Wow, this would be good news! Obama giving up?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090816/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_overhaul

:jump::banano:

that's a change

that's a change

Rav, i think the old expressions, believe none of what you hear and 1/2
of what you see, and I'll believe it when i see it applies here. :D

i never expected there to be social security benefits
when i reach the age 65....

there'd be some kind of excuse by then...
trillions of dollars worth of deficit seems appropriate.

i don't trust them to do anything right

Rush mentioned some of this on thursday, how Obama could save his butt and get some of his support back. All he has to do is step back and say, "Ok, the people have spoken and this bill is not what they want, I'm dropping it and we'll go back to the table with the American people in mind and re-work this in a bipartisan way. It may take longer than I wanted, but in the end we can get a bill that helps the American people". Then he can wait a while and slam the same crap back out on a different plate and hope we take a bite. It's all a way to save face and in the end he may still get us to eat this "sh*t sandwich" of a bill.

Basic idea from Rush, except for the last 3 lines, which are my humble opinions.

Any set back in the Obama administration is a small victory for the Conservatives. "I hope he fails"..... :)

I can hear the gerbils in Spence's head (most of them are in his head anyway) start to spin away on that wheel. I can't wait to see what they spit out of his mouth.....

We already have a "public option" for million of people, so the notion that this is something new isn't very accurate.

Obama hasn't been able to articulate how the public option won't help costs at the expense of the free market, so to take it off the table isn't a big surprise.

That being said...Right now I'm trying to get Cigna to pay 225 dollars for something they told my wife over the phone was covered, but now say is isn't.

Aside from some meaningless appeals I have little recourse...

All the while the CEO is earning 30 Million+

And people think there's nothing wrong with our system?

-spence

It's the ALTERNATIVE that's the problem.

We already have a "public option" for million of people, so the notion that this is something new isn't very accurate.

Obama hasn't been able to articulate how the public option won't help costs at the expense of the free market, so to take it off the table isn't a big surprise.

That being said...Right now I'm trying to get Cigna to pay 225 dollars for something they told my wife over the phone was covered, but now say is isn't.

Aside from some meaningless appeals I have little recourse...

All the while the CEO is earning 30 Million+

And people think there's nothing wrong with our system?

-spence

See Spence, thats the beauty of the free enterprise system we have now,, Cigna screws you over, you can switch to Blue cross or whoever.... with his plan eventually you wouldnt have that option...

Yes there are problems with the way it is now,,, but making it worse will not make it better... making it bigger will not make it cheaper... making it free to everyone that cant afford it,,, cant reduce costs... and penalizing rich will not fund the "change" they will take their $$ elsewhere... If you like socialized medicine, I believe Rush mentioned on his show Friday, he would pay for your flight to Canada if you legally changed your residence to Canada, so you could use their wonderful health care program....

See Spence, thats the beauty of the free enterprise system we have now,, Cigna screws you over, you can switch to Blue cross or whoever.... with his plan eventually you wouldnt have that option...
Actually, in this case it was dental insurance and I didn't have a choice as it was the only plan offered by my employer.

If you like socialized medicine, I believe Rush mentioned on his show Friday, he would pay for your flight to Canada if you legally changed your residence to Canada, so you could use their wonderful health care program....
Nobody has proposed socializing the entire system, and as I mentioned before we already have a hybrid social system. Additionally, from what I gather the health care in Canada and the UK aren't that bad. Most people's opinions have been formed by years of misinformation and rhetoric.

-spence

Most people's opinions have been formed by years of misinformation and rhetoric.

-spence



Wow, perfect... and also an accurate, one sentence description, of the Political Forum :claps:

THAT...should be the disclaimer, upon entrance into this Forum!
:D

Additionally, from what I gather the health care in Canada and the UK aren't that bad. -spence

Overhauling health-care system tops agenda at annual meeting of Canada's doctors
By Jennifer Graham (CP) – 1 day ago

SASKATOON — The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.

Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made.

"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

And your point is? People seem to think we have the best system on the planet and it's imploding as well.

-spence

Most people's opinions have been formed by years of misinformation and rhetoric. -spence

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-13-2009/glenn-beck-s-operation

Bow to the journalistic integrity of Glen beck!!!
But, Canada sucks..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XivhwO_zWWg

We already have a "public option" for million of people, so the notion that this is something new isn't very accurate.

Obama hasn't been able to articulate how the public option won't help costs at the expense of the free market, so to take it off the table isn't a big surprise.

That being said...Right now I'm trying to get Cigna to pay 225 dollars for something they told my wife over the phone was covered, but now say is isn't.

Aside from some meaningless appeals I have little recourse...

All the while the CEO is earning 30 Million+

And people think there's nothing wrong with our system?

-spence

I see nothing wrong with our present system. My family medical plan is roughly $12,000.00 per year at the moment. My medication is $100,000 per year at the moment, my co- pay for the meds is 40.00 per month. With out it I would not be able to drive, fish and hunt let alone leave my home.

Under Obama's plan I would probably be visiting his panel of doctors (death panel) and thrown aside.

Yes we have public option, there is also free medical that the hospitals dole out to the less fortunate. They lose millions in providing this service.

I see nothing wrong with our present system. My family medical plan is roughly $12,000.00 per year at the moment. My medication is $100,000 per year at the moment, my co- pay for the meds is 40.00 per month. With out it I would not be able to drive, fish and hunt let alone leave my home.
For starters you might wonder why that medication costs 100,000 grand a year.

Under Obama's plan I would probably be visiting his panel of doctors (death panel) and thrown aside.
If they don't exist how can they cast you aside?

Yes we have public option, there is also free medical that the hospitals dole out to the less fortunate. They lose millions in providing this service.
Yes, the root of the problem is the Hippocratic oath!

-spence

The cost does not matter.

In a poor country if some one is taking that same med they are more then likely getting it free, if at all.

I will agree with you that some changes can be made in the health system as far as cost but, not through a government plan. Mass Health is a good exsample of government taking control.

Under Obama's plan I would probably be visiting his panel of doctors (death panel) and thrown aside.

Except that's not part of the proposal. You must be listening to Rush with Cool Beans.

Except that's not part of the proposal. You must be listening to Rush with Cool Beans.

It sure as hell was,,, it recently got dropped... I'll try to get the exact page and section of the bill for you...

It sure as hell was,,, it recently got dropped... I'll try to get the exact page and section of the bill for you...

Yea, because Rush would never twist the truth to make a point :rolleyes:

It sure as hell was,,, it recently got dropped... I'll try to get the exact page and section of the bill for you...

Please do. You might have some trouble though... I looked around Rush's website and couldn't find anything.:rotf2:

Euthanasia and “death panels” are not as clear as the fact that taxpayers will fund abortions in the bill – however there are numerous signs that point to rationing in the bill, that could then lead to such things.

The biggest question mark comes from who wrote Section 1233 of the House health care overhaul bill. The original language was written by assisted suicide supporter Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) alongside a group that once was called the Hemlock Society – the nation’s biggest advocates of euthanasia and assisted suicide. The Hemlock Society helped draft Oregon’s assisted suicide law – legislation that has led some afflicted people in Oregon getting letters “consulting” them that, while the state run plan would not pay for their cancer treatments, the state would be happy to pay for assisted suicide if they choose that "cheaper" option.

Additionally, Section 1401 establishes the Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research. A similar center was established in the economic stimulus bill passed in February. The report issued by the House Appropriations Committee at that time explained what they hoped to accomplish with this “research.”:

“By knowing what works best and (government)presenting this information more broadly to patients and healthcare professionals, those items, procedures and "interventions" that are most effective to prevent, control and treat health conditions will be utilized¸ while those that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed. ”

Five times in various committees there were attempts to ensure that “comparative effectiveness research” is not used for rationing purposes. Each time the Democrats on the committees voted the amendments down.

Additionally, the Obama plan relies heavily on cuts to Medicare to pay for the new benefits. Despite these cuts he fails to address the solvency issue of Medicare, inevitably leading to reduction of benefits to participants.

Couple these with public comments of supporters of the leading bills in Congress, like President Obama and Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), that the federal government would be making decisions that usually are left up to patients and doctors the onus should be on supporters of the bill to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that their legislation would not lead to rationing of care.

Again, ultimately, this is about creating a single payer government run and rationed system in which you and your children will be subject to the whims of government for your healthcare services with no "OPTIONS"....Obama and his friends, despite claiming to desire to create competition in the system have made it perfectly clear that their true intention is to drive the private sector out of the market over time...they have not given up, they are simply repackaging their lies for another round...

Yea, because Rush would never twist the truth to make a point :rolleyes:

not nearly as frequently as you Spence...:uhuh:

I just like to mention the (death panel) just to get spence's attention.

It is just a panel of highly educated people mentality of a democrat (Nazi) they would discuss that you are costing the system to much money for your terminal condition and they would discuss the brown bottle that they would offer you that you would put on your coffee table and when you felt the time was right you take a gulp of the brown bottle and you just fall asleep.

For anyone who really thinks there is a "death panel" provision in the bill, please copy and paste it here. I read the entire section that supposedly included the death panel verbage. While it could certainly be interpreted as doctors having the power to decide who is a good candidate to kill off because they are old and frail, you'd really need to be on the fringe to believe it.

I'm as opposed to the government taking over health care as anyone, but I'm not going to fabricate statements to make the bill look worse than it already is. The section that's being misinterpreted by the Rush's of the world actually talks about end of life counseling and options for people who have terminal illnesses and their families. It's there to help people deal with a very difficult time, not to kill off old, sick people. Even the government wouldn't try to sneak a passage into the proposal that would allow them to murder people. Keep in mind that even terminally ill people may be able to vote.

For anyone who really thinks there is a "death panel" provision in the bill, please copy and paste it here.

Not one of them will be able to because they're just going by what Rush, Palin and Conservative radio have told them.

Or as Cool Beans stated, Rush says that conveniently, the death panel portion was very recently taken out.

Fortunately, I have a copy of the pre-congressional recess proposal that has these supposed death panel clauses in them. If anyone can't find the section in the "newly revised to cover up the death panels" version, I can send them the copy I have.

You dont need to mention death panels to scare people. They just need to hear govt involvement and they know that whatever it is, the govt will not manage it correctly and massive waste will follow. Its happening in insurance now, but if govt wanted to fix it instead of owning it, people might be receptive to it. It would be great if there were laws passed to curb malpractice lawsuits, but the lawyers are in the white house.

Did anyone else see the story on how IBD (Investors Business Daily) reported that had Steven Hawking lived in the UK, his severe multiple sclerosis would have caused the state to deny benefits because of his diminished value to society...and we would have lost a brilliant mind.

Except they forgot to read up that Hawking was born and has always lived in the UK, and praises the quality of care the socialistic system has provided :hee:

-spence

The death panel interpretation is straight out of Mein Kampf - a classic "Big Lie." A lie so colossal that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously".
They've done a great job of redefining the issue. Now it's not about healthcare, it's about being opposed to death panels. I think we can all agree, death panels would be bad.

The death panel interpretation is straight out of Mein Kampf - a classic "Big Lie." A lie so colossal that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously".
They've done a great job of redefining the issue. Now it's not about healthcare, it's about being opposed to death panels. I think we can all agree, death panels would be bad.

which lie are you referring to? Is that the one where the Nazis looked at the Jews and said "death camps"? "Why, you'd have to be crazy and on the fringe to believe something like that....there are no ovens and anyone that tells you that is part of a conspiracy"..."now step over here and keep quiet"...


I think if you scored it by democrat/chicago standards(the death panel lable)...it was a huge success...

which lie are you referring to? Is that the one where the Nazis looked at the Jews and said "death camps"? "Why, you'd have to be crazy and on the fringe to believe something like that....there are no ovens and anyone that tells you that is part of a conspiracy"..."now step over here and keep quiet"...

Bring on the proof then. And not some BS commentary where they are adding the the death panel fabrications, not some reference to "I heard on the radio this morning", or "Rush told me to mad about this".

Actual Section and Line numbers. With so many Conservatives talking about it, they must be referencing an exact section of the bill.

scottw, if you can show us all undeniable proof within the bill that death panels exist, and not some obtuse interpretation of vague wording, then I will not post in the Political Forum until November.

Interestingly enough, with the President who PROMISED more transparency in government, we can't find the current bill anywhere. But we can find a brilliant advertising campaign at whitehouse dot gov....

How we doing with throwing the lobbists out of Washington as promised on the campaign trail????....Oh Yeah, now they all hold cabinet level appointments as tzars without Senate oversight, thats pretty transparent....

Interestingly enough, with the President who PROMISED more transparency in government, we can't find the current bill anywhere. But we can find a brilliant advertising campaign at whitehouse dot gov....

It took me 2 seconds to find it on google. Been available for weeks now.

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf



section 1233 is the section that created the death squad allegations...
if that helps...

I would miss you so much Johnny:buds:, the provision has been removed, has it not? you know, the one that never existed...if you are waiting for someone to show you the line where it states "death panel" I guess you'll be waiting a while, that was Sarah Baby's brilliant stroke., more like an ICBM...you know, like "wither on the vine", "domestic spying" I could recount a list of dem mischaracterizations and they have the mainstream media that will fully promote all of their propoganda for them for free, just think about how hard it must be for the handful of conservatives, a little cable news outlet and a few radios :rotf2:,

hell, you can't even disparage a guy that spent his entire life viciously disparaging and tearing down honest and decent people for political reasons with little regard...I won't even mention his name(Chivas) for fear of being labled hateful....but...man, it sure is a one way street...

I would miss you so much Johnny:buds:, the provision has been removed, has it not? you know, the one that never existed...if you are waiting for someone to show you the line where it states "death panel" I guess you'll be waiting a while, that was Sarah Baby's brilliant stroke., more like an ICBM...you know, like "wither on the vine", "domestic spying" I could recount a list of dem mischaracterizations and they have the mainstream media that will fully promote all of their propoganda for them for free, just think about how hard it must be for the handful of conservatives, a little cable news outlet and a few radios :rotf2:,

hell, you can't even disparage a guy that spent his entire life viciously disparaging and tearing down honest and decent people for political reasons with little regard...I won't even mention his name(Chivas) for fear of being labled hateful....but...man, it sure is a one way street...

Oh ok. So you can't.

If you want to see the bill that has existed since July 14, see the below link. This version existed before the "Death Panel" fabrications began, thus should not have the supposed provision removed.

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

So stop skirting the issue, man up, and show me where in the above bill these death squads exist. Else, it's time to stop bringing up the subject, especially since there are other items of major concern that are *actually in the proposal*.


Edit: Here's a direct quote of Palin's definition of Death Panel:
The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Oh ok. So you can't.

death squads exist.
OOPS!

Edit: Here's a direct quote of Palin's definition of Death Panel:

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “compassionate healthcare rationing panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

is that better?

what you are neglecting is that the combination of the language in the bill and the sketchy folks involved in writing it together with the provision in the stimulus together with the past comments and opining of Obama and many on his heathcare task force are certainly a huge cause for concern and that's before you consider whether government has any role at all in these issues....if you want to keep yelling.."show me where it says death squads", have at it....this was just one small portion of the bill that was highly questionable and I guess they're going back to the drawing board, the fight isn't over...

what you are neglecting is that the combination of the language in the bill and the sketchy folks involved in writing it together with the provision in the stimulus together with the past comments and opining of Obama and many on his heathcare task force are certainly a huge cause for concern and that's before you consider whether government has any role at all in these issues...

WTF???

I think the tin-foil antenna needs some adjustment.

-spence

what you are neglecting is that the combination of the language in the bill and the sketchy folks involved in writing it together with the provision in the stimulus together with the past comments and opining of Obama and many on his heathcare task force are certainly a huge cause for concern and that's before you consider whether government has any role at all in these issues....if you want to keep yelling.."show me where it says death squads", have at it....this was just one small portion of the bill that was highly questionable and I guess they're going back to the drawing board, the fight isn't over...

Spin, spin, spin.

Basically, what you're saying is all the bitching about death panels is garbage but, because the bill is flawed, the Conservatives are at liberty to make up fabrications because of "what might be in the bill." According to some of *your* previous posts, these supposed "death panels" were cemented into the verbiage of the currently proposed bill.

Don't get your panties in a bunch because I'm trying to hold you accountable for your words, just as you hold me to mine.

It took me 2 seconds to find it on google. Been available for weeks now.

Exactly what I am saying....you had to use Google to SEARCH, why post the SPIN at Whitehouse dot gov and not a link to the bill......

Put the Kool-Aid down and no one gets hurt...

there is nothing in the constitution that the government should stick their nose in healthcare or that it is a "right" but that hasnt stopped this admin from trying to make it a law. Oh well.

They'll make some modifications, then, like the stimulus, claim the lack of bi-partisanship prevented a more reasonable debate, and then push it through along party lines.

Spin, spin, spin.

Basically, what you're saying is all the bitching about death panels is garbage but, because the bill is flawed, the Conservatives are at liberty to make up fabrications because of "what might be in the bill." According to some of *your* previous posts, these supposed "death panels" were cemented into the verbiage of the currently proposed bill.

Don't get your panties in a bunch because I'm trying to hold you accountable for your words, just as you hold me to mine.

not at all, that's completely fair....although the clock is reset and the second half is about to begin and this is a moot point, but, I simply provided the substantiation for why some came to that conclusion, when you are dealing with incrementalists you have to look at what they intend down the road and not so much at what they're trying to sell you today...there are a lot of creepy folks involved with this admin. at many levels....I'm amazed that a "dead or dying" conservative idealogy/republican party and a moron from Wasilla, Alaska and a couple of angry mob members at a few town halls were able to so easily derail the brilliant Obama, Pelosi, Reed supported by the entire mainstream media and their union thugs and government funded special interest groups like Acorn....but they'll be back:uhuh: Joe is exactly right...

I wish they would take the whole bill, throw it in the fire and start over with a different approach.

If they want to decrease the cost of health care, I think they are approaching it from the wrong side of the equation. Assess the high cost patients the government pays for, exclude the drug addicts, alcoholics, morbidly obese and other 'self-inflicted sick' from care and watch the costs plummet.

"You're an out of work heroin addict who is suffering from hepatitis and HIV due to using dirty needles? NEXT!!"

"You've lived the last 5 years on a 'diet' of fast food and desserts and now can't leave bed and need your foot amputated due to diabetes? NEXT!!"

This country needs to stop helping those who refuse to help themselves.

After we cull those people out, assess why the costs are so incredibly high. Fix the treatment side of the equation. Doctors are forced to order unnecessary tests in order to cover their rears. Visits to specialists would be less if their malpractice insurance cost less. Limit the amount doctors can be sued for and costs should decrease.

Multiple small bites will yield significantly better results than one substantial overhaul. Then, the smaller aspects that don't work can be culled out or adjusted.

The current approach to reform makes me sick. (Lame pun intended)

I wish they would take the whole bill, throw it in the fire and start over with a different approach.

If they want to decrease the cost of health care, I think they are approaching it from the wrong side of the equation. Assess the high cost patients the government pays for, exclude the drug addicts, alcoholics, morbidly obese and other 'self-inflicted sick' from care and watch the costs plummet.

"You're an out of work heroin addict who is suffering from hepatitis and HIV due to using dirty needles? NEXT!!"

"You've lived the last 5 years on a 'diet' of fast food and desserts and now can't leave bed and need your foot amputated due to diabetes? NEXT!!"

This country needs to stop helping those who refuse to help themselves.


The current approach to reform makes me sick. (Lame pun intended)


JD,
This sounds a little harsh to even me. Sounds almost like a "Death Panel". Are you advocating for the provision that you are arguing was never in the bill?

77% of Medicare costs are for recipients in their last year of life. It's the old bastids living forever that are running up the bill.

I have been reading the section and no it does not actually say "death panel" but could easily be interpreted that way, especially when backed up by statements by Obama, like when the lady asked about her 100 yr old mother who needed a pace maker, originally they (doctors) did not think it was worth the cost/risk, and she had another specialist come in and they got it approved. She asked Obama if her grandmother would be able to get that type of treatment if she would have been under Obama care. He replied, sometimes when costs are not justified by the quality of life, they would, "have to take a pain pill" instead. Or the state of Oregon, telling the lady with cancer the states health care plan would not cover chemo, but would cover the state's legalized doctor assisted suicide. There are plenty of actual statements and cases all over the news to make one easily interpret that section as possibly giving them the control of a "death panel"....

77% of Medicare costs are for recipients in their last year of life. It's the old bastids living forever that are running up the bill.

EXACTLY!!! We don't spend money treating young healthy people, we spend it all on the unhealthy and elderly, so if you are going to cut costs, the only place it can come from is by limiting the types of treatment and care by those people. You don't actually need a death panel if the state a policy where at certain ages, certain care will or will not be provided.

JD,
This sounds a little harsh to even me. Sounds almost like a "Death Panel". Are you advocating for the provision that you are arguing was never in the bill?

The whole "Death Panel" fabrications made up by the Right is centered around end-of-life care.

My opinion is that I don't want my tax dollars going to help people that refuse to help themselves. If you're an alcoholic without health care and your liver is failing and you refuse treatment for your alcoholism, then I very honestly don't want tax dollars going towards saving that person. Same goes for the heroin addict that needs thousands of dollars in HIV meds every month.

They did it to themselves, now they should deal with the consequences.

My very blunt opinion. The public should not be paying to extend the lives of people that are a waste of oxygen and choose to never contribute to society.

I have been reading the section and no it does not actually say "death panel" but could easily be interpreted that way

I thought you were going to supply us with the section that states a panel will choose if my grandfather with cancer will be able to get treatment or not?

it's already happening JD, from Oregon to New Zealand

Agency to rule on new cures
By TRACY WATKINS - The Dominion Post Last updated 05:00

A powerful agency will decide which treatments to provide at public hospitals under a major revamp of the health system.

The Government yesterday made public a long-awaited report on the health system after details of a Ministerial Review Group's recommendations were leaked to The Dominion Post last week.

The report recommends gutting the Health Ministry by shifting many of its functions to a new National Health Board. It also recommends extending the powers of the national drug-buying agency, Pharmac, to decide which medical equipment should be bought and significantly boosting the powers of the existing National Health Committee to decide what new diagnostic procedures and treatment should be provided by the public health system.

The report was written against the backdrop of warnings that New Zealand's ability to pay for world-class health treatment is increasingly under threat.

It recommends putting the National Health Committee in charge of determining what new treatments should be eligible for public funding "and the conditions under which they should be applied".

"As part of its reprioritisation process, the National Health Committee should also be asked to identify and assess a number of existing interventions annually that ... appear to be low priority."

The group appears to be using a Pharmac-like model for the plan. Pharmac determines what drugs should be subsidised on the basis of cost and effectiveness, but it has courted controversy for refusing to fund some drugs. The most recent example was the breast cancer drug Herceptin, which the Government eventually agreed to fund.

Labour MP Ruth Dyson said the recommendations "dangerously point to a rationing of frontline health services". "Mothers, the elderly and others not in paid employment should be extremely worried by any suggestion of rationing healthcare to those in paid work."

Green MP Kevin Hague said the idea that healthcare should be rationed on the basis of an ability "to contribute to economic growth" was "obnoxious in the extreme".

But the Ministerial Review Group, which was headed by former Treasury secretary Murray Horn, said it was only proposing "service prioritisation at the margin", acknowledging that experience in New Zealand and overseas showed that any attempt to identify which core services should be publicly funded was "unlikely to succeed in the current environment".

Ad Feedback Association of Salaried Medical Specialists executive director Ian Powell said the proposals were radical and destabilising. "It has the feel of a Stalinist monolith about it."It was "bananas" to suggest that "creating more bureaucracy reduces bureaucracy".


FINGER ON THE PULSE:

New Zealand on average spends less per person on health than other developed countries.

Spending on health has been growing much faster in New Zealand than overseas up 30 per cent since 1995, compared with an OECD average of 18 per cent.


GPs are working fewer hours, not more, since the Government put a cap on GP fees.

Medical error is estimated to harm 44,000 people a year at a cost of $570 million.

it's already happening JD, from Oregon to New Zealand

I have no idea what is already happening as I only read the bold text.

I have no idea what is already happening as I only read the bold text.

Isn't New Zeland where they filmed Lord of the Rings???

-spence

Isn't New Zeland where they filmed Lord of the Rings???

-spence

:rotf2: Ohhhhh. But I already knew that :rotf2:

it amazes me how people can honestly believe, that making something bigger and giving more people benefits will be cheaper....

it's seems a lot like spending your way out of debt....

JUST DOESN'T WORK

it amazes me how people can honestly believe, that making something bigger and giving more people benefits will be cheaper....

it's seems a lot like spending your way out of debt....

JUST DOESN'T WORK

Agreed. That's exactly what I'm saying. Don't give the lowlifes any health care and let time take its course. Not only will we save money, but after some of the meth heads die, fewer people will be breaking into cars at the canal to steal change for their next fix.

Don't spend your way out of the health care issue, let nature take its course.

it amazes me how people can honestly believe, that making something bigger and giving more people benefits will be cheaper....

it's seems a lot like spending your way out of debt....

JUST DOESN'T WORK
I don't think that's the argument.

It's that a public option will force the private insurance companies to compete, when now, they really have no competition.

Hell, even the GOP couldn't negotiate a bill for Medicare coverage of prescription drugs with free market principals.

Your sound bite sure sounds good, but it's pretty meaningless...

-spence

I have no idea what is already happening as I only read the bold text.

you can look at any socialized system around the world, they're all struggling and unsustainable.....and implementing rationing of one kind or another, it's inevitable...if " 77% of Medicare costs are for recipients in their last year of life"...I think Obama said 80%.... and you need to begin rationing, where do you think those savings are going to come from? "a panel will choose if my grandfather with cancer will be able to get treatment or not? " yes...exactly...and if you are fat or smoke or have some other afflction that would make you less worthy of treatment, what do you do then...
in Oregon you can be refused cancer treatment but offered assisted suicide and the cheaper option...that's not a fabrication...


reported on September 19, 2008:

In an interview, Baroness Mary Helen Warnock has said that people suffering dementia have a duty to commit suicide.

Baroness Warnock, called the "philosopher queen", is regarded as Britain's leading moral philosopher. She said that she hopes people will soon be "licensed to put others down" who have become a burden on the health care system.

She told the Church of Scotland's Life and Work magazine, "If you're demented, you're wasting people's lives - your family's lives - and you're wasting the resources of the National Health Service."

In another article for a Norwegian periodical, titled "A Duty to Die?" she suggests, "There's nothing wrong with feeling you ought to do so [commit suicide] for the sake of others as well as yourself."

"In other contexts, sacrificing oneself for one's family would be considered good. I don't see what is so horrible about the motive of not wanting to be an increasing nuisance."

Baroness Warnock's comments come as prominent voices in Britain's House of Lords continue to advocate for legalised euthanasia and assisted suicide.

How can a insurance company compete with an entity that does not have to make a profit, no taxes, and can get $$ at a cheaper rate than them?

Obama said so in a speech a few days ago, that the government program would indeed have these advantages over private companies, so how can they compete? They can't this bill, if passed, would eliminate the private companies. I read another thing that will bring this about, employers that sign up with the government option would get a 5% tax break on employee taxes, so it will be cost effective for these employers to leave private and go government option.

This will not increase competition, it will eliminate all competition over several years. Look up some of the latest miracle drugs for any sickness and see where they were developed, most were developed here as they can recoup their investment and make a $ in the process. Eliminate this and things will definitely change for the worse.

The #1 cost for the health care industry is frivolous lawsuits, if we eliminate them we just about save the system.

The whole "Death Panel" fabrications made up by the Right is centered around end-of-life care.

My opinion is that I don't want my tax dollars going to help people that refuse to help themselves. If you're an alcoholic without health care and your liver is failing and you refuse treatment for your alcoholism, then I very honestly don't want tax dollars going towards saving that person. Same goes for the heroin addict that needs thousands of dollars in HIV meds every month.

They did it to themselves, now they should deal with the consequences.

My very blunt opinion. The public should not be paying to extend the lives of people that are a waste of oxygen and choose to never contribute to society.

I don't like to see my tax dollars wasted either JD. That's why I don't like Obama. But I sure don't want people thrown aside just because they are fighting a very tough battle with addiction. Hell, we give Pat Kennedy endless second chances. Some of what you speak I agree with. Lets just start with no FREE health care for "undocumented" alians and go from there.

I don't think that's the argument.

It's that a public option will force the private insurance companies to compete, when now, they really have no competition.the "public option would undercut the private companies and drive them out of the market this has been stated as the intent by Obamiods and Obama himself, that's the goal, stop pretending and reciting Obama's phony talking points, he's even given up on that one......

Hell, even the GOP couldn't negotiate a bill for Medicare coverage of prescription drugs with free market principals.
you purchase private plans that you chose which are outside of medicare, there are free market principles at work, the perscription plan is not administered completely by Medicare...

Medicare Part D is successfully providing comprehensive and affordable drug coverage to Medicare beneficiaries. Although the program got off to a rocky start, it has and continues to improve each and every day.
The program is supported by high levels of satisfaction among participants and its competitive model has resulted in extensive coverage options, broad choices of plans and lower costs to beneficiaries and taxpayers.
Looking at several indicators of success, we believe that Part D is working very well. Enrollment has exceed expectations; competition among private-sector drug plans has resulted in a broad choice of benefits, strong access to needed medicines and significant cost savings for patients; and, the program is currently estimated to cost taxpayers less than originally estimated
that's weird, you'd think there'd be no competition between the companies without a public plan competing



Your sound bite sure sounds good, but it's pretty meaningless...nasty

-spence

:uhuh:

I don't like to see my tax dollars wasted either JD. That's why I don't like Obama. But I sure don't want people thrown aside just because they are fighting a very tough battle with addiction.

I'm not talking about people fight addiction. That's why I said "if they refuse treatment for their addiction". I feel the same way about someone that's 400lbs - don't want to change your diet? No health care for you.

People that refuse to contribute to society should not be allowed to benefit from society. Even you have said before, people should not be getting handouts - and that carries over to health care.

I feel as though people should be allowed to make their own decisions in life. The government shouldn't tell me what I can or cannot do in my own home if it has no effect on others in society. If you want to pump drugs through your veins, it's fine by me. But don't expect me to pay the bill when you have no job, HIV (or some other disease) and are dying of pneumonia.

But I'm just a crazy liberal.

I agree JD

But I'm just a crazy liberal.

You're a good man, JohnnyD and certainly no "liberal." I would feel confident if you were steering the ship of state. I would probably wince, often, when you chastised your allies for lack of precision and correctness, or for "interpretations" of text, while being soft on those you oppose. Perhaps, you might win over some enemies, more often than not, you'ld be rolled. It is amazing how the views of "right wing radio" and "conservative" politicians agree with yours and how you constantly excoriate them while their "liberal" counterparts get little of your attention. Is it a love/hate relation? It is honorable to correct your own, for their own good as well as the good of society, but their is also realistic politics. The dunderheads of talk radio are responsible for the bulk of reaction against the "healthcare" bill you hate. Their reaction to it is based on the same animus. Much as you despise "right wing talk radio," it is more effective than your heartfelt statement on this thread. In the end, the "liberals" ("progressives") may disregard the "rile" and pass the bill, as is, but a more UNITED stand against it, might stop it.

I agree JD

Everyone!!! Batten down the hatches. It's very possible hell has frozen over and this hurricane will bring widespread destruction - for buckman and I agree.:cheers:

(I hope we haven't been hearing from you much because the fishing has been so well. I heard Hot Reels banging fish a couple weeks ago when we were out off the Race for bass.)

You're a good man, JohnnyD and certainly no "liberal." I would feel confident if you were steering the ship of state. I would probably wince, often, when you chastised your allies for lack of precision and correctness, or for "interpretations" of text, while being soft on those you oppose. Perhaps, you might win over some enemies, more often than not, you'ld be rolled. It is amazing how the views of "right wing radio" and "conservative" politicians agree with yours and how you constantly excoriate them while their "liberal" counterparts get little of your attention. Is it a love/hate relation? It is honorable to correct your own, for their own good as well as the good of society, but their is also realistic politics. The dunderheads of talk radio are responsible for the bulk of reaction against the "healthcare" bill you hate. Their reaction to it is based on the same animus. Much as you despise "right wing talk radio," it is more effective than your heartfelt statement on this thread. In the end, the "liberals" ("progressives") may disregard the "rile" and pass the bill, as is, but a more UNITED stand against it, might stop it.

Haha... Nice one detbuch.

"Those at the fore front feel the most heat." Right-wing radio and conservative news stations get the criticisms from be because they are the loudest and most obnoxious. While I share *some* political ideologies with them, I do not share the level of irrationality and what I perceive as complaining because "he's on the other team."

I find that the extreme Conservative views are the ones more often reported by stations like Fox and conservative radio, and those views I do not agree with - most of these people leave a nasty, bitter taste in my mouth. While CNN is the ying to the Fox yang, there isn't really a similar counterpoint on the radio.

The reason I joke and say "I'm just a crazy liberal" is because if you disagree with a conservative's opinion then you "must be a liberal". Political discussion in this country doesn't allow a Moderate's point of view because, in the words of George W., "you're either with us, or your against us."

Right-wing radio and conservative news stations get the criticisms from be because they are the loudest and most obnoxious. While I share *some* political ideologies with them, I do not share the level of irrationality and what I perceive as complaining because "he's on the other team."

You may "perceive" right wing news as louder and more obnoxious, but I don't see evidence that they are more so than other sources. Nor higher levels of irrationality. Anyway, I don't think the volume, nor obnoxity, nor the LEVEL of irrationality, to be what is important. What is important is what is true and what is good.


I find that the extreme Conservative views are the ones more often reported by stations like Fox and conservative radio, and those views I do not agree with - most of these people leave a nasty, bitter taste in my mouth. While CNN is the ying to the Fox yang, there isn't really a similar counterpoint on the radio.

Are you saying that moderate conservative, moderate, and liberal views are reported less than EXTREME conservative views on Fox, etc. I don't think a count has been taken, nor has there been, as far as I know, a study been made as to which conservative views are extreme, moderate, low grade, or normal. There is a similar counterpoint on the radio, but it is so unpopular, and UNNECESSARY, as most "mainstream" media fills the need for a slant to the left.

The reason I joke and say "I'm just a crazy liberal" is because if you disagree with a conservative's opinion then you "must be a liberal". Political discussion in this country doesn't allow a Moderate's point of view because, in the words of George W., "you're either with us, or your against us."

I suppose, then, that "conservatives" who disagree with each other, many do, are, by your definition, "liberals". I believe, btw, that the reason Republicans like to refer to liberals as liberal is, as Spence has pointed out, that most people in this country identify their views as being "conservative". So it is politically smart, I guess, to refer to your opponent as being "liberal", ergo, opposed to your "conservative" views. Simple as that. Moderate points of view are abundant in political discussion. As far as "you're either with us, or your against us"--that was about a specific instance, not a general admonition.

You know right wingers are getting really catty when they start dropping the "L bomb" on party mates.

-spence

You know right wingers are getting really catty when they start dropping the "L bomb" on party mates.

-spence

Are you calling JohnnyD a "right winger"? I don't think he would like that.

Are you calling JohnnyD a "right winger"? I don't think he would like that.

:rotf2::rotf2:

You know my favorite part about this forum?

It doesn't matter how heated the discussions get, or how childishly we act. At the end of the day, if I bumped into anyone in here on the street, it would be with a smile on my face and a welcoming handshake.

We're all just a bunch of ball busters anyway.

:rotf2::rotf2:

You know my favorite part about this forum?

It doesn't matter how heated the discussions get, or how childishly we act. At the end of the day, if I bumped into anyone in here on the street, it would be with a smile on my face and a welcoming handshake.


:agree: I don't take it that seriously, and find it a lot of fun. :)
You guys keep me learnin. :hihi:

I didn't read the latest in this thread but here's the latest from our Hero and his buddies.

The Dems are demanding Health Ins. companies hand over all financial records including pay to top executives. This group is pathetic. Any more questions about a socialistic USA? They will use this info as a tactic to turn the American people ( the stupid one's) against the industry.

Sounds a little like what the did to Wall street!
Same playbook, same players, same sheep, same socialistic agenda.

Watch and see.