Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on March 03, 2010, 01:27:29 PM
-
-
1. there are deathp anels in the bill aka "community rating boards" and crap like that.
2. Wiener did not mention the fact that Deathcare is being financed by 500 Billion in cuts to medicare and 600 billion in new taxes.
-
1. there are deathp anels in the bill aka "community rating boards" and crap like that.
2. Wiener did not mention the fact that Deathcare is being financed by 500 Billion in cuts to medicare and 600 billion in new taxes.
what's your definition of a death panel?
what info do you have on community rating boards and how are the equivalent to a death panel?
-
what's your definition of a death panel?
what info do you have on community rating boards and how are the equivalent to a death panel?
They are set up to ration care to old people based on age, community, and other criteria based on the "useful life" of the patient. Thus, many old people will get thepain pill instead of the hip replacement and live in misery.
Wake the fuck bro. Palin was spot on about this and its only the lib morons like yourself denying reality of what this admn is all about.
I am seriously getting to the point where I sih we would split in to two countries. You communist/marxist/progressives or whatever name you call yourselves can have your utopia on one side, and the rest of us, probably about 65% at this point can have ours.
-
They are set up to ration care to old people based on age, community, and other criteria based on the "useful life" of the patient. Thus, many old people will get thepain pill instead of the hip replacement and live in misery.
Wake the fuck bro. Palin was spot on about this and its only the lib morons like yourself denying reality of what this admn is all about.
I am seriously getting to the point where I sih we would split in to two countries. You communist/marxist/progressives or whatever name you call yourselves can have your utopia on one side, and the rest of us, probably about 65% at this point can have ours.
Dang 333 - What's with all the name calling and tea-bagger emotion right out of the gate? Did you get your period today?
I simply asked you what your definition of a death panel was. When you say "they are set up to ration care to old people based on age" do you have any actual proof or substance to back up that statement? From everything I've read and heard there are no "death panels" and nothing you've provided compels me to believe otherwise
-
They are set up to ration care to old people based on age, community, and other criteria based on the "useful life" of the patient. Thus, many old people will get thepain pill instead of the hip replacement and live in misery.
Spot on. Exactly right.
When you say "they are set up to ration care to old people based on age" do you have any actual proof or substance to back up that statement?
Yes. Basic economics, or more specifically, supply and demand.
-
still waiting for someone show me something from the proposed legislation about the "death panels" or whatever it is in the legislation that they are calling death panels
Is that so hard?
-
Elderly Americans are turning out in droves to fight ObamaCare, and President Obama is arguing back that they have nothing to worry about. Allow us to referee. While claims about euthanasia and "death panels" are over the top, senior fears have exposed a fundamental truth about what Mr. Obama is proposing: Namely, once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, rationing care is inevitable, and those who have lived the longest will find their care the most restricted.....
A lot of talk has centered on what Sarah Palin inelegantly called "death panels." Of course rationing to save the federal fisc will be subtler than a bureaucratic decision to "pull the plug on grandma," as Mr. Obama put it. But Mrs. Palin has also exposed a basic truth. A substantial portion of Medicare spending is incurred in the last six months of life.
From the point of view of politicians with a limited budget, is it worth spending a lot on, say, a patient with late-stage cancer where the odds of remission are long? Or should they spend to improve quality, not length, of life? Or pay for a hip or knee replacement for seniors, when palliative care might cost less? And who decides?
In Britain, the NHS decides, and under its QALYs metric it generally won't pay more than $22,000 for treatments to extend a life six months. "Money for the NHS isn't limitless," as one NHS official recently put it in response to American criticism, "so we need to make sure the money we have goes on things which offer more than the care we'll have to forgo to pay for them."
Before he got defensive, Mr. Obama was open about this political calculation. He often invokes the experience of his own grandmother, musing whether it was wise for her to receive a hip replacement after a terminal cancer diagnosis. In an April interview with the New York Times, he wondered whether this represented a "sustainable model" for society. He seems to believe these medical issues are all justifiably political questions that government or some panel of philosopher kings can and should decide. No wonder so many seniors rebel at such judgments that they know they could do little to influence, much less change.
Mr. Obama has also said many times that the growth of Medicare spending must be restrained, and his budget director Peter Orszag has made it nearly his life's cause. We agree, but then why does Mr. Obama want to add to our fiscal burdens a new Medicare-like program for everyone under 65 too? Medicare already rations care, refusing, for example, to pay for virtual colonoscopies and has payment policies or directives to curtail the use of certain cancer drugs, diagnostic tools, asthma medications and many others. Seniors routinely buy supplemental insurance (Medigap) to patch Medicare's holes—and Medicare is still growing by 11% this year.
The political and fiscal pressure to further ration Medicare would increase exponentially if government is paying for most everyone's care. The better way to slow the growth of Medicare is to give seniors more control over their own health care and the incentives to spend wisely, by offering competitive insurance plans. But this would mean less control for government, not more.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574344900152168372.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574344900152168372.html)
In other words, if Uncle Sam deems it too cost-inefficient to keep Granny alive.........
-
1. there are deathp anels in the bill aka "community rating boards" and crap like that.
2. Wiener did not mention the fact that Deathcare is being financed by 500 Billion in cuts to medicare and 600 billion in new taxes.
The bottom line is that, despite Weiner's squealing and Obama administration's PR stunts, nearly THREE-QUARTERS of Americans either want this bill scrapped or a new bill from scratch.
-
still waiting for someone show me something from the proposed legislation about the "death panels" or whatever it is in the legislation that they are calling death panels
Is that so hard?
Straw - you epitomize the typical brain dead liberal idiot. What do you think there will be a section in ObamaCare called "Death Panels".
Watch this clip and get a clue jackass. You tell me what the message is. And no, they wont play this at DU, HP, KOS, or FDL.
-
Straw - you epitomize the typical brain dead liberal idiot. What do you think there will be a section in ObamaCare called "Death Panels".
Watch this clip and get a clue jackass. You tell me what the message is. And no, they wont play this at DU, HP, KOS, or FDL.
It's called "PC" talk. That's why so many lefties aren't cool with Baby Girl. She has a knack for slicing through the PC (or BS; take your pick) and putting stuff in plain language. She was DEAD ON THE MONEY about Obama's his tendency to worry more about terrorists' "rights" than the safety of American citizens.
And, she nailed the Death Panels thing in ObamaCare.
-
Straw - you epitomize the typical brain dead liberal idiot. What do you think there will be a section in ObamaCare called "Death Panels".
Watch this clip and get a clue jackass. You tell me what the message is. And no, they wont play this at DU, HP, KOS, or FDL.
this doesn't do shit to support your claim of a Death Panel
show me something in the legislation ......ANYTHING......that supports your claim that there will be panels set up to ration health care to old people or that decides on who will live and who will die
-
Its in the Stim Bill straw. They started funding community rratings board which and whose sole mission is to ration care.
-
The bottom line is that, despite Weiner's squealing and Obama administration's PR stunts, nearly THREE-QUARTERS of Americans either want this bill scrapped or a new bill from scratch.
nice talking point
got any proof to support it?
surely there must some recent poll supporting this claim or did you just pull it out of Mitch McConnells ass?
-
Its in the Stim Bill straw. They started funding community rratings board which and whose sole mission is to ration care.
-
Its in the Stim Bill straw. They started funding community rratings board which and whose sole mission is to ration care.
-
Its in the Stim Bill straw. They started funding community rratings board which and whose sole mission is to ration care.
ok - we're making progress
show me where it is
give me a link or paste the info
give me something to support your claim or I'm inclined to think it's just Tea Bag paranoia and panic
-
nice talking point
got any proof to support it?
surely there must some recent poll supporting this claim or did you just pull it out of Mitch McConnells ass?
Where have you been, under a rock. CNN reported that poll OVER A WEEK AGO. I posted that on another thread, a few hours ago.
Twenty-five percent of people questioned in the poll say Congress should pass legislation similar to the bills passed by both chambers, with 48 percent saying lawmakers should work on an entirely new bill and a quarter saying Congress should stop all work on health care reform.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/24/cnn-poll-health-care-provisions-popular-but-overall-bills-unpopular/?fbid=GuotzV96E4q (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/24/cnn-poll-health-care-provisions-popular-but-overall-bills-unpopular/?fbid=GuotzV96E4q)
-
Stimulus Bill Would Launch Daschle’s Health Care Rationing Board
Posted by Michael F. Cannon
Or so say I, over at National Review Online:
The $819 billion “stimulus bill” passed by the House includes $1.1 billion that has nothing to do with economic growth and everything to do with letting government control your medical decisions. . . .
Health and Human Services secretary-nominee Tom Daschle . . . propose a new federal board that would . . . make “specific coverage decisions” for all government health-care programs and “exert tremendous influence on every . . . provider and payer, even those in the private sector.”
Daschle understands that refusing to cover specific services is “not so clean cut,” that patient advocates often view those decisions as “matters of life and death,” and that “doctors and patients might resent” the board’s decisions. He therefore proposes to have the board operate under “a decision-making process that is one step removed from Congress and the White House.”
That’s a delicate way of saying that Daschle wants government bureaucrats to have more room to ignore you, even if you have good reason to think your child would respond better to a non-covered chemotherapy agent than the average patient would. . . .
[The] “stimulus” package would give Daschle $400 million to get his rationing board going.
-
Stimulus Bill Would Launch Daschle’s Health Care Rationing Board
Posted by Michael F. Cannon
Or so say I, over at National Review Online:
The $819 billion “stimulus bill” passed by the House includes $1.1 billion that has nothing to do with economic growth and everything to do with letting government control your medical decisions. . . .
Health and Human Services secretary-nominee Tom Daschle . . . propose a new federal board that would . . . make “specific coverage decisions” for all government health-care programs and “exert tremendous influence on every . . . provider and payer, even those in the private sector.”
Daschle understands that refusing to cover specific services is “not so clean cut,” that patient advocates often view those decisions as “matters of life and death,” and that “doctors and patients might resent” the board’s decisions. He therefore proposes to have the board operate under “a decision-making process that is one step removed from Congress and the White House.”
That’s a delicate way of saying that Daschle wants government bureaucrats to have more room to ignore you, even if you have good reason to think your child would respond better to a non-covered chemotherapy agent than the average patient would. . . .
[The] “stimulus” package would give Daschle $400 million to get his rationing board going.
OR, as Baby Girl simply called it, a "death panel", aka "Pull the plug on Granny".
-
Where have you been, under a rock. CNN reported that poll OVER A WEEK AGO. I posted that on another thread, a few hours ago.
Twenty-five percent of people questioned in the poll say Congress should pass legislation similar to the bills passed by both chambers, with 48 percent saying lawmakers should work on an entirely new bill and a quarter saying Congress should stop all work on health care reform.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/24/cnn-poll-health-care-provisions-popular-but-overall-bills-unpopular/?fbid=GuotzV96E4q (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/24/cnn-poll-health-care-provisions-popular-but-overall-bills-unpopular/?fbid=GuotzV96E4q)
Dueling Opinion Polls:
An opinion poll double take: On first blush, a McClatchy/Ipsos poll shows only a minority in favor of health care reform – but that’s because many in the survey want stronger measures than Obama is seeking.
Comes now (Feb. 26-28) a McClatchy/Ipsos poll of 1,076 people that on first glance offers rocks to sling at Obama. The lead question asks, “As of right now, do you favor or oppose the health care reform proposals presently being discussed?” Forty-one percent said they favored them, 47 percent said they were opposed, and the rest said they were unsure. Those are numbers the Republican leaders could work with.
But the pollsters went a step further, asking those opposed – 509 people in all – if they were against the proposals because they “don’t go far enough to reform health care” or because they go too far. Thirty-seven percent said it was because the proposals don’t go far enough. Thus – are you ready for this? – the addition of an obvious, simple follow-up question completely turns the tables. The overall numbers switch to 59 percent in favor of health care reform, 30 percent against. Putting aside those with no opinion, it becomes 66 percent in favor of health care reform, 34 percent against. Some would call that a consensus, or these days, a super majority.
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00435
http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm
-
Stimulus Bill Would Launch Daschle’s Health Care Rationing Board
Posted by Michael F. Cannon
Or so say I, over at National Review Online:
The $819 billion “stimulus bill” passed by the House includes $1.1 billion that has nothing to do with economic growth and everything to do with letting government control your medical decisions. . . .
Health and Human Services secretary-nominee Tom Daschle . . . propose a new federal board that would . . . make “specific coverage decisions” for all government health-care programs and “exert tremendous influence on every . . . provider and payer, even those in the private sector.”
Daschle understands that refusing to cover specific services is “not so clean cut,” that patient advocates often view those decisions as “matters of life and death,” and that “doctors and patients might resent” the board’s decisions. He therefore proposes to have the board operate under “a decision-making process that is one step removed from Congress and the White House.”
That’s a delicate way of saying that Daschle wants government bureaucrats to have more room to ignore you, even if you have good reason to think your child would respond better to a non-covered chemotherapy agent than the average patient would. . . .
[The] “stimulus” package would give Daschle $400 million to get his rationing board going.
show some links please
where did you find this
I want to read the whole article for myself
-
Dueling Opinion Polls:
An opinion poll double take: On first blush, a McClatchy/Ipsos poll shows only a minority in favor of health care reform – but that’s because many in the survey want stronger measures than Obama is seeking.
In other words.........START OVER!!! (which is what 48% of the CNN poll said).
Comes now (Feb. 26-28) a McClatchy/Ipsos poll of 1,076 people that on first glance offers rocks to sling at Obama. The lead question asks, “As of right now, do you favor or oppose the health care reform proposals presently being discussed?” Forty-one percent said they favored them, 47 percent said they were opposed, and the rest said they were unsure. Those are numbers the Republican leaders could work with.
But the pollsters went a step further, asking those opposed – 509 people in all – if they were against the proposals because they “don’t go far enough to reform health care” or because they go too far. Thirty-seven percent said it was because the proposals don’t go far enough. Thus – are you ready for this? – the addition of an obvious, simple follow-up question completely turns the tables. The overall numbers switch to 59 percent in favor of health care reform, 30 percent against. Putting aside those with no opinion, it becomes 66 percent in favor of health care reform, 34 percent against. Some would call that a consensus, or these days, a super majority.
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00435
http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm
All this twisting doesn't "duel" with the CNN poll, whatsoever. The issue isn't whether people are for or against health care reform, in general. It's about THIS PARTICULAR Obamanation of a bill, which they don't want.
73% of that poll said start over or kill it altogether.
-
In other words.........START OVER!!! (which is what 48% of the CNN poll said).
All this twisting doesn't "duel" with the CNN poll, whatsoever. The issue isn't whether people are for or against health care reform, in general. It's about THIS PARTICULAR Obamanation of a bill, which they don't want.
73% of that poll said start over or kill it altogether.
so you agree with the McClatchy poll that we should start over and include EVEN MORE Reform. You caught that point right?
-
so you agree with the McClatchy poll that we should start over and include EVEN MORE Reform. You caught that point right?
NOPE!! I agree that ObamaCare needs to be put out to pasture. And a new bill should be started from scratch.
-
so you agree with the McClatchy poll that we should start over and include EVEN MORE Reform. You caught that point right?
No matter what happens, the individual mandate to purchase private insurance from private corporations under penalty of fine and mandate enforced by the IRS needs to go.
That is so over-the-top its not even funny.
-
No matter what happens, the individual mandate to purchase private insurance from private corporations under penalty of fine and mandate enforced by the IRS needs to go.
That is so over-the-top its not even funny.
I agree in part with your statement. I think everyone should be required to purchase insurance (and I believe the current proposal also has subsidies for people who can't afford it) because that's the only way to spread the risk over a large pool and keep the costs down. I think it should be changed to either a private insurer or a public option type of insurer (aka Medicare)
-
I agree in part with your statement. I think everyone should be required to purchase insurance (and I believe the current proposal also has subsidies for people who can't afford it) because that's the only way to spread the risk over a large pool and keep the costs down. I think it should be changed to either a private insurer or a public option type of insurer (aka Medicare)
Cause its working out great in Mass. ::) ::)
I should not be required to by squat that I dont want.
The govt has absolutely no freaking business requiring me to purchase anything like this. Its complete authoritarian crap.
-
Cause its working out great in Mass. ::) ::)
I should not be required to by squat that I dont want.
The govt has absolutely no freaking business requiring me to purchase anything like this. Its complete authoritarian crap.
I'd be fine with that if you were then required to opt out of any public assistance of any kind including emergency room treatment
If you don't have the money to pay at the time service is rendered then you get no service ......period
the only way to actually keep costs low is to have the largest possible pool of people, especially healthly people. That's how insurance works.
-
I'd be fine with that if you were then required to opt out of any public assistance of any kind including emergency room treatment
If you don't have the money to pay at the time service is rendered then you get no service ......period
the only way to actually keep costs low is to have the largest possible pool of people, especially healthly people. That's how insurance works.
Why cant I have the choice to pay for it out my own pocket?
I know how insurance works, thank you.
However, the govt already dictates enough of my income without now having a say in this crap as well. Its big brother, big sis, nanny state, et al all rolled in to one.
I dont want subsidies BTW - I want the govt to leave me the hell alone and have choices.
I thought you libs were all about being "pro-choice".
What about my choice not to purchase a product from a private corporate that the government tells me to? Dont you think I should have that CHOICE?
-
Why cant I have the choice to pay for it out my own pocket?
I know how insurance works, thank you.
However, the govt already dictates enough of my income without now having a say in this crap as well. Its big brother, big sis, nanny state, et al all rolled in to one.
I dont want subsidies BTW - I want the govt to leave me the hell alone and have choices.
I thought you libs were all about being "pro-choice".
What about my choice not to purchase a product from a private corporate that the government tells me to? Dont you think I should have that CHOICE?
If you don't have the money to pay at the time service is rendered then you get no service ......period
-
That's not true! EMTALA forbids that and you know that.
-
That's not true! EMTALA forbids that and you know that.
yes, it's obviously not practical, feasible or ethical but the problem is that you have people who can't afford insurance or who refuse to pay for it who then come to the emergency room with an acute medical need that could have been prevented or treated at an earlier had that person either chose to pay for insurance or chose to pay for their own medical care and maintenance.
Emergency room care is much more expensive than regular care and health maintenance
When those people come to the emergency room they are now requiring you and me and the rest of us to pay for them.
Most likely these are the same people simply won't pay the emergency room bill when they receive it
We can't let deadbeats refuse to join the system and then expect us to pay of them later
-
yes, it's obviously not practical, feasible or ethical but the problem is that you have people who can't afford insurance or who refuse to pay for it who then come to the emergency room with an acute medical need that could have been prevented or treated at an earlier had that person either chose to pay for insurance or chose to pay for their own medical care and maintenance.
Emergency room care is much more expensive than regular care and health maintenance
When those people come to the emergency room they are now requiring you and me and the rest of us to pay for them.
Most likely these are the same people simply won't pay the emergency room bill when they receive it
We can't let deadbeats refuse to join the system and then expect us to pay of them later
And guess who most of those people are Straw? Illegal aliens!
There are probably 10 m illion people that really are at issue and we do not have to spent 1 Trillion dollars over 10 years, upset the policies of 85% of people, impost all sorts of crazy new taxes, to deal with that.