America Before the Entitlement State

[rightwinger]

That's true, and thanks for the link.

The term "social justice" implies the need to right a wrong. For something to be wrong, it must be caused by an act or force of another. There is no "wrong" in the fact that some people are rich, some are poor, and many fall in between. It's just the facts of life.

As an example, many people mistakenly believe that if the taxpayer is required to support those less fortunate, that means that there must be some sort of personal responsibility on the part of those who pay taxes. This is a false assumption. If a young woman who is totally unprepared to take care of a child gets pregnant, then goes onto government programs in order to raise that child, it is not "justice" that taxpayers are forced to meet her needs. The taxpayer had no part whatsoever in that young woman getting pregnant, and is not *guilty* of any injustice. It was her own decision or possibly even her own stupidity which put her in the position of having a child whom she wasn't prepared for. There is no social justice in forcing responsible citizens to pay for the mistakes of someone else. Social justice is equal treatment of all- not special treatment for some.

Ah. So you are in favor of a line-item tax return. You don't wanna pay for school lunches, I don't wanna pay to kill people in foreign lands...or maintain 700 bases overseas.

Watta say?

I am in favor of equal treatment under the law, not special treatment for some. Justice can't be served otherwise.

There is no way you can have equal treatment. The government is tasked to do what is best for the nation as a whole, not ensure that each individual equally benefits from each program.

People with children benefit from schools more than those who are childless. Does that violate "social justice"?

 

[Contumacious]

Ah. So you are in favor of a line-item tax return. You don't wanna pay for school lunches, I don't wanna pay to kill people in foreign lands...or maintain 700 bases overseas.

Watta say?

I am in favor of equal treatment under the law, not special treatment for some. Justice can't be served otherwise.

There is no way you can have equal treatment. The government is tasked to do what is best for the nation as a whole, not ensure that each individual equally benefits from each program.

People with children benefit from schools more than those who are childless. Does that violate "social justice"?

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

Benito Mussolini

.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ah. So you are in favor of a line-item tax return. You don't wanna pay for school lunches, I don't wanna pay to kill people in foreign lands...or maintain 700 bases overseas.

Watta say?

I am in favor of equal treatment under the law, not special treatment for some. Justice can't be served otherwise.

There is no way you can have equal treatment. The government is tasked to do what is best for the nation as a whole, not ensure that each individual equally benefits from each program.

People with children benefit from schools more than those who are childless. Does that violate "social justice"?

Ah, but all DO benefit from educating the children because even those with no children still need somebody to employ them or, if in business for themselves, need educated people to work for them. Evenso, if education is maintained at the local and not federal level, those who wish not to support the schools can move to an area with no school district and be free of school taxes. That is what freedom looks like, i.e. personal choice to engage in the social contract or not. THAT is the freedom the Founders intended for us all to have.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Navy is permanent. The land forces are not. And the Constitution in no way advocates for the "biggest baddest or strongest military". It advocates for one able to repel invasions and quell insurrection.

This is what is perplexing about you guys and the Constitution. You don't have any idea what original intent was..

I support a 50% cut in military spending, effective immediately.

Pull all forces out of Korea, Japan, England, Germany, Iraq and any other place that there is not an active conflict in.

More missiles, less people. We want to deter those who would take us on, not be the worlds policeman.

 

[lizzie]

Ah. So you are in favor of a line-item tax return. You don't wanna pay for school lunches, I don't wanna pay to kill people in foreign lands...or maintain 700 bases overseas.

Watta say?

I am in favor of equal treatment under the law, not special treatment for some. Justice can't be served otherwise.

There is no way you can have equal treatment. The government is tasked to do what is best for the nation as a whole, not ensure that each individual equally benefits from each program.

People with children benefit from schools more than those who are childless. Does that violate "social justice"?

Yes, you can have equal treatment. Equal laws and enforcement is equal treatment. Society as a whole benefits from education, not just the parents of said children. All children have access to a public education, not just select children whom our govenment deems need or deserve it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes, you can have equal treatment. Equal laws and enforcement is equal treatment. Society as a whole benefits from education, not just the parents of said children.

And society as a whole suffers because of the failure of the American education system.

American schools spawn the morons we see at OWS, while Japan and Korea pump out the next generation of scientists and mathematicians.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, you can have equal treatment. Equal laws and enforcement is equal treatment. Society as a whole benefits from education, not just the parents of said children.

And society as a whole suffers because of the failure of the American education system.

American schools spawn the morons we see at OWS, while Japan and Korea pump out the next generation of scientists and mathematicians.

Yup. Let's get the federal government out of education entirely other than perhaps as a central information gathering and dispensing service.

Let's make parents responsible for feeding their kids again. Any parent who sends his/her kid to school without breakfast and lunch money gets an immediate visit from social services. And any parent who cannot or will not feed his/her kids will lose them until he and/or she is able and willing to do that. It's time that we stop subsidizing and encouraging child abuse and neglect via entitlements.

Let's put the responsibility for school policy, curriculum, and methodology back with the parents, teachers, and local school boards. The USA had an education system that was the envy of the world before federal government entitlements tied to federal government rules. Now there are dozens of developed countries who are educating their children better than we are.

Every time the federal government starts meddling in and subsidizing in areas that the Founders did not see as the role or responsibility of the federal government, we see budgets busted, deterioration in performance and effectiveness, dwindling responsibility and accountability for parents and the local community, loss of freedoms, and a poor result.

It's time to do it differently.

 

[Bfgrn]

Until we are down to one or two workers paying for one or more person's medicare. Then it becomes unsustainable and it has already pretty well reached that point. The government cannot provide a wonderful benefit to one person without taking away property from somebody else. Property is finite. There is only so much of it. And when you run out of other people's money, then nobody has any property left. Such is the legacy of unrestrained socialism/communism.

Entitlements start out looking so righteous, noble, and compassionate. But over decades they grow into an elephant in every room that the nation becomes unable to feed.

We have already made generations dependent on Medicare by making it a mandatory government program. And we have a $15 trillion plus debt that translates to $133,000 for every American household and it is growing by billions every single day.

Only the most blind ideologue can fail to see that as unsustainable. It is time to rethink it and do it differently or we will collapse under the weight of our own greed for entitlements and other government largesse.

The SAME could be said for our omnipresent military; "unsustainable and it has already pretty well reached that point." But THAT is different...The government cannot provide wonderful benefits to citizens who really NEED them, that is EVIL. BUT, when we righteously bomb, nobly kill, and compassionately maim human beings, the beloved government is doing God's work...right?

If you can be well without health, you may be happy without virtue.
Edmund Burke

I am all for cutting the graft and corruption and payola out of the defense budget but you do that by making it illegal for Congress to dispense favors or largesse or benevolence to anybody unless they do it for everybody without respect to political affiliation or socioeconomic status. I am all for us not expending our blood and treasure in futile or wrong headed miltary adventures.

But at least the military is a Constitutional function of the federal government and without our rights secured, none of us are free. Being the biggest, baddest, and strongest is the best insurance for securing our rights and making the use of military force likely unnecessary.

Healthcare is not a Constitutional function of the federal government and is poorly administrated and is inefficient and excessively expensive when handled at the federal level. Slowly and carefully, so as not to break faith with those we have forced into dependency, it should be transferred back to the states, local communities, and the people themselves where it should have been all along.

Oh, now I see your problem...you don't know what you are talking about. And you base your emotions on those lies, propaganda and dogma...

Medicare is a model of efficiency. No private insurance corporation can come close to it's efficiency.

Medicare is a leader in fighting cost increases. Private insurance industry costs are rising nearly twice as fast as those of Medicare. And when it comes to administrative expenses, private insurance is 10 times higher than Medicare. In fact, if the single payer financing of Medicare were applied to citizens of all ages, we would save $350 billion annually, more than enough to provide comprehensive health care to every American.

Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost.


Maybe a conservative can fill you in...

Is Medicare Cost Effective?


Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

 

[TheDecepticon]

Yeah, back in the 60's you could attend public University by working 8 hours a week at a minimum wage job too.

Can you do that today?

Do landlords often let people in tough times skate on their rent? Or do banks foreclose at the drop of a hat in order to maximize their profits?

Social security was created by a REAL NEED in this country to keep our elderly population from slipping into poverty. Ignoring that reality by positing that we used to know how to take care of our poorer denizens some 80 years ago hardly addresses the issues of income inequality over the last 30 years.

 

[Foxfyre]

The SAME could be said for our omnipresent military; "unsustainable and it has already pretty well reached that point." But THAT is different...The government cannot provide wonderful benefits to citizens who really NEED them, that is EVIL. BUT, when we righteously bomb, nobly kill, and compassionately maim human beings, the beloved government is doing God's work...right?

If you can be well without health, you may be happy without virtue.
Edmund Burke

I am all for cutting the graft and corruption and payola out of the defense budget but you do that by making it illegal for Congress to dispense favors or largesse or benevolence to anybody unless they do it for everybody without respect to political affiliation or socioeconomic status. I am all for us not expending our blood and treasure in futile or wrong headed miltary adventures.

But at least the military is a Constitutional function of the federal government and without our rights secured, none of us are free. Being the biggest, baddest, and strongest is the best insurance for securing our rights and making the use of military force likely unnecessary.

Healthcare is not a Constitutional function of the federal government and is poorly administrated and is inefficient and excessively expensive when handled at the federal level. Slowly and carefully, so as not to break faith with those we have forced into dependency, it should be transferred back to the states, local communities, and the people themselves where it should have been all along.

Oh, now I see your problem...you don't know what you are talking about. And you base your emotions on those lies, propaganda and dogma...

Medicare is a model of efficiency. No private insurance corporation can come close to it's efficiency.

Medicare is a leader in fighting cost increases. Private insurance industry costs are rising nearly twice as fast as those of Medicare. And when it comes to administrative expenses, private insurance is 10 times higher than Medicare. In fact, if the single payer financing of Medicare were applied to citizens of all ages, we would save $350 billion annually, more than enough to provide comprehensive health care to every American.

Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost.


Maybe a conservative can fill you in...

Is Medicare Cost Effective?


Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

You should consult that conservative who will explain to you that you can't absorb up to half or more of revenues received just to feed a massive bureaucracy and think you're reducing medical costs. You can't pay less than market costs for services, materials, and pharmaceuticals and think somebody somewhere isn't taking a massive hit for that.

And efficient? Two examples:

Millions of people, specially seniors are taking Prilosec or the generic Omeprazole for acid reflux syndrome or disease. Medicare will cover the cost of this drug which generally runs around $30 more or less for a month's supply if you buy it over the counter. We inadvertently discovered what our local Walgreens charges the government for supplying the drug. $83. Do you think THAT would happen if it was being handled locally or through private enterprise?

Example No. 2: My aunt takes a drug to control her serious chronic osteoporosis. It has to be injected on an out patient basis by a qualified physician. On the last visit, she had developed a side effect that made her ineligible for the drug. So we spent some time in consultation with a physician who explained to us that Medicare would not approve or pay for another drug that was cheaper, actually had fewer side effects, and had proven to be very effective. . . . UNLESS. . . .the person had had gall bladder surgery. What does gall bladder have to do with osteoporosis? Nothing. But that's your government at work. The doctor explained that the medical profession had done everything but stand on their head to get the government to see the stupidity of these kinds of rules. But to no avail.

So we went with another fairly new drug that Medicare would approve that costs four times as much as the drug they haven't approved. And it will be a year before we will be able to fully judge whether it is doing the job or not.

Don't lecture me on the virtues of Medicare sonny until you've been blessed with living with it for ten or twenty years.

 

[Bfgrn]

I am all for cutting the graft and corruption and payola out of the defense budget but you do that by making it illegal for Congress to dispense favors or largesse or benevolence to anybody unless they do it for everybody without respect to political affiliation or socioeconomic status. I am all for us not expending our blood and treasure in futile or wrong headed miltary adventures.

But at least the military is a Constitutional function of the federal government and without our rights secured, none of us are free. Being the biggest, baddest, and strongest is the best insurance for securing our rights and making the use of military force likely unnecessary.

Healthcare is not a Constitutional function of the federal government and is poorly administrated and is inefficient and excessively expensive when handled at the federal level. Slowly and carefully, so as not to break faith with those we have forced into dependency, it should be transferred back to the states, local communities, and the people themselves where it should have been all along.

Oh, now I see your problem...you don't know what you are talking about. And you base your emotions on those lies, propaganda and dogma...

Medicare is a model of efficiency. No private insurance corporation can come close to it's efficiency.

Medicare is a leader in fighting cost increases. Private insurance industry costs are rising nearly twice as fast as those of Medicare. And when it comes to administrative expenses, private insurance is 10 times higher than Medicare. In fact, if the single payer financing of Medicare were applied to citizens of all ages, we would save $350 billion annually, more than enough to provide comprehensive health care to every American.

Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost.


Maybe a conservative can fill you in...

Is Medicare Cost Effective?


Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

You should consult that conservative who will explain to you that you can't absorb up to half or more of revenues received just to feed a massive bureaucracy and think you're reducing medical costs. You can't pay less than market costs for services, materials, and pharmaceuticals and think somebody somewhere isn't taking a massive hit for that.

And efficient? Two examples:

Millions of people, specially seniors are taking Prilosec or the generic Omeprazole for acid reflux syndrome or disease. Medicare will cover the cost of this drug which generally runs around $30 more or less for a month's supply if you buy it over the counter. We inadvertently discovered what our local Walgreens charges the government for supplying the drug. $83. Do you think THAT would happen if it was being handled locally or through private enterprise?

Example No. 2: My aunt takes a drug to control her serious chronic osteoporosis. It has to be injected on an out patient basis by a qualified physician. On the last visit, she had developed a side effect that made her ineligible for the drug. So we spent some time in consultation with a physician who explained to us that Medicare would not approve or pay for another drug that was cheaper, actually had fewer side effects, and had proven to be very effective. . . . UNLESS. . . .the person had had gall bladder surgery. What does gall bladder have to do with osteoporosis? Nothing. But that's your government at work. The doctor explained that the medical profession had done everything but stand on their head to get the government to see the stupidity of these kinds of rules. But to no avail.

So we went with another fairly new drug that Medicare would approve that costs four times as much as the drug they haven't approved. And it will be a year before we will be able to fully judge whether it is doing the job or not.

Don't lecture me on the virtues of Medicare sonny until you've been blessed with living with it for ten or twenty years.

Well here's what you do...shut your big mouth, open your wallet and buy private insurance for auntie...let me know how that works out ...

Also, I don't believe a word you say, provide LINKS...

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh, now I see your problem...you don't know what you are talking about. And you base your emotions on those lies, propaganda and dogma...

Medicare is a model of efficiency. No private insurance corporation can come close to it's efficiency.

Medicare is a leader in fighting cost increases. Private insurance industry costs are rising nearly twice as fast as those of Medicare. And when it comes to administrative expenses, private insurance is 10 times higher than Medicare. In fact, if the single payer financing of Medicare were applied to citizens of all ages, we would save $350 billion annually, more than enough to provide comprehensive health care to every American.

Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost.


Maybe a conservative can fill you in...

Is Medicare Cost Effective?


Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

You should consult that conservative who will explain to you that you can't absorb up to half or more of revenues received just to feed a massive bureaucracy and think you're reducing medical costs. You can't pay less than market costs for services, materials, and pharmaceuticals and think somebody somewhere isn't taking a massive hit for that.

And efficient? Two examples:

Millions of people, specially seniors are taking Prilosec or the generic Omeprazole for acid reflux syndrome or disease. Medicare will cover the cost of this drug which generally runs around $30 more or less for a month's supply if you buy it over the counter. We inadvertently discovered what our local Walgreens charges the government for supplying the drug. $83. Do you think THAT would happen if it was being handled locally or through private enterprise?

Example No. 2: My aunt takes a drug to control her serious chronic osteoporosis. It has to be injected on an out patient basis by a qualified physician. On the last visit, she had developed a side effect that made her ineligible for the drug. So we spent some time in consultation with a physician who explained to us that Medicare would not approve or pay for another drug that was cheaper, actually had fewer side effects, and had proven to be very effective. . . . UNLESS. . . .the person had had gall bladder surgery. What does gall bladder have to do with osteoporosis? Nothing. But that's your government at work. The doctor explained that the medical profession had done everything but stand on their head to get the government to see the stupidity of these kinds of rules. But to no avail.

So we went with another fairly new drug that Medicare would approve that costs four times as much as the drug they haven't approved. And it will be a year before we will be able to fully judge whether it is doing the job or not.

Don't lecture me on the virtues of Medicare sonny until you've been blessed with living with it for ten or twenty years.

Well here's what you do...shut your big mouth, open your wallet and buy private insurance for auntie...let me know how that works out ...

Also, I don't believe a word you say, provide LINKS...

Sorry I don't have links for personal experience. And I could give a flying fig what you believe. But I will continue to rebut your leftist nonsense that you seem to believe without any experience, evidence, or links lest somebody who really wants to know the truth won't be greviously misinformed by folks like you.

 

[Bfgrn]

You should consult that conservative who will explain to you that you can't absorb up to half or more of revenues received just to feed a massive bureaucracy and think you're reducing medical costs. You can't pay less than market costs for services, materials, and pharmaceuticals and think somebody somewhere isn't taking a massive hit for that.

And efficient? Two examples:

Millions of people, specially seniors are taking Prilosec or the generic Omeprazole for acid reflux syndrome or disease. Medicare will cover the cost of this drug which generally runs around $30 more or less for a month's supply if you buy it over the counter. We inadvertently discovered what our local Walgreens charges the government for supplying the drug. $83. Do you think THAT would happen if it was being handled locally or through private enterprise?

Example No. 2: My aunt takes a drug to control her serious chronic osteoporosis. It has to be injected on an out patient basis by a qualified physician. On the last visit, she had developed a side effect that made her ineligible for the drug. So we spent some time in consultation with a physician who explained to us that Medicare would not approve or pay for another drug that was cheaper, actually had fewer side effects, and had proven to be very effective. . . . UNLESS. . . .the person had had gall bladder surgery. What does gall bladder have to do with osteoporosis? Nothing. But that's your government at work. The doctor explained that the medical profession had done everything but stand on their head to get the government to see the stupidity of these kinds of rules. But to no avail.

So we went with another fairly new drug that Medicare would approve that costs four times as much as the drug they haven't approved. And it will be a year before we will be able to fully judge whether it is doing the job or not.

Don't lecture me on the virtues of Medicare sonny until you've been blessed with living with it for ten or twenty years.

Well here's what you do...shut your big mouth, open your wallet and buy private insurance for auntie...let me know how that works out ...

Also, I don't believe a word you say, provide LINKS...

Sorry I don't have links for personal experience. And I could give a flying fig what you believe. But I will continue to rebut your leftist nonsense that you seem to believe without any experience, evidence, or links lest somebody who really wants to know the truth won't be greviously misinformed by folks like you.

Rebut this...

 

[OODA_Loop]

Or do banks foreclose at the drop of a hat in order to maximize their profits?

foreclosure to maximize profit ?

youre not much of a banker

 

[Wiseacre]

Medicare and Social Security are unsustainable, they cannot continue as they are now.

snippet:

Medicare trustees paint bleak financial picture

Physician spending will consume an increasing portion of GDP even if pay cuts take effect. Part A will be insolvent in 2024.

By Charles Fiegl, amednews staff. Posted May 23, 2011.

Washington -- The trustees tasked with keeping an eye on Medicare's finances again warned that it is on an unsustainable fiscal path, with outpatient care eating up a increasingly larger portion of the nation's gross domestic product and the hospital trust fund being exhausted five years sooner than predicted last year.

Members of President Obama's Cabinet unveiled the dire forecasts during a briefing at the Treasury Dept. after the trustees released the report on May 13. Lawmakers, federal officials and health care industry groups responded to the trust fund report with calls for serious entitlement overhauls to save Medicare and Social Security for future generations.

"We should not wait for the trust funds to be exhausted to make the reforms necessary to protect our current and future retirees," Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said. "Larger, more difficult adjustments will be necessary if we delay reform."

The 2011 annual report states:
■ Total Medicare costs will grow to 5.2% of GDP by 2030, up from 3.6% in 2010.
■ Supplementary medical insurance costs, which include physician care and prescription drug costs, will rise to 3.1% of GDP by 2030 and 4.1% by 2085, up from about 2% in 2010.
■ The projected date of the hospital insurance trust fund exhaustion is 2024, compared with 2029 in last year's annual report.

The American Medical Association said the latest trustees report left no doubt that now is the time to repeal the sustainable growth rate formula that helps determine physician pay. Under current law, the SGR would lead to physician rates dropping considerably over the long term to about 40% of what private insurers are expected to pay in 2030. Medicare payments currently average 80% of private insurer rates.


amednews: Medicare trustees paint bleak financial picture :: May 23, 2011 ... American Medical News


So why the hell isn't Obama and the dems pushing for some kind of reform to the entitlement programs? Because they lack the political guts to do so.

 

[Bfgrn]

Medicare and Social Security are unsustainable, they cannot continue as they are now.

snippet:

Medicare trustees paint bleak financial picture

Physician spending will consume an increasing portion of GDP even if pay cuts take effect. Part A will be insolvent in 2024.

By Charles Fiegl, amednews staff. Posted May 23, 2011.

Washington -- The trustees tasked with keeping an eye on Medicare's finances again warned that it is on an unsustainable fiscal path, with outpatient care eating up a increasingly larger portion of the nation's gross domestic product and the hospital trust fund being exhausted five years sooner than predicted last year.

Members of President Obama's Cabinet unveiled the dire forecasts during a briefing at the Treasury Dept. after the trustees released the report on May 13. Lawmakers, federal officials and health care industry groups responded to the trust fund report with calls for serious entitlement overhauls to save Medicare and Social Security for future generations.

"We should not wait for the trust funds to be exhausted to make the reforms necessary to protect our current and future retirees," Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said. "Larger, more difficult adjustments will be necessary if we delay reform."

The 2011 annual report states:
■ Total Medicare costs will grow to 5.2% of GDP by 2030, up from 3.6% in 2010.
■ Supplementary medical insurance costs, which include physician care and prescription drug costs, will rise to 3.1% of GDP by 2030 and 4.1% by 2085, up from about 2% in 2010.
■ The projected date of the hospital insurance trust fund exhaustion is 2024, compared with 2029 in last year's annual report.

The American Medical Association said the latest trustees report left no doubt that now is the time to repeal the sustainable growth rate formula that helps determine physician pay. Under current law, the SGR would lead to physician rates dropping considerably over the long term to about 40% of what private insurers are expected to pay in 2030. Medicare payments currently average 80% of private insurer rates.


amednews: Medicare trustees paint bleak financial picture :: May 23, 2011 ... American Medical News


So why the hell isn't Obama and the dems pushing for some kind of reform to the entitlement programs? Because they lack the political guts to do so.

There ARE Medicare savings in the Affordable Care Act. The CBO scored what Democrats already passed: Full implementation of the Affordable Care Act and letting the Bush tax cuts expire is The Extended-Baseline Scenario. Repeal of the Affordable Care Act and continuing the Bush tax cuts would create The Alternative Fiscal Scenario.

Federal Debt Held by the Public Under CBO’s Long-Term Budget Scenarios
(Percentage of gross domestic product)

And if it weren't for lying sack of shit Republicans, 25-30% more could be saved in Medicare costs. The HUGE LIE 'death panels' are REALLY whats called advance directives.

If any plans or ideas have been 'mis-characterized' it is the Affordable Healthcare Act and provisions that were designed to lower medical costs and Medicare costs. Especially the payment for end of life doctor/patient counseling called advanced directives. The ignorant and deceitful 'death panels' are the prime example or right wing deadly spin.

27% of Medicare's annual $327 billion budget goes to care for patients in their final year of life.

It’s hard to imagine how 'advanced directives', a compassionate, family-friendly measure — a measure that ultimately respects individual rights — could be twisted so grossly into the erroneous phrase “death panels.”

The concept of advanced directives was pioneered in La Crosse, thanks to our two first-class health care institutions.

It’s a simple concept: An individual, with the help of family, should have the ultimate say in the type of end-of-life care the individual receives. The best way to do that is through a careful consultation, with family and physician, before there is a health crisis — while the individual is still capable of having a rational voice in the decision.

Too often, those decisions are made when it’s too late for the individual to make the decisions. Instead, grieving family members are left to make the decision — and at times it’s nothing more than a guess.

Would the individual want extraordinary measures taken when the end is near? Why wouldn’t we trust the individual — in advance and when thinking clearly — to make that decision?

For those who crusade for the rights of the individual, here’s the question: Why are you so opposed to the individual being able to set down on paper, with help from family and physician, the standards and wishes for end-of-life care?

The issue of death panels became so hot during this year’s debate on health-care reform legislation that Democrats decided to pull that provision from the bill.

Health Care Bill Page 425 - The Truth

AP Fact Check: No "Death Panel" In Bill - CBS News

Debate surrounds end-of-life health care costs - USATODAY.com

Our view: Promoting advanced directives puts decisions in proper hands

La Crosse health care systems offer a model of efficiency - JSOnline

 

[daveman]

Ágrarian economy. Rural population. Night and day.

Nice try, though.

Add in no middle class, Jim Crow laws, lynchings, massive ghettoes, child labor, work camps, Hoovervilles..heck..a virtual conservative paradise!

Fear-monger much?

 

[lizzie]

Ágrarian economy. Rural population. Night and day.

Nice try, though.

Add in no middle class, Jim Crow laws, lynchings, massive ghettoes, child labor, work camps, Hoovervilles..heck..a virtual conservative paradise!

Fear-monger much?

Well, when that's the only card ya got....... lol.

 

[daveman]

Add in no middle class, Jim Crow laws, lynchings, massive ghettoes, child labor, work camps, Hoovervilles..heck..a virtual conservative paradise!

Fear-monger much?

Well, when that's the only card ya got....... lol.

If leftists had facts and logic, they'd use those.

But all they have is emotion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

DAMMIT - I AM try to spread reputation around, that's why I keep trying to give it to Lizzie and Daveman....