# FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill



## Jay Canuck (Aug 11, 2009)

*FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill 
*AP  Tue Aug 11, 3:04 am ET 
...Sarah Palin says the health care overhaul bill would set up a "death panel." Federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors are worth enough to society to deserve life-sustaining medical care. Palin and other critics are wrong.​


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 11, 2009)

*[SIZE=+1]Palin says Obama's health care plan is 'evil'[/SIZE]* 
* That's a sure sign that she's running in 2012* 
* Link* 
* Excerpt:* 
Sarah Palin called Obama's health plan "downright evil" Friday in her first online comments since quitting, saying in a Facebook posting that he would create a "death panel" that would deny care to the neediest Americans. "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," the former swimsuit model wrote. "Such a system is downright evil," Palin wrote on her page. She encouraged her supporters to be engaged in the debate. 
*Translation:
*Stop Obama's 'evil death panel' - whatever it takes - before he comes for poor Trig.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 11, 2009)




----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 11, 2009)

*Is Palin's Schlafly-style fear rhetoric ethical politics?*



 Sarah Palin's beloved child Trig, born with Down Syndrome, is safe and so is everyone else who has been terrified by her hyperbolic "death panel" rhetoric on President Obama's health care reform efforts.
I'll leave it to our editorial page to debunk the unsubstantiated and preposterous Palin press release -- a wild distortion of an optional benefit already offered under Medicare to pay doctors for helping patients and their family face end-of-life decision making according to their own values.


----------



## Care4all (Aug 11, 2009)

of course there isn't, no politician would be stupid enough to put something as inhumane as such in a legislated bill...

what's sad, is that some, even some on this board, followed their talking point leaders without researching such themselves, and parroted the lies....and maybe they believed it, who knows?  Sad if they did....without trying to find out the truth on it, on their own...but maybe they did try...

Because there is the possibility that they did try to read the bill sections on these things and couldn't make out the mumbo jumbo way that these bills are written....and seriously, why things have to be written in the manner they are, where you have to go back in to the bill to see what section 3, subsection 1a of chapter 2, yahdeedah is in order to move off of the first line that states patients meeting this subsection yadeedah are qualifying customers for Yahdeedah of section 8 subsection yadeedah of the same chapter yadeedah....

I mean, for goodness sakes!!!!!

jimminee Christmas...the way these things are writen could wear anyone in their right mind down...seriously!!!

Care


----------



## concept (Aug 11, 2009)

Try a little harder, silly lib apologist.

Here is an interesting (and by interesting I mean pathetically sick) video of your savior, the enlightened and articulate Barack Hussein Obama, telling a poor woman to take a pill. 

No surgery for you.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo[/ame]


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 11, 2009)

The "death panel" is hyperbole and had no place in this debate.

That being said, I do believe that government bean counters will be deciding the type of care we can receive and that does concern me.  What if a cancer patient is deemed terminal and those same bean counters determine that future taxes coming from the patient will not cover the cost of continued medical services?  Cut 'er off!

Granted it can happen now with private insurance, but if it does, we can turn to other services.  When everything belongs to the government...?

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 11, 2009)

Care4all said:


> no politician would be stupid enough to put something as inhumane as such in a legislated bill...



Don't count on it.  After all, they are not you and don't have your compassion. 

Immie


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 11, 2009)




----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 11, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> *FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill
> *AP  Tue Aug 11, 3:04 am ET
> ...Sarah Palin says the health care overhaul bill would set up a "death panel." Federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors are worth enough to society to deserve life-sustaining medical care. Palin and other critics are wrong.​



Let's begin with a definition of terms, such as 'Fact Check."

This is not FactCheck.Org, it is the Associated Press which is allied with administration thinking.

It is misleading to imply that the AP is objective. In fact, it would have been more inclusive to comment on the kind of thinking of those involved in the compilation, and the essence of ObamaCare.  The Stimulus already has a 'death panel' of sorts, the CER.

Consider the following:

Slipped into the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age. Economists are familiar with the formula already in use in the U.K., where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYS or quality-adjusted life years) the patient is likely to benefit. In the U.K., the formula leads to denying treatments for age-related diseases because older patients have a denominator problem -- fewer years to benefit than younger patients with other diseases. In 2006, older patients with macular degeneration, which causes blindness, were told that they had to go totally blind in one eye before they could get an expensive new drug to save the other eye. It took nearly two years to get that government edict reversed. Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., a Louisiana heart surgeon, warned to no avail that it would lead to "denying seniors and the disabled lifesaving care."

If this philosophy is inferred in ObamaCare, can you see where there is reason to tread carefully?  

And the infamous Dr. Emanuel:
"True change, writes Dr. Emanuel, must include reassessing the promise doctors make when they enter the profession, the Hippocratic Oath. Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Physicians take the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.) Of course that is what patients hope their doctors will do. But Dr. Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their own patient and consider social justice. They should think about whether the money being spent on their patient could be better spent elsewhere. Many doctors are horrified at this notion, and will tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time. "
Defend Your Health Care


And, finally, that could be considered to be a 'Death Panel' as described by George Will:
lipped into the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age. The CER would identify (this is language from the draft report on the legislation) medical "items, procedures, and interventions" that it deems insufficiently effective or excessively expensive. They "will no longer be prescribed" by federal health programs. Are you thinking seniors? George F. Will - How the GOP Should Measure the Stimulus - washingtonpost.com


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 11, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> *FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill
> *AP  Tue Aug 11, 3:04 am ET
> ...Sarah Palin says the health care overhaul bill would set up a "death panel." Federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors are worth enough to society to deserve life-sustaining medical care. Palin and other critics are wrong.​



Every time Palin opens her mouth, she steps in it.


----------



## Care4all (Aug 11, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > no politician would be stupid enough to put something as inhumane as such in a legislated bill...
> ...



Oh, not for compassionate reasons would they never put it in legislation, they just are self serving and they would never do anything that would lose them their seat in office.  (If they were really to do it, which i don't believe for one nanosecond, but if they were to do it, it would be put in to a bill passed in the middle of the wee hours or it would not be legislated at all and just be slipped in to some regs or governing rule modification.)

care


----------



## editec (Aug 11, 2009)

Palin is a moronic tool.

Why anyone cares what she thinks does or says I don't know.


----------



## concept (Aug 11, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > *FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill
> ...



Where is my mini violin when I need it?


----------



## 007 (Aug 11, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > *FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill
> ...




Not surprising... the liberals in this thread just blew past this informative, factual post like a runaway train full of insults.


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 11, 2009)

editec said:


> Palin is a moronic tool.
> 
> Why anyone cares what she thinks does or says I don't know.



Seems to be mostly libs starting threads on her...

Maybe you should ask them...


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 11, 2009)

"Let's begin with a definition of terms, such as 'Fact Check."

This is not FactCheck.Org, it is the Associated Press which is allied with administration thinking."

and you will verify that the AP is allied with administration thinking how?


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 11, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> The "death panel" is hyperbole and had no place in this debate.
> 
> That being said, I do believe that government bean counters will be deciding the type of care we can receive and that does concern me.  What if a cancer patient is deemed terminal and those same bean counters determine that future taxes coming from the patient will not cover the cost of continued medical services?  Cut 'er off!
> 
> ...



get somebody to explain the two eugenicists he appointed as czars..


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 11, 2009)

*GOP govs sidestep Palin 'death panel' comments
*The Associated Press - 8-11-09
NEW YORK - Republican governors said Monday that Americans are justifiably frightened by health care proposals but stopped short of embracing Sarah Palin's..​


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 11, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > The "death panel" is hyperbole and had no place in this debate.
> ...



Willow,

It is still hyperbole.

What the bill states and what its intentions are may very well be two different things.  For instance, they state in the bill that private health insurance will be allowed to continue, but reading the bill shows very clearly that the intention is to destroy the industry.

They do not set up a "death panel" yet you might want to place a bet that when this is all said and done, when they sit their own people in the position of determining coverage, they will be people who will limit coverage for unproductive members of society.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 11, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > *FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill
> ...



I noticed that too and thank you for taking the time to prepare that post.

Immie


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 11, 2009)

How is this for a Death Panel - courtsey of those caring folks in the Insurance corps.

_Insurer asks docs to report on new patients with pre-existing conditions - On Deadline - USATODAY.com

Blue Cross of California recently asked doctors to look for pre-existing conditions that could be used to justify the cancellation of insurance policies held by new patients, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Byron Tucker, a spokesman for the Insurance Department, tells the Times that this letter is "extremely troubling on several fronts. It really obliterates the line between underwriting and medical care. It is the insurer's job to underwrite their policies, not the doctors'. Doctors deliver medical care. Their job is not to underwrite policies for insurers."_

_Here is a link to the same story; from FoxNews:

FOXNews.com - Blue Cross to Doctors: Help Us Get Rid of New Patients With Pre-Existing Conditions - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News_


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 11, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



maybe you could help me with this then because she took off after I asked her to verify this statement - "This is not FactCheck.Org, it is the Associated Press which is allied with administration thinking."


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 11, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Completely unsubstantiated accusations.

Here, I can make some too:

The Republicans want to sell us all out to Corporations.  They want to privatize everything until we are paying for the very air we breathe.

Republicans want to make sure only the rich have access to decent health care and other services.  This way they can retain what power they have even as our society becomes more diverse.

There you go, happy now?


----------



## Chris (Aug 11, 2009)

The right has spun off into outer space.

They have nothing left but outragous lies.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 11, 2009)

concept said:


> Try a little harder, silly lib apologist.
> 
> Here is an interesting (and by interesting I mean pathetically sick) video of your savior, the enlightened and articulate Barack Hussein Obama, telling a poor woman to take a pill.
> 
> No surgery for you.



Name calling and out-of-context nonsense.

More of the same I guess.  Do you crazy right-wingers have anything else?


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 11, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> get somebody to explain the two eugenicists he appointed as czars..



Or... you could get someone to explain exactly how they are "eugenicists".  Did Mr Obama hire Dr Kevorkian?


----------



## Chris (Aug 11, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> concept said:
> 
> 
> > Try a little harder, silly lib apologist.
> ...



No, they don't.

Honestly, I never thought I would see such lies and silliness in America. 

FoxNews and the right wing media are shameful.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 11, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Contrary to your " then because she took off after I asked her to verify this statement - "This is not FactCheck.Org, it is the Associated Press which is allied with administration thinking." I actually have a life beyond providing you with an education.

Fair warning: I never post anything that I cannot back up.

"Never accuse the Associated Press of being hidebound by journalistic tradition. In a sharp break with past practice, the once-venerable news service is providing its 1,500 member papers with ready-to-run stories produced by "independentÓ reporters and editors.

Earlier this month, the 163-year-old news cooperative announced it would distribute "watchdog and investigative journalismÓ penned not by its own staff or that of member papers, but by four outside groups: the Center for Investigative Reporting in Barkeley, Calif.; New York-based ProPublica; and two D.C. outfits, the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) and the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University.

AP, itself a not-for-profit enterprise, identified the four organizations as "civic-mindedÓ nonprofits. They also all have decidedly liberal sponsors. A cursory glance at the "independentÓ news shops reveals their reliance on left-tilting patrons such as the Knight Foundation and leftist donors such as financier Herbert Sandler and currency speculator George Soros."
Ken McIntyre: Associated Press outsourcing to Leftist nonprofits is a bad idea | OpEd Contributor | Washington Examiner

" But providing such information would get in the way of the AP's reason for running that sentence: To tell readers conservatives are people who revile a public figure who is moderate and practical concerning controversial issues.

If you doubt that, read the sentence again:
Conservatives revile O'Connor for staking out moderate and practical positions on controversial issues.
It reads like a cut-and-paste from a Moveon.org attack ad. It does nothing but tell people what the AP wants them to believe about conservatives.

The AP could have told readers of conservatives' recent praise for O'Connor's dissent in Kelo and for much else. But that, as the pols say, "gets off message."

So the liberal journalists at the AP campaigned their way."
John In Carolina: Associated Press liberal bias - 11/1/05

AP Admits Obamacare Will Fund Abortions 
Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

This Associated Press headline is a reversal from just a few days ago, when AP falsely reported in a "fact check," that:

"The proposed bills would not undo the Hyde Amendment, which bars paying for abortions through Medicaid... Obama recently told CBS that the nation should continue a tradition of "not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care." The House Energy and Commerce Committee amended the House bill Thursday to state that health insurance plans have the option of covering abortion, but no public money can be used to fund abortions."

AP finally admitted the facts in yesterday's report, which conflict with their earlier report:

"Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue."

The Capp amendment "would allow the public plan to cover abortion" with "dollars from beneficiary premiums. Likewise, private plans in the new insurance exchange could opt to cover abortion."
Full Iran Coverage! AP Check Of Liberal Bias In Associated Press

"In the final poll of a series measuring perceptions of media bias, the Associated Press, local television stations, MSNBC, and CNBC are all perceived as tilting to the left when reporting the news. "
Associated Press, MSNBC and CNBC Seen as Having Liberal Bias - Rasmussen Reports


And, should you have the class to do so, I will consider accepting your apology.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 11, 2009)

"Associated Press which is allied with administration thinking."

you have not defined "administration thinking"..... unless you know what they are thinking?


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 11, 2009)

providing its 1,500 member papers with ready-to-run stories produced by independent reporters and editors somehow allows them to know what the administration is thinking?   ......... or .........providing its 1,500 member papers with ready-to-run stories produced by independent reporters and editors allows the administration to know what they are thinking?.....or is it both!!!!! do they both know what each other are thinking?


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 11, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...




Okay, this is just downright absurd. A COST STUDY with the sole purpose of REDUCING FUCKING HEALTH CARE COSTS ALREADY PAID FOR BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, and Republicans suddenly have a problem with that? No--not absurd, it's pure partisan horseshit. If the tables were turned and it was REPUBLICANS who devised this cost saving panel and DEMOCRATS opposed it, the goddamned cons would be yelping like little piggies.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 11, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> "Let's begin with a definition of terms, such as 'Fact Check."
> 
> This is not FactCheck.Org, it is the Associated Press which is allied with administration thinking."
> 
> and you will verify that the AP is allied with administration thinking how?



There are only a half-dozen news outlets that the cons trust you know. But wait...I do believe even those get much of their on-the-spot news reports via the AP. Hmmm, 'tis a dilemma. To trust or not to trust.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 11, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> "Associated Press which is allied with administration thinking."
> 
> you have not defined "administration thinking"..... unless you know what they are thinking?



Any discussions with you have me wondering why I bother.

Your posts remind one of the five year old covering his ears and shutting his eyes and shouting "I can't hear you, so you're not talking."

Be gone.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 11, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Have you really thought through the repercussions if that started occurring? There would be wrongful death lawsuits up the wazoo against the US Government [Mr. & Mrs. Taxpayer, remember]. *OF COURSE *that isn't going to happen. Geezus.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 11, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > "Associated Press which is allied with administration thinking."
> ...



cool.... maybe I can get hired by an insurance company to act like that at a Town Hall meeting.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 11, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Sorry, I too was away for a bit.

As you probably know, FactCheck.org is a well respected site that reviews claims, such as the one we have been discussing here, and reviewing the claim presents the facts of the case as they are known.  I find FactCheck.org to be relatively dependable to present the facts whether good or bad for either side.

The Associated Press has lost much of its credibility, IMHO, in that it no longer presents facts rather it presents opinion.  AP is no longer reliable nor are the other "news" agencies.  I can't say for sure that they are allied with the administration, although the media of which AP is a part seemed to help push President Obama on America last year.

Is AP in bed with the administration?  Probably not... but as a reliable source of information, they are sorely lacking.

Immie


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 11, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




Demonstrably absurd.

Only a liberal would conflate cost cutting for healthcare by reducing services to the ill and the elderly.

If cost cutting is the aim, tort reform would be the first step. And the reason that tort reform is not in the bill? Democrat pocket-lining by lawyers.

Should you actually be interested in cost cutting, consider the following:

1. Tort Reform: 
While malpractice litigation accounts for only about 0.6 percent of U.S. health care costs, the fear of being sued causes U.S. doctors to order more tests than their Canadian counterparts. So-called defensive medicine increases health care costs by up to 9 percent, Medicare's administrator told Congress in 2005. "
Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

Now, compare those with these:
"Also, its worth noting that while these figures sound like a lot of money  and few would dispute the fact that health insurance company CEOs make healthy salaries  these numbers represent a very small fraction of total health care spending in the U.S. In 2007, national health care expenditures totaled $2.2 trillion. Health insurance profits of nearly $13 billion make up 0.6 percent of that. CEO compensation is a mere 0.005 percent of total spending."
FactCheck.org: Pushing for a Public Plan

The conclusion is that the cost of malpractice suits is equal to the profit of the entire industry.

This may be significant of and by itself, but when we look at the costs of defensive medicine, it alone adds to the costs of healthcare by a factor 15!!!
Once providers dont have to watch over their shoulders for the lawyers, we should move toward coordinated care networks that take responsibility for their members' medical needs in return for fixed annual payments (called "capitation"). One approach is through vouchers; Medicare recipients would receive a fixed amount and shop for networks with the lowest cost and highest quality.


2. Reform of Insurance Policy Mandates: 

Scrap all city, state, federal mandates for healthcare insurance policies. When a statute says policies must cover mammograms of everyone 35 and over, how is this fair for a construction company with all male employees? What about Podiatry, or sexual reorientation surgery/? Allow insurance companies to write policies covering exactly what the consumer asks for:
Take two very different states: Wisconsin and New York. In Wisconsin, a family can buy a health-insurance plan for as little as $3,000 a year. The price for a basic family plan in the Empire State: $12,000. The stark difference has nothing to do with each states health sector as a share of its economy (14.8 percent in Wisconsin as of 2004, the most recent year for which data are available, and 13.9 percent in New York). Rather, the difference has to do with how each states insurance pools are regulated. In New York State, politicians have tried to run the health-insurance system from Albany, forcing insurers to deliver complex Cadillac plans to every subscriber for political reasons, driving up costs. Wisconsins insurers are far freer to sell plans at prices consumers want.
The gulf in insurance-premium prices among American states is a sign that too much government interventionnot too littleis whats distorting prices from one market to the next. The key to reducing health-care costs for patients, then, is to promote competition, not to dictate insurance requirements from on high. Unfortunately, a government-run insurance plan is the core of ObamaCare.
Bigger Is Healthier by David Gratzer, City Journal 22 July 2009
a. NJ has some 68-69 mandates including in vitro fertilization, which adds some 2-2.5% to the cost of the policy

3.. Doctors currently have no ability to re-price or re-package their services that way every other professional does. Medicare dictates what it pays for and what it wont pay for, and the final price. Because of this there are no telephone consultations paid for, and the same for e-mails, normal in every other profession.
Most doctors dont digitize records, thus they cannot use software that allows electronic prescription, and make it easier to detect drug interactions or dosage mistakes. Again, Medicare doesnt pay for it. 

4. Another free market idea aimed at better quality is have warranties for surgery as we do for cars. 17% of Medicare patients who enter a hospital re-enter within 30 days because of a problem connected to the original surgery. The result is that a hospital makes money on its mistakes! 

5. Walk-in clinics are growing around the country, where a registered nurse sits at a computer, the patient describes symptoms, the nurse types it in and follows a computerized protocol, the nurse can prescribe electronically, and the patient sees the price in advance

6. To reduce healthcare costs, increase the number of doctors. Obama care would do the opposite. Both tax incentives and support of the tuition of medical school.

7. Identify the 8-10 million who need and are unable to get healthcare, including those with pre-existing conditions,and provide debit cards as is done for food stamps:

"Food debit cards help 27 million people buy food, similar to the number who need help buying health coverage. In all fifty states, debit card technology has transformed the federal food stamp program, which used to be notorious for fraud and abuse. (Only 2 percent of card users are found to be ineligible, according to the General Accounting Office.) Cards are loaded with a specific dollar amount monthly, depending on family size and income, and allow cardholders to shop anywhere. The same strategy could be adapted to provide purchasing power to families who need help buying high-deductible health coverage. It's what all Americans used to buy (see chart 5), and it's all that's needed for families with moderate incomes, who can afford a routine doctor visit. "
Downgrading Health Care

8. Current law provides unlimited tax relief for coverage obtained through an employer but no comparable relief for those who purchase coverage outside their places of work. S. 334 would replace the current tax preference for employer-based health coverage with a new individual-based system. The bill would end the tax exclusion in the personal income tax for employer-based health insurance benefits and instead use a combination of subsidies and tax deductions for health insurance. Ideally, the current employer-based tax structure should be replaced with a fair and equitable universal tax credit. An across-the-board, fixed-dollar health care tax credit, for example, would offer every American federal tax relief for health care.(Wyden-Bennett Bill)

And which of the above are 'partisan'?


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 11, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Completely unsubstantiated accusations.
> 
> Here, I can make some too:
> 
> ...



Actually, you are very close to being right.  

Immie


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 11, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...




in you opinion? how does this or anthing Wonder Girl has comeup with directly contradict the facts that were laid out in the story?


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 11, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Have you really thought through the repercussions if that started occurring? There would be wrongful death lawsuits up the wazoo against the US Government [Mr. & Mrs. Taxpayer, remember]. *OF COURSE *that isn't going to happen. Geezus.



Really?  And just how far do you think such a suit would get before it was thrown out of court?

The clerk's desk?  Think it would make it that far?  

Immie


----------



## jvn (Aug 11, 2009)

Did you ever notice that when Republicans read the health care bills, they are always into interpretation?

They read about a panel to study comparative effectiveness and say, "that means death panels..."

They read that private insurers are supposed to continue to exist, but say "clearly though, it is mandated that they will cease to exist..."  

But, of course, there are some who ideologically believe that the "marketplace" should determine who gets to have health care and who does not.  They believe that private insurance companies - with their rosters of doctors who decide what care people receive - should decide who lives or dies, who is bankrupted or not.

Tell me how the CEO of an insurance carrier who needs to justify his $100 million per year cares more about your health than a government oversight regulator?

Seems to me that health insurance companies are in business to KEEP the money they have received in premiums as opposed to paying it out for services.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 11, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Are you 'her' alter? So AP has an investigative reporting division and they call it Factcheck. So? Is that against the law or something? Does the fact that only one team on their entire staff does investigative reporting thereby negate everything else they report on? Only if you go cherry picking.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 11, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> in you opinion? how does this or anthing Wonder Girl has comeup with directly contradict the facts that were laid out in the story?



Those so called "facts" are unsubstantiated.  If you even read the article, then you will see that the first two questions dealing with whether or not there is such a panel are not even sourced.  In who's opinion are these answers?



> Q: Does the health care legislation bill promote "mercy killing," or euthanasia?
> 
> A: No.
> 
> ...



Notice farther down they do provide three sources for the information, but the early answers are not even sourced.  Who gave those answers?  How can we trust them?  Congress hasn't read the bill, how do we know that there isn't something in there setting up such a panel?  

Personally, I do not believe there is such language in the bill, but the language need not be there for it to happen.  Congress is damned good at redefining the meaning of language after they have pushed it through.

Do I believe there will be government bean counters determining what services you get?  Yeah, I believe that is a damned good possibility.  Is the language in the bill? No.  

Can I substantiate any of that?  No, but neither can you substantiate that it is false.  We won't know until our so called leaders have pushed this through and by then, it will be too late to do anything about it.  That is what bothers me.

Immie


----------



## jvn (Aug 11, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Pale Rider said:
> ...



Some decent proposals there.  Why didn't the GOP implement them when they controlled the House, Senate and the White House?

Could it be because they really DON'T want ANY reform of the system the way it is, especially given all the money the insurance carriers give them for their campaigns?

The point is that they could have and should have proposed these things, and they could still.

But the political pendulum has swung towards the left, and there is no logical reason that the US should not join every other nation in the world and have universal coverage.

That's the way it works, you win elections, you get to pass legislation.

The GOP wants to just say "no" rather than working to pass bi-partisan legislation?  Oh well...


----------



## Annie (Aug 11, 2009)

I listened to what Obama said, while he'd not call them 'death panels' he agrees as does all countries with government provided insurance that people that are not 'healthy' shouldn't be prolonging their lives, regardless of quality. It's not 'personal' but for the 'good of the most', meaning socialism.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 11, 2009)




----------



## jvn (Aug 11, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Notice farther down they do provide three sources for the information, but the early answers are not even sourced.  Who gave those answers?  How can we trust them?  Congress hasn't read the bill, how do we know that there isn't something in there setting up such a panel?
> 
> Personally, I do not believe there is such language in the bill, but the language need not be there for it to happen.  Congress is damned good at redefining the meaning of language after they have pushed it through.
> 
> ...



Highlights are mine.

Democrats have to substantiate that things not in the bill won't happen?

Isn't that just a little absurd?

A requirement that everyone pay 50% more in taxes isn't in the bill either - do you think it shoud be voted down because that COULD happen?

Really?


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 11, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Pale Rider said:
> ...



Oh good God, would you PLEASE put your thousand-fold points in _separate postings_ or better yet, separate threads? I'm sticking to the issue at hand, if you don't mind, which is alleged reduction of health care options for the elderly. Apparently, as usual, the politically charged just-say-no conservatives twisted and embellished THIS proposed amendment. Ironically, this is an excerpt from the real, Honest-to-God FactCheck.org (emphasis added is mine):
_
As for the argument claiming that this is the first step on a slippery slope leading to government-encouraged euthanasia, thats a stretch. The right to draw up an advance directive is federally guaranteed, but doctor-assisted suicide is legal in only three states. *It would take a lot more than Medicare-funded counseling for voluntary euthanasia to become a standard government recommendation.*

The original author of this part of the legislation responded to Boehners and McCotters statement on the House floor, saying that "nothing could be further from the truth." The section under question was based on a stand-alone piece of legislation sponsored by Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon *and Republican Rep. Charles Boustany of Louisiana. Three more Democrats and another Republican cosponsored the legislation.* On July 24, Blumenauer expressed his "disappointment" in Boehners misinterpretation of the bipartisan bill:
*
Rep. Blumenauer, July 24: In a statement from the minority leader  there is an allegation that somehow there is legislation in the health care draft that may place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign that may start us down a "treacherous path towards government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law."

Well, Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. Had the minority leader, and his whip, and the conference Chair bothered to check how that legislation came to be enacted into our health care legislation, they would have found out that it was work of a bipartisan group of Ways and Means Committee members. There were Republicans cosponsoring it along with Democrats. 

Were seeking  to be able to adjust Medicare so that it speaks to the needs of American seniors and their families, that theyre given the attention they need to prepare for this difficult period of time. Theres nothing in this legislation that would force people to have consultations. Theres nothing that would force them to sign advance directives. Its not going to choose a health care professional by the government and force it on them. 

Mr. Speaker, I cant tell you how disappointed I was to see this type of reaction to a carefully crafted piece of legislation that weve been working on for more than 6 months that is bipartisan and that speaks to the needs of American families.*

Blumenauer also discussed the importance of advance planning on life-extension treatment. "[T]oo often senior citizens and their families are not given the information they need to be able to cope with the most serious situation any of us will ever face as we have a loved one move into the end of his or her life," he said. "We had  Republican committee members talk about how their loved ones didnt get that type of help at the end of life and actually were subjected to things that they thought were not in the best interests of their loved one. If they had a choice, they wouldnt have done it over again, and it didnt prolong their life, it actually made them less comfortable."_


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 11, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> *FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill
> *AP  Tue Aug 11, 3:04 am ET
> ...Sarah Palin says the health care overhaul bill would set up a "death panel." Federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors are worth enough to society to deserve life-sustaining medical care. Palin and other critics are wrong.​



FACT CHECK

ACTUAL TEXT  http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-of-life-council-euthenasia-talk-origins.html


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 11, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Pale Rider said:
> ...



The only comment I have regarding your enumerated cost-cutting observations is to wonder why Republicans, when they held majority power for so many years going all the way back to Reagan, didn't THEY begin to discuss health care reform by designing their own plan around suggestions such as those you itemize? Instead, health care reform to Republicans is non-existent until a Democratic administration attempts to try to do it. Then and only then do the flags go up and all hell breaks loose.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 11, 2009)

jvn said:


> Highlights are mine.
> 
> Democrats have to substantiate that things not in the bill won't happen?
> 
> ...



You're damned right they have to prove that the bill is legitimate and constitutional.  The language may not be there... the intent may very well be there.  That is the problem.

If Americans are concerned that they are setting up bean counters to determine who gets medical services and who doesn't, then they damned well better clarify what the intention of this bill is.

If Americans are concerned about the destruction of the health insurance industry then Congress damned well better write the legislation so that it doesn't destroy the industry because the language is there that will mean the death of Private Health Insurance.  Not the banning of such, but a stake through the heart of the industry none the less.  

Yes, it is up to Congress to convince the American Public that this bill is good for us.  Last I checked, they work for us, not the other way around.

Immie


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 11, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > in you opinion? how does this or anthing Wonder Girl has comeup with directly contradict the facts that were laid out in the story?
> ...



so with no proof of a "death panel" being "pushed" through why would Sarah say there is such a thing?


----------



## Annie (Aug 11, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



it's past time to identify what is being done. You do know it, it's been done before in Europe and Canada. Stick up for it or let it go.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 11, 2009)

The OP is correct.  There is nothing called a "Death Panel" in the bill.

However, if you read the language, instead of reading left wing or right wing talking points you may learn the truth.

If people decide to click the link and read the text of the bill be warned, once you learn the truth you wont be able to go back to believing in a lie.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 11, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Have you really thought through the repercussions if that started occurring? There would be wrongful death lawsuits up the wazoo against the US Government [Mr. & Mrs. Taxpayer, remember]. *OF COURSE *that isn't going to happen. Geezus.
> ...



You're kidding, right? Crafty lawyers are constantly waiting in the wings for some new "cause" to concoct class action suits. And you must not know much about the legal process and the courts. Nothing is "thrown out" except by a judge and that's only AFTER a complaint and answer to the complaint are filed. As long as a person has the filing fee, you can file a complaint against your mother for force-feeding you macaroni and cheese that made you fat.

The irony of this particular back and forth is that if intentional ending of a person's life by the government were indeed part of the dark 'plan,' then the same government would be clamoring for tort reform which would have the effect of quashing such lawsuits (as you suggest they would).


----------



## EriktheRed (Aug 11, 2009)

concept said:


> Try a little harder, silly lib apologist.
> 
> Here is an interesting (and by interesting I mean pathetically sick) video of your savior, the enlightened and articulate Barack Hussein Obama, telling a poor woman to take a pill.
> 
> ...



Silly Con, why don't YOU try harder and please explain to us how a system mostly run by private insurers like we have now isn't using the same kind of decision-making you're bitching about.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 11, 2009)

why dont all of you actually read the damn text of the bill before i go bald from all the misinformation

READ THE FREAKING TEXT!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 11, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



Personally, I'd have to say she has been infected with hoof and mouth disease.

The language is not there.

However, as I said, it is apparent that there will be bean counters (such as me) determining the medical services that are covered.  You really do not want me determining that... honest, you don't, my job is to cut costs not save lives.  Trust me, you don't want a government cost cutter determining what services you can have and can't have.

And for the record, I don't have a problem with the described "end of life" consultations.  I lost my dad, two months ago.  He spent the last two weeks of his life in a hospice and believe me they were wonderful.  I can't thank them enough.  That being said, this plan has more holes in it than fifty thousand pounds of Swiss Cheese and I am concerned about being able to maintain decent health care coverage after the plan takes affect.

Immie


----------



## jillian (Aug 11, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> why dont all of you actually read the damn text of the bill before i go bald from all the misinformation
> 
> READ THE FREAKING TEXT!!!!!!!!!!!



you mean you're going to stop spreading misinformation?


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 11, 2009)




----------



## Annie (Aug 11, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> The OP is correct.  There is nothing called a "Death Panel" in the bill.
> 
> However, if you read the language, instead of reading left wing or right wing talking points you may learn the truth.
> 
> If people decide to click the link and read the text of the bill be warned, once you learn the truth you wont be able to go back to believing in a lie.



yep. There will be a 'panel' to decide whether or not someone should receive certain treatments/surgeries. I'll just address old folks, leaving aside younger people with mental/physical impairments. Presume a person is 70, with high blood pressure, but is living a fulling lifestyle. He/She is diagnosed with blocked arteries, but also with kidney problems. The surgery might make the heart problem better, but the kidneys, not so much so. So, does the surgeon complete the surgery? Today, yes. Tomorrow?


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 11, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



The point is Maggie that there is not going to be a secret panel deciding each and every case.  They will say, this is covered that is not and you don't want bean counters like me deciding whether or not your particular problem is covered.

It happens now in the private insurance industry.  However, when it does you still have the ability to get medical services.  In the future, when the government handles everything, you won't have that ability.  When the bean counters say no... you're done.

Immie


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 11, 2009)

jvn said:


> Did you ever notice that when Republicans read the health care bills, they are always into interpretation?
> 
> They read about a panel to study comparative effectiveness and say, "that means death panels..."
> 
> ...



So glad to have this opportunity for, as our President phrases it, a 'teaching moment.'

"...when Republicans read the health care bills, they are always into interpretation?"

This is because those you refer to as 'Republicans' have two attributes that you seem to lack: education and experience.

Using these two tools, one is often able to see the true aim of those whose objectives may be less than magnanimous.

"They read about a panel to study comparative effectiveness and say, "that means death panels..."
Praytell, what do you suppose is the aim of this non-elected panel who will tell individuals that the drug they need is too expensive?

 "..."comparative effectiveness" research. That in turn will be used to impose price controls and deny some types of medical treatment and drugs. And because government is able to skew the whole health system through Medicare and Medicaid, comparative effectiveness could end up micromanaging the practice of medicine."
Democrats Use the Stimulus Bill to Create a Health Information Monopoly - WSJ.com


"They read that private insurers are supposed to continue to exist, but say "clearly though, it is mandated that they will cease to exist..."  
Insurance policies are priced based on what they cover. The following are mandated to be included in all policies:
1. have guaranteed issue and renewal

2. no exclusions for pre-existing conditions

3. , no lifetime or annual limits on benefits,

4. family policies would have to cover children up to age 26.

5. to cover essential health benefits, as defined by a new Medical Advisory Council (MAC), appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The MAC would determine what items and services are essential benefits. The MAC would have to include items and services in at least the following categories: ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and new born care, medical and surgical, mental health, prescription drugs, rehab and lab services, preventive/wellness services, pediatric services, and anything else the MAC thought appropriate.
6. compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). 

7. prohibits engaging in other discriminatory practices. cover smokers, parachute jumpers, and race car drivers.

8. Caps total out-of-pocket spending 

Should ObamaCare pass, and these items were in a policy, the costs would skyrocket, and leave only the 'government option' for most to afford.  That is the purpose.
Can you connect the dots?

Did you note that the 9 million federal employees and their families are specifically excluded from ObamaCare?

From 'Animal Farm': All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

" who gets to have health care and who does not."
A fallacy, since every individual in the country, citizen or not, has healthcare coverage at this time.

And the usual "insurance companies ration care" is equally untrue. There is no rationing of healthcare in the United States, and will be none unless ObamaCare passes: then a bureaucrat will decide who gets care.

" how the CEO of an insurance carrier who needs to justify his $100 million per year"

"and few would dispute the fact that health insurance company CEOs make healthy salaries  these numbers represent a very small fraction of total health care spending in the U.S. In 2007, national health care expenditures totaled $2.2 trillion. Health insurance profits of nearly $13 billion make up 0.6 percent of that. CEO compensation is a mere 0.005 percent of total spending."
Pushing for a Public Plan | FactCheck.org

There is a great deal of misconception among the public regarding excessive versus appropriate nonprofit salaries. To equip donors in evaluating the appropriateness of an individual charitys CEO compensation in relation to its location, size, mission and overall performance, Charity Navigator has conducted an annual study on nonprofit CEO pay. With an average salary of roughly $160,000, this years findings prove that the majority of CEOs are not excessively compensated. Access our report to determine if the paycheck of your favorite charitys CEO is reasonable, inadequate or excessive.
Charity Navigator - 2009 CEO Compensation Study


"...a government oversight regulator..."
The same ones who give us $480 hammers and $160 toilet seats?  And they have a particular resonance with your health and safety?


"Seems to me that health insurance companies are in business to KEEP the money they have received in premiums as opposed to paying it out for services."
Read the factcheck above for healthcare industry profits.

And read my previous post re: ways to save money in healthcare.  Dispute any if you can.

My poor friend, you have been sucking on the liberal teat too long.  Wise up. Grow up.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Aug 11, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



You can sue your mother if you have the filing fee, but you can't sue the federal government unless it consents to being sued with only narrow exceptions.



> The FTCA [Federal Tort Claims Act] provides a limited waiver of the federal government's sovereign immunity when its employees are negligent within the scope of their employment. Under the FTCA, the government can only be sued 'under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.' 28 U.S.C. S 1346(b). Thus, the FTCA does not apply to conduct that is uniquely governmental, that is, incapable of performance by a private individual.



Can you sue the federal government? - Yahoo! Answers


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 11, 2009)

Annie said:


> I listened to what Obama said, while he'd not call them 'death panels' he agrees as does all countries with government provided insurance that people that are not 'healthy' shouldn't be prolonging their lives, regardless of quality. It's not 'personal' but for the 'good of the most', meaning socialism.



I didn't recall him mentioning other countries in any analogy, so I pulled up a copy of the text of the town hall exchanges in Portsmouth. Nope, he didn't. And your statement isn't even close to _anything_ he said about so-called "death panels" or health care rationing. Making stuff up again hoping it will stick?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/us/politics/12obama.text.html


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 11, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



This is the answer to one- and only one- point: your reference to the (magnanimous) administration attempting to save money.

I have listed my responses one to eight.  Only eight. Not one thousand.  

Surely you can handle eight.

Actually, the sense I get is that you can handle none of them.


----------



## Annie (Aug 11, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > I listened to what Obama said, while he'd not call them 'death panels' he agrees as does all countries with government provided insurance that people that are not 'healthy' shouldn't be prolonging their lives, regardless of quality. It's not 'personal' but for the 'good of the most', meaning socialism.
> ...



You are lying, but it's to be expected.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 11, 2009)

jvn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Notice farther down they do provide three sources for the information, but the early answers are not even sourced.  Who gave those answers?  How can we trust them?  Congress hasn't read the bill, how do we know that there isn't something in there setting up such a panel?
> ...



Republicans are infamous for their "what-if" political strategy. They win elections by using it; they start wars based on it; they appeal to the highest animal instinct of fear by using it. When you think about it, Republican (conservative) ideology is nothing BUT fear-based what-if scenarios such as Randism and Neoconism.


----------



## Annie (Aug 11, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> jvn said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



and you have links to all your accusations? If not, f off, if so, list them.


----------



## EriktheRed (Aug 11, 2009)

Annie said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



She's giving you a *source* to back up her claim that the Prez didn't say what you said he said and you say she's *lying*???


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 11, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > *FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill
> ...



I don't see anything in there abour "enforced euthanasia".

Can anyone else point out any part of that that implies it?


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 11, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > *FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill
> ...



No pun intended, but the length of that section is basically overkill. That said, nothing therein, to me anyway, even vaguely hints of cutting off care in order to speed up death (which is really what we're talking about here). In effect, 75% of that section is a reiteration of existing guidelines and explanations that accompany the "Living Will Packages" you can order online. No harm, no foul (except for adding convoluted legal mumbo jumbo).


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 11, 2009)




----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 11, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> jvn said:
> 
> 
> > Highlights are mine.
> ...



IF this thing ever gets passed (and I'm highly dubious at the moment that it will), the health care insurance EXCHANGE program to be set up will be similar to insurance pools whereby any existing insurance company, big or small, can bid on participation. In effect, that means that even the largest private health care provider, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, which is one insurance POOL provided for government employees to choose from, could also bid by offering a variety of choices for other pools of like industries or companies. For that reason, the argument that private insurers will be shoved out is moot, since THEY will be the very ones bidding for the business in the first place.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 11, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


 

_Insurer asks docs to report on new patients with pre-existing conditions - On Deadline - USATODAY.com_

_Blue Cross of California recently asked doctors to look for pre-existing conditions that could be used to justify the cancellation of insurance policies held by new patients, according to the __Los Angeles Times__.

Byron Tucker, a spokesman for the Insurance Department, tells the Times that this letter is "extremely troubling on several fronts. It really obliterates the line between underwriting and medical care. It is the insurer's job to underwrite their policies, not the doctors'. Doctors deliver medical care. Their job is not to underwrite policies for insurers."

Here is a link to the same story; from FoxNews:

__FOXNews.com - Blue Cross to Doctors: Help Us Get Rid of New Patients With Pre-Existing Conditions - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News_ 
I'm sorry about your Dad.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 11, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Republicans are infamous for their "what-if" political strategy. They win elections by using it; they start wars based on it; they appeal to the highest animal instinct of fear by using it. When you think about it, Republican (conservative) ideology is nothing BUT fear-based what-if scenarios such as Randism and Neoconism.



For the record, I am not a Republican and as to whether or not, I am a conservative, I will admit to having many conservative beliefs, but quite truthfully, I have trouble really identifying myself as either conservative or mildly liberal because although I believe abortion is wrong, I have many reservations as to whether or not it should be illegal.  I am for Welfare as long as it is not something permanent for those who are just too plain lazy to get off there butts and go to work.  I have many left leaning feelings.

As for health care reform, I know that we are in a crisis.  The Republicans didn't do crap when they had the chance.  Hell, I'm not even sure they mentioned it in the last 9 years.  I am, however, very concerned about the government running health care.  One thing that keeps me from being termed liberal in many more things, is that I do not believe that the government can do anything successful or efficiently.

Bigger government is a disaster waiting to happen.

You can say, I am fear-mongering if you want. But, if I am, it is only because I am fearful of what those people in Washington are doing to this country.

Immie


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 11, 2009)

Annie said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > The OP is correct.  There is nothing called a "Death Panel" in the bill.
> ...



Why not both? those are organs, not appendages. Bad example. A better one might be an elderly person who has had osteoarthritis for years (a common ailment as we age), and his primary physician suggests his knees would work better with knee replacement surgery. "Might work better" should be the operative words. I say no, unless he's willing to pay for it himself. And I'm betting, given those same quantifications, that any private insurer would also decline coverage.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 11, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



No true. That is *absolutely* NOT true. You can pay out of pocket for anything you want. Where do you get that idea?


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 11, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> The point is Maggie that there is not going to be a secret panel deciding each and every case.  They will say, this is covered that is not and you don't want bean counters like me deciding whether or not your particular problem is covered.



True.



> It happens now in the private insurance industry.  However, when it does you still have the ability to get medical services.



As long as you have the monetary resources to do so, which you would also with a public option.



> In the future, when the government handles everything, you won't have that ability.  When the bean counters say no... you're done.



Assuming that "the government will be handling everything in the future", which no-one has suggested will happen.  

In fact that is the point of this whole public _option_ thing, it is a compromise between two opposing camps.  Compromise is the heart of democracy.

Remember, if Hillary Clinton had won the election, she would be pushing mandated Universal Health Care...

And if Mike Huckabee had won, this would never have been on the table at all.


----------



## manu1959 (Aug 11, 2009)

government health insurance will have a board that will make policy as to who will and will not be covered....the cost of coverage and what will and won't be covered.....to say there will not be a board making such policy is simply naive.....


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 11, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> No true. That is *absolutely* NOT true. You can pay out of pocket for anything you want. Where do you get that idea?



Right, you think health care professionals are going to provide services they are NOT going to get paid for?  They don't do it now.  In today's world, when they provide services for the uninsured in which they know they will not be paid for, they can turn around and get paid by other means by the insurance companies which is part of the reason that our rates are so high.  Also the government pays for emergency services. In the future, there will be only ONE insurance company and when they say no... they won't pay.  

What is going to happen to the uninsured that enters an emergency room?  Oh wait, you won't be able to be uninsured.... but then what happens to John Doe when he goes to a specialist and the government has said... "No coverage for Mr. Doe"?  Mr. Doe will not be able to receive those services (unless of course, Mr Doe has a large amount of cash stored that the government hasn't stolen) because the government has said they are not paying for it.  Basically, Mr. Doe is screwed.

Basically, the "health care pool" if it even exists five years after the institution of this plan, will be nothing more than public insurance.  There will be no negotiation of fees between insurance companies and medical professionals.  The government will tell medical professionals what the government is going to pay and not a dime more.


Immie


----------



## Fatality (Aug 11, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> *FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill
> *AP  Tue Aug 11, 3:04 am ET
> ...Sarah Palin says the health care overhaul bill would set up a "death panel." Federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors are worth enough to society to deserve life-sustaining medical care. Palin and other critics are wrong.​



health care scam dies on the very fact that it is opressive and coersive, it forces people into the program against their will and forces them to become slaves to the state to pay for it


----------



## oreo (Aug 11, 2009)

concept said:


> Try a little harder, silly lib apologist.
> 
> Here is an interesting (and by interesting I mean pathetically sick) video of your savior, the enlightened and articulate Barack Hussein Obama, telling a poor woman to take a pill.
> 
> ...




DITTO--

Dr. Obama didn't mention that long term use of prescription pain medications--kill kidneys & hearts--ultimately killing the patient--who could have lived without all these pain pills if the surgery would have been done according to the patients doctors advice.


----------



## oreo (Aug 11, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> government health insurance will have a board that will make policy as to who will and will not be covered....the cost of coverage and what will and won't be covered.....to say there will not be a board making such policy is simply naive.....



DITTO--*let alone the fact that our federal government couldn't operate a lemonaid stand without bankrupting it.*


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 11, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Which is precisely why in any lawsuit against the United States government wherein it is the prime defendant, there are numerous individuals named along with several Does (I, II, III, et al., just to cover all bases). That clause is meaningless. The best recent example was the lawsuit filed by the families of the victims of the attacks of 911. There was also another one (after that was settled by the compensation fund), alleging the US Government's non-response to the recommendations of the 911 Commission. Here is how it was filed:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


ELLEN MARIANI, Individually, as            )
Personal Representative of the Estate    )
of LOUIS NEIL MARIANI, deceased,        )
and others similarly situated[1],     

                                     Plaintiff,          )           

            vs.                                           )           Case No. 03-5273



GEORGE W. BUSH[2], President of            )           Judge Eduardo C. Robreno
the United States, Officially and                )           
Individually,                                            )           JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

  and                                                      )


RICHARD CHENEY, Vice President of          )
The United States, Officially and                )
Individually,                                             )


and                                                                                                              )

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of         )
the United States (DOJ), Officially and          )
Individually,                                               )

and                                                   

DONALD H. RUMSFELD, Secretary of            )
Defense (DOD), Officially and                      )
Individually,                                               )       

and                                                                                                               )

GEORGE J. TENET, Director, Central             )
Intelligence Agency (CIA), Officially and        )                                               
Individually,                                                )

and                                                     

NORMAN Y. MINETA, Secretary,                   )
Department of Transportation (DOT),           ) 
Officially and Individually,                             )

and                                                     

PETER G. PETERSON, Chairman of the          )
Board, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN                       )
RELATIONS (CFR)[3], Officially and               )
Individually,                                                 )

and                                                      

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, National                        )
Security Advisor, to Defendant Bush,              )
Officially and  Individually,                             )

and  .......                                                  

Other unnamed past, present, officials,           )
representatives, agents, and private               )
consultants of  THE UNITED STATES               )
OF AMERICA,                                                )


                          Defendants.[5]                   )



PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT[6]


NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Ellen Mariani, on information, belief and established facts, by and through her counsel of record, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, and for her causes of action against all named and unnamed Defendants states the following: 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1.         Plaintiff commenced this civil action on September 12, 2003, by filing of Complaint with this Honorable Court.  Since Plaintiff's initial filing and the 'firestorm" surrounding Defendant GWB's refusal to comply with the "911 Commission[7]," this Amended Complaint provides newly discovered substantial additional facts, evidence and voluntary support from former federal employees and other concerned American Citizens who all seek justice and the truth as to how and why the events of September 11, 2001, (hereinafter "911"), occurred.  Plaintiff hereby asserts Defendants, officially and individually are exclusively liable to answer the Counts in this Complaint under the United States Constitution and provisions of the 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a) and (c), Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act  (hereinafter "RICO Act") for "failing to act and prevent" .....

Ellen Mariani's RICO Suit against Bush et al.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 11, 2009)

Annie said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



Something wrong with your eyeballs?


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 11, 2009)

Annie said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > jvn said:
> ...



Why do I need links? It's been visible and written history, my friend. I would need to post thousands of pages of links. And I'm not about to fuck off. You know how to put someone on ignore, don't you? Hope so, after your award winning 41,000 posts on this board.


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 11, 2009)

_Nope.......its a death panel by any sane persons definition. The Dums are going arouond talking about "Myths". They have no shame...........they'll say anything hoping people dont check the facts. ( which is of course, how they get elected in the first place )

Death panels exist in any country where government run health care esists. And its not just the eldery that have their lives to lose. Indeed.........the government will determine in all cases who are the health winners and who are the health losers. Its all there........crystal clear in the bill. Only the sheep cant see it..........the dolts of our society who implicitly trust the government without question._


----------



## Fatality (Aug 11, 2009)

concept said:


> Try a little harder, silly lib apologist.
> 
> Here is an interesting (and by interesting I mean pathetically sick) video of your savior, the enlightened and articulate Barack Hussein Obama, telling a poor woman to take a pill.
> 
> ...



obama the bloody butchering nazi pig. people like jack kevorkian will thrive in oamas death centers


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 11, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Republicans are infamous for their "what-if" political strategy. They win elections by using it; they start wars based on it; they appeal to the highest animal instinct of fear by using it. When you think about it, Republican (conservative) ideology is nothing BUT fear-based what-if scenarios such as Randism and Neoconism.
> ...



I was talking in general terms in my what-if analysis. No one knows better than me that there remain millions of Republicans who are not conservatives on the fringe of hysteria, and they are mighty unhappy that the GOP has allowed those voices to drown out common sense and dictate policy with no intention of engaging in civil bipartisan exchanges.


----------



## EriktheRed (Aug 11, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> government health insurance will have a board that will make policy as to who will and will not be covered....the cost of coverage and what will and won't be covered.....to say there will not be a board making such policy is simply naive.....



Who said otherwise?


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 11, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> government health insurance will have a board that will make policy as to who will and will not be covered....the cost of coverage and what will and won't be covered.....to say there will not be a board making such policy is simply naive.....



A late bloomer who apparently hasn't read all the wealth of information contained elsewhere in this thread. Start now, Manu.


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 11, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > No true. That is *absolutely* NOT true. You can pay out of pocket for anything you want. Where do you get that idea?
> ...





How spot on is this post ^^^ ???

The sheep simply have an inability to think on the margin in terms of the tradeoffs. They just cant do it.

Immie.........your last sentence in the above post is compelling. The translation? Well.......to anybody with the ability to think on the margin, it means with 100% certainty that the quality of health professionals will be reduced, particularly in terms of doctors. Leties never think twice about what the cost is for becomming a trained medical professional. Government will most definately remove the incentive. The bozo's can never recognize this...........to them, it all remains static in the world of Disney. Invariably...........when the government gets involved in the decisionmaking process of anything, the market gets screwed. The whole field is dumbed down. Lefties fail to be able to embrace this concept..........its part of the "liberalism is a mental disorder" concept. Its fcukking fascinating.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 11, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > No true. That is *absolutely* NOT true. You can pay out of pocket for anything you want. Where do you get that idea?
> ...



If I need an operation that my doctor and hospital decide will cost $50,000 and I go to my bank and withdraw $50,000 in cash and pay them up front, I will have the surgery. While they may not accept a personal IOU, yes, they will still take cash (or probably Visa or MC!).


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 11, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> I was talking in general terms in my what-if analysis. No one knows better than me that there remain millions of Republicans who are not conservatives on the fringe of hysteria, and they are mighty unhappy that the GOP has allowed those voices to drown out common sense and dictate policy with no intention of engaging in civil bipartisan exchanges.



Hey wait a minute!  I think I have remained extremely civil and somewhat bipartisan as I don't like either side!    However, hysterical?  Yeah, you might say I have a problem with giving Uncle O, control of my health and well being.  The thought of that freaks me out more than the thought of putting my head into the mouth of a starving lion.

You want me to get nasty?  Do you really want the Mr. Hyde to come out of me?  Please say no, because I hate that S.O.B.!   

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 11, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> If I need an operation that my doctor and hospital decide will cost $50,000 and I go to my bank and withdraw $50,000 in cash and pay them up front, I will have the surgery. While they may not accept a personal IOU, yes, they will still take cash (or probably Visa or MC!).



Great and what about me, I only have five thousand stashed away that I can get my hands on easily and maybe $20,000 if I reach deep into the plastic.  Guess, I'm screwed.

Immie


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 11, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > I was talking in general terms in my what-if analysis. No one knows better than me that there remain millions of Republicans who are not conservatives on the fringe of hysteria, and they are mighty unhappy that the GOP has allowed those voices to drown out common sense and dictate policy with no intention of engaging in civil bipartisan exchanges.
> ...



Again, I wasn't talking about YOU. In fact, I tried to write it as if I was talking about the fringers, of which I don't think YOU are one at all. Sorry if it came out that way. I do think, however, that you do a lot of projecting over what might happen down the line. No one knows. But I'm pretty sure that eagle eyes will be constantly watching every move when and if any reform bill is enacted. It will begin the structuring process thereafter which is when the *real* fun begins!


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 11, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Again, I wasn't talking about YOU. In fact, I tried to write it as if I was talking about the fringers, of which I don't think YOU are one at all. Sorry if it came out that way. I do think, however, that you do a lot of projecting over what might happen down the line. No one knows. But I'm pretty sure that eagle eyes will be constantly watching every move when and if any reform bill is enacted. It will begin the structuring process thereafter which is when the *real* fun begins!



I knew you were not talking about me.  I started to read what you posted and realized you were not talking about me... but I had to play with it.

However, I am as I said deathly serious with my opposition to this plan being forced down our throats with so many unanswered questions.

As I said, I do not believe that Washington can do this well.  I believe it will turn out bad for Americans.  I'm not saying that because it is a Democrat plan, I'm saying it because it is a Washington plan and they simply cannot succeed at this.

Immie


----------



## Gudrid (Aug 11, 2009)

I think anyone who opposes end-of-life counseling is blissfully ignorant of the realities of dealing with loved ones who are terminally ill or elderly and unable to care for themselves.  I have had to deal with both.  Bless the counselors and the hospice, and the self-involved politicians need to stop twisting something positive into a "death panel."  It's disgusting and heartless and completely ignorant of reality.


----------



## Gudrid (Aug 11, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> If I need an operation that my doctor and hospital decide will cost $50,000 and I go to my bank and withdraw $50,000 in cash and pay them up front, I will have the surgery. While they may not accept a personal IOU, yes, they will still take cash (or probably Visa or MC!).



Might want to withdraw a little extra.  They often charge more for self-pay.


----------



## manu1959 (Aug 11, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> > government health insurance will have a board that will make policy as to who will and will not be covered....the cost of coverage and what will and won't be covered.....to say there will not be a board making such policy is simply naive.....
> ...



several people in this thread have said there will be no such board determining the fate of people and their health care.....


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 11, 2009)

oreo said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> > government health insurance will have a board that will make policy as to who will and will not be covered....the cost of coverage and what will and won't be covered.....to say there will not be a board making such policy is simply naive.....
> ...



Funny story..

Claire McCaskll had a town hall, with the usual nay-sayer's and screamers attending.

When she got a moment to actually interact with the people in the room, she asked a couple of simple questions:

"How many of you have Medicare insurance?

At this point a vast majority of the crowd, being seniors, raised their hands.

So she continued "How many of you would like to get rid of your Medicare?"

*No one raised their hands.*

Hmm, guess the government that "Can't run a lemonade stand" can run some pretty decent health insurance after all.


----------



## manu1959 (Aug 11, 2009)

hey look....mr well spoken and articulate....lies again.....

President Obama today suggested that the health care reform legislation for which hes pushing has been endorsed by the American Association of Retired Person.

We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors, the president said.

At another point he said: Well, first of all, another myth that we've been hearing about is this notion that somehow we're going to be cutting your Medicare benefits.  We are not.  AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare, okay?

The problem? 

The AARP hasn't endorsed any plan yet. 

President Obamaâs âSeniorâ Moment? - Political Punch


The country's largest advocacy group for Americans over 50 issued a statement after the event saying, "While the President was correct that AARP will not endorse a health care reform bill that would reduce Medicare benefits, indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate."


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 11, 2009)

Gudrid said:


> I think anyone who opposes end-of-life counseling is blissfully ignorant of the realities of dealing with loved ones who are terminally ill or elderly and unable to care for themselves.  I have had to deal with both.  Bless the counselors and the hospice, and the self-involved politicians need to stop twisting something positive into a "death panel."  It's disgusting and heartless and completely ignorant of reality.



Thank you for that post.

As I said earlier, I do not oppose end of life counseling and I too have found hospice care to be a blessing.  Rather recently in fact.  That really is not my issue though, my issue is government bean counters deciding my health and well being.  

Would someone please convince me that a bean counter is capable of knowing what is best for me?

Immie


----------



## Fatality (Aug 11, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> At this point a vast majority of the crowd, being seniors, raised their hands.



you mean the "unruly mob," "the nazis," the "un-Americans" are old people with canes? the same people tha obama thug union faggots pushed down and threaten their lives if they speak against the nazi health plan. go fuck yourself wildly up the ass you stupid prick!


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 11, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Have to agree with that, this has been one of the most civil debates I've encountered all day.  Much respect to Immanuel.  Though we clearly disagree, at least we are able to have a civil discourse about it.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 11, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> several people in this thread have said there will be no such board determining the fate of people and their health care.....



No, they/we have said there would be no "death panel".  The connotation being a panel of 12 people who look at individual cases and say "Give her the operation" and "Nope, he won't live long enough to pay us back in taxes, no operation for him."

Scary thought ain't it?  

Immie


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 11, 2009)

Fatality said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > At this point a vast majority of the crowd, being seniors, raised their hands.
> ...



No, I mean the people that actually got in to this particular town hall were.  The thugs were the ones down in Tampa, as well as a few other places.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 11, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> > several people in this thread have said there will be no such board determining the fate of people and their health care.....
> ...



But again, this is not implied by the language contained in the bill.


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 11, 2009)

Yup........the president stepped in it on two counts today then. His comment about "single payer" was a classic flub in the vain of vice president Biden.
How many times do they have on record Obama saying the complete polar opposite??

He thinks people were born yesterday............but he's finding out right quick...............

theyre not...................


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 11, 2009)




----------



## Fatality (Aug 11, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Fatality said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



oh, so now you want to change youe tune? to bad there is no changing, the truth is already known. you fucking limp wrist


----------



## EriktheRed (Aug 11, 2009)

Fatality said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > At this point a vast majority of the crowd, being seniors, raised their hands.
> ...





He said nothing about an unruly mob, but you had to interject anyway and say this:




> go fuck yourself wildly up the ass you stupid prick!




Ah, the bitterness. I just love it.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 11, 2009)

skookerasbil said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



One, we don't need a partisan hack (thus the use of the phrases "sheep" and "liberalism is a mental disorder") re-interpreting the words of a rational poster.

Two, the argument here is based on the unsupported supposition that a "public option" will force the rest of the insurers out of business.

and

Three, I have NEVER known a "poor" or even "middle class" doctor, with the possible exception of brand new, fresh out of medical school, residents, who happened to work at a free clinic, in a bad area.

Every single doctor I have ever met is at the very least, "well-off" and most are quite rich.

So please, don't give me the "they have trouble paying off medical school debts" sob story, because that is definitely not going to fly.


----------



## Fatality (Aug 11, 2009)

EriktheRed said:


> Fatality said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...


your masters pelosie, hoyer and reid said it and you know it, i can understand your fear of admitting it, seems youre both getting it in the ass.


----------



## Meister (Aug 11, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


>



You do realize that *500 billion **is to be slashed **from Medicare *in the House version of the healthcare bill to help pay for the bill donchya?


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 11, 2009)

skookerasbil said:


> Yup........the president stepped in it on two counts today then. His comment about "single payer" was a classic flub in the vain of vice president Biden.
> How many times do they have on record Obama saying the complete polar opposite??
> 
> He thinks people were born yesterday............but he's finding out right quick...............
> ...



LOL, you didn't even watch the speech, did you?

You just tuned in for the FoxNews highlights.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 11, 2009)

Fatality said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Fatality said:
> ...



And how exactly would that be "changing my tune", hmmm?

Did I say the people at the McCaskill event were the same people from the Tampa event or other events?  No, I don't believe I did.

Nice language there, son, I guess when you don't have a point to make, you just go and curse at people, eh?


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 11, 2009)

Meister said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > You do realize that *500 billion **is to be slashed **from Medicare *in the House version of the healthcare bill to help pay for the bill donchya?
> ...


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 11, 2009)

Fatality said:


> your masters pelosie, hoyer and reid said it and you know it, i can understand your fear of admitting it, seems youre both getting it in the ass.



Really?  They said that, specifically about the folks at the McCaskill meeting?

Perhaps you'd like to give us all a link to that?


----------



## Meister (Aug 11, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 11, 2009)

You know, this is a perfect example of the problem with the folks who are disrupting those townhall meetings.

Here we were, having a nice discussion, disagreeing but discussing, and someone comes in and starts spouting invectives and gets me all riled up, and then the conversation degrades to insults and quips again.

Sigh, as much my fault for responding to the taunts as it is the taunter's fault I guess.

I apologize.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 11, 2009)

Meister said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 11, 2009)

Have any of you actually been reading the bill?

I have.   Here is a small sample of what is saved on my computer in microsoft word


Text of H.R.3200 as Introduced in House: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

The actual text of health care reform legislation is starting to percolate up from the depths of the committees, and it contains a plethora of hard stops on the freedoms that Americans are guaranteed and have come to expect. President Obama remains inordinately fond of continuing to campaign about all the choice he wants us to see in his vision of health care reform, but unfortunately for him whats in this House version of the bill contains anything but.

Since our unrepresenting representatives cant be bothered to do so, i'm going to try and read through this bill.

The party line is that if you currently have health insurance, sure, you can keep it. They call this grandfathering in your plan. But Section 102: PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE doesnt protect anything except the government-run gateways and exchanges because the day you decide to give up your current plan, its all over but the shouting because unless you enroll in an employer-provided plan (that must provide no less than exactly the same benefits as the governments plan), its straight into the machine for you.

These are the key excerpts:

(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.  (notice that this is the sum total of verbiage in this paragraph. There are NO exceptions. Health insurers may no longer enroll new plan participants.)

(c) Limitation on Individual Health Insurance Coverage-

(1) IN GENERAL- Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.
**This means that if a health insurance company wants to stay in business, it must get in bed with the government.**

(2) SEPARATE, EXCEPTED COVERAGE PERMITTED- Excepted benefits (as defined in section 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act) are not included within the definition of health insurance coverage. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall prevent the offering, other than through the Health Insurance Exchange, of excepted benefits so long as it is offered and priced separately from health insurance coverage.
***How very kind of them. Separate insurance policies will be permitted by the government. If you didnt ask What are excepted benefits? then you deserve the government weve got today and dont come crying to us when the govt tells you that your life isnt worth the cost of saving it. But because Im feeling generous today, Ill ask the question for you. What are these excepted benefits? Well, basically anything except what we all think of as common medical treatments, such as:


Coverage only for accident, or disability income insurance, or any combination thereof. 
Coverage issued as a supplement to liability insurance. 
Liability insurance, including general liability insurance and automobile liability insurance. 
Workers compensation or similar insurance. 
Automobile medical payment insurance. 
Credit-only insurance. 
Coverage for on-site medical clinics 
Other similar insurance coverage, specified in regulations, under which benefits for medical care are secondary or incidental to other insurance benefits.

Not exactly the choice the President, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the government are leading you to believe, is it?
So just what happens to your health care once the government gets their guaranteed hold of it? 

Tis the question that will kill this bill.


----------



## Fatality (Aug 11, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Fatality said:
> 
> 
> > your masters pelosie, hoyer and reid said it and you know it, i can understand your fear of admitting it, seems youre both getting it in the ass.
> ...



they said it about everyone, it was a blanket statment and you trying to split hairs is a shallow attempt to alleviate their guilt. good little slave supporting your masters so.


----------



## Gudrid (Aug 11, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Would someone please convince me that a bean counter is capable of knowing what is best for me?



No, because a bean counter is capable of no such thing.  That's what doctors are for.  There is nothing I've read in this bill allowing the kind of decision making power for individual cases that we currently have to deal with from the purely private insurance companies.  

Personally, i support this reform because I'm _not_ willing to let the "bean counters" be the decision makers anymore, among other things.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 11, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> One,... the words of a rational poster.



Thank you



Vast LWC said:


> Two, the argument here is based on the unsupported supposition that a "public option" will force the rest of the insurers out of business.



Unsupported, but I think if you read the language of the bill and think about the consequences of that language you will come to the same conclusion that I have.  This bill will spell the end of Private Insurance coverage.  It does not mandate it, but regardless, it is the stake in the heart.  No business can survive if it can not write new business.  No business can survive if it can not maintain its costs or boost its revenues.

This bill clearly prevents Private Health Insurers from doing just that.

I wonder how many insurance agents are set to enter the unemployment lines.  Not to mention employees of the industry as well.



Vast LWC said:


> Three, I have NEVER known a "poor" or even "middle class" doctor, with the possible exception of brand new, fresh out of medical school, residents, who happened to work at a free clinic, in a bad area.
> 
> Every single doctor I have ever met is at the very least, "well-off" and most are quite rich.
> 
> So please, don't give me the "they have trouble paying off medical school debts" sob story, because that is definitely not going to fly.



Nor have I, but will the government maintain the standard of living of medical professionals once the government has control of the purse strings.  I'm betting no.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 11, 2009)

Gudrid said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Would someone please convince me that a bean counter is capable of knowing what is best for me?
> ...



But you know as well as I do that it will be bean counters who make the decisions as to what is covered and what is not.  

Hey, come to think of it, isn't it a left wing mantra that these kinds of decisions should be left up to me and my doctor?  Why the sudden change?  Now we want government involved in our health care decisions?  I think the world just turned upside down!  

Immie


----------



## EriktheRed (Aug 11, 2009)

Gudrid said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Would someone please convince me that a bean counter is capable of knowing what is best for me?
> ...



I know someone who's a nurse and works for an insurance company. Her boss is a doctor. IOW, it's not really fair to say that it's only "bean counters" who are making decisions at insurance companies. It's just that at the same time, it's not fair to make the assumption that a publicly-run insurance co. is going to be any more or less calculating in _their_ decision-making.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 11, 2009)

EriktheRed said:


> I know someone who's a nurse and works for an insurance company. Her boss is a doctor. IOW, it's not really fair to say that it's only "bean counters" who are making decisions at insurance companies. It's just that at the same time, it's not fair to make the assumption that a publicly-run insurance co. is going to be any more or less calculating in _their_ decision-making.



Good point Erik,

I had already said something similar, but when it is an insurance company the insured has other avenues, including changing providers.  When the government has sole possession of the purse strings there will be no options at all.  When they say no, the answer will be no and you will be up shit creek without a paddle.

Immie


----------



## Gudrid (Aug 11, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> (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.  (notice that this is the sum total of verbiage in this paragraph. There are NO exceptions. Health insurers may no longer enroll new plan participants.)



You're misunderstanding that section.  All that's doing is defining the qualifications for grandfathering in a specific plan.  It doesn't bar private insurers from enrolling new participants in general.  


(c) Limitation on Individual Health Insurance Coverage-



> (1) IN GENERAL- Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.
> **This means that if a health insurance company wants to stay in business, it must get in bed with the government.**



No, that means if the health insurance company wants a kickback from the government - being part of that individual portion of the program - it must meet the guidelines.    The section you're drawing from has nothing to do with limitations on private healthcare - it's solely defining what must be done if a private insurer wants to also be part of the public plan.



> (2) SEPARATE, EXCEPTED COVERAGE PERMITTED- Excepted benefits (as defined in section 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act) are not included within the definition of health insurance coverage. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall prevent the offering, other than through the Health Insurance Exchange, of excepted benefits so long as it is offered and priced separately from health insurance coverage.
> ***How very kind of them. Separate insurance policies will be permitted by the government. If you didnt ask What are excepted benefits? then you deserve the government weve got today and dont come crying to us when the govt tells you that your life isnt worth the cost of saving it. But because Im feeling generous today, Ill ask the question for you. What are these excepted benefits? Well, basically anything except what we all think of as common medical treatments



And all that says is that if an insurer opts to offer coverage as part of the public system, it can still offer supplemental or other private insurance as well.



> Not exactly the choice the President, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the government are leading you to believe, is it?



Yes, actually, it is.  The section you're citing has zero to do with limiting private healthcare; it simply defines the standards if a private insurer wishes to also provide the public healthcare option.  How are you getting limitations on private insurance out of that?


----------



## Gudrid (Aug 11, 2009)

EriktheRed said:


> Gudrid said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Not to be mean, but a nurse is not a doctor and should not be making medical decisions that would require an MD beyond the insurance company walls.  And her boss has not examined the patient.  Combined with the fact that their primary job is for-profit, that relegates them to bean counter status in my book.  

It is perfectly fair to assume that a publicly run insurance co. is going to be less calculating, because we already have one.  And from what I've seen, they have set standards they go by, without the flexibility to decide that this person or that person doesn't really "need" a particular operation, etc.


----------



## Maple (Aug 11, 2009)

There are 3 plans which one are you referring to. There is one with end of life counseling.


----------



## Maple (Aug 11, 2009)

As long as they have a good product and the government plan has to sustain itself through premiums and other non-tax revenue, private insurers should be able to compete with the government plan, Obama said. 

"They do it all the time," he said. "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. ... It's the Post Office that's always having problems." 

That's our president trying to sell a government run health care plan, you need to ask yourself why you would want a government run anything when it's very clear that even the Mesiah thinks the government run postal service is a failure.


----------



## Sinatra (Aug 11, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > *FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill
> ...





Right on - the Obamacare apologists point to the fact that the proposed health care bill does not actually say "Death Panel" as proof not to worry over the possibility of the Feds deciding who is worthy of certain health measures and who are not.

Add to that the disturbing views by some within the Obama administration regarding this very topic, and there is much cause for concern.

Palin's comments, while somewhat extreme, when taken in the context of the stimulus bill information, Obama's own words, and the views of those within his administration, are not necessarily innacurate.

The reason the Obamabots are so upset at her words are simply that they have proven very effective in debilitating Obamacare's possibility of passage...


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 11, 2009)

Maple said:


> As long as they have a good product and the government plan has to sustain itself through premiums and other non-tax revenue, private insurers should be able to compete with the government plan, Obama said.
> 
> "They do it all the time," he said. "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. ... It's the Post Office that's always having problems."
> 
> That's our president trying to sell a government run health care plan, you need to ask yourself why you would want a government run anything when it's very clear that even the Mesiah thinks the government run postal service is a failure.



As I said in the other thread you posted this in:

"Asked to clarify, the White House said Obama was pointing out that while core Postal Service services are different from those offered by UPS and FedEx, it has not undermined the competitive spirit of the private shipping industry."

The post office is an entirely different animal than the private shippers. They do the bulk of mail across the country, the cheap mail that is.

The point being, you can get the bare essential, cheap, public health plan (tthe post office) or you will be able to opt for the more expensive private health plans, which have better service (FedEx).

And, for the price they charge and the volume they handle, the post office does a pretty good job thank you very much.


----------



## Vast LWC (Aug 11, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...




Yes, use another poster's unsupported opinion to back up your own unsupported opinion.

For instance:



> comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age.



Says who?  You?  Some guy off the street?



> older patients have a denominator problem -- fewer years to benefit than younger patients with other diseases.



Opinion, with no supporting evidence.



> If this philosophy is inferred in ObamaCare, can you see where there is reason to tread carefully?



No example of where it is "inferred".



> But Dr. Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their own patient and consider social justice. They should think about whether the money being spent on their patient could be better spent elsewhere.



Which is exactly what private insurers do.

And the entire last paragraph is an excerpt from an opinion piece by an ultra conservative commentator.

Yet you expand on this, with yet another extension of the originally flawed argument thusly:



> *Add to that *the disturbing views by some within the Obama administration regarding this very topic, and there is much cause for concern.



What "disturbing views" would those be?

Finishing with an extrapolation from several unsupported implications, "supporting" wild claims made by a popular Conservative politician:



> Palin's comments, while somewhat extreme, when taken in the context of the stimulus bill information, Obama's own words, and the views of those within his administration, are not necessarily innacurate.



Priceless.  This is right-wing propaganda at it's finest folks.  A seemingly logical progression springing from an unsupported premise.


----------



## Sinatra (Aug 11, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




Thank you - and it happens to be correct as well...


----------



## Chris (Aug 12, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > As long as they have a good product and the government plan has to sustain itself through premiums and other non-tax revenue, private insurers should be able to compete with the government plan, Obama said.
> ...



They do an outstanding job.


----------



## Fatality (Aug 12, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > As long as they have a good product and the government plan has to sustain itself through premiums and other non-tax revenue, private insurers should be able to compete with the government plan, Obama said.
> ...



funny how everyone else is always rushing to obamas aid to clarify what he says since he finds it so difficult to spit it out himself.


post office = obams nationalist free clinic...take a number, stand in line, wait for your number, talk to an underworked overpaid asshole beurocrat, pay an additional fee to the taxes you pay for your "free" government healthscam.

just like the department of motor vehicles...walk in take a number stand in line wait for your number talk to a underworked overpaid asshole Beurocrat pay a fee get shit for service.

obamas free clinic = the department of motor vehicles.


----------



## Care4all (Aug 12, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > I know someone who's a nurse and works for an insurance company. Her boss is a doctor. IOW, it's not really fair to say that it's only "bean counters" who are making decisions at insurance companies. It's just that at the same time, it's not fair to make the assumption that a publicly-run insurance co. is going to be any more or less calculating in _their_ decision-making.
> ...



then don't go with the public option if you are somehow? in fear of such and go with the NUMEROUS PRIVATE Insurers available to you on the Insurance Exchange?


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 12, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...



That is BS, my dear, the so called "Private Exchange" will be so governed by the Feds that they will be indestinguishable from the Public Option.  The private pool will be government insurance with a corporate name on it.  

Immie


----------



## probus (Aug 12, 2009)

hey!-- i wonder if we'll be lucky enough to get Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee on the "death panel"?-- here's how she feels about her constituents, especially white ones who have cancer-- i'm just sayin'-- Regards, probus   [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L3FnWNkIzU]YouTube - Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee talks on the phone as a woman asks a question at a town hall event[/ame]


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 12, 2009)

skookerasbil said:


> Yup........the president stepped in it on two counts today then. His comment about "single payer" was a classic flub in the vain of vice president Biden.
> How many times do they have on record Obama saying the complete polar opposite??
> 
> He thinks people were born yesterday............but he's finding out right quick...............
> ...



During the campaign, initially he DID advocate single-payer, and he does not deny that. HOWEVER, he has also said (and especially once the economy crashed) that *IF* he could start from scratch, single-payer might make sense. Obama also doesn't dismiss the idea 15-20 years down the line. But for now, getting everyone on some kind of health INSURANCE makes more sense.


----------



## Care4all (Aug 12, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Do you think the Private Insurance Corporations responsible and charged with making their shareholders profitable would agree to these new regulations in insurance reform, with the exception of a public/coop option, if they thought they couldn't make a buck off of it or if their business analysis of the reform came to the conclusion that this gvt reform would be the downfall of them?

to me immie, common sense says no...that's all I am thinking...and more on the lines of this being a GIFT HORSE to the Insurance companies who do nothing but push paper and provide no actual medical care to anyone....

Care


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 12, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



One major problem that will develop, and one which Obama addressed yesterday and clearly said he "doesn't have all the answers to" is the shortage of primary doctors who don't want to go into more lucrative specialities and how a new influx of folks seeing GPs will affect the program as a whole. I was a little disappointed that he didn't mention the number of doctors who go through med school only to never again pick up a BP monitor or a scalpal and instead choose to join more lucractive Wall Street firms as "consultants" which has contributed to the existing shortage.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 12, 2009)

Meister said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Not from benefits.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 12, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Fatality said:
> 
> 
> > your masters pelosie, hoyer and reid said it and you know it, i can understand your fear of admitting it, seems youre both getting it in the ass.
> ...



He's talking about some joint editorial they wrote calling the protesters "unAmerican." It isn't "unAmerican," but when people like Glenn Beck start ranting that the Obama administration has some covert Nazi-esque plan to take over the government, even by exterminating dissenters, there's something terribly wrong with people who actually believe that horse shit.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI88xPILZG4]YouTube - Glenn Beck Clips 08-11-09 Seg5- Obama Administrations HC Advisors Personel Tree[/ame]


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 12, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Have any of you actually been reading the bill?
> 
> I have.   Here is a small sample of what is saved on my computer in microsoft word
> 
> ...



Except that I hope you do realize that the original House bill doesn't look anything like what will come out out the Senate Finance Committee. We haven't seen that yet. It will then go to the full Senate for debate; then if passed, to House & Senate conference and back to the Senate for enactment. There's still a looooooooooooooooooooong way to go.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 12, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > One,... the words of a rational poster.
> ...



Standard of living? What does that mean? Don't you mean standards of practice and/or ethical standards? I think the AMA still requires that doctors maintain their current skills level by periodic testing, do they not? There are plenty of bad doctors just as there are plenty of bad lawyers. In fact, I've seen some studies that suggest if you're really sick, the worst place to be is in a hospital.


----------



## Care4all (Aug 12, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



One of the questions we may want to ask ourselves is whether we want to assist more people in becoming doctors by offering to give more university grants to those in medical school and nursing school or to help increase the sizes of the various medical schools throughout our country or even partly funding... the adding of additional medical or nursing schools ....there is a major shortage of doctors and nurses throughout the entire country and most of the baby boomers haven't hit their latter years where medicine and doctors and nurses become very important to their living a decent life....let alone having enough doctors available for the younger sect of society that may need them...

where there is a shortage in supply compared to the demand, then prices for the supply on hand tend to go WAY UP in price....  we need to increase the supply, by increasing doctors and nurses and medical techs on hand....  imo....

And also by reducing the demand...and not by excluding people from getting the service, but by getting Americans on the road to healthier lifestyles through educating and informing...


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 12, 2009)

EriktheRed said:


> Gudrid said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Here's what the insurance industry bean counters use as their guidelines. Which is more intrusive? The government or private insurers knowing how often you've picked up an STD?

http://www.opic.state.tx.us/docs/442_2007_health_ug.pdf


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 12, 2009)

Maple said:


> As long as they have a good product and the government plan has to sustain itself through premiums and other non-tax revenue, private insurers should be able to compete with the government plan, Obama said.
> 
> "They do it all the time," he said. "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. ... It's the Post Office that's always having problems."
> 
> That's our president trying to sell a government run health care plan, you need to ask yourself why you would want a government run anything when it's very clear that even the Mesiah thinks the government run postal service is a failure.



Sorry, but the  one is you for misinterpretation. That was in response to the question or statement that private industry will be driven out because they won't be able to effectively compete. Obama was pointing out how successful both UPS and FedEx are (private industry) even though their competition is the United States government. It was a no-brainer, hon.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 12, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > As long as they have a good product and the government plan has to sustain itself through premiums and other non-tax revenue, private insurers should be able to compete with the government plan, Obama said.
> ...



not a valid comparison.

The government does not dictate what UPS and Fed Ex charge to deliver a package.

where the government will limit what insurance companies can charge in both premium and out of pocket expenses in policies but will increase benefit pay out an infinite amount.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 12, 2009)

Fatality said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Maple said:
> ...



For someone who has difficulty putting together a cohesive sentence, you either need to go back and finish grammar school or sober up if you want to be taken seriously.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 12, 2009)

probus said:


> hey!-- i wonder if we'll be lucky enough to get Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee on the "death panel"?-- here's how she feels about her constituents, especially white ones who have cancer-- i'm just sayin'-- Regards, probus   YouTube - Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee talks on the phone as a woman asks a question at a town hall event



BFD. What was so awful about that? Where did race enter into it? Now you're fucking mind readers?


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 12, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Are the hundreds of insurance companies under the AIG umbrella going to go out of business? Hardly. If that was the intent of the US Government, AIG would not have been bailed out in the first place.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 12, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Fatality said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



Ah, my friend, Maggie the Magician.

It seems that my post #67 so devastated you that you disappeared, and here you are again, reappearing.  

Recall, you made the absurd post that the Democrats should be estimeemed because they have found a way to save money, which we all know is the raison d'etre of the Dems, by limiting pharmaceuticals and procedures for the ill and the elderly.

Brilliant.

Subsequent to your absurb post, I listed eight- not  a thousand- eight proposals none of which occurred to you or your Democrat friends, and challenged you find problems with the eight, as I have disposed of your attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

That's when you disappeared.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 12, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Do you think the Private Insurance Corporations responsible and charged with making their shareholders profitable would agree to these new regulations in insurance reform, with the exception of a public/coop option, if they thought they couldn't make a buck off of it or if their business analysis of the reform came to the conclusion that this gvt reform would be the downfall of them?
> 
> to me immie, common sense says no...that's all I am thinking...and more on the lines of this being a GIFT HORSE to the Insurance companies who do nothing but push paper and provide no actual medical care to anyone....
> 
> Care



Care,

This will be the end of Private Health Insurance.  This so call exchange poop, er "pool" but poop is more approriate, will only contain so-called private plans that fit the minnimum/maximum coverages authorized by the government meaning there will be no options.  Much like Social Security.  You will have one option and one option only.  Plans in the pool will not be allowed to offer anything different than the government option and at the price the government tells them to offer it in.  Would you as a business person risk running a business in such a manner?  That is what makes this such a terrible plan.  

Many people chose higher deductibles in order to lower their costs.  That option will be a thing of the past.  Insurance companies will be told what deductibles they can offer and you can pretty much guess that there won't be many, if any, options.  

Basically, the government will tell the "private insurers" what they can and can not offer.  Basically the Private Insurers will be publicly run and no different than the government fund.  Basically, you will have one option and that is all.

Buh bye to the private insurer and buh bye to your right to chose the plan that fills your needs best.

Immie


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 12, 2009)

Care4all said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



I agree, and unless something like those incentives are offered, doctors will continue to be imported for those jobs that can't be filled except from other countries by expanding the H-IB program, and people will rightfully be bitching about that.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 12, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Maple said:
> ...



They most certainly DO have to comply with inter-intra state transportation of goods and services regulations, my friend.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 12, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Fatality said:
> ...



Excuse me, Ms. Perfect, but I do like to sleep at night and return in the morning when I'm refreshed. 

That said, I responded to your proposals by asking why they are never put forth when Republicans are in charge. Did you answer that question? Do so, and then we can have a debate. I didn't imply they were 'bad' options at all. Ball's in your court, but I don't have all day today, either.


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 12, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



*One,... the words of a rational poster.*

Obama wants to kill(white)old people and retards.  Page 142 section 10.  It is true.  Check it out!


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 12, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Standard of living? What does that mean? Don't you mean standards of practice and/or ethical standards? I think the AMA still requires that doctors maintain their current skills level by periodic testing, do they not? There are plenty of bad doctors just as there are plenty of bad lawyers. In fact, I've seen some studies that suggest if you're really sick, the worst place to be is in a hospital.



No, LWC was speaking about the fact that doctors are well off in society and implied that they would continue to be so.  The fact is they will work for the government.  They will be government employees who receive the wages the government tells them they will receive.  Don't expect them to be paid as G15's or what ever is the highest pay grade is either.

According to this site maximum pay for government employees is about $130k.

Salary Table 2009-GS

Now, I will grant you that the government is not YET taking over the medical profession, but you can pretty well guess how the government is going to pay for medical procedures and doctors will not be living up to the same standards they did before this screw job.

Immie


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 12, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Now, THAT'S the old Mags!

I never said that I was a Republican.

Right back at ya.'


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 12, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> *One,... the words of a rational poster.*
> 
> Obama wants to kill(white)old people and retards.  Page 142 section 10.  It is true.  Check it out!



Excuse me?

In the first quote: 





> One,... the words of a rational poster.


 LWC was speaking about me as being the rational poster.

It appears that you are attributing the second quote to me:





> Obama wants to kill(white)old people and retards.


 and I can quarantee that those words did not come off of my fingertips.

Please, help me to understand what exactly you were trying to say.  Actually, I don't care about me, just clarify it to the rest of the world that those words in the second quote were not mine.

Immie


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 12, 2009)

I have noticed today in the public debate that folks are being more civil if still angry.  That is good.  We will get a consensus eventually.  I notice some of the moderators are reading the questions, and the security is putting screaming people out of the rooms.  Very good.

True Americans will not tolerate political shari'a from our flaky far rightwing.


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 12, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > *One,... the words of a rational poster.*
> ...



    

You are attempting to make sense of a parroting of the nonsense spewed by neo cons at some of the town hall meetings?

The only point is dissruption of the dialog.  I thought those were the new rules.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 12, 2009)

They may be neo-con desires, but like most rightwing desires, they are impotent.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 12, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



for one i am not your friend

second show me where inter intra state regs set prices for package delivery.

a better comparison would be

The government will tell insurance companies that a guy with cancer or an 800 pound slob cannot be charged more for insurance than a healthy Olympic athlete of the same age.

The government does not tell Fed Ex that they have to charge the same price for a 1 pound package delivered across town in 3 days as they do for a 10 pound package shipped overnight to Japan.

So your comparison is bogus


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 12, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> You are attempting to make sense of a parroting of the nonsense spewed by neo cons at some of the town hall meetings?
> 
> The only point is dissruption of the dialog.  I thought those were the new rules.



Okay, well, you succeeded in disrupting me.

Also, in case you didn't know it, rules are made to be broken.

Immie


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 12, 2009)

skullpilot is wrong.  Congress has complete control of interstate commerce IAW the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings.  If Congress can make the ICC connection to a business activity, then the feds can regulate.

Skull is giving the distant minority opinion.  OK, but who cares?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 12, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > As long as they have a good product and the government plan has to sustain itself through premiums and other non-tax revenue, private insurers should be able to compete with the government plan, Obama said.
> ...



    Will the PLAN destroy private health insurance?



Here is what it requires, for businesses with payrolls greater than $400,000 per year. (The bill uses contribution to refer to mandatory payments to the government plan.)  Pages 149-150, SEC. 313, EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE



(a) IN GENERAL.A contribution is made in accordance with this section with respect to an employee if such contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of  the average wages paid by the employer during the period of enrollment (determined by taking into account all employees of the employer and in such manner as the Commissioner provides, including rules providing for the appropriate aggregation of related employers). Any such contribution



(1) shall be paid to the Health Choices Commissioner for deposit into the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, and

(2) shall not be applied against the premium of the employee under the Exchange-participating health benefits plan in which the employee is enrolled.



(The bill then includes a sliding scale of payments for business with less than $400,000 in annual payroll.)



The Bill also reserves, for the government, the power to determine an acceptable benefits plan: page 24, SEC. 115. ENSURING ADEQUACY OF PROVIDER NETWORKS.



5 (a) IN GENERAL.A qualified health benefits plan that uses a provider network for items and services shall meet such standards respecting provider networks as the Commissioner may establish to assure the adequacy of such networks in ensuring enrollee access to such items and services and transparency in the cost-sharing differentials between in-network coverage and out-of-network coverage.



EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:



1.      The bill does not prohibit a person from buying private insurance. 

2.      Small businesseswith say 8-10 employeeswill either have to provide insurance to federal standards, or pay an 8% payroll tax. Business costs for health care are higher than this, especially considering administrative costs. Any competitive business that tries to stay with a private plan will face a payroll disadvantage against competitors who go with the government option. 

3.      The pressure for business owners to terminate the private plans will be enormous. 

4.      With employers ending plans, millions of Americans will lose their private coverage, and fewer companies will offer it. 

5.      The Commissioner (meaning, always, the bureaucrats) will determine whether a particular network of physicians, hospitals and insurance is acceptable.

6.      With private insurance starved, many people enrolled in the government option will have no place else to go.


The Health Care Bill


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 12, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> skullpilot is wrong.  Congress has complete control of interstate commerce IAW the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings.  If Congress can make the ICC connection to a business activity, then the feds can regulate.
> 
> Skull is giving the distant minority opinion.  OK, but who cares?



does the government tell fed ex what it can charge for package delivery?

does the government tell fed ex that it cannot charge different prices for different levels of service?


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 12, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Maple said:
> ...



*Will the PLAN destroy private health insurance?
*

I certainly hope so.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 12, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



And I certainly hope this applies to you:  whatsoever a man soweth, that he shall also reap.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 12, 2009)

*[SIZE=+1]The Last Gasp of the Angry White Man[/SIZE]* 
* Link* 
* Excerpt:* 
What we're seeing in these angry town halls these days is the last gasp of the angry white man. He's not quite sure what he's angry about, but he knows he's angry. It's not the world he used to know. He gets the disquieting feeling that he doesn't rule the roost anymore. And it's driving him crazy. One of the chants at the town hall events was, "No national healthcare!" Okay, mission accomplished. No one has proposed such a thing. So, I guess they can go home now befuddled at what they were yelling about. The reality is that what they have been manipulated into arguing against is a public option that would give them more choices, not less in health insurance. It wouldn't nationalize health insurance at all, let alone any part of the rest of the healthcare industry. But this isn't about health insurance. It isn't even about health care. You think those people are really this animated about having less health care options and making sure it costs more for them and their family? No, this is visceral for them. And it has nothing to do with their perceived choices on health care. This is about the sinking feeling in their stomach that they are losing power in this country - losing control. That the reigns of power are slipping out of their hands and they don't know what to do about it except yell, really loud.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Aug 12, 2009)




----------



## Care4all (Aug 12, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



you know, since i have been in the new england region for 10 years, i completely forgot about what it was like with my different insurance policies in Florida...in the decade that i lived there, i never had a doctor on my plans that spoke english as a first language...mostly indian or pakistani ....they were very hard to understand.

up here, never had a doctor that wasn't American born... and not that i don't welcome immigrant doctors, but i just personally want a doctor that i can easily understand and whom can easily understand me.

care


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 12, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I'm all in.  Bring it.


----------



## Meister (Aug 12, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Full government control huh?  Boy, Huggy.....that sounds like communism to me.


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 12, 2009)

Meister said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Its better than that!...Its an OBOMANATION.  He wants to eat tasty white children and he is willing to pay me top dollar to snatch em up!


----------



## Meister (Aug 12, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



OK...OK I get it now Huggy.  A capitalist working with communism, I like it...I like it a lot.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 12, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Funny how nobody is these days.  Okay, then "non-democrats"? Same comments apply.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 12, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> skullpilot is wrong.  Congress has complete control of interstate commerce IAW the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings.  If Congress can make the ICC connection to a business activity, then the feds can regulate.
> 
> Skull is giving the distant minority opinion.  OK, but who cares?



Yeah, I think he knew what I was talking about. Thanks for clarifying the point. As to his analogy about an old person having the same insurance provisions as a young athlete, that too isn't true. Both of them would have a choice of options from which to choose. Kinda like picking from a Chinese menu. At least that's the way I understand it. An older person would likely choose care for such things as osteoporosis and even cancer, whereas a young person might choose preventive care for just the basic minor afflictions.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 12, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > skullpilot is wrong.  Congress has complete control of interstate commerce IAW the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings.  If Congress can make the ICC connection to a business activity, then the feds can regulate.
> ...



you obviously didn't read the post to which you are referring.

I specifically said a person with cancer, an 800 pound slob or an Olympic athlete of the same age

but hey why should you be any different than our so called reps.  they don't read anything either.

And you never did answer my question

Does the government tell fed ex what it can charge to deliver a package?

Does the government tell fed ex that it can't charge more for an overnight package than it does for standard delivery?


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 12, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


>



Your jokes being apropos aside, I felt bad for the elderly man who was escorted out of the Specter town hall event yesterday. He seemed to be terribly upset about all the wrong things, mainly that the Constitution had been trampled on by big government taking over people's lives. In fact, the man has lung disease and collects Social Security Disability. 

So we see that many of the people who are attending these meetings want to just complain about EVERYTHING they see wrong with government and vent their anger at a single legislator at a single event. Town meetings have been going on for decades, usually with low turnout, so where were all these people while this perceived horrible government was building to the point of being unacceptable to them? Why didn't they speak up _en masse _before now? Instead, and until now, if you ask the guy on the street if he likes _his own _state's lawmakers in Washington, they almost unanimously answer that yes, they do.


----------



## maineman (Aug 12, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> Does the government tell fed ex what it can charge to deliver a package?
> 
> Does the government tell fed ex that it can't charge more for an overnight package than it does for standard delivery?



does the government presently tell any HMO or PPO what they can or cannot charge as a premium for their services?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 12, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Deflections aside, it seems that you must, albeit kicking and screaming, admit that my eight- not one thousand- suggestions for improving US healthcare are superior to your advocating reducing coverage for the elderly and the ill to 'save money' (as though that ever entered into the plans of Democrats).

Truly, your attempts to avoid the substantive issue posed in my 'suggestions' post us unlike your old self. 

It was far more fun when you would try to respond.

On the other hand, due to the weakness of your argument, I can understand your action- or, actually, inactions.

So, whadda ya' say, want to admit that the folks in the current administration are true believers, and, in the mold of so many radicals before them, their supposed love for humanity is obviated by its hatred of individuals. They've tipped their collective (pun intended) hands!

And in terms of the 'healthplan' under discussion, they have inserted a panel that will decline treatments and drugs that currently keep the sick and elderly alive, and the 'end of life' consultants will realize more life-ends, and the overall effect will be an iron-fisted grip on the lives of the well and those who wish to stay well.

Because if you can't punch holes in my list of 'suggestions,' that is exactly what it means.

C'mon, put up ya' dukes.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 12, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:
			
		

> Will the PLAN destroy private health insurance?
> 
> Here is what it requires, for businesses with payrolls greater than $400,000 per year. (The bill uses contribution to refer to mandatory payments to the government plan.)
> 
> ...



I suggest (to everyone) that rather than pick and choose pasted sections of the House Bill that they look at the outline of the *final significant points *they will use to formulate the actual bill. Culled from all of the proposals, these are the ones that are still being negotiated:

*The House Democratic bill*:

WHO'S COVERED: Around 94 percent of non-elderly residents (those not covered by Medicare, which kicks in at age 65) would be covered  compared with 81 percent today. Nearly half the 17 million non-elderly residents who remain uninsured would be illegal immigrants.

COST: About $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

HOW IT'S PAID FOR: Revenue-raisers include $544 billion over the next decade from new income taxes on single people making more than $280,000 a year and couples making more than $350,000; $37 billion in business tax increases; about $500 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid; sizable penalties paid by individuals and employers who don't obtain coverage.

REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS: Individuals must have insurance, enforced through tax penalty with hardship waivers. The penalty is 2.5 percent of income.

*REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: Employers must provide insurance to their employees or pay a penalty of 8 percent of payroll. Companies with payroll under $250,000 annually are exempt. That level could rise to $500,000 under a deal between House leaders and fiscal conservatives.*

Employers could apply for a two-year exemption from the mandate if they can prove the requirements would result in job losses that would negatively affect their communities.

SUBSIDIES: Individuals and families with annual income up to 400 percent of poverty level ($88,000 for a family of four) would get sliding-scale subsidies to help them buy coverage. The subsidies would begin in 2013.

HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: Through a new Health Insurance Exchange open to individuals and, initially, small employers; it could be expanded to large employers over time. States could opt to operate their own exchanges in place of the national exchange if they follow federal rules.

BENEFIT PACKAGE: A committee would recommend an "essential benefits package" including preventive services, mental health services, oral heath and vision for children; out-of pocket costs would be capped. The new benefit package would be the basic benefit package offered in the exchange and over time would become the minimum quality standard for employer plans. Insurers wouldn't be able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: A new public plan available through the insurance exchanges would be set up and run by the secretary of Health and Human Services. Democrats originally designed the plan to pay Medicare rates plus 5 percent to doctors, but under Wednesday's deal with the fiscal conservatives the HHS secretary would instead negotiate rates with providers.

CHANGES TO MEDICAID: The federal-state insurance program for the poor would be expanded starting in 2013 to cover all non-elderly individuals with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level ($14,404).
___

*The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee's bill*:

WHO'S COVERED: Aims to cover 97 percent of Americans.

COST: About $615 billion over 10 years, but it's only one piece of a larger Senate bill.

HOW IT'S PAID FOR: Another panel  the Senate Finance Committee  is responsible for figuring out how to cover costs.

REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS: Individuals will have to have insurance, enforced through tax penalty with hardship waivers.

*REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: Employers who don't offer coverage will pay a penalty of $750 a year for each full-time worker. Businesses with 25 or fewer workers are exempt.*

SUBSIDIES: Available up to 400 percent poverty level, or $88,000 for a family of four.

BENEFITS PACKAGE: Health plans must offer a package of essential benefits recommended by a new Medical Advisory Council. No denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: A robust new public plan to compete with private insurers. The plan would be run by the government but would pay doctors and hospitals based on what private insurers now pay.

HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: Individuals and small businesses could purchase insurance through state-based purchasing pools called American Health Benefit Gateways.

OTHER PROVISIONS: Creates a new voluntary insurance program that would provide a modest daily cash benefit to help disabled people stay in their own homes instead of going into nursing homes.
___

*A plan under discussion by a bipartisan group of six senators on the Finance Committee*:

WHO'S COVERED: Around 97 percent of Americans. Illegal immigrants would not receive coverage.

COST: Around $1 trillion over 10 years.

HOW'S IT PAID FOR: Possible sources include cuts to Medicare and Medicaid; a tax as high as 35 percent on very high cost health insurance policies; a requirement for employers to pay into the Treasury for their employees who get their insurance through public programs or receive government subsidies to help pay premiums. Looking to raise $90 billion by taxing health insurance companies as much as 35 percent on policies valued at $25,000 or more.

REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS: Expected to include a requirement for individuals to get coverage.

*REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: In lieu of requiring employers to provide coverage, lawmakers are considering a "free rider" penalty based on how much the government ends up paying for workers' coverage.*

SUBSIDIES: No higher than 300 percent of the federal poverty level ($66,150 for a family of four).

BENEFIT PACKAGE: The government doesn't mandate benefits but sets four benefit categories  ranging from coverage of around 65 percent of medical costs to about 90 percent  and insurers would be required to offer coverage in at least two categories. No denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: Unlike the other proposals the Finance Committee's will likely be bipartisan. With Republicans opposed to a government-run plan, the committee is looking at a compromise that would instead create nonprofit member-owned co-ops to compete with private insurers.

HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: State-based exchanges.

CHANGES TO MEDICAID: Everyone at 100 percent of poverty would be eligible. Between 100 and 133 percent, states or individuals have the choice between coverage under Medicaid or a 100 percent subsidy in the exchange. The expansion would be delayed until 2013, a late change to save money  the start date had been 2011.
___

*The House Republican proposal*:

WHO'S COVERED: The House GOP's plan, in outline form for now, says it aims to make insurance affordable and accessible to all. There aren't estimates about how many additional people would be covered.

COST: Unknown.

HOW'S IT PAID FOR: No new taxes are proposed, but Republicans say they want to reduce Medicare and Medicaid fraud.

REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS: No mandates.

*REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: No mandates; small business tax credits are offered. Employers are encouraged to move to "opt-out" rather than "opt-in" rules for offering health coverage.*

SUBSIDIES: Tax credits are offered to "low- and modest-income" Americans. People who aren't covered through their employers but buy their own insurance are allowed to take a tax deduction. Low-income retirees younger than 65 (the eligibility age for Medicare) would be offered assistance.

BENEFIT PACKAGE: Insurers would have to allow children to stay on their parents' plan through age 25.

GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: No public plan.

HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: No new purchasing exchange or marketplace is proposed. Health savings accounts and flexible spending plans would be strengthened.

CHANGES TO MEDICAID: People eligible for Medicaid would be allowed to use the value of their benefit to purchase a private plan.
___
The Associated Press: A look at health care plans in Congress


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 12, 2009)

maineman said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Does the government tell fed ex what it can charge to deliver a package?
> ...



My point is they will be able to if the current bill is passed.

try to keep up


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 12, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



gee why doesn't the AP mention the tax penalties for having the wrong kind of insurance?

or the fact that insurance provided under ERISA will be eliminated?


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 12, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



No, it lets them charge anything they want. I don't get your point. The insurers in the exchange program will have different premiums based on the coverage chosen. Varied rates, only capped. I don't misinterpret the fact that this is a PUBLIC PLAN, as opposed to PRIVATE PLANS, so you don't need to try to trap me. Nobody is saying the exchange will be run exactly like private insurers run theirs. If the latter didn't have a monopoly on people's lives, a public plan wouldn't be considered.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 12, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> So we see that many of the people who are attending these meetings want to just complain about EVERYTHING.. .




So, here's a guy with specifics:
The Health Care Bill: What HR 3200, Americas Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, Says 

John David Lewis

August 6, 2009



What does the bill, HR 3200, short-titled Americas Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, actually say about major health care issues? I here pose a few questions in no particular order, citing relevant passages and offering a brief evaluation after each set of passages. 



This bill is 1017 pages long. It is knee-deep in legalese and references to other federal regulations and laws. I have only touched pieces of the bill here. For instance, I have not considered the establishment of (1) Health Choices Commissio0ner (Section 141); (2) a Health Insurance Exchange, (Section 201), basically a government run insurance scheme to coordinate all insurance activity; (3) a Public Health Insurance Option (Section 221); and similar provisions.  



This is the evaluation of someone who is neither a physician nor a legal professional. I am citizen, concerned about this bills effects on my freedom as an American. I would rather have used my time in other waysbut this is too important to ignore. 



We may answer one question up front: How will the government will pay for all this? Higher taxes, more borrowing, printing money, cutting payments, or rationing servicesthere are no other options.  We will all pay for this, enrolled in the government option or not.



(All bold type within the text of the bill is added for emphasis.)





1.      1.  WILL THE PLAN RATION MEDICAL CARE? 



This is what the bill says, pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS:



 (ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN READMISSIONS.For purposes of clause (i), with respect to a hospital, excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital.



and, under Definitions:



(A) APPLICABLE CONDITION.The term applicable condition means, subject to subparagraph (B), a condition or procedure selected by the Secretary . . . 



and:



(E) READMISSION.The term readmission means, in the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time period specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge.



and:



(6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of . . . 

(C) the measures of readmissions . . .



EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1.       This section amends the Social Security Act

2.      The government has the power to determine what constitutes an applicable [medical] condition.

3.      The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.

4.      This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted.

5.      This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up.

6.      There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts.

7.      The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318.





2.                  Will the plan punish Americans who try to opt out?



What the bill says, pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE: 



 (a) TAX IMPOSED.In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of

(1) the taxpayers modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. . . .



EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:



1.      This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2.      Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.

3.      The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.





3.                  what constitutes acceptable coverage?



Here is what the bill says, pages 26-30, SEC. 122, ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED:



 (a) IN GENERAL.In this division, the term essential benefits package means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 124 to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security . . .



(b) MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED.The items and services described in this subsection are the following:

(1) Hospitalization.

(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services . . .

 (3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.

 (4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physicians or a health professionals delivery of care . . .

(5) Prescription drugs.

(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.

(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.

(8) Preventive services . . . 

(9) Maternity care.

(10) Well baby and well child care . . .



 (c) REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO COST-SHARING AND MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE . . . 



(3) MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE.

(A) IN GENERAL.The cost-sharing under the essential benefits package shall be designed to provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 70 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package described in subparagraph (B).



EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES: 



1.      The bill defines acceptable coverage and leaves no room for choice in this regard. 

2.      By setting a minimum 70%  actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services, but carry insurance only for catastrophic events, (such as Health Savings Accounts) illegal.





4.                  Will the PLAN destroy private health insurance?



Here is what it requires, for businesses with payrolls greater than $400,000 per year. (The bill uses contribution to refer to mandatory payments to the government plan.)  Pages 149-150, SEC. 313, EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE



(a) IN GENERAL.A contribution is made in accordance with this section with respect to an employee if such contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of  the average wages paid by the employer during the period of enrollment (determined by taking into account all employees of the employer and in such manner as the Commissioner provides, including rules providing for the appropriate aggregation of related employers). Any such contribution



(1) shall be paid to the Health Choices Commissioner for deposit into the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, and

(2) shall not be applied against the premium of the employee under the Exchange-participating health benefits plan in which the employee is enrolled.



(The bill then includes a sliding scale of payments for business with less than $400,000 in annual payroll.)



The Bill also reserves, for the government, the power to determine an acceptable benefits plan: page 24, SEC. 115. ENSURING ADEQUACY OF PROVIDER NETWORKS.



5 (a) IN GENERAL.A qualified health benefits plan that uses a provider network for items and services shall meet such standards respecting provider networks as the Commissioner may establish to assure the adequacy of such networks in ensuring enrollee access to such items and services and transparency in the cost-sharing differentials between in-network coverage and out-of-network coverage.



EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:



1.      The bill does not prohibit a person from buying private insurance. 

2.      Small businesseswith say 8-10 employeeswill either have to provide insurance to federal standards, or pay an 8% payroll tax. Business costs for health care are higher than this, especially considering administrative costs. Any competitive business that tries to stay with a private plan will face a payroll disadvantage against competitors who go with the government option. 

3.      The pressure for business owners to terminate the private plans will be enormous. 

4.      With employers ending plans, millions of Americans will lose their private coverage, and fewer companies will offer it. 

5.      The Commissioner (meaning, always, the bureaucrats) will determine whether a particular network of physicians, hospitals and insurance is acceptable.

6.      With private insurance starved, many people enrolled in the government option will have no place else to go.





5.                  Does the plan TAX successful Americans more THAN OTHERS?



Here is what the bill says, pages 197-198, SEC. 441. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS



 SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.

(a) GENERAL RULE.In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to

(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,

(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and

(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.



EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE: 



1.      This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code. 

2.      Tax surcharges  are levied on those with the highest incomes.

3.      The plan manipulates the tax code to redistribute their wealth.

4.      Successful business owners will bear the highest cost of this plan.



6.      6.  Does THE PLAN ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO set FEES FOR SERVICES?



What it says, page 124, Sec. 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:



(d) CONSTRUCTION.Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as limiting the Secretarys authority to correct for payments that are excessive or deficient, taking into account the provisions of section 221(a) and the amounts paid for similar health care providers and services under other Exchange-participating health benefits plans.



(e) CONSTRUCTION.Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as affecting the authority of the Secretary to establish payment rates, including payments to provide for the more efficient delivery of services, such as the initiatives provided for under section 224.



EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:



The governments authority to set payments is basically unlimited. 
The official will decide what constitutes excessive, deficient, and efficient payments and services. 




7.                  Will THE PLAN increase the power of government officials to SCRUTINIZE our private affairs?



What it says, pages 195-196, SEC. 431. DISCLOSURES TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUBSIDIES.



 (A) IN GENERAL.The Secretary, upon written request from the Health Choices Commissioner or the head of a State-based health insurance exchange approved for operation under section 208 of the Americas Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, shall disclose to officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, return information of any taxpayer whose income is relevant in determining any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the Americas Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Such return information shall be limited to

(i) taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer,

(ii) the filing status of such taxpayer,

(iii) the modified adjusted gross income of such taxpayer (as defined in section 59B(e)(5)),

(iv) the number of dependents of the taxpayer,

(v) such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof), and

(vi) the taxable year with respect to which the preceding information relates or, if applicable, the fact that such information is not available.



And, page 145, section 312, EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT COVERAGE:



(3) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.The employer provides the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable, with such information as the Commissioner may require to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this section.



EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:



1.      This section amends the Internal Revenue Code 

2.      The bill opens up income tax return information to federal officials.

3.      Any stated limits to such information are circumvented by item (v), which allows federal officials to decide what information is needed.

The Health Care Bill


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 12, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



you almost have it

premiums will be capped but benefits won't be

premiums cannot be higher for sick people or people at high risk of disease and therefore cannot be lower for healthy people.  there will be no lifetime limits on benefits paid out even though the premiums paid will be capped.

FYI that's not going to save anyone any money because premiums will have to rise across the board or the private insurers will go under. (Which is the desired end result)

So the person who will use the most benefits doesn't pay his "fair share"  (You like that? I finally got to use that term so favored by the libbies)

and the coverage in the exchanges will be all basically the same there will be no difference because of the minimums set by the bill.

In fact you will find yourself paying for stuff in the "basic" coverage that you might not have now like substance abuse counseling.

And if the government allowed health insurance companies to sell policies across state lines like every other kind of insurance, you would see premiums drop like a rock.  

but that isn't in the bill that's supposed to promote competition and choice either.

I wonder why.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 12, 2009)

Guys guys fine....make me do it as i've been reading the bill and actually making notes.

You are all not getting good information on both sides from the media outlets and internet and need to really read the bill.


This is the list of the preventative services from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force which the bill will allow you unlimited coverage for.  Anything else you do you have to pay a yearly out of pocket deductible for still (AKA NOT FREE): * (THIS CAN BE FOUND IN SECTION 122 of the Bill)*
Grade A:


Cervical cancer screening for women
Colorectal cancer screening for men and women over 50
Discuss aspirin chemoprevention with adults who are at increased risk for coronary heart disease
Screening for high blood pressure in adults aged 18 and older
Screening for chlamydial infection for all sexually active non-pregnant young women aged 24 and younger and for older nonpregnant women who are at increased risk
Prophylactic ocular topical medication for all newborns against gonococcal ophthalmia neonatorum
Screening for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection in pregnant women at their first prenatal visit
Screening for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) all adolescents and adults at increased risk for HIV infection
Screening all pregnant women for HIV
Screening persons at increased risk for syphilis infection
Screening all pregnant women for syphilis infection
Screening all adults for tobacco use and provide tobacco cessation interventions for those who use tobacco
Screening all pregnant women for tobacco use and provide augmented pregnancy-tailored counseling to those who smoke
Rh (D) blood typing and antibody testing for all pregnant women during their first visit for pregnancy-related care
Screening for sickle cell disease in newborns

Grade B:


One-time screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) by ultrasonography in men aged 65 to 75 who have ever smoked
Genetic counseling and evaluation for women whose family history is associated with an increased risk for deleterious mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes (breast & ovarian cancer)
Chemoprevention for women at high risk for breast cancer and at low risk for adverse effects of chemoprevention
Screening mammography, with or without clinical breast examination (CBE), every 1-2 years for women aged 40 and older
Screening for chlamydial infection for all pregnant women aged 24 and younger and for older pregnant women who are at increased risk
Screening all sexually active women, including those who are pregnant, for gonorrhea infection if they are at increased risk for infection (that is, if they are young or have other individual or population risk factors)
Screening and behavioral counseling interventions to reduce alcohol misuse (go to Clinical Considerations) by adults, including pregnant women, in primary care settings
Screening adults for depression in clinical practices that have systems in place to assure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and followup
Intensive behavioral dietary counseling for adult patients with hyperlipidemia and other known risk factors for cardiovascular and diet-related chronic disease. Intensive counseling can be delivered by primary care clinicians or by referral to other specialists, such as nutritionists or dietitians
Routine screening for iron deficiency anemia in asymptomatic pregnant women
Routine iron supplementation for asymptomatic children aged 6 to 12 months who are at increased risk for iron deficiency anemia
Screening all adult patients for obesity and offer intensive counseling and behavioral interventions to promote sustained weight loss for obese adults
Screening women aged 65 and older routinely for osteoporosis. The USPSTF recommends that routine screening begin at age 60 for women at increased risk for osteoporotic fractures
Structured breastfeeding education and behavioral counseling programs to promote breastfeeding
Primary care clinicians prescribe oral fluoride supplementation at currently recommended doses to preschool children older than 6 months of age whose primary water source is deficient in fluoride
Screening to detect amblyopia, strabismus, and defects in visual acuity in children younger than age 5 years

(2) ANNUAL LIMITATIONS-

Y1 is $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (United States city average) applicable to such year.

****Pay particular attention to this. Its your annual out-of-pocket expenses for for anything not included in the Grade A or Grade B list of preventative items and services. So although a preventative test may be covered, youll still be liable for co-pay expenses to walk in the door to get it. And just like with most plans today, youll still be liable to share the costs of fixing anything found wrong with you by those tests.****

The parts in " " below are from the bill, the other is me.  This is also where the "Death Panel" Rumors originate

Of course we have to have a Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans. This will be chaired by the Surgeon General and will have 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the President, 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the Comptroller General, and an even number of members (not to exceed 8 ) who are Federal employees and officers, as the President may appoint. A committe with up to 27 members, 18 of whom are picked by the President. The bill says these people will reflect providers, consumer representatives, employers, labor, health insurance issuers, experts in health care financing and delivery, experts in racial and ethnic disparities, experts in care for those with disabilities, representatives of relevant governmental agencies, and at least one practicing physician or other health professional and an expert on childrens health. But with no checks and balances on the selection of this group, you can bet they will reflect ANY Presidents (You libs need to realize a conservative may oversee this program in the near future) personal opinions and/or especially those to whom he owes campaign favors.

And, of course we have to have a Health Choices Administration and a Health Choices Commissioner. At least the commissioner will be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. This will be an independent agency that will audit and enforce compliance for all qualified health benefit plans, whether or not the plan participates in the governments exchange. They will be able to levy financial penalties and shut down plans that fail to make their grade. The Commissioner will appoint a Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman to help people stuck in the maze of governments plan find their way out, but must do so in a linguistically appropriate manner 


*READ THE FLIPPING BILL PEOPLE.....READ IT OR STFU*


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 12, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I already said (twice now) that I thought your 8 points were good ones. As for being superior, perhaps they are. It may surprise you to know that I'm not 100% enthralled with everything being stuffed into this bill either. It's too long and too complicated for even the experts to wrap themselves around completely. But I would like to see *a bill *because it is the first of many steps that will necessarily be involved in getting reform at least off the ground floor. The hard part is taking the blueprint (the bill) and actually designing a workable system, and there will be many bloody battles over how to do that.

As I recall, I don't respond point-by-point to either you or _Publius_ because you both tend to off on tangents covering a wider range of topics that in reality are only remotely related to the topic at hand, and several quoted history lessons tossed in for good measure. I just don't have the time to go that deep, knowing full well if I did that you will come right back with another *tome *to dissect *[exaggeration!!]  *I feel as though what I post is often lengthy enough, and anything longer will not get read or get lost in translation. And I dearly hate page after page of one-on-ones, so don't even try to engage me on this board in that manner. I will ignore you completely.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 12, 2009)

Maggie you should as them to slow down and read the bill then if your not happy with all of it.

I think the majority of normal republicans and democrats see that our health system has serious issues that must be addressed, dont let them rush through because the far right is making noise or the far left is telling you you're stupid if you dont want it done SUPER FAST.   

Lets all slow em down and make sure the health plan, that will pass in some form, is passed in a way that is beneficial to the People and not to the politicians and their special interests.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 12, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



MAYBE BECAUSE THOSE PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED BY SIX WEEKS OF NEGOTIATION!!!!!!
Jesusfuckingchrist...


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 12, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
			
		

> READ THE FLIPPING BILL PEOPLE.....READ IT OR STFU



Those points are good to know, but they STILL remain points that are negotiable.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 12, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Oh, nuts.

I hate a draw.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 12, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Maggie you should as them to slow down and read the bill then if your not happy with all of it.
> 
> I think the majority of normal republicans and democrats see that our health system has serious issues that must be addressed, dont let them rush through because the far right is making noise or the far left is telling you you're stupid if you dont want it done SUPER FAST.
> 
> Lets all slow em down and make sure the health plan, that will pass in some form, is passed in a way that is beneficial to the People and not to the politicians and their special interests.



I'm going to wait until the first working draft that will go to conference committee is prepared and posted. It's the only one the will matter. It's the only one that the experts will explain what has been eliminated, enhanced, or added to all the others.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 12, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Exactly.....thats why we need to be reading the bill as americans and shining light on the stuff we dont like.   Then presenting it RESPECTFULLY to our representatives when they show up in public (IE no shouting down as if you were a code pink member).

No one listens to an a-hole .

EDIT:  I like the post above this one


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 12, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



really, they're no longer in the bill?

gee the copy i downloaded today still has those provisions.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 12, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I know.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 12, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



Ha! And I like your very short point, which says it all^.


----------



## maineman (Aug 12, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



the government will tell a private HMO that they cannot charge above a certain amount for health insurance?  I have not seen any such provision in legislation.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 12, 2009)

maineman said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...



premiums will be regulated as in you can't ask for more premium from a guy who is at higher risk than someone else and out of pocket expenses will be capped

As I said it would be like the government telling fed ex that they can't charge more for a heavy overnight international  package than they can for a light local package


----------



## Care4all (Aug 12, 2009)

the gvt has made auto insurance mandatory...why are cars more important than people, i wonder?  

hey maineman!  where've ya been?

care


----------



## maineman (Aug 12, 2009)

Care4all said:


> the gvt has made auto insurance mandatory...why are cars more important than people, i wonder?
> 
> hey maineman!  where've ya been?
> 
> care



preachin' and visitin' old folks....

that, and my house was hit by a CAR a few months ago....teenagers in a stolen car trying to run from the police smashed into my house... so I've had contractors and painters and landscapers crawling all over the place for two months.


----------



## VaYank5150 (Aug 12, 2009)

Where at in Maine?


----------



## maineman (Aug 12, 2009)

VaYank5150 said:


> Where at in Maine?



capital city


----------



## Fallingleaf (Aug 12, 2009)

Sarah is still trying to stretch her 15 minutes of fame, I hope.
You are right the end of life and the death board are ridiculous.
I found the 1000 page document and found the section driving them crazy. It all deals with letting doctors get paid by medicare (this isn't payed for now) To assist people if they their choice is to have a living will, to help there wishes be honored.
Hope y'all are ready for some truth out there.
From bill HR 3200.
*Advance Care Planning Consultation*
`(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term `advance care planning consultation' means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:
`(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.
`(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.
`(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
`(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).
`(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of *end-of-life s*ervices and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.
`(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include--
`(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual's family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;
`(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and
`(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a health care proxy).
`(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations under clause (i) to consultations furnished in a State--
`(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical orders respected across all care settings; and
`(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).
`(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that--
`(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;
`(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional's authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;
`(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment; and
`(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.
`(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is--
`(A) a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)); and
`(B) a nurse practitioner or physician's assistant who has the authority under State law to sign orders for life sustaining treatments.
`(3)(A) An initial preventive physical examination under subsection (WW), including any related discussion during such examination, shall not be considered an advance care planning consultation for purposes of applying the 5-year limitation under paragraph (1).
`(B) An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program.
`(4) A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.
`(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term `order regarding life sustaining treatment' means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that--
`(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional's authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care;
`(ii) effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;
`(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary); and
`(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the individual.
`(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items--
`(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;
`(ii) the individual's desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;
`(iii) the use of antibiotics; and
`(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.'.
(2) PAYMENT- Section 1848(j)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(j)(3)) is amended by inserting `(2)(FF),' after `(2)(EE),'.
(3) FREQUENCY LIMITATION- Section 1862(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (N), by striking `and' at the end;
(ii) in subparagraph (O) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting `, and'; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
`(P) in the case of advance care planning consultations (as defined in section 1861(hhh)(1)), which are performed more frequently than is covered under such section;'; and
(B) in paragraph (7), by striking `or (K)' and inserting `(K), or (P)'.
(4) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this subsection shall apply to consultations furnished on or after January 1, 2011.
(b) Expansion of Physician Quality Reporting Initiative for_* End of Life Care-*_
(1) Physician'S QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE- Section 1848(k)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(k)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
`(3) Physician'S QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE-
`(A) IN GENERAL- For purposes of reporting data on quality measures for covered professional services furnished during 2011 and any subsequent year, to the extent that measures are available, the Secretary shall include quality measures on _*end of life *_care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization, if appropriate. Such measures shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment.
`(B) PROPOSED SET OF MEASURES- The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register proposed quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that the Secretary determines are described in subparagraph (A) and would be appropriate for eligible professionals to use to submit data to the Secretary. The Secretary shall provide for a period of public comment on such set of measures before finalizing such proposed measures.'.
(c) Inclusion of Information in Medicare & You Handbook-
(1) MEDICARE & YOU HANDBOOK-
(A) IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall update the online version of the Medicare & You Handbook to include the following:
(i) An explanation of advance care planning and advance directives, including--
(I) living wills;
(II) durable power of attorney;
(III) orders of life-sustaining treatment; and
(IV) health care proxies.
(ii) A description of Federal and State resources available to assist individuals and their families with advance care planning and advance directives, including--
(I) available State legal service organizations to assist individuals with advance care planning, including those organizations that receive funding pursuant to the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 93001 et seq.);
(II) website links or addresses for State-specific advance directive forms; and
(III) any additional information, as determined by the Secretary.
(B) UPDATE OF PAPER AND SUBSEQUENT VERSIONS- The Secretary shall include the information described in subparagraph (A) in all paper and electronic versions of the Medicare & You Handbook that are published on or after the date that is 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Truth is this is some people are just trying to divide America.
Falling leaf


----------



## VaYank5150 (Aug 12, 2009)

> capital city



I'm origially from Bangor.  Well, the OLD Dow AFB.  I can't wait to get back to visit there again soon.


----------



## Fallingleaf (Aug 12, 2009)

Sorry, new to posting that ex cert was from
 would put url but it wont let me.
Library of Congress
It is 1000 pages long but if you press ctrl 6 you can type in end of life and get everytime it is mentioned in the bill. I copied them all.
Fallingleaf


----------



## maineman (Aug 12, 2009)

VaYank5150 said:


> > capital city
> 
> 
> 
> I'm origially from Bangor.  Well, the OLD Dow AFB.  I can't wait to get back to visit there again soon.



It has been a wet and soggy summer, but even so, summer in Maine...ANY summer in Maine... is worth experiencing.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 12, 2009)

maineman said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > the gvt has made auto insurance mandatory...why are cars more important than people, i wonder?
> ...



Good to see you MM even though I know this plan is going to be a frigging disaster and you support it, I'm still glad to see ya.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 12, 2009)

> Opponents of a public health insurance option -- including Grassley -- contend it would drive private health insurers out of the market.
> 
> "*Government is not a competitor, it's a predator,*" he said to applause. "*Then everyone else's premiums go up, and pretty soon, there's not any private insurance.*"



Republican senator hears health care concerns back home - CNN.com

As Senator Grassley states, government is not a competitor but a predator.  Private Health Insurance will be a thing of the past if this goes through.  

Some of you may be cheering that outcome on, but just wait until government is the only insurer on the block.  You won't be cheering then.

Immie


----------



## VaYank5150 (Aug 12, 2009)

> It has been a wet and soggy summer, but even so, summer in Maine...ANY summer in Maine... is worth experiencing.



My folks were at Old Orchard a fews weeks back.  Lobster for $3.99/lb is INSANE!!!


----------



## Chris (Aug 12, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> > Opponents of a public health insurance option -- including Grassley -- contend it would drive private health insurers out of the market.
> >
> > "*Government is not a competitor, it's a predator,*" he said to applause. "*Then everyone else's premiums go up, and pretty soon, there's not any private insurance.*"
> 
> ...



The healthcare lobbyists got to Grassley. 

He knows who his masters are.

They donated $2.5 million dollars to him.


----------



## Meister (Aug 12, 2009)

Chris said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > > Opponents of a public health insurance option -- including Grassley -- contend it would drive private health insurers out of the market.
> ...



Lets have a link to that Chris.  I'm not saying your wrong, but at least show the source.


----------



## Sinatra (Aug 12, 2009)

Fallingleaf said:


> Sarah is still trying to stretch her 15 minutes of fame, I hope.
> You are right the end of life and the death board are ridiculous.
> I found the 1000 page document and found the section driving them crazy. It all deals with letting doctors get paid by medicare (this isn't payed for now) To assist people if they their choice is to have a living will, to help there wishes be honored.
> Hope y'all are ready for some truth out there.
> ...



Now jump to the applicable sections in the stimulus bill and peice them together.

Then come back and let us know what you think...


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 12, 2009)

A panel decides if you get to live.

And end of life counseling for all.


----------



## garyd (Aug 12, 2009)

With all due respect to the leftist retrds if you have nationalized health care it follows as does the night the day that you most certainly have at some point shortly thereafter a so-calle death board deciding who gets treated and therefore who freaking lives and who freaking dies.


----------



## Chris (Aug 12, 2009)

garyd said:


> With all due respect to the leftist retrds if you have nationalized health care it follows as does the night the day that you most certainly have at some point shortly thereafter a so-calle death board deciding who gets treated and therefore who freaking lives and who freaking dies.



I love how you have bought the lies, hook, line, and sinker.

Are you really this dumb?


----------



## garyd (Aug 13, 2009)

I love how the reality of how national health care works in Every other country in the world has utterly escaped your ignorant ass.


----------



## Chris (Aug 13, 2009)

garyd said:


> I love how the reality of how national health care works in Every other country in the world has utterly escaped your ignorant ass.



We already have national health insurance for people over 65. It works fine.

Every other industrialized nation has it. And it works fine for them too. 

Have you ever actually asked Canadians, the French, or the Swedes about their healthcare?


----------



## garyd (Aug 13, 2009)

yeah there's been endless surveys on the whole they like there health care less than we like ours.


----------



## Chris (Aug 13, 2009)

garyd said:


> yeah there's been endless surveys on the whole they like there health care less than we like ours.



Wrong.

When Canadians were asked to name the greatest Canadian of all time, they chose the man who developed their healthcare system, Tommy Douglas.

The Greatest Canadian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas


----------



## Care4all (Aug 13, 2009)

alliebaba said:


> a panel decides if you get to live.
> 
> And end of life counseling for all.



liar!


----------



## Fatality (Aug 13, 2009)

Chris said:


> garyd said:
> 
> 
> > I love how the reality of how national health care works in Every other country in the world has utterly escaped your ignorant ass.
> ...



and none of them is forced into the program...huh, whata ya know bout that ya stupid fuck..barry wants to force everyone into his bullshit and then expect those who dont want it to pay for it. fuck off asshole Im not paying your bills.


----------



## Fatality (Aug 13, 2009)

Care4all said:


> alliebaba said:
> 
> 
> > a panel decides if you get to live.
> ...



its the truth, youll be in front of that panel, ill bet you bow at their feet.


----------



## ElmerMudd (Aug 13, 2009)

Fatality said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > alliebaba said:
> ...



Fatality, are you in counseling. If not you should consider it.

There appears to be anger issues and reality issues.


----------



## bk1983 (Aug 13, 2009)

garyd said:


> yeah there's been endless surveys on the whole they like there health care less than we like ours.



 Oh thats rich.


----------



## Fatality (Aug 13, 2009)

ElmerMudd said:


> Fatality said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


you gonna pay for it? ill set up a paypal and you can send me $$


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 13, 2009)

Chris said:


> garyd said:
> 
> 
> > I love how the reality of how national health care works in Every other country in the world has utterly escaped your ignorant ass.
> ...



medicare does not work fine.  it's under funded to the tune of nearly 400 billion dollars


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 13, 2009)

Chris said:


> garyd said:
> 
> 
> > yeah there's been endless surveys on the whole they like there health care less than we like ours.
> ...



boy not too many Canadians have done much if a freaking bureaucrat is their greatest of all time.

BTW this ain't Canada and I don't give a flying fuck what Canadians think and if you're so in love with Canada, you're free to go.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2009)

Learn to like it, if not love it, because you are going to get skulled and get to pay for it.  Lucky Skull!  Oh, and you are paying for mine right now, thanks!


----------



## Diuretic (Aug 13, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > garyd said:
> ...



You're just confused, you thought it was going to be a hockey player 

The man was no bureaucrat - but then you've probably forgotten what a statesman is like


----------



## maineman (Aug 13, 2009)

VaYank5150 said:


> > It has been a wet and soggy summer, but even so, summer in Maine...ANY summer in Maine... is worth experiencing.
> 
> 
> 
> My folks were at Old Orchard a fews weeks back.  Lobster for $3.99/lb is INSANE!!!



and we're lovin' it. Last night, I took a twenty dollar bill to the nearby Hannaford's supermarket.  bought four 1.2 pound soft shells... Hannaford's steams them for FREE... in about ten minutes... was home about twenty minutes after I left and my wife and I each had two.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 13, 2009)

maineman said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> > > It has been a wet and soggy summer, but even so, summer in Maine...ANY summer in Maine... is worth experiencing.
> ...



if you're from Maine, you should know that shedders aren't worth eating.

A lot of shell and no meat.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 13, 2009)

Chris said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > > Opponents of a public health insurance option -- including Grassley -- contend it would drive private health insurers out of the market.
> ...



Maybe so, why don't you link to that, oh and by the way, in the meantime how about looking up how much they have given to Obama, Pelosi & Co. as well?

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 13, 2009)

Care4all said:


> alliebaba said:
> 
> 
> > a panel decides if you get to live.
> ...



Inappropriate and deserving of a neg rep, but I don't usually do that so ye should know that if I did, I would.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 13, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > garyd said:
> ...



However, in the mind of a lberal being underfunded when the government can simply increase taxes on those richer than he is nothing to worry about.

Immie


----------



## maineman (Aug 13, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > VaYank5150 said:
> ...



Well...since I was the one who was eating them, and I was the one who had more than enough really good lobster meat at a really cheap price, I guess I should know more than you do on that subject, eh?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 13, 2009)

maineman said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...



I married into a family of lobstermen so I'd say they know more than you.  and they don't eat shedders.

Alot of waht you paid for was water in the shell and not lobster meat


----------



## maineman (Aug 13, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



if cost were not an option, of COURSE I'd eat two pound hard shells every night... these were really cheap... they were steamed in a pressure cooker and not boiled so there was very little water in the shells... maybe you need to find something of substance to argue about and quit being a fucking long distance food critic of MY meal choices, eh?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 13, 2009)

maineman said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > maineman said:
> ...



then post something of substance rather than your meal choices.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Aug 13, 2009)

concept said:


> Try a little harder, silly lib apologist.
> 
> Here is an interesting (and by interesting I mean pathetically sick) video of your savior, the enlightened and articulate Barack Hussein Obama, telling a poor woman to take a pill.
> 
> ...



WOW, are you really that gullible?? Your clip has been edited. Perhaps you should take the time to look up what obama actually said instead of blindly accepted a small piece of doctored video?



.


----------



## Contessa_Sharra (Aug 13, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> A panel decides if you get to live.
> 
> And end of life counseling for all.


 

George Bush already signed this into law for Texas:


Governor George W. Bush Signs Law Allowing Doctors To End Life Support Over Objection Of Surrogates

Under chapter 166 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, if an attending physician disagrees with a surrogate over a life-and-death treatment decision, there must be an ethics committee consultation (with notice to the surrogate and an opportunity to participate). In a futility case such as Sun Hudson's, in which the treatment team is seeking to stop treatment deemed to be nonbeneficial, if the ethics committee agrees with the team, the hospital will be authorized to discontinue the disputed treatment (after a 10-day delay, during which the hospital must help try to find a facility that will accept a transfer of the patient). These provisions, which were added to Texas law in 1999, originally applied only to adult patients; in 2003; they were made applicable to disputes over treatment decisions for or on behalf of minors. (I hasten to add that one of the co-drafters in both 1999 and 2003 was the National Right to Life Committee. *Witnesses who testified in support of the bill in 1999 included representatives of National Right to Life, Texas Right to Life, and the Hemlock Society. Our bill passed both houses, unanimously, both years, and the 1999 law was signed by then Governor George W. Bush.)*



Which has led to this:

*Hospital ends life support of baby* 
1st U.S. case of its kind is against mom's wish, in accordance with law

10:37 PM CST on Tuesday, March 15, 2005

By BRUCE NICHOLS / The Dallas Morning News

HOUSTON  In what medical ethicists say is a first in the United States, a hospital acting under state law, with the concurrence of a judge, disconnected a critically ill baby from life support Tuesday over his mother's objections. 

The baby, Sun Hudson, who'd been on a mechanical ventilator since his birth Sept. 25, died quickly afterward, his mother said. 


"I held him ... I talked to him. I told him I love him," said the child's mother, Wanda Hudson. Then doctors took the mechanical breathing tube out, the child took a couple of breaths, struggled briefly in her arms and it was over, Ms. Hudson said.

and

Unusual law at center of fight over baby's life | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Texas Regional News

and 


December 1991 XIII/4 
[SIZE=+1]*ENLIGHTENED LEGISLATION: ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS *[/SIZE]

On August 2, 1988, 6 month old Sammy Linares swallowed a deflated balloon. The upper airway obstruction resulted in respiratory failure and cardiac arrest. Sammy had no vital signs for about 20 minutes, but a normal cardiac rhythm was established at a neighborhood hospital. Transferred to Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center in Chicago, life support systems were maintained even after he was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state. When his father Rudy Linares requested that his son be removed from life support, the physicians acting upon the advice of hospital attorneys stated that life support could not be removed unless the family obtained a court order justifying such an action. As is well known, on April 26, 1989, Rudy Linares held off health care workers with a handgun, disconnected Sammy from the respirator and held him in his arms until he died. As a result of the legal and ethical furor surrounding the Linares case, the legislature of the state of Illinois recently passed a bill which allows life support to be withdrawn from incapacitated persons at the request of a surrogate without a court order. In this essay, we shall consider the ethical substratum for the new legislation, as well as some ethical issues which will arise in its implementation. 

*The Principles* 
The Health Care Surrogate Act was signed into law on September 26, 1991, by the Governor of Illinois. In sum, the new legislation is a response of several medical, legal, and social service organizations to the ethical and legal anomalies demonstrated in the Linares case. While the new law states clearly that both patients with decisional capacity as well as patients without decisional capacity may have life support removed "without judicial involvement of any kind", the major part of the legislation concerns decision making for persons without decisional capacity. .We shall concentrate on the sections of the new law devoted to surrogate decision making for persons incapable of making health care decisions for themselves. 

One of three conditions must be verified by two physicians before a surrogate may determine that life sustaining treatment should be withheld or withdrawn from an incapacitated person. These conditions are: 

a) imminent death; that is, when death is inevitable within a short time, "even if life sustaining treatment would be initiated or continued," 

b) permanent unconsciousness, for which initiating or continuing life support, in light of the patient's medical condition, provides only minimal medical benefit, 

c) incurable or irreversible condition that imposes severe pain or an inhumane burden, that will ultimately cause the patient's death and for which initiating or continuing life sustaining treatment provides only minimal medical benefit. 

The new legislation, which may not be invoked if the patient has an operative living will or Durable Power of Attorney, lists the order in which a surrogate should be recognized, the legal guardian, the spouse and other family members being given priority. Finally, the act exonerates surrogates, physicians, and other heath care providers from legal liability when they follow "with due care" the stipulations of the legislation. 

*Discussion* 
Several ethical principles, while not mentioned explicitly in the bill, are the substratum for the legislation. In order to understand the ethical validity of this legislation, these principles should be considered. 

a) The ethical responsibility to prolong the life of an incapacitated person ceases when the life support will not benefit the patient. Removing life support when it is no longer beneficial for the patient does not "cause" the patient's death in the moral or ethical sense. The erroneous tendency to equate "causing death" in the ethical sense with the physical removal of life support has been evidenced in many court decisions, especially in the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court in the Cruzan Case. The Illinois legislation explicitly states that it is "not intended to condone, authorize or approve mercy killing or assisted suicide", but does not define the difference between the actions approved by the bill and mercy killing. In order to differentiate between mercy killing and allowing to die, the ethical reasoning which allows withholding or withdrawing life support must be understood. 

b) Sustaining the physiological function of people when cognitive-affective function cannot be restored is not a benefit for persons in a state of permanent unconsciousness. This common sense conclusion has been denied by those who would allow withdrawal of life support only when death is imminent, i.e., death cannot be avoided even if life support is utilized. Most people who are permanently unconscious are not in danger of imminent death because life support can continue their existence in this debilitated condition indefinitely. 

c) Artificial hydration and nutrition, is judged by the same ethical norms as all other life sustaining treatment. Thus, the long debate concerning the ethical evaluation of the use of artificial hydration and nutrition seems to be near a close. The fact that the Catholic Conference of Illinois promoted and supported this legislation is strong evidence, together with approval of DPA's by the Catholic Conferences in other states, that the Catholic tradition in regard to withdrawal of life support allows the same ethical norms to be applied to artificial hydration and nutrition as to other forms of life support. 

d) Life support may be withheld or removed if the patient suffers from an incurable or irreversible condition which will ultimately cause death and which imposes severe pain or an inhumane burden. There has been some discussion whether this "condition" applies to persons with ALS, MS or Alzheimer's disease. From the wording of the legislation, it seems that this "condition" does pertain to aforementioned patients because the "severe pain or inhumane burden" is the result of the illness in question and not the result of the treatment for the illness. If a patient with one of these chronic fatal pathologies is declared incapable of medical decision making, it seems the surrogate may ask that life support be withheld or withdrawn because it is of little medical benefit when compared to the "inhumane burden" imposed by the illness on the patient. Ethically speaking, it seems the illness as well as the therapy may be taken into consideration when determining "severe pain or inhumane burden. All would not agree with this conclusion. Undoubtedly, this "condition" of the legislation will cause greater controversy than the other two. 

There are two ethical issues involved in the execution of the law which merit explicit consideration. 

1) The act requires that the surrogate make his or her decision concerning the use of life support "in consultation with the attending physician. This requirement demonstrates that the physician is much more than a puppet or bystander in the decision making process. The surrogate cannot possibly make an ethical decision without having some idea of the potential outcome of various therapies. Hence, the ethical responsibility of the physician must be emphasized, as well as the ethical right of the surrogate. 


2) It seems that this legislation, as do most legal statements, confuses the primary responsibility of the surrogate. The act states "that the surrogate shall make decisions for the adult patient, conforming as closely as possible to what the patient would have done or intended under the circumstances. Hence, the legislation indicates that the surrogate should make decisions based upon substitute judgment. "Only when the adult patient's wishes are unknown and remain unknown, or if the patient is a minor, may the surrogate make a decision upon the basis of patient's best interest. However, it seems that the primary moral responsibility of the surrogate is to make a decision in best interest of the patient, no matter what the patient may have said beforehand. While this conclusion is not shared by all ethicists, and by few lawyers, it seems valid for two reasons: 

a) the notion that the patient's prior wishes would be able to envision all present circumstances is unrealistic. Substitute judgement is a legal fiction; attributing to it the place of prominence in surrogate decision making leads to contradictions such as those contained in the Cruzan decision of the Missouri Supreme Court;
b) the right and responsibility of family members to act as surrogates for their loved ones is not bestowed by the civil law; rather it follows from our relationship as human beings. True, the civil law may legitimately regulate and facilitate this right of surrogate decision making, but it does not bestow this right. When one makes a health care decision for a loved one the statements and wishes of the loved one should be considered by the surrogate. But these wishes serve only to indicate the best interest of the patient. They do not serve as an ineluctable mandate which must be followed passively by the surrogate even in the face of evidence which would indicate that substitute judgement is not in the best interest of the patient. In sum, the surrogate, and physician for that matter, is not a robot-like amanuensis of the patient. Rather, the surrogates are in their own right called upon to assume the responsibility of making ethical decisions.
*Conclusion* 
Moving health care decisions for incapacitated persons out of the courts and into the family forum is highly desirable. For this reason, the Health Care Surrogate Act of Illinois is worthy of commendation. However, application of the new law will require an understanding of the ethical principles which justify the legislation, and of some ethical issues which may arise in the implementation of the legislation. *Kevin O'Rourke, O.P.* 
________________________________________________
*Advance Directives, Florida*


*State By State Advance Directive list*


This "Death Panel" thing is a total crock of shit by _*boobi americani.*_


----------



## drsmith1072 (Aug 13, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > *FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill
> ...



How typical to attack the source. LOL



> Consider the following:
> 
> Slipped into the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is *generally code* for limiting care based on the patient's age.



WOW so your argument begins with an assumption and then takes off, basing everything on the belief that the assumption is true. With a shoddy foundation like that you argument is sure to fail. 




> Economists are familiar with the formula already in use in the U.K., where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYS or quality-adjusted life years) the patient is likely to benefit. In the U.K., the formula leads to denying treatments for age-related diseases because older patients have a denominator problem -- fewer years to benefit than younger patients with other diseases. In 2006, older patients with macular degeneration, which causes blindness, were told that they had to go totally blind in one eye before they could get an expensive new drug to save the other eye. It took nearly two years to get that government edict reversed.



So the UK made a mistake and then corrected it and you believe that we will adopt the same exact plan that they did and make the same exact mistakes?? WOW more assumption based arguments with a shoddy foundation. I see the walls of your argument are starting the crack. lol





> Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., a Louisiana heart surgeon, warned to no avail that it would lead to "denying seniors and the disabled lifesaving care."



So a REPUBLICAN is against it, imagine that. 



> If this philosophy is inferred in ObamaCare, can you see where there is reason to tread carefully?
> 
> And the infamous Dr. Emanuel:
> "True change, writes Dr. Emanuel, must include reassessing the promise doctors make when they enter the profession, the Hippocratic Oath. Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Physicians take the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.) Of course that is what patients hope their doctors will do. But Dr. Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their own patient and consider social justice. They should think about whether the money being spent on their patient could be better spent elsewhere. Many doctors are horrified at this notion, and will tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time. "
> ...




So your entire argument is based on assumption and the opinion of one advisor to the office of management and budget?? The sad thing is that insurance companies already do what you are talking about and somehow you seem to see no problem with them doing it. LOL


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 13, 2009)

You're just repeating the same words over and over, and not saying anything, doc.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Aug 13, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> The OP is correct.  There is nothing called a "Death Panel" in the bill.
> 
> However, if you read the language, instead of reading left wing or right wing talking points you may learn the truth.
> 
> If people decide to click the link and read the text of the bill be warned, once you learn the truth you wont be able to go back to believing in a lie.



I went to your other thread. So what specifically in there do you have a problem with because it seems to me that it is primarily concerned with planning for advanced care and gettign info to patients and/or their guardian.


----------



## Meister (Aug 13, 2009)

Meister said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



I can only assume since you didn't post a source that you were flat out lying.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Aug 13, 2009)

Fatality said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Maple said:
> ...



Uh the last time I went to the DMV I was in and out in less than thirty minutes. LOL 
The last time I went to the doctor I made an appointment that they triple booked for because some might not show but then everyone shows up so I ended up with a line, waited 2 hours to get a room and then it was another 40 minutes to an hour before I actually got to see my doctor. 

If only my doctor's office was run like the local DMV. LOL


----------



## bk1983 (Aug 13, 2009)

Why does the post office get such shit? 

I feel like I am the only one who gets good service from them, our company uses the click n ship service free pickup and flat rate boxes, for the price and service I feel the PO cant be beat.


----------



## Meister (Aug 13, 2009)

drsmith1072 said:


> Fatality said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



If I were you, I would change doctors.  At least right now you have that choice...not so sure for the future, though.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 13, 2009)

drsmith1072 said:


> Uh the last time I went to the DMV I was in and out in less than thirty minutes. LOL
> The last time I went to the doctor I made an appointment that they triple booked for because some might not show but then everyone shows up so I ended up with a line, waited 2 hours to get a room and then it was another 40 minutes to an hour before I actually got to see my doctor.
> 
> If only my doctor's office was run like the local DMV. LOL



I lived most of my life in California.  A trip to the DMV would almost guarantee a full day of missed work.  Now I live in Florida.  A trip to the DMV might mean an hour or two at the most, not counting travel time.  I suppose it depends upon where you live.

Immie


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2009)

We were in out of our DMV in twenty minutes last week, and that was with 60 folks in the waiting room.  I waited twice that long for my dental appointment, and I was ten minutes early.  And the VA outpatient clinic has only made me wait twice more than twenty minutes in more than fifteen years.

Don't be afraid of the feds, folks, because you vote.  But be very, very afraid of the health care industry that wants your money and does not care about your health.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Aug 13, 2009)

Meister said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Fatality said:
> ...



I have to go the the doctors my insurance will cover and the last time I tried to switch the doctor I went to used labs that were not covered and I had to pay out of pocket to cover the cost. So I went with the lesser of two evil's.

So what proof do you have that you won't have a choice of doctors in the future?


----------



## VaYank5150 (Aug 13, 2009)

> If I were you, I would change doctors. At least right now you have that choice...not so sure for the future, though.



Fear mongering at it's best.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2009)

VaYank5150 said:


> > If I were you, I would change doctors. At least right now you have that choice...not so sure for the future, though.
> 
> 
> 
> Fear mongering at it's best.



Yes, it is.

Folks, you can vote out the politicians but not your health insurance company!  That's why the health industry hates the democratic republic.  They want to make money without caring about their customers.  If you start paying closer attention to your politicians, on the other hand, they will start paying better attention to you.  Whether you are Dem or Pub or Independent, this is what we do.  Fear mongering helps no one, informed discussion does.


----------



## Meister (Aug 13, 2009)

drsmith1072 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...


----------



## Meister (Aug 13, 2009)

VaYank5150 said:


> > If I were you, I would change doctors. At least right now you have that choice...not so sure for the future, though.
> 
> 
> 
> Fear mongering at it's best.



You show me in that 1000+ page bill where I'm wrong in my assumption.  This is the problem with the bill, it's convoluted with the wording.  No one knows for sure what is and isn't in the bill.  Obama doesn't know for sure, the other politicians don't know for sure, and yet you do?  I don't know for sure, but like I have stated all along, I don't trust the government to get it right.


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 13, 2009)

Meister said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> > > If I were you, I would change doctors. At least right now you have that choice...not so sure for the future, though.
> ...



There are over 5 proposed bills idiot.  There is NO bill.  They all have to be reworked and conferenced before a final bill is voted on.

I know with the small minds available it is hard to tell the truth from the lies.  Try harder.


----------



## Meister (Aug 13, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > VaYank5150 said:
> ...



Don't you have some little white kids to snatch up so Obama can eat them? 

By the way....doesn't that even convolute the picture even more with all the bills.  I know of 3 in the House and 1 in the Senate, you mean there is actually another one floating around out there?  No wonder I don't trust the government.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2009)

But you said there was one, then you said there was four, and nowyou are surprised there may be a fifth, Meister.

I think you have been into the fifth.  No creditibility for you, Meester Meister.


----------



## Meister (Aug 13, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> But you said there was one, then you said there was four, and nowyou are surprised there may be a fifth, Meister.
> 
> I think you have been into the fifth.  No creditibility for you, Meester Meister.


Poor try at a deflection jackie.  I never said there was one, there is one that is being vetted...or trying to be vetted, that is the one I am commenting on you goofball.
If this is the best troll job you can do, it would be best if you went back to playing in your sandbox.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 13, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> > > If I were you, I would change doctors. At least right now you have that choice...not so sure for the future, though.
> ...



FYI if you don't like your insurance company, you can buy from another company.  Imagine that!

and it is the government that restricts the sale of health insurance across state lines.  Funny how the easiest way to promote competition and bring down prices is the one thing the government doesn't want to do.

And in my experience, the people at my health insurance company treat me better than my rep and senators do.

And I pay very close attention to my so called representatives because they are corrupt assholes who do not deserve to be trusted.


----------



## Care4all (Aug 13, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > VaYank5150 said:
> ...



the health insurance reform DOES HAVE MEASURES to break down the insurance walls between states...it is a good measure in the bill to reducing costs...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2009)

Meister had it wrong: it was very funny!  But notice that we are talking not yelling.  We can disagree agreeably, and the majority will decide.  That's we do in our country, although both left and right have forgotten that now and then.


----------



## Care4all (Aug 13, 2009)

I don't know of anything else sold on our market that is to save ones life if injured or ill...

health care is NOT and never will be, simply a widget in the capitalistic system of ours


----------



## DiamondDave (Aug 13, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



In the midst of the 999+ other pages of pure bullshit that does not need to be in there....

And the healthcare INDUSTRY is indeed just another service that people perform as their jobs and that companies derive their profit on... just because you FEEL you NEED healthcare taken away from your personal responsibility, does not make it something that others or the government is supposed to just hand to you at the expense of others


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Double wrong, double D.  The health care industry serves the public interest as well as its own pocket, and, yes, the government has every right to regulate it when it gets stupid and greedy, which hurts the public interest.


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 13, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Okay Dokay Davey...What's more important to ya?...your house or your body and it's well being?

How would you feel about a "private fire department"?  Of course the rich and thier houses would have to be saved first because they could afford the most expensive policies.

No one in thier right mind would advocate for a privately owned fire department.  

What's more important Dave?...your house or you?


----------



## cunclusion (Aug 13, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Actually the amount of pages make sense I read through alot of it thing is people find loopholes for everything and by dotting every i and crossing as many T's as you can you can close loopholes.  Alot of misinformation is given to the public and that is the only bullshit, there is no Death Panel and the Comparative Effective Research is used for gathering data and disecting it. In fact if people read the bill that they got funding it states the information cannot be used to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer. Also cannot be used to establish  mandates or clinical guidelines for payment, coverage, or treatment.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 13, 2009)

Other things to do, my children.

Remember that the 25% do not have any control over what the other 75% decide to do in a democratic republic.

I imagine high school and college instructors all over America are gleefully, yea, joyfully, downloading the shari'a silliness of the far ultratoid freaky right to demonstrate how wise our Founders were in protecting all of us from the wierdos.  Even wierdos have 1st Amendment rights (that's what the 1st Amendment is for -- unpopular expression), but if they disrupt or threaten they get to pay big fines.  And if they touch, they go to jail.  America is wonderful, even to the wierdos.


----------



## Gudrid (Aug 13, 2009)

> FYI if you don't like your insurance company, you can buy from another company. Imagine that!



That's not actually true for a lot of people in this country.  Pre-existing conditions and all that.  If you get sick or injured and your insurance company plays the "don't cover it" game, your options are pretty much out-of-pocket or don't get treatment.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 13, 2009)

Gudrid said:


> > FYI if you don't like your insurance company, you can buy from another company. Imagine that!
> 
> 
> 
> That's not actually true for a lot of people in this country.  Pre-existing conditions and all that.  If you get sick or injured and your insurance company plays the "don't cover it" game, your options are pretty much out-of-pocket or don't get treatment.



there are ways around preexisting conditions.  There is an insurance market for everything.

Just because one insurer turns you down does not necessarily mean they all will.


----------



## Gudrid (Aug 13, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> Just because one insurer turns you down does not necessarily mean they all will.



It does if you're born with a degenerative bone disease.  Or if you have a bunch of other conditions.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Aug 14, 2009)

Meister said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


----------



## drsmith1072 (Aug 14, 2009)

Meister said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> > > If I were you, I would change doctors. At least right now you have that choice...not so sure for the future, though.
> ...



So you make the insinuation that in the future you may not have a choice to change doctors and then instead of offering one shred of evidence to back up your insinuation you demand that others prove you wrong?? Sorry but I believe that if you make the claim then the burden of proof is on YOU. 

If you don't know for sure and can't offer any evidence to substantiate your insinuation then the only thing you are doing is engaging in fear mongering.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 14, 2009)

drsmith1072 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > VaYank5150 said:
> ...



The argument isn't really about what doctor you can see.

The argument here is that the bill that is supposed to give us more choice and more competition does just the opposite.

It will be impossible to keep the insurance you have now and you will be forced to purchase a "government approved" policy even if that policy is more expensive than the one you have now, even if the minimum mandated coverage contains a bunch or stuff you don't need.

This bill requires you to prove you have had "acceptable" insurance and if you don't have the type of policy the government wants you to have, you will be slapped with an additional income tax of 2.5%.

If that isn't enough to make you balk and realize the president and your so called represntatives are flat out lying to you, I don't know what will.


----------



## Meister (Aug 14, 2009)

drsmith1072 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...


----------



## Meister (Aug 14, 2009)

drsmith1072 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > VaYank5150 said:
> ...



I'm insinuating that you don't know, and I don't either.  I'm telling you that I don't trust my own government in these matters, and I have good reason not to.  You call it what you want, but I call it stupidity if you don't question healthcare reform like this.


----------



## drsmith1072 (Aug 14, 2009)

Meister said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


----------



## Meister (Aug 14, 2009)

drsmith1072 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...


----------



## drsmith1072 (Aug 14, 2009)

Meister said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



How are you insinuating that I don't know when this question was about YOUR insinuation that in the future we may not have a choice, which is fear mongering at its worst?? 

Fact is that you made the insinuation and instead of offering anything REAL to substantiate your insinuation you tell others to prove you wrong. Then you go into more fear mongering about how you can't trust the government. LOL 

BTW there is a difference between questioning the plan and making shite up to create fear of something that you can't prove exists.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 14, 2009)

Meister said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


----------



## drsmith1072 (Aug 14, 2009)

Meister said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


----------



## Meister (Aug 14, 2009)

drsmith1072 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...


----------



## drsmith1072 (Aug 14, 2009)

Meister said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


----------



## nodoginnafight (Aug 14, 2009)

I will agree Meister, that an informed electorate has a responsibilty to question government. I advocate that. What I don't advocate is lying to try to muster up fear just because you want to give a "black eye" to a political opponent.

It's not new and both sides have done it.

I don't like it and I think it makes good, responsive government harder - not easier - to achieve.


----------



## DiamondDave (Aug 15, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



1) What is important to me is something PERSONAL.... just as your own upkeep of YOURSELF is something personal.... also try looking at and understanding Maslow's hierarchy of needs

2) How do I feel about a private fire department that an individual or community pays for itself??... all well and good and fine with me... nobody in their right mind would deny the personal and individual freedom for someone to pay for one if they so choose to, over having a publicly provided service

3) You and the rest of your pathetic ilk have never once stated how you are owed (or anyone is owed) the fruits of someone else's labor for their own personal benefit and need


----------



## DiamondDave (Aug 15, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Triple wrong...
1) An industry is not something of conscious that has an ability to 'serve'... but nice typical liberal ploy to associate a human emotion to a non-human entity
2) The federal government does not have every right to regulate on the basis of 'stupidity' or 'greed'... but nice second attempt at putting human emotion into the situation
3) Your healthcare is not public interest.. it is in your private interest


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 15, 2009)

drsmith1072 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...


----------



## Diuretic (Aug 15, 2009)

skookerasbil said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



pictures


----------



## drsmith1072 (Aug 17, 2009)

Diuretic said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > drsmith1072 said:
> ...




You'll have to forgive skooks, he only has the limited intelligence to cut and paste pointless moronic pictures and he did the same when he spammed the msnbc.com message boards with them. 
You are wasting your time if you are actually expecting him to provide a coherent argument. LOL


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Dec 27, 2010)

Jay Canuck said:


> *FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill
> *AP  Tue Aug 11, 3:04 am ET
> ...Sarah Palin says the health care overhaul bill would set up a "death panel." Federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors are worth enough to society to deserve life-sustaining medical care. Palin and other critics are wrong.​




OOOPS  Guess what 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/politics/26death.html?_r=1&ref=robertpear

there WAS death panels in the bill after all...hmmmmm..


----------

