay out of most issues. If I remember correctly, there was a lot of bluster, but no action.
Compare that to what you advocate: a massive encroachment into healthcare where life and death decisions are dictated by govt decree rather than the decisions of a doctor and patient. |
|
"I prefer that DC stay out of most issues. If I remember correctly, there was a lot of bluster, but no action."
You mean Schiavo? Government action kept her body on life support from 1998 to 2005, at a cost of millions. Dozens of court cases at all levels, bills in FL and the US Congress. Mustering of local police and the National Guard to confront each other. Bush flew AF1 round-trip from Texas to DC solely to sign a bill about her. Seems to me there was a horrendous amount of action.
"Compare that to what you advocate: a massive encroachment into healthcare where life and death decisions are dictated by govt decree rather than the decisions of a doctor and patient"
But we're not advocating any of that. You think it's explicit or implicit in the bill; we don't. That's why your arguments tend not to work. You say: "that's a terrible thing to propose." We say: "we aren't." |
|
I think you are leaving out a few details about Terri Schiavo.
1st, her husband won a large financial settlement; supposedly the funds were to be used for her long-term care. So whatever funds were being spent on her is none of your business and none of mine.
2nd, her parents wanted her alive and were willing to take care of her.
That's what brought it into the public eye. Husband wanted Terri to die; parents didn't. What recourse did the parents have except to fight him in court?
Do I think Congress should have gotten involved? Probably not, but I can see why some there would want to support the parents, who wanted nothing other than protection for their daughter.
Any congressman who wanted to support the husband to have his wife put down? Never get re-elected in a million years. Too many wives out there ...
|
|
Kaboom writes: Tuesday, July, 28, 2009 12:36 PM
good catch, diane
he died about 2 weeks ago in a hospice. He tried to practice through all of his treatment, but once they said his second leg had to come off, and the congestive heart failure felled him one day at the office, he chose hospice.
It has wiped my parents out financially. He lived in the state where my siblings lived, not in CA. But just having a doctor as a parent tends to get you special treatment from other doctors. Heck, when my oldest son was born, a similac rep showed up at my door with 6 months supply of formula.
Arch says.
Kaboom
You filthy liar. Your father is not dead. You made that all up! You are not worthy to post here on the town hall forum. Go away lying sack of Sh!t libtard. |
|
Diane writes: Tuesday, July, 28, 2009 2:47 PM
Plumber
I have come to the conclusion that Munck has no redeeming qualities. That is the fact. He touts his lack of morality like a badge of honor. Definitely not one you would want to sit down and have a cup of coffee with.
Arch says
If I met Bob Munck and he acted as he posts here, I would black his eye and dance him on his tail. I can be civil towards libtards if they can be civil. That is not in their genetics though. I am 52 years old and can still kill libtards with my bare hands! |
|
We know from personal experience that Sarah Palin's comments about government "Elderly Death Panels" are an outrageous lie. It is, in fact, the private HMO's and insurance carriers who are the "Elderly Death Panels" not the government. The government is, in fact, the angel for the elderly!
In 2006, my 89 year old father-in-law had very low sodium levels, making him very, very ill. Test proved it was NOT of the type caused by diet. A medical Website indicated it could be caused by over 25 underlying conditions However, Kaiser was refusing to run very few, if any, tests to determine the underlying cause of the condition. Only after my brother-in-law filed a formal complaint with Medicare and Medicare ruled his care was inadequate did Kaiser get moving on running more tests. Medicare has very strict regulations which allow ANY person 65 years or older to file complaints against HMO's and private insurance carriers for denying care to the elderly and these laws are enforced. My father-in-law lived another year and a half after Kaiser was forced to give him additional treatment.
Talking to other elderly people, HMO's and insurance companies very often deny care to the elderly. The case above is not unusual. |
|
|
Renee nails it in simple, easy to understand English. Palin and your party of willfull ignorants refuse to acknowledge it's the insurance companies that dictate your healthcare -- since they get to make the decision about whether you get insurance or not. And guess what? They're not on your side. |
|
The only thing the GOP don't mind spending tax dollars on and having the government interfere in their life is when its time to start bombing:
WASHINGTON — U.S. spending on the Iraq War will surpass the amount spent on the Vietnam War by the end of the year, making Iraq the second most expensive military conflict in American history, behind World War II, according to Pentagon figures provided Friday.
If Congress approves the supplemental funding request submitted this week by the Obama administration, it will add $87 billion to the cost of the war for 2009, apart from amounts for Afghanistan or elsewhere.
Added to the amount spent through 2008, it would mean the Iraq War will have cost taxpayers a total of about $694 billion. The Vietnam War cost $686 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars, and World War II cost $4 trillion, according to a Congressional Research Service study completed last year. |
|
Don't you people get it? We already have death panels. They are called INSURANCE COMPANIES!!!
WAKE UP!!! |
|