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.

[QUOTE=JohnnyD;706076]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.[/QUOTE]

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)

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"....

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.

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 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.

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

: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

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.

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

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.

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.

:uhuh:

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

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.

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.)

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."

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

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.

: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.